jacee Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) Let me rephrase. The Conservatives did care about traditional environmental issues like clean air and water.How? What did the Conservatives do for clean air and water? What they don't are much about is the new radical environmentalism which is all about anti-capitalism. I's an absurd mixture of Marxist philosophy and neo-luddism which opposes all resource extraction on general principal and rejects any and all concern for economics. We almost never hear anything about traditional environmentalism any more. What is traditional environmentalism?What does/did it do? its-open-season-on-canadas-waterways-is-your-favourite-lake-or-stream-protected? harper-misleading-canadians-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions-analyst-says . Edited March 1, 2016 by jacee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 You seem to be very knowledgable when it comes to our economy. I can count to 12. No economy with over 12% unemployment can be described in any sort of flattering terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Those people would be a non-faction for any party besides the Greens. Not at all true, unfortunately. Those people have millions and millions of dollars to spend, largely courtesy of big American environmental groups, and have no problem using hyperbole to scare ignorant people who know little or nothing about CO2 emissions - which is almost 99% of the population. Given the Liberals new standard for whether a project is feasible is "Do most people support it" that is a profound influence. Remember, when mom and pop hear these fanatic lunatics talking about how continuing to exploit the oil sands means 'game over' for civilization and the planet, well, what are they supposed to think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 And would you say the same about things people like Trudeau have said which turned out to be wrong, but which they never owned up to? To the extent it is factual rather than a difference of opinion - yes. If Trudeau came out and said that the car over there (pointing) is blue when it is, in fact, a black truck, then I would have no problem saying he was a liar and can't admit he was wrong. A better example is Rob Ford: he claimed "it was dark out" when ambushed by some reporter. Not only did this fly in the face of video evidence it was contrary to general observation. At the time I checked the time of the event and compared it to the sunrise. I then compared that to my own observation of the sunrise occurring and how bright it was at a similar time of morning. Ford was full of it (or something) and we all knew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 I can see why the Conservatives have struggled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 So there's a lot of names being bandied about. What are some of your CPC leadership predictions? Some of the less common ones that I think are interesting are Jean Charest and Bernard Lord. The latter I would take very seriously if he enters his name into the running. He's a lawyer and fully bilingual, as well as being from the east coast, where the Conservatives were annihilated this election. The CPC needs a leader like Donald Trump. I think that person should be Kevin O'leary. I watched him give a speech at the Manning Center conference, and he pulled no punches. He said it like it is, just like Trump does. He appeared to be an establishment man also. I like that in a leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 Kevin O'Leary is not a statesman. He's a reality show blowhard who won the lottery on a piss poor deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Kevin O'Leary will not be able to expand the "Conservative tent" due to his greedy demeanor. This just doesn't appeal to the majority of Canadians who consider the ability to pay an important consideration in how much tax one should be paying. ETA: http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/why-kevin-oleary-is-wrong-for-conservatives/ -------------------------------------------- On another note: I think it's time the Conservative Party got rid of the social conservative baggage. Let them go to the Christian Heritage Party or some other social conservative fringe party where they belong. Edited March 8, 2016 by The_Squid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Kevin O'Leary will not be able to expand the "Conservative tent" due to his greedy demeanor. This just doesn't appeal to the majority of Canadians who consider the ability to pay an important consideration in how much tax one should be paying. ETA: http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/why-kevin-oleary-is-wrong-for-conservatives/ -------------------------------------------- On another note: I think it's time the Conservative Party got rid of the social conservative baggage. Let them go to the Christian Heritage Party or some other social conservative fringe party where they belong. What about expanding the "Conservative tent?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) What about expanding the "Conservative tent?" They aren't going to be able to expand their appeal when they cater to social conservatives... It's about getting rid of a small, but very loud constituency to appeal to the much broader audience. Edited March 8, 2016 by The_Squid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Kevin O'Leary will not be able to expand the "Conservative tent" due to his greedy demeanor. This just doesn't appeal to the majority of Canadians who consider the ability to pay an important consideration in how much tax one should be paying. ETA: http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/why-kevin-oleary-is-wrong-for-conservatives/ Your link says nothing about taxation. -------------------------------------------- On another note: I think it's time the Conservative Party got rid of the social conservative baggage. Let them go to the Christian Heritage Party or some other social conservative fringe party where they belong. Darn those millions of people wanting representation! They got no right! No one should represent them ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 They aren't going to be able to expand their appeal when they cater to social conservatives... It's about getting rid of a small, but very loud constituency to appeal to the much broader audience. You mean by becoming liberals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Your link says nothing about taxation. No, it doesn't. That's my opinion. Darn those millions of people wanting representation! They got no right! No one should represent them ever! CPC can try and appeal to whomever they wish... in my opinion, appealing to social conservatives is going to hold them back in the future. You mean by becoming liberals? No, by appealing to more Canadians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 No, it doesn't. That's my opinion. The problem with your opinion is it's black and white and allows no gray to intrude. For example, I can accept the wisdom of using the common fisc to benefit the needy. That simply makes sense. We can't, as a civilized society, have people freezing to death in the dark or starving on the streets or not having health care. I'm absolutely in favour of all of that. BUT... there are limits. For too many on your side of the political fence the progressive tax system should be used to make the lives of the poor more closely approximate those of the middle class. It's like the movement to end scoring in kids sports, because no kid should ever lose. You don't feel anyone should lose, so you want to take money away from those who have 'won' and make the poor happier. There are several problems with this. First, you're stealing money from those who worked hard at it to give it to those who, let's face it, mostly didn't. Oh yes, yes, yes, I acknowledge some are poor through no fault of their own. Most, however, made poor decisions, or simply aren't as capable, as hard-working, as creative, lack the instinct, the drive, the motivation, whatever you want to call it, to work hard, to apply themselves, to take chances, to put off immediate gratification in favour of the future. And your sympathy with their being poor winds up being extremely unfair to those who work their butts off to get ahead, not to mention discouraging them from doing so, not to mention encouraging people to be content with their lot in life since you want to make their lot so much more comfortable. CPC can try and appeal to whomever they wish... in my opinion, appealing to social conservatives is going to hold them back in the future. Depends. The Tories have always sucked at communicating a message. More than half the population have expressed a desire to have limits and laws on abortion, for example. That's not a limited base. Lots and lots of people have issues with the progressive agenda on social issues, not just 'social conservatives' who you seem to regard as a tiny group of religious extremists. Now I agree that there are some things which are simply done with and there's no point in fighting them, such as gay marriage, but there are other things, such as the death penalty, which I bet they could get a lot of traction with among a very large segment of the population, depending on how they play it. If not the death penalty, then certainly tougher sentences for violent offenders is always popular among the majority of the population at large - and again, NOT just social conservatives. No, by appealing to more Canadians. If your party stands for nothing different than the other guys then why does it exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 If it can't get elected, why does it exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 If it can't get elected, why does it exist? Its almost as if the weren't just running the country for the last 9 years and won 100 seats in the last one, but I suppose after the electoral system is properly rigged they may have to behave more appropriately to get elected, aka, like liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) If it can't get elected, why does it exist?I think there's a place for "fringe" parties to get attention for particular issues. I think the Greens and the Bloc (and Reform at the time) have been good at getting attention for their particular issues.Its almost as if the weren't just running the country for the last 9 years and won 100 seats in the last one, but I suppose after the electoral system is properly rigged they may have to behave more appropriately to get elected, aka, like liberals. You say "rigged", most others would say "more fair". Edited March 8, 2016 by The_Squid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Its almost as if the weren't just running the country for the last 9 years and won 100 seats in the last one, but I suppose after the electoral system is properly rigged they may have to behave more appropriately to get elected, aka, like liberals. Yeah - because they softened their positions for the electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) If it can't get elected, why does it exist? Do you have a convincing case for why your policies are best for Canada? Then convince people. What kind of leadership is it that just polls what Canadians currently think and then adopts that as their policies? Elect a leader who is charismatic and has good communication skills -- for a change! If all you want to do is run in front of the parade so you can pretend to lead it, try a different career. Edited March 8, 2016 by Argus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
square Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 More than half the population have expressed a desire to have limits and laws on abortion, for example. That's not a limited base. Lots and lots of people have issues with the progressive agenda on social issues, not just 'social conservatives' who you seem to regard as a tiny group of religious extremists. Is this your personal belief? Are there any polls that can support your claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Canadians wants jobs, they are sick of hearing about CC and how the governments can use it to take more of our money from us. I wish Canadians would realize Canada is not the problem, when it comes to CC. at 1.2% GHG, I imagine our own green space takes care of it. So instead of cutting our own throats lets go after the Chinese and Indians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 They aren't going to be able to expand their appeal when they cater to social conservatives... It's about getting rid of a small, but very loud constituency to appeal to the much broader audience. You don't necessarily cater to social conservatives to keep them in the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Is this your personal belief? Are there any polls that can support your claim? Took me less than thirty seconds to find this one. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/new-poll-shows-most-canadians-support-abortion-with-some-restrictions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
square Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Took me less than thirty seconds to find this one. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/new-poll-shows-most-canadians-support-abortion-with-some-restrictions You said "More than half the population have expressed a desire to have limits and laws on abortion". When I read that phase I thought you were talking about criminalizing(full ban) abortion. Yes most support a some circumstances(last trimester) ban, a full ban is non existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 You said "More than half the population have expressed a desire to have limits and laws on abortion". When I read that phase I thought you were talking about criminalizing(full ban) abortion. Yes most support a some circumstances(last trimester) ban, a full ban is non existent. I said "limits and laws" on abortion, not a ban on it. Mind you, there are some who want to ban it completely but they are not a significant number, politically speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts