What is the biggest lie?

Did it work any better?

1 Like

He barely squeaked through this last election. In Canadian politics there are three major parties, the Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democratic Party who lean far left. Because Trump and his band of destructive criminals have made “conservative” a nasty expression, the Conservatives lost ground. The Liberals did too, but the NDP made substantial gains. Presently we have a minority government, the Liberals do not hold a majority and must work with other parties to get anything done.

IMO this is the optimal solution because these scenarios are when good things get done, and social issues must be addressed.

Very few Canadian voters identify themselves by who they voted for, they just seek good solutions. Unlike a two party system that basically take turns sharing power and corruption, in Canada if a party goes off the tracks, they are ruined. I have personally witnessed parties go from being in power to being reduced to ashes.


Yup, it triggered a few leftists.

@mr.macabre Do you perceive those who embrace leftist positions as foes, even enemies to be despised and disrespected?

Oh well, this won’t be the first time an empire collapsed because of internal conflicts.

1 Like

If your goal is to trigger people to your political left, you could have done a lot better than that: next time try something like God hates fags.

1 Like

“You can be anything if you just put your mind to it.”

No, but when they insist that our country is corrupt to the core and needs to be fundamentaly changed, I’ll always put in my 2 cents worth. I’ll respect you as long as you respect me. I’m too old to worry about something I have zero control over any more.

I don’t need to, I’m covered in occult/blasphemist tattoos, and have a black metal/death metal, Halloween, atheist, and heretic t-shirt collection that is easily over 150+ shirts. I’ve worn one every day for the last 40+ years. Drives my wife crazy.

I agree. But we need to ask the question … what is the core problem? Is it people with a different perspective or the actual Constitution and how the democratic process is practiced in the USA?

Make no mistake, I like my neighbors and friends to the south. We share the same basic aspirations and goals. But when I see two parties that are each train-wrecks, wide-open lobbying with tremendous money behind it, I see a government that has lost it’s way, where it no longer truly serves the interests of the individual citizen.

1 Like

Not to forget that those two parties refuse to cooperate with each other and exaggerate greatly the differences to the point where they actively try to sabotage everything the other party tries to do, instead of cooperating where they actually agree. Thus, instead of working to the nation’s best, they do their political mouth breathing and knuckle dragging to gain personal and political advantages or being mentioned in the press, ignoring their employers (the people and the nation). As seen from the outside (Europe), the US political process can often seem parodic. Which is sad. The US deserves better.

1 Like

@Get_off_my_lawn I am 100% in agreement with this statement.

Especially this …

Permanent term limits would be a good start, for every politican in every office of the government, including the Supreme Court. These motherfuckers work for us, not the other way 'round.

1 Like

It boggles the mind that there is not a mandatory retirement age for such important offices as the supreme court in the US, which tends to resemble a club for old farts. Even if they are healthy, and their faculties are razor sharp, the oldest ones presently in that old geezers/geezerettes club are still old farts, and the longer they keep farting away in their supreme court chairs, the bigger the chance is that they can suddenly just drop dead doing their job (which I’m sure has happened more than once). Where I live, there is an absolute upper retirement age for supreme court judges, at 70 years. Which I find reasonable. Sure, you can probably still do a good job after 70, but I would argue that someone 10 or 20 years younger would be better suited for the job for the simple reason that they would better reflect the actual demographics of society. But then again, that’s not a requirement for the US supreme court, where they are appointed not only for being sharp-shod lawyers, but also for their political opinions. And I find the latter quite abhorring. But then again I’m not US-based, so you can rightfully argue that my opinions don’t count. But I offer them anyway :slight_smile:

I would be in favor of a mandatory retirement age for U.S. Supreme Court justices, but as stated in the Constitution they serve for life (“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour” – which is interpreted as a life appointment) and changing that would require changing the Constitution, which is hard.

@mr.macabre How about forcing all politicians to reveal ALL income, and benefits. Also, once retired from politics they can not take on “consulting” jobs for big corporations. And force lobbyists to also reveal every penny they spend, and on who.

And for fuck’s sake, re-install the Fairness Doctrine, where “news” stations are held accountable for the garbage they spew. For all sides, the toxicity and lies come from all camps.


The concept and application of the Senate and House comes from British parliamentary procedure, where the House of Lords is composed of old farts, but they are there to offer stability and an understanding of the big long range picture.

In theory, they are supposed to be apolitical.

Ah, yes. So that’s where the gremlins are to be found, in a too unspecific wording of a central document. And possibly also the Common Law practice of precedents where the law is too unclear. As for where I live, it’s not only the law text itself that is used by the courts, but also the preliminary texts describing the background for the law and the intention of the law. Thus, when the courts make a decision in a case, they not only consider the law text itself, but also the intention, when available.

Especially since your current political climate (the duopoly) is based on opposing whatever the other party is saying/doing/wanting to do, whether you agree or not. If you actually disagree with the other party, protest. If you actually agree on the principles or even the details, then publically disagree until you can claim victory for your side to implement the exact same matter. I.e. the whole point of doing politics is not to lead the nation, but to keep your political party in a position of government, no matter what the cost.


In theory, the long term stability and picture stuff sounds great, in theory. But in practice, I suspect such an arrangement can/will hinder change when change is needed. Because the old geezers that are there for life don’t want any change, because “that’s how it’s always been done”. And when old farts are released in public, they tend to smell a whole lot more.

Setting a supposed apolitical person to do political work sounds somewhat like an oxymoron to me.

The old geezers in the House of Lords used to be entirely hereditary peers and they tended to conservatism and often blocked the passage of progressive laws, particularly ones introduced by the Liberal and Labour parties. They were defanged in the early part of the 20th century (1911) and at the end of the century most hereditary peers (except for 92) were excluded from the chamber and most members now are life peers, but they still stay in the house for life.

1 Like

I’d have no problem with that, there aren’t supposed to be lifetime politicans in this country. How do you become a multi-millionaire with a salary of about $175,000 a year? People like Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Mc Connell, and Watters all need to be run out of DC on a rail, one full of splinters. The corruption is mind-boggling.