🚀 go-pugleaf

"Andrew Ostrander" <apanda@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:WUw_k.2378$297.1233@newsfe23.iad...
>
> "snowman" <x@x.x> wrote in message 
> news:3Ui_k.2658$uS1.2489@newsfe19.iad...
>> Andrew Ostrander wrote:
>>>
>>> "snowman" <x@x.x> wrote in message 
>>> news:J%1_k.7613$ED.5318@newsfe22.iad...
>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 08:09:02 -0600, "Andrew Ostrander"
>>>>>> <apanda@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Harper wasn't elected into office.  I didn't see any choice on my 
>>>>>>> ballot for Harper.  I voted for my local mp.
>>>>
>>>> And was your local MP a Liberal, an NDP or a Separatist?  Or was he 1/3 
>>>> of each?  Were you voting 1/3 for each one or just *one* party?  See, 
>>>> that's the problem with this little coup, it is one vote, one party. 
>>>> That's something that Dion, Laytoon and their Separatist allies fail to 
>>>> understand.
>>>>
>>> I don't really get your point.  The Canadian people collectively elected 
>>> mps from 4 parties, and send them to Ottawa to work out a way to run the 
>>> country.  The way they've worked out doesn't have Harper as PM.
>>
>> I've repeated this enough but for your sake, I shall do so once more. 
>> After the loss of a confidence vote, it is the people who decide the 
>> government, not three individuals who make backroom deals outside of the 
>> public scrutiny.  Why should it matter just how soon the last election 
>> was?  This is a democracy, not a banana republic.
>
> Sorry, but what you learned about confidence votes seems to be different 
> from what I learned about them.  I learned (years ago) that if a PM loses 
> a confidence vote, the Governor General can appoint someone else as Prime 
> Minister, and if that person has the support of the House of Commons, then 
> he/she remains the new PM.  Go back and check your school books, or some 
> other source of information.
>

yes, the GG ****CAN*****   appoint..   CAN means having the power. It does 
NOT
be that the GG WILL appoint...just that the GG MIGHT.




>