Who should the Ontario PCs pick as their next leadership candidate

[Argus]

18 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Sexual preference has nothing to do with this. It is about taking advantage of someone in high school when you are 10 years older,

Like Pierre Trudeau did.

Men are sluts. The only thing which holds them back from being as slutty as possible is that women generally aren't. Gay men have no such brake on their behavior, which is why they're notorious sluts and into far more 'unusual' sexual activities, by and large, than your average heterosexual male. There's also a very strong interest in much younger men in the gay community, which is  successful far more often than in the heterosexual community because, like I said, men are sluts. So yeah, if we look at some of these gay politicians and see what they've done in their sex loves I bet a lot of the mainstream would find their hair standing on end

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Argus

[August1991]

On 2/1/2018 at 11:29 AM, Argus said:

Brown bears the full responsibility for being single and looking for sex? I wonder what the private sex lives of some of the gay men in parliament is like and how that would look under a public microscope. 

Argus,

No. Patrick Brown bears the full responsibility of giving an absurd press conference when faced with a standard, typical political crisis.

(Imagine the kind of pressure Barack Obama was under in 2008 during the US financial crisis. Or, imagine the kind of pressure Donald Trump is under now daily.)

=====

Make no mistake. Patrick Brown's political career is not finished because of the specifics of the scandal; it is finished because he utterly broke under (minor) pressure.

As Rudyard Kipling wisely wrote: "If you can keep your head when all about you, are losing theirs and blaming it on you"

[August1991]

On 2/1/2018 at 7:24 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Very insightful....

There are always people clamouring to be elite, it's true.  What we try to find is a 'public' in the parlance of the fathers of democracy.  Masses are just groups of people.  Publics have a considered interest and actively participate in governance by expressing an opinion to the leaders they choose.

Insightful? I think the phrase "It's easier to find a new elite than it is to find a new base" comes from Mark Steyn - but I stand corrected.

=====

As to clamouring to be elite?  Despite what George Clooney or Sophie Trudeau may think, many ordinary people have no desire whatsoever to be famous or to have celebrity status.

Clooney or Trudeau may believe that they're special - in fact, they're easily replaceable.

 

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

Insightful? I think the phrase "It's easier to find a new elite than it is to find a new base" comes from Mark Steyn - but I stand corrected.

It's a good quote.

 

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

As to clamouring to be elite?  Despite what George Clooney or Sophie Trudeau may think, many ordinary people have no desire whatsoever to be famous or to have celebrity status.

"Many"... sure.  And "many" bet their whole lives on getting there.

 

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

Clooney or Trudeau may believe that they're special - in fact, they're easily replaceable.

 

But, oh to be on top.

[H10]

On 1/26/2018 at 12:15 PM, ?Impact said:

If this is true, why the frig didn't anyone, including her, do something long ago. This reeks bad.

Because this was the hit job.  Conservative Party of Ontario is paid to lose, they are a paid phony opposition.  What kind of conservative party favors abortion, carbon taxes, tax and spend and large deficits. The PCs in Ontario stay losing because they are Liberals.

[blackbird]

42 minutes ago, H10 said:

Because this was the hit job.  Conservative Party of Ontario is paid to lose, they are a paid phony opposition.  What kind of conservative party favors abortion, carbon taxes, tax and spend and large deficits. The PCs in Ontario stay losing because they are Liberals.

I would choose Doug Ford because he is the only one to come out and say he would not support a carbon tax.  The rest of them might be too much like liberals.

[?Impact]

52 minutes ago, H10 said:

The PCs in Ontario stay losing because they are Liberals.

No, they loose because the last time the were in power they betrayed Ontario, selling it away for pennies on the dollar to their friends including foreign ones. They continue to loose because they pick useless leaders.

[?Impact]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I would choose Doug Ford because he is the only one to come out and say he would not support a carbon tax.

Yes, you would prefer to destroy our environment to enrich the elite.

[dialamah]

On 2/2/2018 at 9:06 AM, Argus said:

Like Pierre Trudeau did.

Men are sluts. The only thing which holds them back from being as slutty as possible is that women generally aren't. Gay men have no such brake on their behavior, which is why they're notorious sluts and into far more 'unusual' sexual activities, by and large, than your average heterosexual male. There's also a very strong interest in much younger men in the gay community, which is  successful far more often than in the heterosexual community because, like I said, men are sluts. So yeah, if we look at some of these gay politicians and see what they've done in their sex loves I bet a lot of the mainstream would find their hair standing on end

 

This attitude is a cultural one, and has nothing to do with biological reality.   Women are just as much sluts as men are; Christian-Judeo social expectations mean that women either suppress this about themselves, or hide it well enough that people continue to believe this myth.

Quote

Bergner profiles the work of a series of sexologists, all of whom have, after a series of fascinating studies with animal and human subjects, come to what is essentially the same conclusion. Women want sex just as much as men do, and this drive is "not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety." When it comes to the craving for sexual variety, the research Bergner assembles suggests that women may be "even less well-suited for monogamy than men."

No doubt, if someone were inclined to dig a bit, there'd be sexual misbehavior on the part of female politicians just as there is on the part of male politicians.

[H10]

23 hours ago, ?Impact said:

No, they loose because the last time the were in power they betrayed Ontario, selling it away for pennies on the dollar to their friends including foreign ones. They continue to loose because they pick useless leaders.

Please explain to me how that is any different than liberal policies?  Did you forget Wynne selling off public assets like Hyrdo One to foreigners for pennies on the dollar.  Do you forget how useless Wynne is?

[?Impact]

18 hours ago, H10 said:

Please explain to me how that is any different than liberal policies?  Did you forget Wynne selling off public assets like Hyrdo One to foreigners for pennies on the dollar.  Do you forget how useless Wynne is?

I never voted for Wynne, I learned my lesson from voting for Mike Harris. I won't for for either of those corrupt parties, can you say the same?

[H10]

5 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I never voted for Wynne, I learned my lesson from voting for Mike Harris. I won't for for either of those corrupt parties, can you say the same?

I already said my piece on this, I favor a conservative who will give tax holidays to normal Ontarians.

[August1991]

At this point, I'm predicting Christine Elliot as the next leader of the Ontario PC Party.

Doug Ford will not be leader. Why? He's too connected to Toronto - and if there is anything about Ontario politics that I understand, Ontario voters dislike Toronto.

Kathleen Wynne is a rare, lucky exception - but she won because of, as bridge players say, a good split. The McGuinty brothers were from Ottawa; Robarts was from London - even Bob Rae was born in Ottawa.

===========

With all that said, I am impressed with Victor Fedeli. No idea whether he's honest/dishonest but based on actions: Good guy .

[Michael Hardner]

Christine Elliot eh ?  Mulroney is intriguing though.  I would like younger people with broad experience to have more power frankly and she's exactly that.

I heard on the radio that all three major candidates believe in fighting climate change, by the way, so one particular brand of crazy conspiracy seems to not have infected the Ontario Conservatives, arguably the sanest conservatives in North America.  Personally I think Toronto conservatives win but I'm a royalist.

 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Christine Elliot eh ?  Mulroney is intriguing though.  I would like younger people with broad experience to have more power frankly and she's exactly that.

I heard on the radio that all three major candidates believe in fighting climate change, by the way, so one particular brand of crazy conspiracy seems to not have infected the Ontario Conservatives, arguably the sanest conservatives in North America.  Personally I think Toronto conservatives win but I'm a royalist.

You mean because they've given in and decided its not politically advantageous to question the prevailing mentality?

Hey, don't get me wrong, I believe in global warming. What I don't believe is that anything Canada does is going to have the slightest, tiniest impact on the world's temperature. What I also don't believe in is a global agreement which calls on a few dozen western democracies to hugely hinder their economies, to pay hundreds of billions to everyone else, and which allows everyone else to gleefully build more coal fired power plants and increase their CO2 production however much they want.

And which will also have, at best, a very minimal impact on the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

You mean because they've given in and decided its not politically advantageous to question the prevailing mentality?

This is otherwise known as the 'sheeple are stupid' angle, and I have never seen it applied across the board but rather when "the" public disagrees with individual positions.

Your beliefs are noted, and have nothing to do with 'accepting' climate change, but admittedly do have a lot to do with 'fighting it'.

[?Impact]

Something interesting to note is the lack of any support for Vic Fedeli from any in here. Is that just because he is not well known, or do people have problems with him?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is otherwise known as the 'sheeple are stupid' angle, and I have never seen it applied across the board but rather when "the" public disagrees with individual positions.

I apply it when the issue in question is one which the average person knows virtually nothing, yet has a very determined position. I have yet to encounter anyone who supports the idea of carbon taxes who knows much of anything about what that might accomplish, or anything about the numbers involved, how much they would have to pay, or anything else. Support for climate change policy is based on an amorphous sense that 'something should be done' but no real understanding of what could be or should be done.

Even on the internet, the most ardent supports of climate change policy can't actually point to the expected positive results of carbon tax policies.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your beliefs are noted, and have nothing to do with 'accepting' climate change, but admittedly do have a lot to do with 'fighting it'.

More like a lack of interest in throwing money down the toilet because someone says "Well, I can't think of anything better to address climate change".

[Argus]

30 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Something interesting to note is the lack of any support for Vic Fedeli from any in here. Is that just because he is not well known, or do people have problems with him?

I've already expressed my distrust for him earlier in the thread. But certainly, a guy who says he doesn't want to run so he can instead focus on 'rooting out the rot' from the party is hardly one to inspire leadership. First, because he clearly won't run because he knows he won't win. Second because who the hell talks publicly about the 'rot' in their own party five months before an election? Seriously!

Edited February 8, 2018 by Argus

[OftenWrong]

So far, Doug Ford is doing remarkably well. Ford is putting out the right message, with clarity, of what his leadership is all about. I'm surprised because I thought he was a goon, but the guy has the message, and the charisma, to go all the way.

You don’t have to wait until March 10 to find out who won the Progressive Conservative leadership race. We already have a victor. Never mind if Caroline Mulroney or Christine Elliott triuphs in the end. No matter who takes over, it’s now Doug Ford’s party. Win or lose, he’s not just setting the agenda. He’s undoing it.

Link

 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

So far, Doug Ford is doing remarkably well. Ford is putting out the right message, with clarity, of what his leadership is all about. I'm surprised because I thought he was a goon, but the guy has the message, and the charisma, to go all the way.

You don’t have to wait until March 10 to find out who won the Progressive Conservative leadership race. We already have a victor. Never mind if Caroline Mulroney or Christine Elliott triuphs in the end. No matter who takes over, it’s now Doug Ford’s party. Win or lose, he’s not just setting the agenda. He’s undoing it.

Link

 

Doug Ford was a mediocre city councilor wildly eclipsed by his brother. I think either Elliot or Mulroney would be a sure winner next election. Ford not so much.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Doug Ford was a mediocre city councilor wildly eclipsed by his brother. I think either Elliot or Mulroney would be a sure winner next election. Ford not so much.

Doug was the sober Bud Abbott to Rob's never-ending Costello. So he might get a pass over the shenanigans of those days in the public opinion. Also the new politics of today seems more fascinated with a cult of personality, than actual substance. Interesting times...

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2018-02-06 at 10:52 AM, dialamah said:

This attitude is a cultural one, and has nothing to do with biological reality.   Women are just as much sluts as men are; Christian-Judeo social expectations mean that women either suppress this about themselves, or hide it well enough that people continue to believe this myth.

No doubt, if someone were inclined to dig a bit, there'd be sexual misbehavior on the part of female politicians just as there is on the part of male politicians.

I disagree. Nature is involved as well as nurture. Females, with a tiny number of gametes compared to males, have to be more discerning. Biology is not destiny, though; men are under no obligation to be promiscuous. 

[Argus]

This is the sort of issue which has bothered me for a while. It's people being able to vote for candidates for a political party they don't know or care about. It's so easy for members of a given ethnic community to simply plonk down ten bucks to buy a membership and then vote in one of 'their' people, despite knowing and caring little about the political party in question. This is how Jagmeet Singh became leader of the NDP.

In this particular case it's a guy who wants the Tories to lose the provincial election. He's a Green, and he plonked down ten bucks so he could vote in the Tory leadership convention in hopes he and others like him could help get the least electable person to win.

I think it needs to be harder to vote for candidates for a political party. I think you should have to be a member for at least a year, and attend at least one party event before you're allowed to vote for a candidate.

Mike Morden, research director at Samara Canada, a democracy advocacy group, says parties play a “gatekeeper role” when it comes to bringing ordinary people into politics, but remain very unregulated, other than financial restrictions.
That’s an “exposed flank in our democracy,” he says.
“We’re kind of in this funny in-between place where you’re not having really rich party deliberations … and it’s very easy to sign up new members temporarily to kind of flood a nomination or a leadership race. But it’s also not mass participation like a primary in the United States.”
Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, says irregularities, including people joining parties they don’t support, point to flaws that can run deeper.
“It’s a concern because you never know when things that threaten the integrity of the vote might actually end up changing the result in an unfair, unjust way,” Conacher says.
He says an independent regulator, like Elections Ontario, should oversee and audit political parties.

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2018/02/24/hes-a-green-backer-voting-in-the-ontario-pc-race-should-we-care.html

Edited February 25, 2018 by Argus

[?Impact]

22 hours ago, Argus said:

I think you should have to be a member for at least a year, and attend at least one party event before you're allowed to vote for a candidate.

You also need to be the person you say you are, and not some candidate getting a big long list of names as seems to be often done. What would you consider a party event, hopefully not the convention as that is very difficult for most to attend. Perhaps a local riding association meeting, or some meet & greet rally? What about one of those massive hate fest rallies that DT liked to hold?

What about someone donating to a party, without getting a vote? I expect there are a lot of people who donate to parties, but have never attended any events. If you take away the right to vote, will they be much less likely to donate? In the Internet age, there are a lot of ways to interact without physically attending, should some of those be considered?