Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Andrew425]

A union between Canada and the US would be neat. I wouldn't have to renew my passports every few years and I'd get access to cheaper alcohol.

Though I think the Canadians should merge with Australia and New Zealand. Then the UK can join us and we can be a new globe trotting empire.


I remember a movie about what would happen if Canada got annexed by the US but I can't seem to remember its name.

[Max White]

Though I think the Canadians should merge with Australia and New Zealand. Then the UK can join us and we can be a new globe trotting empire.

We'll take the Kiwis and lumberjacks, but we can't bring the English on board!

Who would be left for us to beat at cricket? It isn't like we ever actually win against South Africa or India... We need the pommies to make us look good!

[Helgoland]

all your politicians seem to claim the same thing

You got me...

[Owlbread]

We'll take the Kiwis and lumberjacks, but we can't bring the English on board!

Who would be left for us to beat at cricket? It isn't like we ever actually win against South Africa or India... We need the pommies to make us look good!

I think one union is more than enough for us.

[Helgoland]

We'll take the Kiwis and lumberjacks, but we can't bring the English on board!

Who would be left for us to beat at cricket? It isn't like we ever actually win against South Africa or India... We need the pommies to make us look good!

The other three nations in the UK (at least) object to your dismissal.

Hey Owlbread, will  independent Scotland field an Olympic tennis team? Huh? Huh?
/MontyPythonreferences

[Owlbread]

Hey Owlbread, will  independent Scotland field an Olympic tennis team? Huh? Huh?
/MontyPythonreferences

Well if we did I'm sure Mr. Murray would be very effective.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Hey Owlbread, will  independent Scotland field an Olympic tennis team? Huh? Huh?
/MontyPythonreferences

Well if we did I'm sure Mr. Murray would be very effective.

When Scotland hosts the Olympics, are they going to give full welfare to the poor people they forcefully displace building the stadium?

[Owlbread]

When Scotland hosts the Olympics, are they going to give full welfare to the poor people they forcefully displace building the stadium?

I would hope they would, are you referring to the Commonwealth Games?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

When Scotland hosts the Olympics, are they going to give full welfare to the poor people they forcefully displace building the stadium?

I would hope they would, are you referring to the Commonwealth Games?

No, I am referring to the almost hilariously tragic trend of Olympic stadiums always seeming to displace poor communities, and matching that with Scotland's tendency of giving full care to people.

[Owlbread]

No, I am referring to the almost hilariously tragic trend of Olympic stadiums always seeming to displace poor communities, and matching that with Scotland's tendency of giving full care to people.

Well that's what's happening when the Commonwealth Games takes place I think, but don't quote me on that. I think the (Labour-Run) council in Glasgow is doing some shifty stuff trying to tart up the place for the so-called international audience of the old Empire Club.

Of course, we digress from the issues of American politics, I daren't go further.

[Descan]

To be clear, I don't -like- parties, but they're a natural product of humanity. I'd rather there be an outlet for them, have it be a democratic outlet, and have the fact that our prime minister, our head of government, is a non-democratic position be eradicated. As it stands, you vote for the guys representing your district and that persons party contributes to the party-count in the house. The party with the most members forms the government, and the party leader is the prime minister. So if you don't like the party but you do like your rep, you're shit out of luck.

Or if you DO like the party but don't like the rep, also buggered.

This way, they are divorced. Your district is represented by the person you feel is a good rep, and the governing party and prime minister/president is decided on it's/his own merits.

[misko27]

Ahh but a person and their party cannot be separated so easily, and Politicians are people too. So, if the person you support throws his support behind a party, you are indeed shit of luck, but it's because you like a person who may not have the same ideals you do. And the US has primaries you know. There may be some shady business going on in the south that lead to more caucuses and more conservative candidates, but most of those new candidates were defeated; because, well, they needed a caucus just to get on their own parties ballot. It works to enforce that candidates represent their party. And of course there are independents who vote as they please with only the voters to answer to.
 
Or at least, that is the theory. The Two-Party system severely constrains this, leading to such amusing things as The Republican candidate for mayor here in NYC loudly proclaiming his support for Gay Marriage, Abortion, Marijuana, and environmental protections (he lost by 49%, btw. Poor guy never stood a chance, what with the Reps or independents holding NYC for 5 terms, people were soured on middle candidates.). The problem is the parties act like self-aware intelligent entities in a battle of the fittest rather then Issue-driven blocs. They fight to win, and upon winning they work to set the stage for further victories. However, while this is hardly ideal, the problem with the current Republican party is the opposite: A large party ordinarily devoted to winning is being pushed to become a issue-driven bloc; enforcing the ideological rigidity of a small multi-party system party on the entirety of the right, including those who would in a more diverse party system be part of a different party entirely.


If extremists took over the most right-wing party in many places, it would be a cause for notice, but not special alarm. The problem is here the most right-wing party is also the only right-wing party. It happened to the Democrats decades ago.

[Descan]

There's a fellow here, Hugh Segal. I like him, he's pretty close to my political ideals. A Red Tory, believes in a caring government, capitalism, and a basic income guarantee.

Only problem is, he's a Conservative. (Which highlights another problem with a North American union: Politically, we're left to the US. Adding us together would either drown us out politically (See: Scotland) or unfairly balance the US to mean half of it's (at current) population is not represented (seeing as how it's currently a first past the post system, and if 60+ percent of the population wants a leftist in charge, the 40% are out of luck and half 0 voice for a long time, instead of either 40% of a voice or control every few years as it is in America with your alternating Republican/Democrat presidents and congresses)

Now, he's a senator. Right now, Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister (another issue and one that's fairly heated. There have been calls for reform or abolishment, especially considering the scandals of the last year) I wouldn't be able to vote for him or any other senator in the current system. But let's say he WAS a representative, and for my area.

I WOULD want him to represent me, barring someone else who I agree with more. But I DON'T want Harper to be leader, which my vote for Segal would implicitly imply I do.

That's the problem. A vote for a representative of your area should not be a vote for the leader of your country, that's insane. A vote for a party leader and country leader should be it's own separate thing, if you're going to HAVE parties (which you will. They might not be -called- parties, but they're going to exist.) You should either accommodate and direct party involvement into an area that can take advantage of the good (cohesive message) and dissipate the bad (a 2 party system evolving) or abolish parties.

As I've said, I don't believe parties are actually possible to get rid of. So that's why I want an explicitly proportional chamber of government (to prevent a 2 party system) to represent a cohesive message, which is democratically decided by the actual voters who believe in that party (I.E. NDP voters vote for who, if elected, the NDP would install in the senate, etc) from people across the nation, as well as a second, equal chamber (a la American Congress) for people FROM an area to represent that areas interests in the government.

[misko27]

I plan to respond more but I have things to do and it is very late here, let me just state that the point is academic: There will be no union of the US and Canada barring extraordinary circumstance.

[PTTG??]

Agreed. We don't want your stink'n meese anyway.