News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

Northern Light said:
Typically this is more 'reward' for political partisans/supporters/retiring bureaucrats than it is obstruction.

I don't care for it, mind you.

But not really comparable w/the U.S. phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Yes and no - Harper stuffed the NEB for a reason. The real US phenomenon - if you will - is the willingness to break norms and take things to the extreme - and the public's willingness to accept that kind of bad faith actions. Canadians by and large isn't so inclined to conflict at all cost and this limits what the politicians can get away with.

AoD
 
Last edited:
APTA-2048 said:
If you believe the Fox News poll, a government run healthcare plan is wildly popular. Both the Democrats and Republicans are against it, though.
Click to expand...
That's because both GOP and Dems work for the donor class.
 
Northern Light said:
I can't fathom why a fully, overtly, partisan churn at that scale is ever wise.

Perhaps you can make the case for such a scheme.
Click to expand...

1) Americans are more distrustful of government. It's a cultural difference, but those appointments give their public the confidence that the bureaucracy is aligned with elected government.

2) We aren't the world's largest superpower. They are. And the vast majority of those appointments are in the realm of national security. The Executive needs full confidence that the national security apparatus will act in coherence and in deference to the national security strategy as established by the elected President. This is something that Canadians or Germans or Italians who come from a country not as relevant on the world stage will never understand.

3) Democracy. The American practice of democracy is very deep. Far more than in our parliamentary system. There are way more elected positions at every level of government. And substantial authority for the public to bind the legislature through ballot initiatives. There's nothing like this in Canada. And as such, the patronage system is seen as a function of that deep democracy.

I would really caution against the typically arrogant Canadian view of, "Those Americans are dumb. They don't know to run their government." For all the failings of their system, it has mostly served them well and gotten them to where they are. And having served on exchange with their forces, and interacted with presidential appointees from the Obama and Trump administrations, I'll say that the vast majority are still reasonable, competent and less ideological.

Northern Light said:
You end up losing a lot of competent people, and creating turmoil and inaction as people are caught up to speed over weeks and months that simply isn't necessary.
Click to expand...

Everytime we have an election or there's a cabinet shuffle, we have staff changes at the upper echelon or priorities. I've been on billion dollar projects that got shelved or zero rated.

They may have a lot more jobs to replace, but their bureaucracy is much larger than ours too.
 
APTA-2048 said:
If you believe the Fox News poll, a government run healthcare plan is wildly popular. Both the Democrats and Republicans are against it, though.
Click to expand...
afransen said:
That's because both GOP and Dems work for the donor class.
Click to expand...

No. It's because any plan is popular until you present the bill. I've experienced the American healthcare system. Both the private side and government healthcare through the military (Tricare). They have decent healthcare for those who are covered, which is what makes most Middle Class Americans suspicious of government run healthcare schemes. And those are the voters you have to convince to embrace a tax increase and change in plans, is worthwhile. This is why Joe Biden's incremental plans sold really well during the Democratic primary.
 
kEiThZ said:
No. It's because any plan is popular until you present the bill. I've experienced the American healthcare system. Both the private side and government healthcare through the military (Tricare). They have decent healthcare for those who are covered, which is what makes most Middle Class Americans suspicious of government run healthcare schemes. And those are the voters you have to convince to embrace a tax increase and change in plans, is worthwhile. This is why Joe Biden's incremental plans sold really well during the Democratic primary.
Click to expand...
On nearly every issue, whenever donors and voters disagree on policy, donors get their way. It is really hard to overstate how much power and influence donors have, and how much of legislators' focus is on fundraising.
 
afransen said:
On nearly every issue, whenever donors and voters disagree on policy, donors get their way. It is really hard to overstate how much power and influence donors have, and how much of legislators' focus is on fundraising.
Click to expand...

I get the argument. And I've seen all the documentaries and the graphics. But on healthcare it's a simple political reality that unless you can convince the electorate to support your plan, you can't implement it. And there's no way Medicare for All was going to be sellable in the General Election as soon as the price tag entered the discussion.

Having seen how much support Trump garnered. And having seen how many voters split their tickets between Biden and Congressional Republicans, it's pretty clear that support for large government programs like Green New Deal and Medicare for All is not as broad as commonly assumed on the left.
 
If some are letting out a sigh of relief that this chapter of American history is coming to an end may be disappointed. Consider the number of people who voted for him. Admittedly, some would vote Republican regardless of who was running, but there is a significant constituency there that is fully invested with concepts of exceptionalism, the swamp, deep state, conspiracy theories, and on and on. They found their guy but besides constantly ranting on social media, he accomplished little of lasting impact to their satisfaction. The opportunity is still there in their system and if they find somebody who actually effective at it, could do serious and long lasting damage. Consider that Putin is, on paper, a democratically-elected head of government (not even combined head of government/head of state like the President). The money, corruption and power carrots still dangle.
 
I don't remember people getting so enraged and polarized over any previous president, at least not to the extreme degree we've seen with Trump. George W Bush got a fair share of hate, but it wasn't anywhere near this level we've seen in the last 4 years. Nixon maybe?
 
Here are the legal challenges Trump's campaign has filed to contest the 2020 election results

From link.

The Trump campaign has mounted more than a dozen legal challenges in several battleground states since Election Day. Early Friday, Insider and Decision Desk HQ projected that Joe Biden won the presidential election.

Biden currently has 279 electoral college votes, while Trump has 214. The president-elect picked up the upper midwestern battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, and currently leads Trump in Arizona and Georgia.

Faced with the prospect of losing to a man he spent months hammering as corrupt, doddering, and mentally deficient, the president is going on offense, spreading lies and conspiracy theories about a "rigged" election marred by "major fraud" from Democrats.

He's alternated between demanding some states stop counting ballots, which he doesn't have the power to do, and saying that others should keep counting, which they were doing anyway. To that end, the Trump campaign has filed several legal challenges in battleground states.
Click to expand...

Best not to copy-n-paste. Go to the link.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top