-TSS-

If more than two parties had elected representatives the USA would be having a similar dilemma as Canada and the UK with the voting-system. As long as there are only two parties you can have single-member electoral districts, the one with most votes wins. However, if there are more than two parties with none of them receiving more than 50% of the votes, the results would be very didproportional to the voter outcome.

If the Republicans win the House there will be claims that Putin has hacked the elections.

A president who loses control of congress In mid-terms has increased chances of getting re-elected two years later. Namely he can say for the next two years how he would do this or that but Congress does not let him do it.

Has there ever been a mid-term election that the president's party would not have suffered losses?

I try not to sound condescending or arrogant or belittling the problem of the caravan but I can't help thinking that if Europe had a problem of 7000 people trying to enter Europe illegally it would be just wonderful as that is the number who get in like every week if not day. However, I do understand that when it is only 7000 people you get told that c'mon it is only 7000 people but if you cave in this time there will be a next time and the number will be much bigger.

In the 1992 presidential elections Ross Perot got 19% of the votes. Do you think he destroyed Bush's chances to be re-elected or did he take votes away from Clinton as well?

It is already annoying as for certain the Democratic gains will be analysed as a huge protest against Trump even though in every mid-terms the Presidents party suffers setbacks.

Does anyone of you really believe that there were people who would have voted for the Republicans in the mid-terms but because of this event they have changed their mind? I don't think so. People who are making most noise about this, which is none of Trump's responsibility anyway, would never have voted for the Republicans in the first place.

It speaks volumes that the organisation of whatever tribe she claimed to be part of long before the outcome of the DNA-tests slammed her by saying that she is not one of them and she should be ashamed of using the tribe to further her political ambitions.

Just tell me how are all those Hondurans supposed to be able to claim asylum in the USA if they have travelled all through Mexico which is a safe country? Well, that was a kind of rhetorical question. We all know why, don't we?

So Trump owes her 976 dollars. That is 1/1024 out of a million dollars which Trump promised her if she can prove she is of native American ancestry.

Yesterday's saint, today's villain.

In the UK the monarch has had his/her position since the 18th century; that meaning to be totally subject to the will of Parliament. That is a lot to be said since still in the final days of both the German and the Russian empires during WW 1 their monarchs had all but absolute rule over their countries.

Also easily the best known internationally. Otherwise it has not been a sign of poor general knowledge here in Europe not to know who is the PM of Canada but everyone knows Justin Trudeau.j

My guess is that Kavanaugh doesn't even know himself is he guilty of what he is being accused of. After all, it has been 36 years. He may well be guilty of what he is being accused of but if he had been brought down on bare hearsay and unsubstantiated evidence it would have opened the Pandora's box for the future events.

Looks like a landslide in terms of seats but not in terms of votes. I haven't followed the politics of Quebec that closely as to think whether this was a good or bad result in terms of multiculturalism and being against the globalist agenda.

I have to admit that I havent followed lately the Quebec independence-movement so excuse me if I ask some uneducated questions. Namely, in Scotlsnd the SNP went the wrong way round about independence and states that it is londependence first and foremost and only after that they would start thinking about things such as would Scotland be. a republic or maintain the Queen as the head of state, what currentcy Scotland would use, would Scotlsnd belong to the EU and NATO etc. The electorate disagreed with them. The electorate wanted to know such things beforehand. Has the Quebec independence-movement stated clear plane how an independent Quebec would look like?

There are two traditional blocs in Swedish politics; the red-green bloc consisting of the social democrats, the left-party and the greens and the other bloc is the centre-right bloc consisting of the conservatives, the liberals, the centre party and the christian democrats. Before the SD emerged to the scene one of the two blocs always got a majority of the votes. Not any more. Last night's result means that the bloc-politics must end in order to have a functioning government as neither bloc wants to rely on the support of the SD. It is noteworthy that as the traditional party of power the social democrats had their worst result in 100 years but yet the result was considered a relief for them as SD was expected to get more than 17.5%.

The SD rose from 13% to 17.5%, which is good but nowhere near what was expected of them. The social democrats remain the largest party but two traditional blocs are equal in terms of seats. Therefore a total impasse. Could trigger new elections.

Next Sunday it is very interesting to see if there is a lot of uproar by the the so-called good people at the inevitable success of the Swedish Democrats in the elections in Sweden. Namely, it is a cliffhanger. They may even become the largest party but no chance of being in the government as all the rest gang up on them. Sweden would be without a doubt the best place to live on this planet given their history and their wealth hadn't they ruined it all through a totally insane immigration policy which has almost destroyed the nation. This election is the last chance for Sweden to get back on its feet. The sverigedemokraterna, namely Swedish Democrats, are doing well in the polls. But they are also the most hated party in Sweden because of their alleged anti-immigration agenda. Most hated? Yes. But still possibly the most liked too. It will be interesting to see what happens on Sunday.

I was kind of wondering which of the three couples of countries have the most intertwined relationship: Australia/New Zealand, Britain/Ireland or Canada/USA.

No other nation than the Irish hear this argument more often than the Irish. There has been mass-immigration into Ireland for the last 10-15 years. Anyone who questions it is reminded how millions and millions of Irish themselves have emigrated to North-America, Australia and especially Britain so those who are against immigration to Ireland should really be ashamed of themselves. They always forget the crucial difference that the in the mid 1800's there was no social security. You either worked or you starved. A stark contrast to present-day immigration to Western-Europe where the welfare-system is stretched to the limit because of immigration. However, Friedman will be proved right; you can either have open borders or you can have a generous welfare-state but you just can't have both. Take your pick.

Do you in Canada have a similar thing as we in Finland make fun of that many of the so-called asylum-seekers from countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia etc once they have been granted asylum they go on holiday in the very same countries they claim to flee from because of persecution and the authorities who granted them asylum don't see anything wrong about it.

It is nowhere near as bad as Sweden yet but our politicians who are total puppets of the EU are doing their best to change that in the name of EU-solidarity and burden-sharing. As recently as in the 1990's it was a very rare sight even in our capital to see black or middle-eastern people. It has all changed since. The Kalergi-plan is in process and Finland has received recently a lot of asylum-seekers from such neighbiuring countries as Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia and especially Iraq. Yes, the border between Finland and those countries must be the longest border in the world as they have arrived in the first safe country. On a serious note, just as elsewhere in the west, the cultural-marxists are in full charge here as well. The state broadcasting corporation spouts cultural-marxist propaganda all the time and the newspapers do the same. If you tell them they are telling lies you are told that you are a Putinist, which is the new insult to stop any conversation with people who question the globalist agenda.

Allegedly there are about 33,000 gangs in the USA and it has very much to do with immigration from the Latin-America. Is there a lot of problem with Latin-American immigration in Canada? For sheer geographical reasons certainly not as much as in the USA but surely more than Europe. Namely, we here in Europe don't consider Latin-Americans anything serious at all. That is because their worst people don't come here. They come to you. We are always talking about islamisation of Europe and Africanisation of Europe but I guess if we for some reason had 33,000 vicious Latin-American gangsour view of the cool Spanish-speaking people would change a lot.