Newfoundlander Posted May 28, 2016 Report Posted May 28, 2016 radical! Revolutionary! with ~30% still opposed to the motion... don't they know it's 2016? . Polls conducted over the last few years has shown 70% of the general public support same sex marriage so the party is pretty much onside with the overall public.
jacee Posted May 28, 2016 Report Posted May 28, 2016 radical! Revolutionary! with ~30% still opposed to the motion... don't they know it's 2016? . 30% of Conservatives, X 32% of the 60% of Canadians who voted for them. ~ 6% of Canadians. That's almost statistical error ... outliers, aberrations ... noise. 94% of Canadians disagree with them. ?
The_Squid Posted May 28, 2016 Report Posted May 28, 2016 The issue will be up for a vote.... they haven't supported (or remained neutral) about same sex marriage yet. Hopefully they do get rid of that silly anti-gay policy, but it hasn't happened yet...
Big Guy Posted May 28, 2016 Report Posted May 28, 2016 I'm for the party that doesn't needlessly choose to run massive deficits, and create big structural deficits with OAS and EI. Undoing all the debt pay down and hardwork of the previous 15 - 20 years. Chrétien and Martin must be shaking their heads. Which party is that? Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 Because all LGBT think alike? Is that what I said? What percentage of the gay vote do you think went conservative last election? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
The_Squid Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 Is that what I said? What percentage of the gay vote do you think went conservative last election? So you think anti-gay policies only affect the voting of gay people? You don't think these types of policies can possibly affect the voting behaviour of family, friends of gays and people who just don't like the bigotry of anti-gay policies?
waldo Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 Polls conducted over the last few years has shown 70% of the general public support same sex marriage so the party is pretty much onside with the overall public. no - that motion wasn't a formal policy acceptance of SSM... that ~70% of Conservative Party members voted for the so-called "neutral" position that simply had Conservatives remove the definition of marriage (as between a man and a woman), from the Conservative Party of Canada's policy document. .
Newfoundlander Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 Is that what I said? What percentage of the gay vote do you think went conservative last election? I don't really know what you said, you seem to struggle writing down your backward ideas. As well, when you have a policy in your platform saying that you don't think LGBT should marry it doesn't help to attract them, even if they like your other policies. There are also lots and lots of people who are not LGBT who are turned off by such a policy. As was pointed out by a columnist we've had gay cabinet ministers, Harper's had key staff who are gay. One of the men who wants to be president of the party is gay.
Newfoundlander Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 no - that motion wasn't a formal policy acceptance of SSM... that ~70% of Conservative Party members voted for the so-called "neutral" position that simply had Conservatives remove the definition of marriage (as between a man and a woman), from the Conservative Party of Canada's policy document. . Well then you can say they don't necessarily support heterosexual marriage too. They have a "neutral" position on it. What are the other parties official positions?
Argus Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 So you think anti-gay policies only affect the voting of gay people? You don't think these types of policies can possibly affect the voting behaviour of family, friends of gays and people who just don't like the bigotry of anti-gay policies? I said neither of those things. I said that gays -- and those who think gay rights are extremely important -- are most unlikely to vote Conservative no matter how they reform their policies towards gays. There may well be a minority of gays who are conservative in their fiscal philosophies, but i doubt that trumps their likely very liberal social beliefs. Likewise those who feel gay rights are a consideration in voting almost certainly have a whole host of extremely liberal beliefs, both social and fiscal, and are unlikely to vote Conservative either. Does the overwhelming obvious offend your delicate sensibilities? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Newfoundlander Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 Why are people who support gay rights most unlikely to vote Conservative though?
Argus Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 I don't really know what you said, you seem to struggle writing down your backward ideas. I'm sorry if your extremism makes it difficult to understand how someone can state an obvious fact without causing you to fume and get all flustered over what might be behind that statement. As was pointed out by a columnist we've had gay cabinet ministers, Harper's had key staff who are gay. One of the men who wants to be president of the party is gay. All of them closeted. There is no uniformity of thought in any community but the gay community and those around them are overwhelmingly very liberal in their attitudes, and very unlikely to be voting for a conservative party. If saying that offends you, well, I can't even imagine how I could care less. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Newfoundlander Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 The guy who wants to be President of the Conservatives isn't in the closet. And what difference does it make if someone is not out publicly? It doesn't change the fact that they're gay. Why exactly do you think a party that is suppose to support personal freedom and small government should be telling adults who they can and can't marry? Not to mention their view went against the law.
Argus Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 Why exactly do you think a party that is suppose to support personal freedom and small government should be telling adults who they can and can't marry? Not to mention their view went against the law. Why exactly do you think I support the government telling adults who they can and can't marry? Have I said so? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Newfoundlander Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 Why exactly do you think I support the government telling adults who they can and can't marry? Have I said so? Well you're going on about how the Conservatives are appealing to the "gays" by adopting a policy that shows they're not opposed to a 10 year old Canadian law allowing same sex marriage. And arguing about how they can't get support from the "gay community."
Argus Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) Well you're going on about how the Conservatives are appealing to the "gays" by adopting a policy that shows they're not opposed to a 10 year old Canadian law allowing same sex marriage. And arguing about how they can't get support from the "gay community." Does my talking about an issue in political terms on a web site devoted to political discussions offend you? Edited May 29, 2016 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Newfoundlander Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 Does my talking about an issue in political terms on a web site devoted to political discussions offend you? good answer.
BC_chick Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 Why is it a disgrace? It seems to me that it's entirely in keeping with the elder Trudeau's statement that "the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." Are you saying it should be the government's role to push same sex marriage? The stance itself isn't a disgrace. The disgraceful part is that it took 10 f-ing years after it became law for them to finally a bellow out a meagre ok. It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
sharkman Posted May 29, 2016 Report Posted May 29, 2016 I'm for the party that doesn't needlessly choose to run massive deficits, and create big structural deficits with OAS and EI. Undoing all the debt pay down and hardwork of the previous 15 - 20 years. Chrétien and Martin must be shaking their heads. Yeah, Justin runs a campaign on 10 billion deficits, finds out the 2015 deficit was much smaller than anticipated and so decides that 10 billion deficits are not enough. And Liberal voters are fine with that. But what a decade, eh? Harper managed to win elections and keep Canada going in the right direction in spite of many serious economic and other challenges. I expect that the empty suit Trudeau will be exposed for what he is by year 3. Canadians are not very politically savvy, so it'll take a while.
taxme Posted May 30, 2016 Report Posted May 30, 2016 a whole lotta Harper saying, "friends"! The transcript: One of the great things that Harper was so good at was saying hello in french first,and in English second. Just about every meeting that he attended he would start off in french first. With English being the dominant language in Canada one would think that he would start off speaking English first. Harper was as politically correct as the rest of our politicians. Quebec comes first, the rest of Canada second. That just about sums up Canada today.
PIK Posted May 30, 2016 Report Posted May 30, 2016 It was nice to listen to harper speak again. A mature elder statesmen ,instead of the bumbling ooh, ahh PM we have now. Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Army Guy Posted May 31, 2016 Report Posted May 31, 2016 The stance itself isn't a disgrace. The disgraceful part is that it took 10 f-ing years after it became law for them to finally a bellow out a meagre ok. 10 years really, this issue has been with us since the beginning of time....And your just now standing on a soap box calling the stance disgusting....But then again it's been the Christian religious stance since the beginning of time....but shit it's just the Christian religion..... We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
BC_chick Posted May 31, 2016 Report Posted May 31, 2016 10 years really, this issue has been with us since the beginning of time....And your just now standing on a soap box calling the stance disgusting....But then again it's been the Christian religious stance since the beginning of time....but shit it's just the Christian religion..... Meh, several denominations have accepted it and even perform SSM ceremonies. Even if religion had any place in politics (which it doesn't), CPC is still way late getting on board. It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
G Huxley Posted May 31, 2016 Report Posted May 31, 2016 Well at least there was 1 good thing about Harper. He obtained more free trade agreements than any other prime minister and nearly concluded the TPP & Canada-Europe FTAs. He wasn't pro trade enough though, and his irrational support for supply management probably slowed down our ability to get an FTA with the EU and weakened our negotiating position for the TPP. Too bad we can't have someone like Martha Hall Findlay or Belinda Stronach run the country. You think Canada should have signed away even more of its sovereignty?
-1=e^ipi Posted May 31, 2016 Report Posted May 31, 2016 Sovereignty doesn't put food on the table or pay rent. Economic activity does.
Recommended Posts