|
Deep Throat revealed? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by AwakenedAddict
This is true, but the fact is that an american president is still more entrenched. Party loyalty is higher in the states, so if a president has a majority in Congress then it is quite hard for him to lose 66.7% of the vote there. In Canada, party loyalty is much lower (due in part to the fact that there are more than 2 viable parties), so even if a PM has a majority in Parliament, if he/she did something which would would warrant removal, there is a good chance that the vote will pass (also due to the lower actual requirements for removal 50% vs. 66.7%). |
Actually, party disloyalty is what just kept this prime minister in office. Along with influence and other scandal that will come out eventually.
We need a system in place to keep these guys in check. Currently we don't. Votes of confidence are only effectinve in the one year out of every 25 that has a minority government and even then it's more of a partisian thing than a lawful one. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Actually i would be because id be the one sued and probably shut down and the employee would be fired.
Thanks for backing me up ;) |
i didnt say, if you would or would not. Thats my whole point. Its dumb. I asked, 'should you'?
I think its wrong to hold a manger accountable for something like that. Its out of their control. Mangers can preach, and teach all they want, but in the end they cannot control all the actions of their employees.
I put that question to you, as a philisophical one, not a concrete case.
I know in real life, you would be held responsible, which i think is dumb. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
I agree its dumb but thats how it currently is. So we either change the way things are (completely in all walks of life) or we hold our politicians to the same rules as everyone else lives by. Why should politicians be exempt from real life practices?
Thats how dictatorships start. |
|
|
| AwakenedAddict |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Actually, party disloyalty is what just kept this prime minister in office. Along with influence and other scandal that will come out eventually.
We need a system in place to keep these guys in check. Currently we don't. Votes of confidence are only effectinve in the one year out of every 25 that has a minority government and even then it's more of a partisian thing than a lawful one. |
Ok, continue arguing with yourself then... surely you can admit that it's harder to remove a head of state in the US than in Canada. Regardless of wether or not you believe that process is easy enough in either country. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Well the way i see it, the US president was forced to step down amid less scandal than our current sitting PM who isnt going anywhere. Whether it was legal powers that be, his own party or the voters who forced him out, the simple fact is that Nixon stepped down.
In Canada we have Martin blithering on TV about how he acknowledges that people under his command stole money yet he continues on as leader. Thats a sad commentary not only on our governance, but also on the citizens that allow this to happen. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by AwakenedAddict
Ok, continue arguing with yourself then... surely you can admit that it's harder to remove a head of state in the US than in Canada. Regardless of wether or not you believe that process is easy enough in either country. |
No offense, but it's not that simple.
Canada's head of state is Queen Elizabeth. The only way to remove her is to amend the constitution by unanimous consent: the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province all must approve (VERY difficult to do).
Canada's head of government is another matter... that's governed by unwritten convention. You need a motion of no confidence to defeat the government.
Prime Ministers who have been defeated by votes of no confidence:
* Sir John A. Macdonald
* Arthur Meighen
* John George Diefenbaker
* Pierre Trudeau
* Joe Clark
The U.S. has a mechanism for removing its head of state (and other officials), and it's written in its constitution. Articles of impeachment are drafted in the House, and then a trial in the Senate presided over by the CJ of the Supreme Court.
Congress regards impeachment as a power to use only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789. Impeachments of only sixteen federal officers have taken place:
* two presidents: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, both acquitted. (Richard Nixon resigned after impeachment hearings against him were initiated.)
* one cabinet officer
* one senator
* twelve federal judges.
So it's not as clear-cut as you made it out to be. |
|
|
| AwakenedAddict |
I'm not going to be pulled into some obscure debate about wether or not people should be impeached.. we were talking about the viability of the impeachment institution in place in the US and Canadian gov'ts.
This is why no one wants to talk to you online anymore, you always pull some unimportant, irrelevant fact/arguement out of your ass in an attept to switch the actual topic of the conversation.
Debating/discussing is not about winning or losing, but about learning. Something which you are in sore need of because you didn't even believe there is an accountability mechanism for elected officials in canada (specifically the PM). *In case you were wondering, that was the origional topic of this discussion.
A discussion which has now ended... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| AwakenedAddict |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
No offense, but you're misinformed. |
Yea, my bad... but seriously did you need such a long post to tell me this.. It would have taken two lines.
And it really was just me calling the PM by the wrong title...
EDIT: seems that what I was referring to was removed from Shadowolf's post |
|
|
| DJ El Kay Dee |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
*snicker* "Deep Throat" *snicker*
|
what do u think i thought when i opened this thread???
dammit...so disappointed:( |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ El Kay Dee
what do u think i thought when i opened this thread???
dammit...so disappointed:( |
 |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I agree its dumb but thats how it currently is. So we either change the way things are (completely in all walks of life) or we hold our politicians to the same rules as everyone else lives by. Why should politicians be exempt from real life practices?
Thats how dictatorships start. |
they should be held to the same POOR real life practices?
Common Jay, you know what you are suggesting(changing it in every facit of life) is not possible over night. You can however start something good. Maybe apply it to a large case such as this, where it would recieve national attention, and then people may change.
Otherwise your idea of, change it all at once, or not at all, just doesnt fly. Its a poor practice, and i try and take that into account when complaining about a worker's effort. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Why did nixon step down when "he did not have to?"
He could have gone through the whole impeachment process. Oh yeah, they have one there dont they? What keeps our politicians in check again? Oh yeah, nothing. |
Nixon was going to be impeached.... he stepped down because he didn't want to be the first president impeached. |
|
|
|
|
