Andrew Scheer needs to go.

[SpankyMcFarland]

17 hours ago, AngusThermopyle said:

Personally I think Pierre Poilievre would do a good job. I watch quite a bit of QP and he's as sharp and cutting as a scalpel, a very intelligent man. Give Michelle Rempel some more time to become a little more seasoned and she'd be great as well.

I’m surprised they didn’t run for the leadership. However, likeability is a key requirement for the top job and I’ve never seen much of that from Pierre. Rempel would be a better choice and a woman would address a subliminal problem the Conservatives have as Reform in disguise. If they do tack right it better be on a few chosen issues like budgets and immigration or they’ll be toast. Given that Trudeau has moved the Liberals left, there are surely more votes to be had in the centre of Canadian politics than on the Bernier fringe? We saw how much demand there is for that product right now.
 

 

[Dougie93]

As unimpressive as Scheer is, it's not really his fault.

The core message of conservatism is not going resonate beyond a core base while interest rates are being kept so low.

The electorate feels no reason to conserve when there is no cost to national helicopter mommy flying around dropping free money on voters.

[Zeitgeist]

12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

As unimpressive as Scheer is, it's not really his fault.

The core message of conservatism is not going resonate beyond a core base while interest rates are being kept so low.

The electorate feels no reason to conserve when there is no cost to national helicopter mommy flying around dropping free money on voters.

I have to agree.  The Conservative platform is almost identical to the Liberal one, minus the carbon tax.  In the Trudeau era it’s about how many points you can score for victimhood and how much money/favouritism your special interest group can extort from government/taxpayers.  Taxpayers will pay big at a later because interest rates are low today and so is unemployment.  If the economy tanks and/or interest rates climb, look out.  

Edited October 23, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

I If the economy tanks and/or interest rates climb, look out.  

Chaos is a ladder, that's the only time you can change anything.

[Dougie93]

How did populism catch fire in America? 

Failure of the Iraq War. 2008 Financial Crisis.  Collapse in the Rust Belt and associated opiate epidemic.

When hard times come. when a nation is humiliated, that's when the masses get rowdy.

It's called Revanchism.

The Elite Consensus in Canada is whistling past the graveyard, they are sowing the seeds of their own overthrow.

To the lampposts, fetch the rope.

Vive le Quebec libre.

Pierre Trudeau is dead.   There is nobody to save Confederation this time around.

Ave Caesar, Canada delenda est. /salutes

Edited October 23, 2019 by Dougie93

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Boges said:

1) Harper wasn't turfed after only reducing the AdScam weakened Martin Liberals to a Minority in 2004. Conservative leaders should get two elections unless they get trounced. 

2) But will you trust a faction of the CPC to stop electing people because of their views on Social Issues? 

 

Scheer is not Harper. He shows none of Harper's strength or political savvy.

Edited October 23, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

You gotta spend money to make money.  Even bank robbers have to buy guns and bullets, gas, etc.. 

We're not spending money to make money. We're spending it to buy votes.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, scribblet said:

Who would replace him, I can't think of anyone right now other than Lisa Rait who lost her seat. 

Erin O'Toole? Peter McKay?

Edited October 23, 2019 by Argus

[Dougie93]

Spending money to make money refers to being staked.  

It's no shield against bankruptcy, if you don't invest wisely.

National helicopter mommy flying around dumping borrowed money everywhere is not investment

That's called blowing your wad on hookers & blow.

[Zeitgeist]

Well Confederation is being squeezed by both Quebec and the West, though this has always ebbed and flowed.  I don’t think the issue is Confederation itself, which I think is better than not having one.  Nevertheless, money/materialism drives much of what we do. Only in tough times will oil money from Alberta trump Quebec exceptionalism.  Interestingly, the Conservatives saw a rise in BC, which seems to indicate that some constituents have had it with the anti-development tree huggers and tax-and-spend NDPers.  Quebec is holding onto its anti-pipeline and Bill 21 quirks.  Bill 21 doesn’t surprise me.  Not supporting an energy corridor just seems stupid.  

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well Confederation is being squeezed by both Quebec and the West, though this has always ebbed and flowed.  I don’t think the issue is Confederation itself, which I think is better than not having one.

You don't need to force people together in a dysfunctional shotgun marriage to have association.

Confederation backfires, you try to jam things down people throats, they resist, kicking and screaming,

Let them control their own destinies without fear of imposition, then they can relax and negotiate to their mutual interests.

[Dougie93]

Confederation was never a Canadian imperative.   It was imposed by the British upon Canadians with no notice in a panic.

It was built to do three things;

Keep the Amerivans out.  That obviously failed since Canada has become a totally reliant American protectorate in the wake of British imperial succession.

Keep the French in.  To what purpose now?  Again, British imperial imperative which no longer makes sense, Quebec is just wrecking the place for the rest.

Keep the Indians down.  Morally bankrupt, and the source of the racist apartheid police state which is creeping to treat everyone like it does the Indians

Edited October 23, 2019 by Dougie93

[scribblet]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Erin O'Toole? Peter McKay?

Not Peter McKay, how about Pierre Pollivue (sp)

[-1=e^ipi]

19 hours ago, Shady said:

I don’t know what you mean by Harper had his shot.  He won back to back majority governments.  He had his shot and won.

Harper had his shot against Trudeau and lost.

Harper 2.0 (Scheer) had his shot against Trudeau and lost despite LNC-Lavalin and Blackface. Scheer literally ran on a platform of "we should change nothing" during the CPC leadership race, so the label of Harper 2.0 is completely accurate.

It wouldn't surprise me if the conservatives pick a Harper 3.0 and lose again.

 

Conservatives are about conserving things and not changing or adapting to new circumstances. This can include conserving losing strategies.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Conservatives are about conserving things and not changing or adapting to new circumstances. This can include conserving losing strategies.

The CPC is not about ideology, they're just the Other Liberals, same motivation, which is the perks and prerogatives of being in office.

They are petit bourgeois,  they simply crave the perks and prerogatives of being politically connected.   It's vanity and graft.

[-1=e^ipi]

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well Confederation is being squeezed by both Quebec and the West, though this has always ebbed and flowed.  I don’t think the issue is Confederation itself, which I think is better than not having one.  Nevertheless, money/materialism drives much of what we do. Only in tough times will oil money from Alberta trump Quebec exceptionalism.  Interestingly, the Conservatives saw a rise in BC, which seems to indicate that some constituents have had it with the anti-development tree huggers and tax-and-spend NDPers.  Quebec is holding onto its anti-pipeline and Bill 21 quirks.  Bill 21 doesn’t surprise me.  Not supporting an energy corridor just seems stupid.  

Or it could be that there are a lot of people in BC, particularly in the lower mainland, who support Hong Kong.

[-1=e^ipi]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The CPC is not about ideology

Of course there is no ideology, conservatism is about the irrational desire to conserve stupid policies, be it supply management in Canada or killing gay people is Saudi Arabia. Thus the CPC's irrational hatred of taxing CO2 emissions, despite it being the most cost effective way to reduce emissions and despite it costing them the election.

[Dougie93]

Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

Of course there is no ideology, conservatism is about the irrational desire to conserve stupid policies, be it supply management in Canada or killing gay people is Saudi Arabia. Thus the CPC's irrational hatred of taxing CO2 emissions, despite it being the most cost effective way to reduce emissions and despite it costing them the election.

They don't even believe in any of that, the political class in Canada has no ideology, Liberals and Conservatives are interchangeable.

It's well known that MP's are just barking seals and all policy is made by a tiny cabal of "advisers"

The only reason to be an MP in Canada is to avoid having to get a real job and the cushy indexed pension for life.

[ironstone]

On 10/22/2019 at 6:40 PM, Cannucklehead said:

You gotta spend money to make money.  Even bank robbers have to buy guns and bullets, gas, etc.. 

Why did it fail in Ontario with all the massive spending during the McGuinty/Wynne years? Take note that Trudeau has the same advisors pulling his strings.

[Cannucklehead]

13 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Why did it fail in Ontario with all the massive spending during the McGuinty/Wynne years? Take note that Trudeau has the same advisors pulling his strings.

Probably because he spent 46 billion in repairs to the nuclear power plants.  Gum and duct tape wont cut it.  

[Dougie93]

15 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Why did it fail in Ontario with all the massive spending during the McGuinty/Wynne years? Take note that Trudeau has the same advisors pulling his strings.

Oh but it does work, it's simply not meant to benefit the masses but rather the cronies.

The way Canada works is that the government steals from the majority to give to their cronies, those cronies then turn around and fund the parties.

So Liz Sandals gives $7 million in tax dollars to the teachers unions for "pizza and pop" while they are negotiating.

This is how Canada works writ large, it's a company town run by and for the entrenched interest cronies and not much else.  Not a country, more of a collection of cartels.

[WestCanMan]

On 10/22/2019 at 10:33 AM, Argus said:

Personally I want him gone. He has failed to make any kind of connection with Canadians. Despite Trudeau having a very low approval rating, despite his lies and ridiculous screwups with costumes, despite his corruption over SNC Lavalin, Mr. Dressup still polled higher than Scheer among Canadians.

Scheer failed to demonstrate strength or self-confidence. He was unable to defend his Socon views, or deal with any other hard questions without looking like a deer in the headlights and squirming all over the place to avoid answering straight questions. He also moved the party to the Left, abandoning virtually all conservative views and values because, evidently, he had no idea how to defend them, much less explain them and persuade others to his views.

The platform itself was a mishmash of vote-buying mini-policies with no coherent vision. There was nothing of substance beyond the energy corridor, and no specifics on how to grow Canada's economy, or how to address longstanding issues Canadians care about like Health Care. When he did speak about things, like the border mess, he offered up only vague promises with no specifics. Even conservatives have failed to warm to him. I've seen virtually zero enthusiasm for the guy (or for the platform) among conservatives.

Time for him to move aside.

The CPC gained 22 seats despite going up against the entire news media, the PPC, Libs, Greens and NDP. That's awesome imo. Taking flack from the right, the left, and the media while trying to grow your brand is not an easy thing to do. Most conservatives have absolutely no clue what Scheer was up against. If you talk to people about the Conservative party some of them still say stupid crap like "misogynists, homophobes, racists, religious bigots", etc. That's your tax dollars hard at work.

CBC (with the $795M they got from Trudeau), CTV, and all the media sycophants who shared the other $600M in Liberal bribes were doing everything they could to stem the damage from SNC, Blackface, Adm Norman, the firing of Raybould, the sexual misconduct, accepting money from foreign lobbyists, etc. If Harper did all that they would have been asking for the death penalty. The media mob were looking for any chance to portray Scheer as the bad guy. They tried to make him look like a serial abuser of women just for being the true embodiment of democratic leadership when he succinctly stated that "he was personally not in favour of abortion but understood that the majority of Canadians were in favour of it and he wouldn't challenge that right". They literally call that "dodging a question", and then they act like Singh nailed his debate questions. Singh just used off-topic elevator speeches every time he was asked a question and the media loved it. 

 

If CTV and CBC weren't afraid of Scheer they wouldn't be pimping "should Scheer resign as leader".

Trudeau won 27 less seats than he won in 2015. Four women left the Liberal party exclusively because of him. Two of them got re-elected and one quit politics. Trudeau has been found guilty of four ethics breaches. Trudeau blocked the RCMP from investigating his SNC scandal. Trudeau blocked MPs from testifying. Trudeau was credibly accused of grabbing a woman's butt and said that "he didn't know she was a reporter" and "we all experience things differently". Did the MSM ever talk about whether or not Trudeau should resign?

The NDP lost 20 seats. Almost 50% of the NDPers who had regular paycheques before the election are jobless. The ones who didn't make it to 5 years in office don't get pensions now, and you know that NDPers are all about the government handouts. Did the MSM ever say talk about Singh stepping down?

 

[WestCanMan]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

Erin O'Toole? Peter McKay?

Brad Wall should get into federal politics. He is the best Conservative politician in recent years imo.

[-1=e^ipi]

56 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Brad Wall should get into federal politics. He is the best Conservative politician in recent years imo.

So Harper 3.0?

 

Conservatives never learn.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, scribblet said:

Not Peter McKay, how about Pierre Pollivue (sp)

I realize he's the same age as Scheer but he looks young. And he certainly isn't going to give anyone the warm fuzzies!

Still, I would support him. He can at least defend his positions well.

I think that one of the reasons they voted in Scheer was a misguided belief that someone so placid and smiley would defeat the ability of the Liberals and their media allies to portray the conservatives as mean and nasty people who had a dangerous 'hidden agenda'. But they did it anyway, and did it quite easily, because Scheer has a socon background and wouldn't answer a straight question on almost anything.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Argus