[GT] US election - It's 2020, what could possibly go wrong?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

If Kenny appointed a bunch of his people to the courts do you the ink the electorate would punish him?

He can't. QB and Court of Appeal judges are appointed by the federal government from recommendations by a committee made up of a group of people, some of whom are CBA and bar association representatives.

He could I guess appoint people to the PC but no one would care, because... well, the PC doesn't particularly matter. I mean it's important for the functioning of the judicial system obviously, but it doesn't make significant decisions.

Your overall point is taken though. I just think we're in better shape because of how the judiciary operates up here.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

He can't. QB and Court of Appeal judges are appointed by the federal government from recommendations by a committee made up of a group of people, some of whom are CBA and bar association representatives.

He could I guess appoint people to the PC but no one would care, because... well, the PC doesn't particularly matter. I mean it's important for the functioning of the judicial system obviously, but it doesn't make significant decisions.

Your overall point is taken though. I just think we're in better shape because of how the judiciary operates up here.

That’s a good point I hadn’t really thought of to keep provinces in line.

[Ped]

This is probably all a trial run by the GOP. Find out what works and what doesn't, let Trump take the fall and look like an idiot, and in four years, actually steal the election.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Ped

This is probably all a trial run by the GOP. Find out what works and what doesn't, let Trump take the fall and look like an idiot, and in four years, actually steal the election.

It would be far easier to just distance from trump, moderate a touch, and just win the election in 4 years.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Weitz

It would be far easier to just distance from trump, moderate a touch, and just win the election in 4 years.

Did you just start following American politics today?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Did you just start following American politics today?

I never suggested there was sanity involved.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If you only consider presidential races when measuring success...it's still not a great barometer. It's even worse when you at the House, Senate, and State legislatures. The Democrats have been getting creamed by the Republicans for years.

While I agree in large part that the Democratic party has a ton of issues, I just want to point one thing out. Gerrymandering also has a very significant role in Democrats getting killed at the state level. For example, in 2018 in states like PA, MI, and NC, despite garnering more than 50% of the votes for state races--Democrats lost seats at that level. Republicans lost the popular vote but due to gerrymandering, they retained/gained control of the state legislature.

For example, my home state of PA:

In Pennsylvania, Democratic candidates won 54 percent of the statewide House popular vote, but they walked away with 92 seats in the 203-seat state legislature, or 45 percent. This disparity is largely due to how the districts were drawn. Pennsylvania is unique, in that its state legislative districts are drawn by a commission consisting of the majority and minority leaders of the state House and Senate, as well as a commission chair typically appointed by the state Supreme Court.

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court happens to be a partisan institution, with Democratic and Republican judges vying for election to 10-year terms. Whichever party controls the Supreme Court, then, controls redistricting. In 2011, when state legislative districts were drawn following the 2010 Census, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court happened to have a majority of conservatives on its bench. In 2011 the Court appointed Stephen J. McEwen Jr., a well-respected conservative judge who unsuccessfully ran for Congress as a Republican in 1974, to serve as the commission’s chairman.

The maps drawn up by that commission remain in effect this year, ensuring Republicans hold on to the House majority despite losing the statewide popular vote by more than 370,000 ballots.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ote-won-house/

So yes the Democratic party 100% has plenty of things to work on, the fact of the matter is, there are a number of their losses that happen because the GOP is essentially given a lead before the game even begins. We're so worried about the vocal minority in this country that we give them an absurd, unfair advantage.

[Jeff Lebowski]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1328860684352950278

[MBates]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

He can't. QB and Court of Appeal judges are appointed by the federal government from recommendations by a committee made up of a group of people, some of whom are CBA and bar association representatives.

He could I guess appoint people to the PC but no one would care, because... well, the PC doesn't particularly matter. I mean it's important for the functioning of the judicial system obviously, but it doesn't make significant decisions.

Your overall point is taken though. I just think we're in better shape because of how the judiciary operates up here.

Sorry, at risk of a bit of a derail, I have to disagree here.

First, it is superficial to say there is a committee and its got independent people on it so we are in great shape. At the end of the day the appointments are made by cabinet.

The politicization of judicial appointments is a live controversy in Canada:

Liberals under fire for partisan involvement in judicial appointments

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...l-appointment/

The involvement of a partisan Liberal network in judicial appointments makes it impossible for Canadians to know whether judges are being chosen on merit, legal observers say.

I mean a sitting judge just got rebuked for inappropriate involvement in influencing new appointments together with her MP husband:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...t-on-judicial/

Second, your statement that the Provincial Court doesn't make significant decisions is wrong in my view.

The vast majority of criminal prosecutions are run in the Provincial Court. As such, massive amounts of Charter litigation occurs there. In fact, people are often amazed to learn how many of their rights are argued by underfunded lawyers being paid by legal aid making arguments on behalf of alleged and actual criminals.

Of course the trial court is subject to federally appointed appeal courts, yes, but the standard of review is such that if you can win factual arguments in support of your legal argument, the appeal courts may have no choice but to affirm the discretionary decisions of the trial judge.

There is also huge discretion in criminal sentencing which I assure you the public cares about.

As to whether there would be an electoral response to a major slate of apparently partisan UCP judicial appointees? Can we be sure it wouldn't be a majority positive response? Is it inconceivable we may get a chance to see?

Alberta purges judicial vetting committee for former Tory cabinet ministers, political supporters

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ourt-1.5605547

Several new appointees told CBC News they never applied for a seat on the committee and instead had been recruited.

Back to my first point. Don't like the make-up of the committee that vets nominations? Delete them all and then go recruit people who didn't apply but who you want to be on the committee for some specific reason...

I am not impugning anyone currently on the committee, but rather, pointing out that our system is arguably just as vulnerable if someone wanting to take a Trump-like approach comes along.

Anyway, to tie this back to the topic, elections have consequences and we should not miss out on the lessons that are being learned in the US right now. Democratic institutions can be dismantled very quickly by someone who just decides not to follow established norms and protocols.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GGG

For sure it’s not bad yet, however it’s only Norms that hold that together. There is nothing inherently secure in our system. It works because politicians haven’t been bold enough to try to use it for obvious political gain.

If Kenny appointed a bunch of his people to the courts do you the ink the electorate would punish him?

My overall point is that all political systems rely on people following the rules by choice and given a lack of caring by the public and a lack of norm following by politicians no political system is safe from authoritarianism.

I don't think it is the system as much as it is the culture.

Americans are brought up to revere politicians. Their biggest historical national heroes are politicians and they get built up to mythical levels. The all-or-nothing two party system just exacerbates that. In Canada, people don't care much about past or even current leaders and a lot of emphasis actually gets put on their negative attributes rather than being awe inspiring figures of legend. Not too many people are going to stick their necks out far to defend them.

In the U.S., people strongly identify as a Democrat or Republican. In Canada, it's not nearly as strong. Just Google politics and dating in the U.S. and there are numerous articles about how and when to tell someone if you are a Democrat or Republican. In Canada, such things are pretty far down the list of things to wonder or worry about when you meet people.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

He can't. QB and Court of Appeal judges are appointed by the federal government from recommendations by a committee made up of a group of people, some of whom are CBA and bar association representatives.

He could I guess appoint people to the PC but no one would care, because... well, the PC doesn't particularly matter. I mean it's important for the functioning of the judicial system obviously, but it doesn't make significant decisions.

Your overall point is taken though. I just think we're in better shape because of how the judiciary operates up here.

Coups don't generally proceed according to the law anyways though.

One big factor protecting Canada from an authoritarian coup is that it's a middle power that constantly has to negotiate economics and security with the big neighbour, so isn't really worth it or even sustainable without US support.

Also, the queen would never stand for it.

If the US democracy were to fall though, Canadian democracy wouldn't be far behind

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MBates

Sorry, at risk of a bit of a derail, I have to disagree here.

In some cases you seem to like arguing for the sake of it, which, fine, but come on. We both know there is a world of difference between the situation in the United States and the situation here. We are not teetering on some precipice that could swiftly lead to our judicial situation becoming like it is down there. And yes, sure, the observation of norms has a lot to do with that, but there is a significant difference in the politicization of the judiciary between the two countries, and linking to a globe article isn't going to convince anyone otherwise. This is a culture that has been festering down there for decades.

As for the importance of the PC, we're literally talking about a situation where the courts are being used for an attempted coup. The PC doesn't have that type of power. And we can argue all day about their role in interpreting the Charter, and whether or not appellate courts would ever allow a consequential, politically motivated ruling with broad implications to stand simply because of facts found at first instance, but it would be pointlessly hypothetical and, as you said, a total derail.

Lessons learned are well and good, but the suggestion that Canada is at risk of becoming like the USA in this regard (or even at greater risk due to our parliamentary system) is hyperbolic and alarmist to the point of silliness.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

While I agree in large part that the Democratic party has a ton of issues, I just want to point one thing out. Gerrymandering also has a very significant role in Democrats getting killed at the state level. For example, in 2018 in states like PA, MI, and NC, despite garnering more than 50% of the votes for state races--Democrats lost seats at that level. Republicans lost the popular vote but due to gerrymandering, they retained/gained control of the state legislature.



For example, my home state of PA:







https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ote-won-house/



So yes the Democratic party 100% has plenty of things to work on, the fact of the matter is, there are a number of their losses that happen because the GOP is essentially given a lead before the game even begins. We're so worried about the vocal minority in this country that we give them an absurd, unfair advantage.

I agree, but the Democrats completely losing blue-collar/union support across the country should be a huge red flag.

It's pretty telling when guys like Yang, Sanders Ro Khanna, etc., are at least somewhat popular in these places but the party itself is basically a pariah.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I agree, but the Democrats completely losing blue-collar/union support across the country should be a huge red flag.

It's pretty telling when guys like Yang, Sanders Ro Khanna, etc., are at least somewhat popular in these places but the party itself is basically a pariah.

Not surprising to anyone, but Democrats (and actually, probably not even to them)

Offshoring manufacturing happened over decades, across both administrations, but the Trump Republicans won by giving the states cast by the wayside a voice

They probably thought they could get by with mainly support of the major dem states with a better moral slate than the shockingly personally amoral incumbent, but underestimated the resonance of that basic message

Bernie actually may well have killed it, being a non-Trump populist that might resonate better with the disenfranchised

[afc wimbledon]

The last word in a dictionary that describes Bernie would be populist, he's a policy wonk that badgers his audience like a high school teacher giving an economic's pop quiz, now AOC, she has potential.

the problem for the left is not their policies its the complete maroons that generally try to deliver them, the Corbyn's and Bernie's, they are grimly boring to watch, seem to have lost their sense of humour some time in the 1970's, a populist doesnt sell a plan they sell themselves, no one in there right mind would buy Bernie

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

While I agree in large part that the Democratic party has a ton of issues, I just want to point one thing out. Gerrymandering also has a very significant role in Democrats getting killed at the state level. For example, in 2018 in states like PA, MI, and NC, despite garnering more than 50% of the votes for state races--Democrats lost seats at that level. Republicans lost the popular vote but due to gerrymandering, they retained/gained control of the state legislature.

For example, my home state of PA:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ote-won-house/

So yes the Democratic party 100% has plenty of things to work on, the fact of the matter is, there are a number of their losses that happen because the GOP is essentially given a lead before the game even begins. We're so worried about the vocal minority in this country that we give them an absurd, unfair advantage.

The problem is the Dem's don't do the things they need to do to stop the Gerrymandering, they dont put the work in at the state level that the GOP realized about 20 years ago was crucial, I actually think the Dem's could win most of the south if they put in the work at state level crafting a message to appeal to the dirt poor black and white that make up the population but you need a local organization, well you need two really one black and one white

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I agree, but the Democrats completely losing blue-collar/union support across the country should be a huge red flag.

It's pretty telling when guys like Yang, Sanders Ro Khanna, etc., are at least somewhat popular in these places but the party itself is basically a pariah.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The problem is the Dem's don't do the things they need to do to stop the Gerrymandering, they dont put the work in at the state level that the GOP realized about 20 years ago was crucial, I actually think the Dem's could win most of the south if they put in the work at state level crafting a message to appeal to the dirt poor black and white that make up the population but you need a local organization, well you need two really one black and one white

Both of you mean well, but you're way off base. I really don't believe you understand what drives Americans, especially uneducated and rural Americans, and definitely not those in the south. You don't understand it until you actually live it and are exposed to it. You need to see it, hear it, smell it, and just live it to get it. These are not people you win over with policies or ideas. You win them by playing to their base instincts and leveraging the biases that have developed over the decades. This is why the Republicans are better at this game than the Democrats, because they understand how to leverage these biases and motivate these people to vote against their very self-interests and in favor of the corporations that are making their lives worse.

When Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he said then that the Democrats had lost the south for a generation or more. He was right, because this policy was against the very biases that existed in the south he knew the Republicans would use that to stoke fears and blame all evils on the granting rights to the disenfranchised. This law did not curb those biases, nor the behaviors associated with them. It did not magically change anything, except give people who hate each other more reason to hate each other, and then other people they don't even know. Racism is still rampant in the south (and not much better in the north) and nothing is changing that. Black people still fear the power of white people and white privilege. They still have that hanging over their heads and must tread carefully as a result. Voting for black people is not easy as it is a privilege they don't have the same access to that white people do. This systemic racism and the mechanisms that forward this racist agenda is what keeps change in check.

Conversely, for poor white people the very same racist agenda is what keeps them in check and keeps them voting for the party that is actually doing the most damage to them and their ability to leverage any form of social mobility. The racist fires are kept stoked by the Republicans (ironically the party of Lincoln) and they make sure that all of those poor working class people remember that it is black and brown people who took their jobs, which were later off-shored by evil Democrats, even though it was their corporate benefactors behind the mess in the first place. The biases that people hold are reinforced each election and nothing is changing in that regard. For white people, it is the black and brown people are coming to take your livelihood away from you and only one party can protect you from that. The Democrats don't have an answer to that, because they have to try and represent everyone and they don't get to rely on those base biases. It's a weakness in their approach and strategy.

What makes things worse, and this was alluded to by another poster, the Democrats don't have a real good state level game. The Republicans dominate state politics and as a result they get to pull the levers of power that enforce the systems that systemic disenfrachisement and racism. Gerrymandering makes it possible for these biases to be maintained and re-enforced. The majority rule does not exist, so making change is impossible when the states are set up so small enclaves of rich voters outweigh the power of larger voting blocks. The system is set up to be repressive and all the policies and policy wonks in the world will not change this. Systemic change is required, but the mechanisms to change that are unavailable because of the way the system is stacked against those who need the system changed in their favor. It is the ultimate catch 22.

I am very hopeful that we are seeing the beginning of the end to this as a result of the past two elections. Those powerless groups have started to get to the polls and have started to vote in blocks. They have turned Georgia and Arizona purple. That is BIG. But it is only a result of activism by the black (Georgia) and brown (Arizona) vote getting out and casting ballots. Sadly, the state level politics has not been impacted to the same level, because these people don't know how the system works and what they have to change to make that system start working for them. This is a baby step, but a good step. Now these people need to be educated on how the system is stacked against them and how to get past the biases they have to expand their voting block and dominate the states as well. You have to own the local politics if you hope to change the state, and you have to own the state if you hope to change the federal politics, because the levers of power to restack the deck are managed at that state level. Change starts with education and action as a result of that education. Without understanding the system you're trying to change you stand no hope in making it work for you.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Lessons learned are well and good, but the suggestion that Canada is at risk of becoming like the USA in this regard (or even at greater risk due to our parliamentary system) is hyperbolic and alarmist to the point of silliness.

Our system of parliamentary democracy clearly puts us at greater risk. It eliminates the check and balance of the legislative branch. It’s one less barrier to ignore norms

My argument wasn’t that we are as bad as the US now. It was that our system is just as easy to corrupt by politicians ignoring norms and that given the actions of the Trudeau government and Kenny government ignoring Norms we are about 8 years behind the US on the road.

Politicians are learning from the US that you can shoot someone in Times Square and face no consequence from your supporters. Trudeaus response of deny and obstruct to SNC and We is directly out of this playbook. Are we at the point where a party would try to overturn election results, obviously not, but next election we are going to see significant cries about voters fraud and people rigging the system.

[Looch City]

Here's a question:

What does the venn diagram look like of Trump supporters who say he single-handedly created the vaccines vs. those are against BIG PHARMA and AUTISM CAUSING VACCINES?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Here's a question:

What does the venn diagram look like of Trump supporters who say he single-handedly created the vaccines vs. those are against BIG PHARMA and AUTISM CAUSING VACCINES?

Credulous morons are not specific to either side of the aisle unfortunately.