this actually demonstrates the problem fairly well.

andrew coyne is very upset that the liberals are not carrying through with their promise to bring in proportional representation. his sarcasm is quite intense. it's an impressive display.

the only problem is that the liberals did not actually promise to bring in proportional representation; what the liberals promised was to bring in ranked ballots.

is mr. coyne as equally upset about the prime minister breaking his promise to buy him a unicorn?

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-its-not-the-liberals-fault-for-lying-about-electoral-reform-its-yours-for-believing-them

https://canadians.org/blog/liberals-veto-national-pharmacare-more-canadians-cant-fill-their-prescriptions

this is what activists in canada are actually concerned about.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/universal-drug-plan-would-save-billions-ubc-researchers-say-1.2994857

i don't think they should tax private benefits under the argument that it's unfair for low income workers; rather, i think they should nationalize benefits to a single public option, like the rest of the health care system.

well....for dentists and drugs, anyways. chiropractors aren't doctors and shouldn't be treated like they are. they should be treated like personal trainers, or something.

but, realize that the whole point of this was to avoid the discussion of a public drug plan. it's a bait and switch.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/02/01/health-benefits-tax-off-the-table-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-says.html

this is the special clause in the canadian constitution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

and this is the section that judges can use to suspend the constitution when legislation is challenged as unconstitutional:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

something similar must exist in the united states, to allow the government to pass unconstitutional legislation for national security reasons, so long as it is set to run out after a certain amount of time.

but, why do you think he did this? do you think he's really going to figure this out in 90 days? do you think he doesn't know where they're coming from in the first place?

the muslim ban is and was promised to be temporary. that doesn't make it less unconstitutional, but the fact that it comes with a sunset clause gives it a level of legitimacy beyond it's unconstitutionality.

i'll remind you again that i'm a canadian. and, i actually don't know what the precedent for this is in the united states. but, in canada, the sunset clause would get him off of the hook.

see, in canada, the law is allowed to be unconstitutional so long as it is justified, and limited in scope (i'm not using legal jargon, but you can google this quickly). the question of whether it's justified rests on the legal premise that the parliament gets to decide this (i suppose the parallel would be in the executive branch, here) and not the court. the court can pull out a factual error, but it has to ultimately defer to the will of the people.

so, he wouldn't be allowed to pass a permanent ban. that would be wiped out. but, the way he presented the ban is that it is temporary and for a reason that he claims is valid. a court here would agree that it's unconstitutional, but would not overrule it for those reasons.

i again need to suggest that this is a smoke & mirrors tactic. you're being distracted. why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGEiJ44K3Oo

the liberals were actually economic nationalists through most of the last century, and are still widely seen that way by voters. there was a struggle in the party. it is now clear that the neo-liberals have won. but, this was not made clear to anybody, and there was actually a lot of evidence suggesting otherwise.

canadians do not support neo-liberalism. again: i thought that trudeau had finally understood that. but, it seems that all he understood is that you need to campaign on the left in order to govern on the right. he could have turned the party around. instead, trudeau is going to suffer the same fate as paul martin and michael ignatieff for failing to learn from their mistakes.

again: i'm done. research your local green and ndp candidates; if they are good, register a protest vote. if not, don't vote at all and let the conservatives win. the liberals will learn one day....

as i pointed out previously, this is tricky - because they're actually right, despite the prime minister having promised it in the election. so, you can't take a binary position. instead you need to look at each claim.

1) did the prime minister promise electoral reform? yes. unambiguously.
2) was this a factor in the election? it may have given him a majority instead of a minority.
3) does the government consequently have a mandate for reform? absolutely.
4) is it fair to accuse the government of lying, of breaking a promise, of being dishonest? without question.
5) but, does a majority of canadians support reform at all? that's not clear.
6) does a clear majority of canadians support any single reform option? it's seems that this is obviously false.
7) does a clear majority of canadians support the precise reform option preferred by the governing party? no. definitely not.

it follows that the government is correct to claim that they do not have broad support, and the opposition is correct to accuse them of lying. so, what's the disconnect?

1) the prime minister should not have made such a promise.
2) voters should have done more research to understand what the prime minister had in mind.

i still think that they should have pushed through with the ranked voting and then held it up as a lesson to voters: do your fucking research. it was one of the reasons i voted liberal. and, now that this is off the table, i will be less likely to vote liberal in the future. 

in a broader scheme of things, it also hurts the credibility of the party, which is where the real branding lies. i couldn't care less about justin trudeau. i voted for the party. this is a longstanding party position. you'll excuse me for being naive, but i think it's reasonable to expect a party to carry through with it's longstanding party positions.

what other longstanding party positions are in the dustbin? support for the united nations? universal health care?

again: this is a stupid time to align with a crumbling order. but, after 40 years of infighting, it's hard to expect them to reverse course.

we have lost our liberal party to globalism and neo-liberalism. it is a sad day for the country. and, we will have to destroy them from the ground - regardless of electoral consequence.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-electoral-reform-mandate-1.3961736