CPC 2017: Bernier vs Alexander

[PIK]

Well I am now still with max, but O'toole is coming up fast.

[overthere]

On 3/21/2017 at 0:47 AM, August1991 said:

 

That worked well for Claude Wagner in 1976 against Joe Clark. [/sarcasm]

===

Overthere,

Since Mackenzie King, a Canadian federal PM must "speak" French and English. Full stop.

After that, like much in politics, it's a question of accent.

Oh, I understand how it works!  Being Englais does not necessarily mean rank ignorance.

 

In the last half century, these are the white men from Quebec who have been PM: Trudeau the Elder(a few times), Mulroney, Chretien, Martin, Trudeau the Younger.  With about 20% of the population, Quebec has had about 75% of the PM time in the last half century.

 

Did you want to interrupt that grand tradition by not electing another white guy from Quebec?  There has been only one politcian in the last half century that has dared to insult  La Belle Province by being elected elected without support from Quebec, and dare we invoke the name of the Goat Faced Devil Himself, Harper?

 

 

[August1991]

7 hours ago, overthere said:

Oh, I understand how it works!  Being Englais does not necessarily mean rank ignorance.

....

 

Overthere, we thankfully live nowadays in a world where individuals can choose to be, well, whatever.

But when someone represents the State - or even leads a government -  that person must deal with all (most) of us.

=====

In Canada, in 2015, it means that our federal PM must speak intelligible French.

BTW: As the Enlightened 18th century US Constitution added age/birth conditions for US President, I reckon that our Canadian Constitution should also have language conditions for Head of State and Supreme Court judges - heck, the BNA Act already has such conditions. Canada, what a country!

PullAway: Knowing the Other (speaking its language) means you may understand Life. 

Edited March 23, 2017 by August1991

[PIK]

16 hours ago, overthere said:

Oh, I understand how it works!  Being Englais does not necessarily mean rank ignorance.

 

In the last half century, these are the white men from Quebec who have been PM: Trudeau the Elder(a few times), Mulroney, Chretien, Martin, Trudeau the Younger.  With about 20% of the population, Quebec has had about 75% of the PM time in the last half century.

 

Did you want to interrupt that grand tradition by not electing another white guy from Quebec?  There has been only one politcian in the last half century that has dared to insult  La Belle Province by being elected elected without support from Quebec, and dare we invoke the name of the Goat Faced Devil Himself, Harper?

 

 

Best thing to ever happen. That put quebec in it's place for the 1st time in history. They learned that they are no longer needed for majority. Of course having their support is nice.

[overthere]

13 hours ago, August1991 said:

 

Overthere, we thankfully live nowadays in a world where individuals can choose to be, well, whatever.

But when someone represents the State - or even leads a government -  that person must deal with all (most) of us.

=====

In Canada, in 2015, it means that our federal PM must speak intelligible French.

BTW: As the Enlightened 18th century US Constitution added age/birth conditions for US President, I reckon that our Canadian Constitution should also have language conditions for Head of State and Supreme Court judges - heck, the BNA Act already has such conditions. Canada, what a country!

PullAway: Knowing the Other (speaking its language) means you may understand Life. 

Even the most strident Quebecois knows that bilingual culture is an increasingly expensive conceit.  So far, that does not extend to electing anybody other than white men from Quebec.  That will change, and I hope Quebec survives it, since their relevance on the national scene just continues to steadily dwindle every generation. I'm just trying to let you down easily in the reality that nobody else outside Canada gives a shit, and  our increasingly diverse domestic population is ehaded that way and pronto.  I hope my frank manner does not distress you unduly, but that is simple reality..

[August1991]

On 3/23/2017 at 3:00 PM, overthere said:

Even the most strident Quebecois knows that bilingual culture is an increasingly expensive conceit.  So far, that does not extend to electing anybody other than white men from Quebec.  That will change, and I hope Quebec survives it, since their relevance on the national scene just continues to steadily dwindle every generation. I'm just trying to let you down easily in the reality that nobody else outside Canada gives a shit....

Overthere, I merely argued that it is impossible to become a federal Canadian PM in 2017 unless one speaks intelligible French.

=====

The writers of the US Constitution required a US birth, and age 40, for their federal president. Frankly, I think our requirement (ability in two languages) is better. For example, our requirement was decided by tradition and habit. And it respects the minority.  

Edited March 25, 2017 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

.....The writers of the US Constitution required a US birth, and age 40, for their federal president. Frankly, I think our requirement (ability in two languages) is better. For example, our requirement was decided by tradition and habit. And it respects the minority.  

 

So a bi-lingual 16 year-old would be OK ? 

The US minimum age requirement is 35 years, not 40, and there is also a 14 year residency requirement. 

[overthere]

14 hours ago, August1991 said:

Overthere, I merely argued that it is impossible to become a federal Canadian PM in 2017 unless one speaks intelligible French.

=====

The writers of the US Constitution required a US birth, and age 40, for their federal president. Frankly, I think our requirement (ability in two languages) is better. For example, our requirement was decided by tradition and habit. And it respects the minority.  

It is very weak argument given the actual electoral evidence.

 

Nope, gotta be a white guy from Quebec: 20% of the population, 75% of the control.

 

We have had the occasional brief, humorous oddity like Campbell, Turner, Clark.... but the numbers don't lie.

 

That means Bernier will be the candidate. Appeasing Quebec is never optional.

 

Except for that one time...... Harper had La Belle Province filling their pants, gibbering in fear... but those days are in the past.  It is all back to normal now.

[hot enough]

On 1/19/2017 at 11:51 AM, Argus said:

Even though 70% of Canadians told a poll they support testing for Canadian values...

What ... 

Edited March 25, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

Go conservatives go, try to get your O'Trump elected.

[August1991]

On 3/25/2017 at 2:37 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So a bi-lingual 16 year-old would be OK ? 

The US minimum age requirement is 35 years, not 40, and there is also a 14 year residency requirement. 

I reckon that you Americans have set the world standard in accepting foreigners.

But we Canadians, fellow Americans, have set the standard in respecting minorities.

[Newfoundlander]

Tomorrow is the deadline to signup to be a party member in order to vote. 

It's possible some candidates may drop out after this. Although considering more were expected to drop out before now that may never happen.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Newfoundlander said:

Tomorrow is the deadline to signup to be a party member in order to vote. 

It's possible some candidates may drop out after this. Although considering more were expected to drop out before now that may never happen.

Well, right now I am leaning towards O'tool, Scheer, O'leary, Bernier, in that order. I like Shceer more in some ways but his lack of experience is troubling. I like O'Toole's varied experience. I like O'Leary's speaking ability. I like Bernier's platform.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Argus

[Newfoundlander]

I'm Chong, O'Toole, Bernier, Raitt. Raitt's lack of a platform troubles me but I like her. Don't care much about the other candidates. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

O'Toole is the Garneau candidate - centrist, competent, calming. He's not going to excite anybody.   

[Argus]

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

O'Toole is the Garneau candidate - centrist, competent, calming. He's not going to excite anybody.   

Probably not but he's not going to scare anyone either. The Tories are not going to produce a prettyboy with a flare for selfies. It's not the kind of party which even attract that sort. They need to demonstrate competence mixed with a degree of fairness and humanity which many felt the previous Harper government lacked.

I might have voted for Garneau last election. He was a far superior candidate than Trudeau.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Argus

[Newfoundlander]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

Probably not but he's not going to scare anyone either. The Tories are not going to produce a prettyboy with a flare for selfies. It's not the kind of party which even attract that sort. They need to demonstrate competence mixed with a degree of fairness and humanity which many felt the previous Harper government lacked.

I might have voted for Garneau last election. He was a far superior candidate than Trudeau.

 

Trudeau was a also celebrity candidate, just like O'Leary is.

[SpankyMcFarland]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

Probably not but he's not going to scare anyone either. The Tories are not going to produce a prettyboy with a flare for selfies. It's not the kind of party which even attract that sort. They need to demonstrate competence mixed with a degree of fairness and humanity which many felt the previous Harper government lacked.

I might have voted for Garneau last election. He was a far superior candidate than Trudeau.

In fairness, Bernier is photogenic by regular non-JT standards, O'Leary is a media celeb, Scheer is selfie-worthy and even poor old Kellie has tried to sex up her look, so image does count in the Conservative Party. 

I still like O'Toole and Raitt the most but O'Toole looks like the one with an outside chance now, a viable challenger for PM if JT's sheen rubs off fast and we start looking for another Joe Clarke. He delivers bad news well and it's hard to get angry with him. 

Bernier's success really surprises me. That episode with Couillard was tres dodgy and showed poor judgement. 

 

Edited March 29, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[August1991]

On 3/27/2017 at 0:34 PM, Argus said:

Well, right now I am leaning towards O'tool, Scheer, O'leary, Bernier, in that order...

Key point: Argus, your order.

Edited April 2, 2017 by August1991

[August1991]

On 3/27/2017 at 8:28 PM, Newfoundlander said:

I'm Chong, O'Toole, Bernier, Raitt. Raitt's lack of a platform troubles me but I like her. Don't care much about the other candidates. 

You too, Newfoundlander, a key point: your order of choice.

====

For analysis, completely ignore CBC, but pay close attention to 3rd, 4th choices.

Radio-Canada? Ces journalistes comprennent mieux le Canada-anglais.  

Edited April 2, 2017 by August1991

[Newfoundlander]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

You too, Newfoundlander, a key point: your order of choice.

====

For analysis, completely ignore CBC, but pay close attention to 3rd, 4th choices.

Radio-Canada? Ces journalistes comprennent mieux le Canada-anglais.  

 

What?

[August1991]

On 4/2/2017 at 6:27 AM, Newfoundlander said:

What?

The CPC Leadership is all about second, third, fourth choices. No one will win on the first ballot.

(English CBC wrongly sees it as a first choice ballot. Or perhaps, they simply don't care.)

Radio-Canada understands the CPC selection process.

Edited April 4, 2017 by August1991

[Newfoundlander]

11 hours ago, August1991 said:

The CPC Leadership is all about second, third, fourth choices. No one will win on the first ballot.

(English CBC wrongly sees it as a first choice ballot. Or perhaps, they simply don't care.)

Radio-Canada understands the CPC selection process.

 

I'm well aware it'll come down to second, third and fourth choices. I've heard English CBC talk numerous times about who can pick up second, third choice votes. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

I can't see how anybody rates Alexander as leadership material. Like Leitch, he's a talented guy in the wrong line of work - petulant and dorky. He just lands himself effortlessly in needless controversies and he's no man of the people either. 

[August1991]

8 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I can't see how anybody rates Alexander as leadership material. Like Leitch, he's a talented guy in the wrong line of work - petulant and dorky. He just lands himself effortlessly in needless controversies and he's no man of the people either. 

Just like Dion, who won the federal Liberal leadership in 2006.

=====

By all polls, Bernier cannot win on the first ballot. From then, it's all about a "Anybody But Bernier" vote. IOW, who will non-Bernier voters choose?

I suspect that Alexander will be the catch-all non-Bernier choice. Simply put: what will a first choice O'Leary or Leitch voter put as a third or fourth choice? 

In 1976, the so-called "Progressive" Conservatives chose third place Clark rather than Wagner or Mulroney (all three Catholics, btw).

In 2017, I reckon the federal Conservatives will pick, for the first time, a leader with a French family name - but a WASP will come second.