Conservative Leadership September 10th

[ironstone]

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Conservatives who don't want their great grand children barbecued. You have a choice - get people to reduce their carbon emissions through taxes or rationing. Rationing is a lot more complicated and expensive. If you are bothered by the price of gas, buy an electric car. If you want Prime Minister Trudeau out, back either Charest or Brown. If you want Trudeau to stay in office forever, support Poilievre.

Barbecued? Kind of an exaggeration wouldn't you say?

Fossil fuel-driven economic growth over the past 30 years has pushed us to the brink of a global climate catastrophe.

If the small amount of warming we have experienced were such a catastrophe, why has everything gotten so much better? Fossil fuel-driven prosperity has cut extreme poverty around the world by nearly two-thirds, allowed us to dramatically increase food production and cut hunger and malnutrition around the world, spread access to electricity to billions of people on every continent, cut child mortality in half, and added 7 years to average life expectancy. If you could have prevented the fossil fuel use at the cost of never having experienced all this progress, would you have done so?

“The burning of fossil fuels is destabilizing the very foundations of life on the planet.” (An actual quotation from a recent Canadian newspaper opinion piece.)

No, actually the burning of fossil fuels has radically improved the foundations of life on this planet. It has given us safe and inexpensive lighting, heating, cooling, refrigeration, transportation, electricity generation, construction, food production, and just about everything else we depend on for our standard of living. To the extent it has also caused a slight warming of the atmosphere due to CO2, that clearly has not turned the whole thing into a net loss. Weighing the costs and benefits together there is simply no question fossil fuel use has served to benefit humanity greatly.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

You do realize that you can be plural, right?  ?

My line in the sand is Pierre Poilievre and the worm that he is.  I won't vote for him, nor will most of Canada.  Your line in the sand is that people who don't vote for him are 100% opposite of you, as if they're an alien species or they come from China or something.  

because it's a retarded question and misses the point entirely.  The "left" that you keep referring to isn't a specific identity, nor is the "right".  There's a wide range of attitudes in Canada and many of them overlap.  Before the clown parade infested this board, I'd have considered myself right-of-centre.  I've never liked Trudeau.  I'm 100% pro-pipelines.  I'm 100% against ineffective green energy spending (like Ontario's Green Shift).  I'd like to see the public service shrink and think they're grossly overpaid.  I think wokeness has gone too far.  Because I supported vaccine mandates and thought the Freedom Convoy was stupid, however, I'm a left-woke-totalitarian-fascist, and Pierre Poilievre would agree with you.  

Oooookay.  ?

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but unless you can give me another English lesson, the Word you the way YOU used it was referring to me and me alone...

Not sure where your getting this from, i thought i was very clear i do not support Pierre, sure i like some of his ideas, but i did say wait until we have heard from the others before making my mind up.... I as said that it looks like the Conservative party is throwing their support behind Pierre, already he has past the 1/3 mark...

Where i draw my line in the sand is diluting Conservative ideals to accommodate the center or left voters...IN MY opinion they have already comprised on a lot of what was once thought as firm conservative beliefs...In reality there are only 2 parties that are large enough to run or win in all districts...that givers you 2 choices, liberal of conservative pick one... why is that so hard...but thats not good enough for you , you demand compromise to what degree i can only guess...and that has been tried and failed remember O Toole, what ever center he captured was lost in conservatives support...

And the difference between some one that would vote liberal and someone that would vote conservative is night and day... i thought that one was self explanatory... your either on the left or right, this is not a million different genders, one day your blue the next your red... pick a side FFS.... I am not interested in the different shades of grey... it is either white or black...

I find it kind of funney how you have cut me from the herd, and placed me in the same category as the far right...when i think we have more in common than you think...to which i have said more than once...And i have NEVER called you a left woke so and so...come to think of it, i don't think i've called anyone that...now i have called some tree huggers, to which i did say i was wrong, a few wingnuts and others i have accused of wearing  a tin hat, those i really meant... but hey I'm an asshole with a bad attitude...

[Queenmandy85]

26 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Barbecued? Kind of an exaggeration wouldn't you say?

Fossil fuel-driven economic growth over the past 30 years has pushed us to the brink of a global climate catastrophe.

If the small amount of warming we have experienced were such a catastrophe, why has everything gotten so much better? Fossil fuel-driven prosperity has cut extreme poverty around the world by nearly two-thirds, allowed us to dramatically increase food production and cut hunger and malnutrition around the world, spread access to electricity to billions of people on every continent, cut child mortality in half, and added 7 years to average life expectancy. If you could have prevented the fossil fuel use at the cost of never having experienced all this progress, would you have done so?

“The burning of fossil fuels is destabilizing the very foundations of life on the planet.” (An actual quotation from a recent Canadian newspaper opinion piece.)

No, actually the burning of fossil fuels has radically improved the foundations of life on this planet. It has given us safe and inexpensive lighting, heating, cooling, refrigeration, transportation, electricity generation, construction, food production, and just about everything else we depend on for our standard of living. To the extent it has also caused a slight warming of the atmosphere due to CO2, that clearly has not turned the whole thing into a net loss. Weighing the costs and benefits together there is simply no question fossil fuel use has served to benefit humanity greatly.

I don't know where you went to school, but you should demand your tuition back. The manifestation of global warming has hardly begun. The real impact will begin when sea levels stop rising and begin to fall. Everything you say about the benifits of fossil fuel can be achieved by nuclear energy, without the loss of jobs in western Canada. We are sitting on the Saudi Arabia of uranium. There is enough to replace fossil fuels until thorium comes on line. The most important thing is we will be able to conserve what is left of our coal and petroleum reserves to benifit future generations. We who are living today are not the sole owners of these resources. They belong to future generations as well and we are stealing their survival by selling them and burning them.

[ironstone]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I don't know where you went to school, but you should demand your tuition back. The manifestation of global warming has hardly begun. The real impact will begin when sea levels stop rising and begin to fall. Everything you say about the benifits of fossil fuel can be achieved by nuclear energy, without the loss of jobs in western Canada. We are sitting on the Saudi Arabia of uranium. There is enough to replace fossil fuels until thorium comes on line. The most important thing is we will be able to conserve what is left of our coal and petroleum reserves to benifit future generations. We who are living today are not the sole owners of these resources. They belong to future generations as well and we are stealing their survival by selling them and burning them.

Once again, I completely agree with you on the use of nuclear energy. But do you really think Canada will ever build more nuclear reactors with Trudeau as PM?

I thought sea levels were rising now, hence people like Al Gore and Obama buy mansions ...next to the sea! 

Oil and gas won't last forever but where would we be today without them? Would we be living like all the other 3rd world countries?

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I have advocated for a strong military for almost 60 years. We only have one theoretical invasion threat and that is the United States. Obviously, that is the remotest possibility. If Russia attacks a NATO country, the number of troops, tanks, combat aircraft and ships is irrelevant. There will be a few days of conventional combat followed by a series of nuclear exchanges that would last about the time it takes for the New York Yankees to play the Toronto Bluejays. Within a month, most of the population of the world will be dead. 

Your one of a few that do support anything military in this country....but the threat comment is example of a myth... Canada is under attack in various forms every day... be it cyber, space, espionage,  or direct threats to sovereignty or the testing of that sovereignty, threats to fishing and other natural resources, threats of drugs, illegal imports , human smuggling you name it...The media prints all of these story's on a regular basis , so Canadians can't really say they did not know... they knew just did not care..

 

And while Canada is unlikely to see a direct conventional military threat, that key word in there is unlikely, note it did not suggest it is 100 % guaranteed, but it does become less likely if we as a nation are prepared...not by a huge army, but one twice the size of what we have today...It should also be pointed out we have signed on to various defensive pacts to which most we are free loaders on, a waste of space on an important document, a great source of Canadians pride for some reason... another point would be modern equipment saves lives, Canadians lives.... That fact flies over most Canadians heads... ..... but most Canadians don't care about that either, another source of pride...It is cheaper to bury them than to equip them... and don't get me started on the treatment of our veterans, another source of great pride amongst the majority of Canadians...  lots of pride in all the wrong places... 

[Queenmandy85]

You are preaching to the choir. Defence policy should not depend on defence pacts such as NATO. NATO and NORAD etc. are important but we have seen that even our closest allies are not always reliable. (Trump administration). We need to have a military capacity to act independently. Governments are constrained by public opinion. That is democracy. I had a long discussion with Stockwell Day about our defence policy and it was very disappointing. The fact is, no government can survive the expenditure we need to have a viable military. People believe we live in a fire proof house. 

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Conservatives who don't want their great grand children barbecued. You have a choice - get people to reduce their carbon emissions through taxes or rationing. Rationing is a lot more complicated and expensive. If you are bothered by the price of gas, buy an electric car. If you want Prime Minister Trudeau out, back either Charest or Brown. If you want Trudeau to stay in office forever, support Poilievre.

I don’t want a Conservative who supports carbon taxes.  Keep your climate change nonsense out of the Conservative Party.  Too many heretics already have to be turfed.  Keep voting Liberal-NDP if you want but stop sullying the Conservatives with green-woke fascist BS.  It’s literally destroying our economy and way of life.  

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but unless you can give me another English lesson, the Word you the way YOU used it was referring to me and me alone...

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/you

Go take a look for yourself.  There's you (singular), you (plural) and you (proverbial/general). 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

And the difference between some one that would vote liberal and someone that would vote conservative is night and day... i thought that one was self explanatory...

You act like "conservative" and "liberal" is hardcoded programming or something.  If your thinking was correct, then the outcome of the election would be the same every time give or take the difference in voter turnout, because a "conservative" is night and day different than a "liberal" and there's no way to bridge the gap between.  The error of this thinking should be...self explanatory.   

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

your either on the left or right, this is not a million different genders, one day your blue the next your red... pick a side FFS.... I am not interested in the different shades of grey... it is either white or black...

I suppose it's impossible, in your mind, than people can form intelligent, informed and nuanced opinions on a variety of different issues and decide where they stand on a case by case basis.  They just have to "pick a side" - team white or team black, and then you have to follow what they say....

Do you even think before you write this shit?  

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I find it kind of funney how you have cut me from the herd, and placed me in the same category as the far right...

Some of the stuff you (specifically) say is pretty foolish, but I suppose you're not nearly as silly as some of the other brainlets on this forum and I can't lump you in generally with them - my apologies if you thought that's what I was doing.  Along these lines, however, perhaps you then understand the problems with framing everyone as strictly "liberal" or "conservative" with nothing in between.  Clearly if you're not part of the "far right", then you acknowledge there are degrees.  If you can acknowledge that there are degrees, then you have to also acknowledge that the political environment is more complex then a demarcation line with completely opposite people on either side.  

Edited March 14, 2022 by Moonbox

[Queenmandy85]

44 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t want a Conservative who supports carbon taxes.  Keep your climate change nonsense out of the Conservative Party.  Too many heretics already have to be turfed.  Keep voting Liberal-NDP if you want but stop sullying the Conservatives with green-woke fascist BS.  It’s literally destroying our economy and way of life.  

You confuse physics with politics. You would put money ahead of other people's lives (future generations)? You just have to look at the fall of the western Roman empire to see the destruction of rapid climate change. Rome became a ghost town in just a few years because the temperature in Europe dropped.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Queenmandy85

[Zeitgeist]

21 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You confuse physics with politics. You would put money ahead of other people's lives (future generations)? You just have to look at the fall of the western Roman empire to see the destruction of rapid climate change. Rome became a ghost town in just a few years because the temperature in Europe dropped.

We don’t know how much of a threat climate change is, but we do understand the impacts of poverty and tyranny. We can slow emissions through reasonable changes to building codes and energy production without fleecing people through carbon taxes and government-created energy shortages that raise the cost of living.  We’re getting into a terrible habit of referencing crises to justify oppression and lower living standards.  I just don’t believe that unprovable climate projections justify draconian measures and costs.

I knew that once the Covid scare ended, we’d get another scare.  It’s another excuse to control people.  If that makes me a conspiracy theorist or “alt-right” wack job, so be it.  I know what I see and I don’t care anymore how my concerns are dismissed, because dismissing valid concerns is built into the DNA of such government overreach.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Yzermandius19]

10 hours ago, Jack9000 said:

I am not far left and can tell the difference between  cpc and lpc  wake up dude.

you voted for the NDP

you're a far left nutjob

that is the only reason you think there is a difference

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you voted for the NDP

you're a far left nutjob

that is the only reason you think there is a difference

That's what the CPC says about the LPC and its what the PPC says about the CPC.  It's probably like this all over the universe.

I really think we missed our shot at unity a few weeks ago when everyone seemed to be a Nazi.

[Yzermandius19]

53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's what the CPC says about the LPC and its what the PPC says about the CPC.  It's probably like this all over the universe.

I really think we missed our shot at unity a few weeks ago when everyone seemed to be a Nazi.

the big three parties are all the same

there is plenty of unity

around an extremely narrow overton window

the PPC are the only party that offers a genuine alternative to the status quo

fake opposition abounds

Edited March 14, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[West]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you voted for the NDP

you're a far left nutjob

that is the only reason you think there is a difference

Anyone to the right of Lennon is considered "far right" to the average leftist today. For individual choice and freedom? Well you secretly fly the swastika in your back yard

[Queenmandy85]

12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

We don’t know how much of a threat climate change is, but we do understand the impacts of poverty and tyranny. We can slow emissions through reasonable changes to building codes and energy production without fleecing people through carbon taxes and government-created energy shortages that raise the cost of living.  We’re getting into a terrible habit of referencing crises to justify oppression and lower living standards.  I just don’t believe that unprovable climate projections justify draconian measures and costs.

I knew that once the Covid scare ended, we’d get another scare.  It’s another excuse to control people.  If that makes me a conspiracy theorist or “alt-right” wack job, so be it.  I know what I see and I don’t care anymore how my concerns are dismissed, because dismissing valid concerns is built into the DNA of such government overreach.

In contradiction to all I have said, you should read Michael Crichton's State of Fear.  It is a thriller. In it, he talks about the Political-Legal- Media complex. Those three industries depend on keeping people in a state of fear, with the threat of communism in the 50's nuclear war in the 60's and 70's, etc. In the current period, it is global warming. While his skepticism of global warming has been questioned, his arguement about the politisization of science is valid.

So, Z, you might be right.  

To avoid accusations of complete thread drift, I will say that we need a leader with a positive vision rather than just being against things. Rather than just pointing out the failings of the grits, we need to be looking ahead. Whether climate change is real or not, it is an opportunity for a long term ecomomic boom. We need to re-vitalize, not just the economy, but our outlook on the future. 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Queenmandy85

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

  I will say that we need a leader with a positive vision rather than just being against things. Rather than just pointing out the failings of the grits, we need to be looking ahead. Whether climate change is real or not, it is an opportunity for a long term ecomomic boom. We need to re-vitalize, not just the economy, but our outlook on the future. 

Well, Climate Change as caused by humans is definitely real but if we have a plan and are slowing the increase in Carbon Creation (which we are) then it will be manageable.

Interesting that a thread on the conservative leadership would mention 'poverty' as that's usually an NDP talking point.  In terms of poverty, we know that Canada's GDP is as healthy as ever but that wealth has been actively moved to be distributed towards the top, including foreign investors.  

Meanwhile, services are deteriorating and costs are going up without relief.  It seems to me that the government needs to intervene in different ways than it has.

[Army Guy]

13 hours ago, Moonbox said:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/you

1....Go take a look for yourself.  There's you (singular), you (plural) and you (proverbial/general). 

2.....You act like "conservative" and "liberal" is hardcoded programming or something.  If your thinking was correct, then the outcome of the election would be the same every time give or take the difference in voter turnout, because a "conservative" is night and day different than a "liberal" and there's no way to bridge the gap between.  The error of this thinking should be...self explanatory.   

3....I suppose it's impossible, in your mind, than people can form intelligent, informed and nuanced opinions on a variety of different issues and decide where they stand on a case by case basis.  They just have to "pick a side" - team white or team black, and then you have to follow what they say....

4....Do you even think before you write this shit?  

5... Some of the stuff you (specifically) say is pretty foolish, but I suppose you're not nearly as silly as some of the other brainlets on this forum and I can't lump you in generally with them - my apologies if you thought that's what I was doing.  Along these lines, however, perhaps you then understand the problems with framing everyone as strictly "liberal" or "conservative" with nothing in between.  Clearly if you're not part of the "far right", then you acknowledge there are degrees.  If you can acknowledge that there are degrees, then you have to also acknowledge that the political environment is more complex then a demarcation line with completely opposite people on either side.  

1. Are you saying that you are not addressing me, or your addressing all the other you's out there ?...

2. I'm not acting .... i am explaining to you their is a right side and left side and center who can't make up their minds...and that there is a huge difference in mind set and thinking between the right and the left...how do you explain the difference in opinions on say deficits, spending, social programs, law and order, pipe lines and other infra structure. if everyone thought the same, why do we need different parties... The bridge gap you talk about is the center and those that have not made their minds up, or want to pick a side that offers more... but between conservative and liberal the gap is wide they may agree on a handful of issues... nothing more... And right now no one is talking to each other, unless you have a different source, watch CPAC for 30 mins tell me they are cooperating or will to see each others point of view, or maybe your watching a different government work than i am... 

3... your explaining the center here...

4.. No my goal in life is to write shit that pisses you off... look you don't have to like what i write or like my opinions, i am not selling you anything...it is my opinion... And i know this is going to be hard to read, but some of the shit you write does not make any sense to me either...

5.    don't get me wrong i have learned some things from you and others, on this forum it is one of the main reasons I've stayed this long.... and i am normally the first to admit when i am wrong....or when I've been proven wrong... 

There is the center vote to which i have acknowledge exists on numerous times...that being said I have repeatedly said there is no comparison between someone that has voted for Justin, or remains a supporter of Justin to a person that voted anyone other party...certainly not conservative party voters... 

Here comes those wild lies again, i can not support a man that is dishonest , out rights lies to Canadians on a regular basis, that breaks what rule he wants only to get a small slap on the wrist...a leader who can't seem for the life of him make a timely decision on most topics or serious issues in this country, and when he does manage to make one it is so vague it is comical real, his reputation inter national is a joke, which reflects on out nation a great deal...he is good at apologizing to any number of groups or people, and he is a very emotional guy who can tear up in a moment notice...

I've grown up in a military family, so has my Son, myself, and my father words like honesty, honor, loyalty, integrity, hardworking, mean something...and i don't see any of that in Justin... and i can not for the life of me, see those that voted or supported  him having the same respect for those words as well... for me that is the divide, that i can not see past...

 

[Moonbox]

30 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

2. I'm not acting .... i am explaining to you their is a right side and left side and center who can't make up their minds...and that there is a huge difference in mind set and thinking between the right and the left...

Okay so now we have a right, a left and then a centre.  Great.  Now we're getting somewhere.  Even amongst those groups, however, there are wide ranges of attitudes and they can't be strictly defined.  

30 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

how do you explain the difference in opinions on say deficits, spending, social programs, law and order, pipe lines and other infra structure.

Rather than looking at this (as you seem to) as a one-dimensional sliding scale of left to right, you'd be better of looking at it as a Venn diagram, where the groups and subgroups within them have varied attitudes that can overlap on some issues but disagree completely on others. A red Tory, for example, might be on board for everything you said above.  He/she just might also be pro-immigration, strongly pro-science and emphatically anti-Trump, which would put him in conflict with parts of the Conservative base.  This voter therefore has to measure the trade-offs and will end up voting for the party that can reassure . 

30 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Here comes those wild lies again, i can not support a man that is dishonest , out rights lies to Canadians on a regular basis, that breaks what rule he wants only to get a small slap on the wrist...a leader who can't seem for the life of him make a timely decision on most topics or serious issues in this country, and when he does manage to make one it is so vague it is comical real, his reputation inter national is a joke, which reflects on out nation a great deal...he is good at apologizing to any number of groups or people, and he is a very emotional guy who can tear up in a moment notice...

You don't have to support Trudeau.  He's deeply unpopular and your views are shared by people across the political spectrum - liberals, conservatives, NDPers, quebecquers etc.  He should be easy to defeat...unless the opposition is Pierre Poilievre and Jagmeet Singh. ?

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

you'd be better of looking at it as a Venn diagram, where the groups and subgroups within them have varied attitudes that can overlap on some issues but disagree completely on others.

Where in a political Venn diagram that captures the many overlapping intersecting interests, ideologies, cultures etc that make up a society would the government fit? In it as just another interest, or surrounding/above/below it in a more distinctly separate sense?

Probably need a new thread.

[Army Guy]

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

1....Okay so now we have a right, a left and then a centre.  Great.  Now we're getting somewhere.  Even amongst those groups, however, there are wide ranges of attitudes and they can't be strictly defined.  

2....Rather than looking at this (as you seem to) as a one-dimensional sliding scale of left to right, you'd be better of looking at it as a Venn diagram, where the groups and subgroups within them have varied attitudes that can overlap on some issues but disagree completely on others. A red Tory, for example, might be on board for everything you said above.  He/she just might also be pro-immigration, strongly pro-science and emphatically anti-Trump, which would put him in conflict with parts of the Conservative base.  This voter therefore has to measure the trade-offs and will end up voting for the party that can reassure . 

3....You don't have to support Trudeau.  He's deeply unpopular and your views are shared by people across the political spectrum - liberals, conservatives, NDPers, quebecquers etc.  He should be easy to defeat...unless the opposition is Pierre Poilievre and Jagmeet Singh. ?

1....Are you even reading anything i have written... their has always been a center, in fact i think i have acknowledge that fact in almost all my posts...."This" is the group that the Conservatives are chasing to sway their votes......The odds of anyone that consistently voted for justin to change their vote and vote blue... well i have a better chance of winning lotto Max....The best chance of gathering votes is to target the center... I did say that i thought that the conservatives should not dilute any more of their platform to just gather votes....They have already changed directions on several major issues, and it has not done them any good...

2..... Every voter is measuring each platform during the election campaign... or if you a wingnut you vote for the same party becasue it is the thing to do... And if your a Tory, blue, black, red or purple with warts on your penis, there is not going to be many liberal platform ideas that will convince you to say  fuck you know what I'm voting for Justin this election...

Never say never becasue maybe there will be some...but the odds are going to be slim... now i can see the center voters doing it by the droves...But if you want to sub divide everything giver...But I'll bet a million dollars right now and say Justin will never come up with a campaign  package i would vote for...

3. We all keep saying that and yet their he still is in the same office...  Someone is voting for this guy...and those that do deserve his leadership....end of story....Why in the blue blazes would anyone vote for someone that is deeply unpopular, some one that lies not only to Canadians but to world leaders, you know the list...out of spite ...well then they deserve the government they voted for...they need to step up and own their decisions... 

 

[Army Guy]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Where in a political Venn diagram that captures the many overlapping intersecting interests, ideologies, cultures etc that make up a society would the government fit? In it as just another interest, or surrounding/above/below it in a more distinctly separate sense?

Probably need a new thread.

going to have to get a new book...

[Moonbox]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The best chance of gathering votes is to target the center...

So we agree on that at, at least.  

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I did say that i thought that the conservatives should not dilute any more of their platform to just gather votes....They have already changed directions on several major issues, and it has not done them any good...

Because they weren't very sincere.  Like I said before, you can't just mumble some mealy-mouthed assurances that abortion or gay marriage rights debates won't be part of the agenda.  The unfortunate reality for the fundamentalist Conservative base is that there are millions and millions of gay people and women who like to have sex in Canada, and nothing short of emphatically defending their rights on these issues is going to suffice.  Harper understood that.  The candidates since have not.   

Then there's the Freedom Convoy, which was hugely unpopular and viewed (rightly IMO) as an angry mob of ignorant losers that even most Conservative voters found distasteful.  Aligning with those clowns (as Polievre has) will perhaps appeal to PPC voters and the CPC base, but it will turn off the centrist voters required to form a government.   

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

3. We all keep saying that and yet their he still is in the same office...  Someone is voting for this guy...and those that do deserve his leadership....end of story....Why in the blue blazes would anyone vote for someone that is deeply unpopular, some one that lies not only to Canadians but to world leaders, you know the list...out of spite ...well then they deserve the government they voted for...they need to step up and own their decisions... 

It's a choice.  If you have two terrible options, you choose the less terrible one.  The adult solution here is elect someone who can bring the most voters into the CPC tent and win an election, which Pierre Poilievre is the opposite of.  If the CPC chooses to elect him leader, they'll have nobody but themselves to blame when they fail.  Canada will end up with the government they chose, and that won't be his.  

 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Where in a political Venn diagram that captures the many overlapping intersecting interests, ideologies, cultures etc that make up a society would the government fit? In it as just another interest, or surrounding/above/below it in a more distinctly separate sense?

The problem with Trudeau is he's cast the tent poles so wide that he seems to stand for everything but actually stands for nothing.  He's great at seeing which way the wind blows and knows well enough to support vaccines and health mandates that are popular in the current day, but otherwise he appears to just be a waste of time that offers little more than empty speeches about what being "Canadian" is.  I can't even listen to him speak anymore. 

Even so, prior to the Emergency Act he really hadn't done much.  He was a clueless (but mostly harmless) goof that followed the advice of people smarter than him and didn't rock the boat too much, which is an appealing quality of its own sometimes when measured against alternatives.  

  

[Nefarious Banana]

Canada isn't fixable . . . . not anymore.

The prancing dipshit has alienated any thinking person.

What's left?

Edited March 14, 2022 by Nefarious Banana

[Faramir]

On 3/12/2022 at 8:36 AM, Moonbox said:

Where I'm going with this is that your attitude sucks.  This is the dictionary definition of polarization - us vs them.  It's a thoughtless, immature and utterly unproductive way of thinking and will achieve nothing but more division.  There is a wide spectrum of political attitudes in Canada, from the furthest left to the furthest right and everything in between.  The notion that these fall into two camps of "conservatives" or  "liberals" and that they're 100% different is frankly stupid, and that should be self-evident.  

??? Could we say the divide is stark among those that care about politics?  Or no?  Obviously the average Canadian is average.  But the movers and shakers another thing.  I still see it this way.  1 in 3 is somewhat conservative, most being clones of Mitt Romney.  The other 2 of 3 are socialists one way or the other.