Federal Conservative Leader

[Queenmandy85]

8 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Would the decision in the Delgamuukw vs British Columbia by the Supreme Court of Canada . . . . Chief Justice Antonio Lamer fall into that category ?

Defining First Nations Title protects the rights of the people who own the land. This is a decision that improves the law. 

[Michael Hardner]

53 minutes ago, jacee said:

  the good news is ...  Poilievre is OUT.  

The hard right is not pleased.  The prospect of having a Toronto-based lawyer leading the party irks them.  I guess they prefer to lose on principle over and over.  And the super principled hard rightists can go to Bernier who is 'continuing the fight'  while receiving a fraction of what 4th party also-rans Social Credit received in my lifetime.

[Queenmandy85]

Based on MacKay's record of betrayal, if he becomes leader, in 6 months he will merge us with the Liberals and suck up to Trudeau. 

[scribblet]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Based on MacKay's record of betrayal, if he becomes leader, in 6 months he will merge us with the Liberals and suck up to Trudeau. 

If you believe that I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

MacKay wouldn't be my first choice, but, as far as the merger went, he did the right thing by being realistic and pragmatic, and, to do what was best for the party.  david Orchard was never a conservative, he was just using the party as a vehicle for his own agenda.   Orchard was always  anti free-trade,and in favour of a merger - a merger that is  between the liberals and the NDP to defeat the Conservatives.   Maybe Peter MacKay saw the light. 

[Queenmandy85]

MacKay sold us out to the Socialist Credit Bolsheviks. I lived under those anti-Semitic commie bastards led by the Bennetts for years. They ripped off the people of BC and MacKay, after promising in writing not to, sold out the Conservative party. Winning an election at the cost of your soul is no victory. As soon as the Socreds got in under Harper, we suddenly had huge deficits that make Justin's spending pale to insignificance.

We need a leader who is honourable and has no connection to Social Credit / reform / communist.

[scribblet]

42 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

MacKay sold us out to the Socialist Credit Bolsheviks. I lived under those anti-Semitic commie bastards led by the Bennetts for years. They ripped off the people of BC and MacKay, after promising in writing not to, sold out the Conservative party. Winning an election at the cost of your soul is no victory. As soon as the Socreds got in under Harper, we suddenly had huge deficits that make Justin's spending pale to insignificance.

We need a leader who is honourable and has no connection to Social Credit / reform / communist.

You've lost me, I didn't know Mackay had ties to the old social credit, but certainly I would never call Reform ot Alliance anti semitic and hardly communist.    Harper wasn't part of social  credit party either, he led the United right.  Harper spent while a minority Gov't at the behest of the opposition parties.  Once he  had a majority he stopped that and left a surplus.  

I'm thankful he stopped David Orchard.

Edited January 25, 2020 by scribblet

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, jacee said:

(I'll take a mea culpe on the election donations convictions: That was no-more MP Dean del Mastro. And "forced" is what it is when your employer pressures you to do something illegal ... to keep your job. Extorted would be more accurate, though bribed is also true. If you don't see the problem with that, you don't comprehend fundamentals of democracy: Governance isn't a 'business'.) 

Poilievre's offence (punished by Elections Canada) was making government funding announcements with Conservative Party logos on his shirt and on the ceremonial cheques. Very poor understanding and no respect for keeping partisanship out of governance. 

In any case, the good news is ...  Poilievre is OUT.  

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-potter-what-if-poilievre-really-does-value-his-family-more-than-work

If there was a common denominator to it all, it was that Poilievre is not super well-liked. He’s a notorious partisan who is widely seen as a major player in helping reduce question period to the level of schoolyard taunts and fratboy antics.

He would not have been much of a leader anyway: I just can't imagine him in an international context. He's barely tolerable on a back bench. No couth. Lol 

I don't care about P P, Brad Wall would be my first choice. 

Re: bribing employees, I don't think that a politician can stop a business owner from bribing his employees to make campaign donations. 

If I start bribing people to vote for Trudeau and I get "caught" does that mean that Trudeau can't run for PM anymore? Makes no sense. 

[Queenmandy85]

Reform / Alliance were the creation of Manning whose father was an acolyte of Bible Bill Aberhart and Wacky Cec Bennett. Bennett stole BC Electric from its shareholders in a move that would have done Lenin and Trotsky proud. Preston Manning was the antithesis of a conservative. His favourite politician was Lincoln, not MacDonald. MacKay made a promise to the Conservative Party to never have anything to do with the Alliance (Socialist Credit) He lied to our faces. I have no use for Orchard either but the WRITTEN promise was made to all Conservatives to have no truck nor trade with the Manning abomination. He destroyed the Conservative Party.

[Queenmandy85]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Brad Wall would be my first choice.

Wall was an old member of Reform (and thus particpated in destroying the Conservative Party) and he is tainted by the GTH scandal. Not my choice. 

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Defining First Nations Title protects the rights of the people who own the land. This is a decision that improves the law. 

I disagree. First, this was not treaty land. The court imposed its own ideas that native ownership rights derived claims of original occupation and use. And it restated the court's earlier finding about oral histories.

Notwithstanding the challenges created by the use of oral histories as proof of historical facts, the laws of evidence must be adapted in order that this type of evidence can be accommodated and placed on an equal footing with the types of historical evidence that courts are familiar with, which largely consists of historical documents .

It created this acceptence on its own. It did so despite it being impossible to verify any such oral histories and despite very, very, very well-known and long-proven evidence about how stories change when related from one person to another even in a short period of time. It placed such 'oral histories' on the same footing as legal documents, which is utterly insane.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 He destroyed the Conservative Party.

The party was the walking dead by then anyway. It had no ideas, no vision and no reason to exist. The only reason Reform could steal so many people away from it was that the party had lost all touch with any trace of conservatism and had long become nothing but the liberal party with a blue label.

[jacee]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't care about P P, Brad Wall would be my first choice. 

Re: bribing employees, I don't think that a politician can stop a business owner from bribing his employees to make campaign donations. 

If I start bribing people to vote for Trudeau and I get "caught" does that mean that Trudeau can't run for PM anymore? Makes no sense. 

A savvy politician would refuse such donations as it could (and did) cost him his political career.

The more conservatives such as yourself dismiss corruptions of democracy, the more it becomes apparent that conservatives are not interested in democracy.

Democracy is not a business, not an autocracy.

[August1991]

On 1/23/2020 at 1:03 PM, Argus said:

Prior to 1982 parliamentary sovereignty was an established legal concept in Canada. That largely evaporated with the new constitution Which freed up judges to become activists and to base decisions on their own ethical and ideological beliefs instead of the written law, and enabled them to compel elected representatives in changing laws.

We, as individuals, are protected from the power of the State.

IMV, Trudeau Snr was correct to do this. I'm amazed that he did.

[Winnipegger]

Hey guys. I haven't posted in a quite a while. A friend is serious about seeking the federal Conservative leadership. He isn't an elected MP, but has been active a long time. He's from Winnipeg. Needs signatures.  Should I post his platform here, or create a new thread?

[Charles Anthony]

5 hours ago, Winnipegger said:

 Should I post his platform here, or create a new thread?

Tell him to join the forum. 

[Queenmandy85]

First I wish to apologize for my over the top comments yesterday. My dislike of the Social Credit Party should never over shadow the fact that is is just politics. It comes from the childhood trauma of living under Bennett and Gaglardi. I worry that the Conservative Party has drifted from loyalty to the Crown to a more American style republicanism .

That being said, I have decided to support Erin O'Toole. He appears to be an honourable man, and as Minister of Vetrans Affairs, he is said to have worked hard on the vetrans behalf.

[OftenWrong]

None is a leader. There is not a Progressive Conservative among them. 

Too bad Mr. Harper only has baby nuts. If he'd stayed cool and played the game on, he would be PM now, and there wouldn't be this sad situation. But Mr. Harper gave up the puck.

[Queenmandy85]

It is important that after the votes are counted, Conservatives come together and not waste time festering over the defeat of a favoured candidate. I spent years wasted in anger over the defeat of John Diefenbaker. I found politics is too much fun to carry grudges. People we disagree with are not our enemies (note to self). Especially our fellow party members. After reading the silly remarks I made yesterday, I've had to swallow a bitter lesson. 

[jacee]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

None is a leader. There is not a Progressive Conservative among them. 

Ya, that PC concept died in the '80's.

The name hangs on in Ontario but it doesn't mean anything.

Hey! What about Doug Ford for federal Conservative leader ??

TAKE OUR PREMIER ... PLEASE !!!  Lol 

Edited January 26, 2020 by jacee

[OftenWrong]

24 minutes ago, jacee said:

Ya, that PC concept died in the '80's.

The name hangs on in Ontario but it doesn't mean anything.

Hey! What about Doug Ford for federal Conservative leader ??

TAKE OUR PREMIER ... PLEASE !!!  Lol 

Careful what you wish for, because that just might happen. Remember how people laughed at the notion of Donald Trump becoming president. And even though you would lose him as Ontario premier, you might gain him as PM of the Canadian Federal Syndication

[jacee]

11 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Careful what you wish for, because that just might happen. Remember how people laughed at the notion of Donald Trump becoming president. And even though you would lose him as Ontario premier, you might gain him as PM of the Canadian Federal Syndication

Ya, he's a sociopathic snake like Trump.

Amazing how conservatives are so susceptible to sociopaths.

[WestCanMan]

On 1/25/2020 at 2:40 PM, jacee said:

A savvy politician would refuse such donations as it could (and did) cost him his political career.

The more conservatives such as yourself dismiss corruptions of democracy, the more it becomes apparent that conservatives are not interested in democracy.

Democracy is not a business, not an autocracy.

I'm extremely concerned about scandals which politicians are certain to have had a hand in. Things that happen somewhere in the country which could possibly benefit them and look fishy don't rise to the level of calling them guilty.

If 600 people in your riding all make a donation to your election do you have to find out if a group of 20 of them all work in the same place, or if they all have kids that made a certain BBall team or got into a certain college?

Give me a break. SNC was a scandal. Trudeau's own hands are all over it. The fact that someone got their employees to make donations doesn't necessarily incriminate anyone, even if it's JT himself. I could rig that up easily to get someone disqualified.

[eyeball]

On 1/25/2020 at 2:09 PM, Argus said:

I disagree. First, this was not treaty land. The court imposed its own ideas that native ownership rights derived claims of original occupation and use. And it restated the court's earlier finding about oral histories.

Notwithstanding the challenges created by the use of oral histories as proof of historical facts, the laws of evidence must be adapted in order that this type of evidence can be accommodated and placed on an equal footing with the types of historical evidence that courts are familiar with, which largely consists of historical documents .

It created this acceptence on its own. It did so despite it being impossible to verify any such oral histories and despite very, very, very well-known and long-proven evidence about how stories change when related from one person to another even in a short period of time. It placed such 'oral histories' on the same footing as legal documents, which is utterly insane.

 

In light of how much effort governments put into dodging the written evidence of their own past malfeasance I'm willing to cut native people a lot of slack. And I mean a lot.

[OftenWrong]

Bergen drops out. She knew she would have only been been food for the gods just like the other slo-eyed, but equally unqualified wench.

Man the conservatives must really think the public is stupid, and we are. But they are even stupider than we, it seems. 

Edited January 30, 2020 by OftenWrong

[SkyHigh]

On 1/24/2020 at 3:17 PM, Argus said:

I'm confused about why you find my claim 'outlandish'. I'll take it as a given you have no knowledge whatever about Canadian history or law and are too intellectually lazy to bother to find out. I'll also take it as a given you have no actual interest in discussion so much as preening about your leftist ideological biases.

You want me to explain how parliament and the courts work? Prior to 1982 the courts could find the actions of the Canadian government unconstitutional only under very narrow circumstances, such as if they were taking some action reserved for the provinces.

Here is a decent explanation that you might, perhaps, be able to understand if you actually have any interest in it - which I doubt. We get visitors from Rabble from time to time, always with chips on their shoulders and expressing their disdain for conservative or semi conservative views here. They don't last long as it makes them uncomfortable when people contradict their rigid beliefs.

https://hillnotes.ca/2015/12/16/parliament-and-the-courts-balancing-the-roles/

Though i was amused by the projection employed in your adhomenim, as adhomenims are widely regarded as the most "intellectually lazy" form of argument, and by your contention that an objective analysis of the law is somehow a leftist ideological bias, but honestly I expected no less.

Now to the crux of the argument

I will forgo any comment on the author's opinion as they themself concede that "these are issues of discussion that have not yet be resolved", and focus on the facts.

You contended that the constitution of 1982 stripped parliament of their supremacy, yet the link you gave me references the 1867 constitution and states " the judicial branch can and must restrict the authority of parliament" seems they've always been able to check parliament. 

Also in the link you gave me there was a specific reference to a court case Canada vs Bedford where it is clearly stated " parliament maintains the ability to respond at the legislative level to an unfavorable judicial interpretation, again in direct contradiction to your claim.

Obviously anyone with even a passing understanding of the law, will freely admit that ratifying the charter into the constitution, did alter the mechanisms employed by each branch of government but did not alter the roles of said branches, but more relevant to the discussion is the section of the aforementioned charter which is the Notwithstanding clause, who's entire point is to protect parliamentary supremacy.

See that is how an intelligent, reasoned person makes an argument, i didn't need to attack you personally or revert to partisan assumptions, still curious as to how anything ive said has "expressed disdain for conservative views", do you view everything through the prism of right or left? Do you see how that can just confirm conformation bias and lead to faulty conclusions?

I hope to receive a thoughtful, measured, fact based response, but fear you will just return with another rant laced with fallacies and partisanship.