Conservative Leadership September 10th

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Jack9000 said:

lol there is plenty of Right wing politicans in parliament dude.. and you are not a centrist .

I bet I’m more left than you are in terms of supporting workers.  You seem big on government control, which is the opposite of lessez faire.  If you’re talking green policies, I was an activist for shutting down coal generation and I have the newspaper articles and letters from politicians to prove it.  I also worked to establish the Greenbelt boundary around the GTA and I’ve invested personally in green power.  I’ve learned the hard way about the reality of how some green policies are really ineffective.  I find that generally a lot of people have superficial ideas about what kinds of policies are truly effective for raising people up and genuinely improving the environment.  

Edited March 7, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Moonbox]

42 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

We have gay marriage and no one is taking it away.  I don’t know what social conservative issues you think the Conservatives would take up.  I don’t see any.  

Doesn't matter.  The spectre of these issues being tampered with is what scares people away from the CPC. and dudes like Poilievre are the ones who make those fears feel more palpable. 

To be fair, he's said that anti-abortion law "wouldn't pass" in his government, but on the flip side he's been vocally pro-life (anti-abortion) in the past AND he's indicated in recent years he'd allow Conservative MPs to introduce anti-abortion bills to vote on in the Commons.  That's not going to be good enough for most Canadians, who consider these fundamental Human Rights and won't vote for a leader who doesn't stand up for them.  

 

 

[Moonbox]

45 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I also worked to establish the Greenbelt boundary around the GTA and I’ve invested personally in green power.  

Did you invest personally in Green Power, or did you sign up for free-can't-lose-money solar panels on your farm?  ?

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

1.... I am looking at the whole issue.  I think we can both agree that if oil companies know how to do something, it's how to make money.  Canada's current refineries don't even work at capacity, nor do American ones.  Why are we looking to build expensive refineries when existing capacity isn't even maxed?  Even more important, refining isn't even that profitable.  The most important and most value-adding parts of the oil industry are extraction and transportation.  Don't take my word for it either.  Here's a good article from a few years back with all sorts of ancillary references included.  You'll probably find it interesting. 

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/tristin-hopper-why-canada-shouldnt-refine-the-oil-it-exports

2.... The government's approval of the Bank of Canada Governor is a rubber-stamping.  The Canadian government understands very well that the Bank is not a political tool and that it's in everyone's best interest to let it do the job based on facts, research and math.  Perhaps if the Board wanted to troll Canada and appoint Vladimir Putin, maybe then the government would veto, but aside from that they're left to do their job.  Their job, of course, is economic and monetary and stability, not getting one party or another elected. 

Nope. 

The Directors of the Bank of Canada appointed under Section 9 of the Bank of Canada Act today announced that they have appointed Stephen S. Poloz as Governor of the Bank of Canada for a seven-year term, effective 3 June 2013. Mr. Poloz will succeed Mark Carney, who is leaving the Bank of Canada on 1 June 2013.

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2013/05/stephen-poloz-appointed-governor-of-bank-of-canada/

I don't mean to be rude, but you really don't know what you're talking about here.  

Because the government can't overrule the Bank without publicly announcing what they're doing and why.  Reshuffling Cabinet and overruling the Justice Minister was a hush-hush operation and if we had more competent opposition leaders it would have likely been a career-ender for Trudeau.  The Emergencies Act probably (hopefully) WILL end Trudeau, and it doesn't look like it would have ever passed the Senate anyways.    

3....The Bank of Canada's independence is an important part of its credibility. The government's light hand on it is vital to maintaining confidence in the system.  A government would have little/nothing to gain from flipping that table over.

 

I read your article and although it makes some very valid points, it remains an opinion piece by a journalist. and there are some point that are still not clear to me. She makes a point of pointing out that our refineries are only working at 84%, that may be all well and good, but there is only one refinery in Alberta capable of refining Bitumen and has you pointed out is working above 100 %, the other refineries at 87 % are refining imported oil or crude from Alberta/Saskatchewan 

The key to remember here is 34 bil a year is what we spend on imported oil...and we are not talking about refining bitumen for export, i was implying that we increase production to meet our own needs... use that oil for internal use to keep that 34 bil a year in Canada and not sending those jobs and hard cash to Saudi, or the US. building a refinery in the Ontario with pipeline would service central Canada, we already have oil fields in NFLD which could provide oil to refineries in NB, to supply Atlantic Canada all that is needed is a pipeline....and as for BC, the oil industry has done everything it can to bring oil and gas to bc, and bc continues to stall or does not want it...fine...my point is this one bitumen refinery to be built, and pipelines...and all of Canada could be supplied by Canadian oil, no one is talking about reducing the US supply, but increasing our own. 

Another point is Canada fuel prices are in flux when hurricane season comes and wipes out some US refinery, or US refineries go down for some reason. With our refinery in place that would not happen, as we would not be dependent on anyone... keeping 34 bil dollars here in Canada, not being dependent on any other source of oil... i get it the price is still going to be in flux according with the global market, but it would also mean that all those dollars will stay in Canada and not someone else bank account...

And i agree if there is one industry that knows how to make a buck it is the oil and gas industry... that being said they are not the problem, we the people are the problem, and of course the government which won't allow infra structure to be built regardless of the benefits it would provide, thats why we don't have more refineries or pipelines...and the assumption we can't make gas cheaper, well look at what we are sell bitumen to the US for, and tell me there is no room for profit to make our own gas and diesel...let the US make their own, by continuing to sell them raw Bitumen oil...

2... So what your saying is my source is wrong....or that i am interrupting it wrong...your going to have to help me again becasue i am struggling with this...

Here is a new source from the FP, and i guess it is wrong as well...

Created by legislation in 1934, the Bank of Canada has been led by a diverse group of men — one gender noted — through war and peace, market exuberance and meltdowns, expansion and recession.

Appointed by the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the federal Cabinet, the BoC governor is the chief executive office of the bank and chairs its board of directors, as well as heading its six-person policy-making Governing Council.

Bank of Canada's past governors | Financial Post

perhaps a misprint maybe... 

Morneau names new BoC governor | Investment Executive

Perhaps i am not the only one that does not understand how all this works...

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions ,  chrystia freeland appoints senior deputy governor 

2. not debating what their job is...just how much influence the government has on them.

3.. i get all of that, but like what I've been saying the Justice department runs the same way, it needs independence to operate effectively... Justin has already interfered in that process...and in doing so he has set a precedence that the BoC would be different how ? we already know that transparency is not one of Justin attributes... and although in all likely hood it would never happen, but he has already done so with justice... so I'm doubtful...

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Did you invest personally in Green Power, or did you sign up for free-can't-lose-money solar panels on your farm?  ?

I spent a lot of money on a money losing solar system to save the planet like a naive idiot.  At least I learned from the experience to warn other naive idiots.  

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Doesn't matter.  The spectre of these issues being tampered with is what scares people away from the CPC. and dudes like Poilievre are the ones who make those fears feel more palpable. 

To be fair, he's said that anti-abortion law "wouldn't pass" in his government, but on the flip side he's been vocally pro-life (anti-abortion) in the past AND he's indicated in recent years he'd allow Conservative MPs to introduce anti-abortion bills to vote on in the Commons.  That's not going to be good enough for most Canadians, who consider these fundamental Human Rights and won't vote for a leader who doesn't stand up for them.  

 

 

So this is why Canada is in big trouble in my opinion and may actually be unsalvageable.  The Canadian public is almost unable to debate issues, see another side to them, or abide the idea that people might hold a different point of view, even when there’s no realistic possibility of that opposing viewpoint becoming legislated in some way. Basically, the country that for years has projected an image of diversity and tolerance has actually become extremely intolerant.  The prevailing views in Canada are in a sense a force of stagnation.  Our government can’t adjust to new scientific discoveries or views because the ideological road map or central plan has become more important than any facts on the ground. I think this is what the protesters feel when they talk about tyranny. The left is lost in Canada, or rather, Canadians have lost a true sense of what it means to be left, which was always supposed to be a liberating force, lessez faire, free thinking, even libertarian in some sense.

What we have now is dysfunctional over-reliance on government to tell us how we should think and live.  We’ve come to expect this in Canada. There’s no outside to the government and associated press narrative anymore. That’s why I’m becoming disengaged from Canada and its political scene, because there is no debate.  It’s the one acceptable viewpoint and the unacceptable one, and never the twain shall meet.  It’s stultifying.  

Edited March 7, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

This is a final warning.  Stay on topic or stay out of this thread. 

[Moonbox]

9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

So this is why Canada is in big trouble in my opinion and may actually be unsalvageable.  The Canadian public is almost unable to debate issues, see another side to them, or abide the idea that people might hold a different point of view, even when there’s no realistic possibility of that opposing viewpoint becoming legislated in some way.

The Canadian public isn't interested in debating Human Rights issues.  Abortion and gay marriage are both that.  Having a different view is one thing, but playing coy on Human Rights whilst campaigning to be the leader of the Country isn't going to fly.  That's the problem with Pierre Poilievre as CPC Leader.      

9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Basically, the country that for years has projected an image of diversity and tolerance has actually become extremely intolerant.  

No.  That's kindergarten logic.  "I'm not intolerant!  YOU'RE INTOLERANT."

9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Our government can’t adjust to new scientific discoveries or views because the ideological road map or central plan has become more important than any facts on the ground. I think this is what the protesters feel when they talk about tyranny.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's you and folks like you that go out of your way to ignore/deny the scientific (and global) consensus and then turn around and tell everyone who is following them that they're wrong on the science.  Bizarre. 

This is also why Pierre Poilievre puts a target on himself by supporting the trucker's.  Whether true or not (I don't really know what his position on vaccines are) he has associated himself with an unpopular faction whose record on facts and science is abysmal.  He'll be guilty by association there, and it doesn't really matter if that's a fair assessment of his views or not.  This is the Court of Public Opinion and perception is everything.    

[Moonbox]

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Morneau names new BoC governor | Investment Executive

Perhaps i am not the only one that does not understand how all this works...

Why are you posting newspaper articles about this when the BoC website explains exactly how and who appoints BoC governors?  Naming the BoC governor is not the same thing as appointing him.  I name Charles Anthony as the moderator of this forum, but that doesn't mean I appointed him. 

If you want to start a thread about this and discuss it more than go ahead and do it, but it's massive thread drift here as we've been warned ?

[Nationalist]

12 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Doesn't matter.  The spectre of these issues being tampered with is what scares people away from the CPC. and dudes like Poilievre are the ones who make those fears feel more palpable. 

To be fair, he's said that anti-abortion law "wouldn't pass" in his government, but on the flip side he's been vocally pro-life (anti-abortion) in the past AND he's indicated in recent years he'd allow Conservative MPs to introduce anti-abortion bills to vote on in the Commons.  That's not going to be good enough for most Canadians, who consider these fundamental Human Rights and won't vote for a leader who doesn't stand up for them.  

 

 

I have been wondering what your issue is with Poilievre. Abortion. You're scared he'd start a movement to clamp down on abortion.

Now...I happen to think abortion should be available under certain conditions. None of those conditions allow for it after the 3rd month. None of them allow for abortion to be a common means of birth control. But under the correct circumstances...I can agree it has a use and should be a real option.

I would also think that the vast majority of Canadians feel this way about abortion. Its a tool that must not be abused. It is most certainly NOT...a "Human Right" to abort babies who are aware and respond to external stimuli. That...IMHO...is abhorrent and such a horror must only be considered in the most extreme of cases.

Edited March 7, 2022 by Nationalist

[Zeitgeist]

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The Canadian public isn't interested in debating Human Rights issues.  Abortion and gay marriage are both that.  Having a different view is one thing, but playing coy on Human Rights whilst campaigning to be the leader of the Country isn't going to fly.  That's the problem with Pierre Poilievre as CPC Leader.      

No.  That's kindergarten logic.  "I'm not intolerant!  YOU'RE INTOLERANT."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's you and folks like you that go out of your way to ignore/deny the scientific (and global) consensus and then turn around and tell everyone who is following them that they're wrong on the science.  Bizarre. 

This is also why Pierre Poilievre puts a target on himself by supporting the trucker's.  Whether true or not (I don't really know what his position on vaccines are) he has associated himself with an unpopular faction whose record on facts and science is abysmal.  He'll be guilty by association there, and it doesn't really matter if that's a fair assessment of his views or not.  This is the Court of Public Opinion and perception is everything.    

Nothing will change on abortion or gay rights no matter who leads the Cons or wins the election.

The science tells us mandates and restrictions are no longer necessary, but we’re keeping them federally because…No one knows but people are genuinely suffering because of them.  Trudeau won’t discuss.

If not Polievre then who?  I like Leslyn but Pierre has been leading the charge on important issues with powerful arguments.  In any event, she isn’t running.  Rempel?  Another Liberal I think.  Charest?  Too 20 years ago.  His approach seems quaint today.  There were some amazing speeches from various Conservative MPs about the Emergencies Act.  That Lakelands MP Stubbs was very strong, but these people aren’t running and I don’t know enough about them.  I like Candice Bergen, but again, she’s not running. 

[Moonbox]

Just now, Nationalist said:

I have been wondering what you issue is with Poilievre. Abortion. You're scared he'd start a movement to clamp down on abortion.

Lol you don't read what I say then.  Poilievre's already said he wouldn't do anything in his government to stop abortion.  My issue is that I think he's an unprincipled, divisive demagogue (look that word up, it's a perfect way to describe him).  

I would like to see Trudeau's government defeated and think it's possible before the next election, but Pierre Poilievre won't be the guy to do it.  Stephen Harper had trouble getting Canadians to trust him and he was far more measured and restrained in his social rhetoric than Poilievre's ever been.  

[Nexii]

3 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Lol you don't read what I say then.  Poilievre's already said he wouldn't do anything in his government to stop abortion.  My issue is that I think he's an unprincipled, divisive demagogue (look that word up, it's a perfect way to describe him).  

I would like to see Trudeau's government defeated and think it's possible before the next election, but Pierre Poilievre won't be the guy to do it.  Stephen Harper had trouble getting Canadians to trust him and he was far more measured and restrained in his social rhetoric than Poilievre's ever been.  

Trudeau has become a divisive demagogue too though. He doesn't believe in most of what he preaches, it's overt from his demeanor and tone.

Going to be really tough for any challengers to beat Poilievre it looks like. He's already got a quarter of all MPs endorsing him. Upsets have happened before though so never know.

I suppose the CPC could do worse. Pierre is better than O'Toole or Scheer from what I've seen. He does a bit of the dumbing down populist thing, but honestly it's not worse than Trudeau's ivory tower preachiness.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Lol you don't read what I say then.  Poilievre's already said he wouldn't do anything in his government to stop abortion.  My issue is that I think he's an unprincipled, divisive demagogue (look that word up, it's a perfect way to describe him).  

I would like to see Trudeau's government defeated and think it's possible before the next election, but Pierre Poilievre won't be the guy to do it.  Stephen Harper had trouble getting Canadians to trust him and he was far more measured and restrained in his social rhetoric than Poilievre's ever been.  

That’s why I think Canada may be a write-off, stuck with quasi-dictatorial Liberal government forever.  Too many fearful people who can’t think for themselves or question government.  Watching Trudeau in office is like watching someone else’s child tear through a department store shouting and stealing or destroying merchandise. Most people just ignore such people or go somewhere else, but almost no one will confront the child or parents of the child.  

[Nationalist]

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Lol you don't read what I say then.  Poilievre's already said he wouldn't do anything in his government to stop abortion.  My issue is that I think he's an unprincipled, divisive demagogue (look that word up, it's a perfect way to describe him).  

I would like to see Trudeau's government defeated and think it's possible before the next election, but Pierre Poilievre won't be the guy to do it.  Stephen Harper had trouble getting Canadians to trust him and he was far more measured and restrained in his social rhetoric than Poilievre's ever been.  

Look it up? Why how very...condescending of you.

One thing's for Gawd Damn sure. Making anyone you would suggest as the new leader of the Conservative Party, would be another limp failure on several levels.

Edited March 7, 2022 by Nationalist

[Nexii]

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I have been wondering what your issue is with Poilievre. Abortion. You're scared he'd start a movement to clamp down on abortion.

Now...I happen to think abortion should be available under certain conditions. None of those conditions allow for it after the 3rd month. None of them allow for abortion to be a common means of birth control. But under the correct circumstances...I can agree it has a use and should be a real option.

I would also think that the vast majority of Canadians feel this way about abortion. Its a tool that must not be abused. It is most certainly NOT...a "Human Right" to abort babies who are aware and respond to external stimuli. That...IMHO...is abhorrent and such a horror must only be considered in the most extreme of cases.

That's already the case though. Can't get an abortion past 24 weeks without serious fetal deformations or health risk to the mother. Less in some provinces.

[Moonbox]

23 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Nothing will change on abortion or gay rights no matter who leads the Cons or wins the election.

I agree but that's not the point.  If a Leader won't firmly, obviously and vocally stand up for these rights, he gives Canadian voters reason to doubt.   

23 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The science tells us mandates and restrictions are no longer necessary, but we’re keeping them federally because…No one knows but people are genuinely suffering because of them.  Trudeau won’t discuss.

The mandates are being dropped all over Canada.  My vaccine passport is vaporware now and in 3 weeks I won't have to wear a mask anymore.  I'll live with that mild inconvenience for a few more weeks.  

23 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

If not Polievre then who?  I like Leslyn but Pierre has been leading the charge on important issues with powerful arguments.  In any event, she isn’t running.  

Leslyn Lewis has similar problems to Poilievre, but actually probably worse.  

23 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Rempel?  Another Liberal I think.  Charest?  Too 20 years ago.  

Charest could maybe win an election, but I don't think he could win the leadership race.  He'd be able to pull in GTA/Montreal votes and would be popular in the East, but probably not in Alberta or the West as a former Liberal Premier.  

23 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 That Lakelands MP Stubbs was very strong, but these people aren’t running and I don’t know enough about them.  I like Candice Bergen, but again, she’s not running. 

Candice Bergen is the exact same problem as Pierre and Lewis.  These are not electable leaders of Canada.  They don't appeal to anyone but the base, and that's why the CPC continues to lose elections.  Whether you like it or not, compromise is needed.  CPC party members need to get their heads out of the sand and realize that these boomer/bible-thumping social agendas are poison pills.  Canadians are equally suspicious of Trump-style sloganeering.  If you want to get rid of Trudeau you need a calmer, less antagonistic candidate like Harper (who can at least control the messaging) or a moderate like Michael Chong.  Demagogues will fail.  

Edited March 7, 2022 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

13 minutes ago, Nexii said:

Trudeau has become a divisive demagogue too though. He doesn't believe in most of what he preaches, it's overt from his demeanor and tone.

Yes, but he's at least smart enough to know which way the wind is blowing.  He's a populist actually promoting popular views, rather than championing unpopular ones like the freedom convoy or anti-abortion.  It doesn't make him anymore principled, but it makes him more electable.  

13 minutes ago, Nexii said:

I suppose the CPC could do worse. Pierre is better than O'Toole or Scheer from what I've seen. He does a bit of the dumbing down populist thing, but honestly it's not worse than Trudeau's ivory tower preachiness.

Sure they could do worse, but it doesn't really matter.  Unelectable is unelectable.  I imagine a near-zero chance that the NDP would vote against Trudeau with Poilievre, so this will give ~4 years for the Liberals to regroup, adjust their messaging, move on from the Emergencies Act (voters have short memories), salvage their image and undermine Pierre's.    

[Nationalist]

Fellow REAL Conservatives...Just what do you think is going on here?

This debate is so transparent. It is very obvious that right now Poilievre uncontested. Yet some people here...claiming to be Conservatives...are trying to convince you that he's "unelectable" and even MORE transparent...the suggestion the Charet...a Liberal...would be the best pick for leader of the Conservative Party.

Anyone else...smell a rat?

[Nationalist]

27 minutes ago, Nexii said:

That's already the case though. Can't get an abortion past 24 weeks without serious fetal deformations or health risk to the mother. Less in some provinces.

I know that and you know that.

This lunar person sees it as a wedge though and is trying to slip that wedge in there as an argument against real conservatism.

[Zeitgeist]

Again, no true conservatives or centrists are electable anymore in ChiCan, so just fold all parties into the Liberal Party of Canada.  I think Canada can be run out of China and the World Economic Forum at this point.  Think Hong Kong. Canadians don’t really want to think for themselves or be guaranteed rights, so might as well go all in.  I’ll try to move to Britain or Florida.  

[Jack9000]

50 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Fellow REAL Conservatives...Just what do you think is going on here?

This debate is so transparent. It is very obvious that right now Poilievre uncontested. Yet some people here...claiming to be Conservatives...are trying to convince you that he's "unelectable" and even MORE transparent...the suggestion the Charet...a Liberal...would be the best pick for leader of the Conservative Party.

Anyone else...smell a rat?

charest led the old pc party also. hes  conservative.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Jack9000 said:

charest led the old pc party also. hes  conservative.

He's a limp Libbie noodle.!

[Moonbox]

and your line of reasoning is why the Conservatives keep losing.  Doing the same things over and over and not learning anything from those mistakes is the definition of...something.  

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

and your line of reasoning is why the Conservatives keep losing.  Doing the same things over and over and not learning anything from those mistakes is the definition of...something.  

The soft liberal votes must surely outnumber the votes that could be stolen from the PPC with the anti-UN, "right to cough on strangers" crowd no ?