Wilson’s administration also imprisoned a filmmaker for making a pro-American Revolution film. I agree he was the worst President of the 20th century.
Do tell? I would like to know more.
Meant to add a link The Spirit of '76 (1917 film) - Wikipedia - basically, a pro-American Revolution movie will include anti-British material, so the movie must be pro-German propaganda
Fascinating and something I didnt know. Yep, Wilson was a ass.
[Moderating]
“The worst president of the 20th century” is not an appropriate topic for GQ. If you wish to discuss that, take it elsewhere.
Understood.
Of course, I have to remember that in a lot of cases, treaties were settled by the kings themselves, meeting together Treaty of Picquigny - Wikipedia or by exchange of letters between the sovereigns without an ambassador or envoy involved.
As I mentioned above it was the reformation that necessitated the modern system of ambassadors. That treaty was just prior to that (and clearly involved intermediaries as the wiki says: “Louis then sent Edward word that he was willing to offer more than Edward’s allies could”.) Those intermediaries where likely clergy, who were considered acceptable somewhat neutral parties who could be trusted to carry on negotiations (and on paper at least, were commited to a peaceful outcome).
The reformation changed that, and catholic clergy would be more likely considered an active antagonist than a neutral intermediary by a protestant power, and vice versa. Thus necessitating the need for secular ambassadors which the system that lasts until the modern era.
Don’t want to hijack the thread, but in answer to this question, it depends on the party structure and the political strength of the leader.
Some parties may not give leaders the power to overturn a nomination by the local constituency organisation. Depends on the party’s internal constitution.
Plus, it depends on the party leader’s strength within the party. if the party leader truly dominates the party and has lots of support from caucus, then the leader may feel he/she has the clout within the party not to sign the nomination form. But if the party leader has relatively weak authority within the caucus, he/she may feel it would not be advisable to refuse to sign the papers.
As well, if the local candidate is really popular, and the riding is a close one, it may not be in the party’s best interests to override the nomination, because that might alienate the party faithful and make them less inclined to do the doorknocking and envelope stuffing that is needed for a campaign. No point in the leader substituting his/her candidate only to lose the riding.
In short, the powers of the leader on paper may not line up with the political reality.
Looks like a good summary to me. 
Yes, that typically happens - when the candidate is sufficiently unacceptable that there is no choice. (Typically with racist comments, or strongly articulates a position totally at odds with the party platform.) The risk is that doing that to a candidate who is popular locally just means writing off this riding - the voters will stay home or vote against any replacement candidate (assuming the replacement happens in time to submit an alternate party nominee.) Or the candidate can run as an independent as a F— You to the party brass.
As I understood this, Pawley tried the back door; similar to primarying a candidate in the USA. The guy had simply not bent the rules to favor the government in a debate over bilingual policy, but instead stuck to the letter of the procedural rules - hardly reason to boot him from the party. Instead of a primary, typically in Canada nominations are done at party meeting, since the active party members rarely add up to more than a few hundred in a riding (in a hotly contested riding candidates try to sell memberships to supporters, you may get several thousand recently signed up party supporters, and a sequence of ballots as the lowest candidate is dropped off the next ballot until someone gets 50%).
So they found a suitable alternative and persuaded him to challenge the nomination and helped signing up new party members. But this challenger lost at the party nomination meeting as the guy was popular locally, and all the insiders knew what was done and who ordered it. Simply refusing to accept the nomination may have alienated a lot of voters and been bad publicity, and as it was the election was so close the one guy was the swing vote. But due to bad blood, they didn’t try to make up with him. Sometimes politicians are stupid, believe it or not…