Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: pbangarth Feb 23 2009, 04:53 PM

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014142811

And I am English knowing good, too.

Posted by: Backgammon Feb 23 2009, 06:04 PM

WTF - he answered that in a private letter to a fan. Said fan then forwarded that to a news org? What an asshole. And the news org actually printed an obvious joke, without any hint in the text that it was a joke. More assholes.

Still, I'd vote for him.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Feb 23 2009, 06:31 PM

I think this is… a fantastic idea. There needs… to be a man who can… take charge, who can… restore the faith of Canadians everywhere that they too can… one day take a beautiful, green-skinned alien as a lover.

~J

Posted by: Adarael Feb 23 2009, 07:39 PM

While grimacing in anger: METIS!!!!!!!

Posted by: Wesley Street Feb 23 2009, 09:28 PM

"He tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him 'round the shores of British Columbia and 'round the Northwest Territory and 'round Perdition's flames before I give him up!"

Posted by: Browncoatone Feb 24 2009, 04:15 PM

Is he even Canadian?

Posted by: Wesley Street Feb 24 2009, 05:22 PM

Um, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000638/.

Posted by: Backgammon Feb 25 2009, 03:06 AM

McGill University has a building named after him. Students routinely talk about going to the "Shatner building" for classes. Think about how cool that is.

Of coure, Shatner refused to show up at inauguration because he claims McGill was just trying to use his name for their own ends, which if you think about it is probably a little bit true.

Posted by: Browncoatone Feb 25 2009, 11:04 AM

Hmmm. I guess all he needs now is to become leader of a major political party. Unfortunately for him that's more difficult in the north than it is down here in the States.

Posted by: Wesley Street Feb 25 2009, 02:41 PM

Worked for Schwarzenegger, Ventura and all the other dudes from Predator. Never underestimate the power of name recognition. Who wouldn't want Captain Kirk for Prime Minister?

Posted by: pbangarth Feb 27 2009, 03:09 AM

Hey, you should see some of the turkeys we've had here.

Posted by: Browncoatone Feb 27 2009, 08:07 AM

Those were popularly elected officials, not paliamentary appointments like they have in Canada. I'm not an expert in the Canadian political system so any of my northern neighbors should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but in Canada you get to be Prime Minister by leading the political party that manages to get a majority of seats in the legislature. The Canadian (subjects? citizens? I'm not certain how that works up there) don't get to vote for a person directly for Prime Minister, but rather vote for a party that their candidate is a part of.

It'd be like voting for the Democrat party for president instead of voting for Obama. [Ok, I know that you don't vote directly for a presidential candidate either, but rather for a electorial college elector who promises cross his heart and hope to die to vote for the candidate he says he will but work with me here]

In order for 'Kirk' to become Prime Minister he'd have to sieze control of a politcal party first. I wonder which party he has in mind?

Posted by: Wesley Street Feb 27 2009, 01:41 PM

I understand how the parliamentary system works. I'm more familiar with the UK system but I imagine Canada's is the same. But imagine if Shatner were British, joined the Labour Party, and were elected to Parliament. Instant name recognition amongst the other MPs. Charisma and good communication skills. Bang, instant party leader.

Posted by: Browncoatone Feb 27 2009, 05:06 PM

I don't think that's how it works. I think in the parliamentary system he has to join a party, then be elected as a party leader by the party, then the party is 'elected' to a majority which would make him Prime Minister.

Of course your assertion that natural charisma and name recognition could play a role in getting him to the top of a party are still valid.

Posted by: pbangarth Feb 27 2009, 09:19 PM

The person who becomes Prime Minister is the person who gets the 'confidence' of parliament. That is to say, she is supported by a majority of the members of parliament in taking the Prime-Ministership. In a majority government, where one party has the majority of the seats in parliament, the selection is easy, and the party leader, who has to be a member of the party and be elected their leader in a separate leadership convention, invariably becomes the Prime Minister.

In a minority government, such as is in place right now in Canada, no party has a clear majority of the seats in parliament. The party with the most seats is usually the one that forms the government, and their leader is usually the one who gets selected to be Prime Minister. But he still has to have support of the majority of the members of parliament. Deals and compromises are the order of the day. Unlike a president who is elected separately, the Prime Minister can be removed, practically instantly, if a majority of the members of parliament show they have lost confidence in him. This would usually lead to a general election.

In all cases, popularity of the individual in question is very important. A very talented politician in years past never made a good run of being Prime Minister because for all the world he reminded most people of Elmer Fudd. In another case, a guy who got advice on political matters from his dead mother (through his dog, I think) lasted a long time. One Prime Minister swept into office on a wave of adoring and fanatical supporters and could do no wrong for years in office, including making fun of the Queen. Another one was totally reviled by the time he left office, but lasted a long time by doing things like singing "Irish Eyes" in his lovely, deep voice with Ronald Reagan. William Shatner would certainly not be the worst one we've had.

It would be nice, you know, to have one in my lifetime who is intelligent and competent and charismatic. Is that too much to ask?

Posted by: Browncoatone Mar 1 2009, 01:50 AM

Oh crap! We only get one? I've already had Reagan, so that means...

Posted by: Link Mar 1 2009, 06:52 AM

It appears Canada retains the Westminster system. If so, electors vote for a candidate in their area (electorate) who may or may not be a member of a party. The party system is strong but there are independents. Invariably though, a party's leader in parliament will be PM.
In Australia (same system) the last change of PM while the ruling party retained government was in the early 90's where a party room coup lead to a new parliamentary leader and hence PM. There was no general election, it all occurred in house.

Shatner could be PM in less than a month. A member of the majority party resigns his safe seat, Shatner gets candidacy for the now vacant seat, wins the by-election and is voted parliamentary leader in the partyroom. Easy.

Posted by: Browncoatone Mar 1 2009, 07:21 PM

I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand it allows for a new leader to be installed from the citizenry in short order which is good for getting fresh blood into the system. On the other hand, it allows for people with more charisma than logic or willpower (to use SR4 attributes) to assume control with very little problem. That rarely turns out http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3QqO8EXd-II/SapIUtE1D8I/AAAAAAAAmyk/aaPQzsdA5VE/s1600-h/hope_chart_s%2Bp_500.gif

Posted by: Chrysalis Mar 1 2009, 09:48 PM

What was wrong with Pierre Trudeau?

Posted by: pbangarth Mar 2 2009, 07:59 AM

he's the closest thing I have, Chrysalis. When he came into power, I was swept up in the general hysteria over him.

He was indeed intelligent, competent and charismatic. He was cool! He did a lot to raise the consciousness of the world about Canada. He repatriated the constitution (without Quebec's participation, of course). He inspired a generation. I think it is fair to make the claim that the American love affair with Obama is a parallel to Trudeaumania.

He was incredibly arrogant and irreverent, which was part of his charm to some. Trudeau also instituted policies that deeply indebted a nation that enjoyed a balanced budget when he came into power. There is great argument, I admit, about how much he and his cabinet were to blame, at least in the early years. He also instituted policies that peripheralized western Canada with respect to central Canada, thereby alienating them during an era when he was preaching unity. This alienation has plagued his political party ever since.

Sounds like I am looking for perfection, doesn't it? Could be. Would I vote for him today? Damn right I would!

Posted by: Chrysalis Mar 2 2009, 10:51 PM

I can only hope that we get a prime minister who is not a sycophant for the interests of Canada's southern neighbour.

Yeah, I too wish for a reincarnated Trudeau to take office.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Mar 4 2009, 02:35 PM

I hope so too. The only thing worse than some of the idiotic ideas we come up with is the fact that we can sometimes find other heads of state to support them.

~J

Posted by: Adarael Mar 4 2009, 11:46 PM

He also punched reporters for having the audacity to try and interview him while not being hot and female!

Posted by: Browncoatone Mar 7 2009, 05:08 AM

Sounds like my kind of guy. What party did you say he was with again?

Posted by: pbangarth Mar 8 2009, 07:02 AM

Liberal party. Good luck ever getting another one like him, though. But.... his son just got elected. He's got his father's name/legacy, youthful enthusiasm and his mother's looks.

I can smell the assassins lining up.

Posted by: D Minor Mar 11 2009, 04:22 AM

Ahh yes Justin... He says he's not ready to take up his fathers mantel just yet. but when he does he'll get my vote. The old man had style. He mocked the Queen, had a hot wife( who slept with Mic Jager, posed in playboy), fingered the press, sent the army into Quebec. I doubt a politician could get away with doing just one of these nowadays.


http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=trudeau&gbv=2&ndsp=18&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iv#


http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://pro.corbis.com/images/U2112015.jpg%3Fsize%3D67%26uid%3D%257B1FD5E9A3-3EF4-41F8-B276-876E3BB93CF3%257D&imgrefurl=http://pro.corbis.com/search/Enlargement.aspx%3FCID%3Disg%26mediauid%3D%257B1FD5E9A3-3EF4-41F8-B276-876E3BB93CF3%257D&usg=__HjncCnstvmS7nnxeLsqkEDp96eM=&h=428&w=640&sz=74&hl=en&start=173&tbnid=7xvWWN9df9yY0M:&tbnh=92&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpierre%2Btrudeau%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D162

Posted by: pbangarth Mar 11 2009, 09:13 PM

I haven't seen that clip in years. Thanks! Damn, he was arrogant. I love him!

Posted by: Link Mar 12 2009, 01:14 PM

Mocked the Queen eh. How exactly?
When the PM.au put his hand on Her Majesty's hip (HMH) to steer her through some reception it was a minor scandal, the British papers called him the 'Lizard of Oz' IIRC

Posted by: pbangarth Mar 13 2009, 03:20 AM

In 1977, the Queen was visiting Canada, and during a procession in which he was required by protocol to walk behind her, he put a forefinger to the top of his head and did a pirouette. It certainly was filmed, but I tried quickly to find a video online of it and failed. It was thought at the time that it was a spur of the moment impulse, but apparently he practiced it ahead of time. Truth be told, it is thought now that he was attempting to mock the protocol more than the Queen.

Posted by: Chrysalis Mar 17 2009, 11:28 AM

All I found was the picture. I am surprised that CBC does not have images of it. Although the "just watch me" clip was hilarious. I can't recall when a politician has done something like that. I also like the image of Trudeau with his fingers in his ears as Reagan speaks.

-Chrysalis

Posted by: Wesley Street Mar 17 2009, 01:32 PM

Is he putting his fingers in his ears? It looks like he's saying, "Oh Ronnie... what's wrong with you?"

I'm curious as to what the Average Joe Sixpack American would say seeing that video clip. The CBC reporter seemed absolutely outraged at the idea of armed Mounties. I was also interested in the statement made by the reporter that a free and democratic society isn't one where people run around with guns.

And Trudeau is right in HIS FACE. Woah... personal space there, dude.

Posted by: pbangarth Mar 17 2009, 05:20 PM

Well, there may be some mutual invasion of space going on. I find it hard to tell. Trudeau's is pretty clear, though.

Trudeau was one of those Canadians who don't cherish the 'meek and polite' stereotype of us.

Posted by: Byron Apr 15 2009, 02:24 AM

Ok, seriously, this may be the most awesome thing ever, I mean if a terrible actor like Arnold can become governor of California, then a just mediocre actor can certainly become a leader of a country. America, I think there is only one way to respond to this, and one way alone...ADAM WEST FOR PRESIDENT!

Posted by: pbangarth Apr 15 2009, 08:03 AM

Can you imagine the state visits?

"Captain Kirk sits down with Batman to discuss arctic sovereignty - Superman crashes meeting: 'Forget it boys, I was there first!'".

Posted by: Byron Apr 15 2009, 11:52 PM

Well it makes sense he's like the american equivilant, he was an average actor who became famous, incredibly typecast, and has spent the last couple decades basically playing himself.

Posted by: pbangarth Apr 16 2009, 07:49 PM

Looks like Bill is open to any political possibility:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Oo-BjKzCE&NR=1

Posted by: Rehlor Apr 16 2009, 08:27 PM

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001654/

Posted by: Byron Apr 20 2009, 04:45 AM

Exactly, but now I'm afraid cause it seems, if reagan and arnold are anything to judge by, one's ability as a politician may be relativ e to ones acting ability. Arnold is a mediocre actor and became a mediocre politician and reagan was a terrible actor and went on to becoem a similarly terrible president. How would you rank adam west acting wise, the fate of the nation may depend on it.

Posted by: Wesley Street Apr 20 2009, 01:22 PM

To be fair, most democratic elections really are popularity contests. Unfortunately there's no academic or ethical test to pass to become a political leader.