Jump to content

Conservative Leadership September 10th


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'd double their salaries to compensate for a new requirement that they be subject to contact tracing while in office.   In-camera lobbying would be discontinued and registered lobbyists would also be subject to contact tracing.  I don't care how much lobbyists are paid because it's none of my business.

Are you sure you would want the world knowing where you are at all hours of the day? Are you one of those admirers of China as well?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Are you sure you would want the world knowing where you are at all hours of the day? Are you one of those admirers of China as well?  

No I'm precisely the exact opposite of that.  To be perfectly honest I'd prefer Parliament be composed of ordinary citizens drafted from the population at large. In lieu of that however I insist that every facet of public representation be public.

The public wouldn't need to know where a politician is at all hours of the day, we'd only need to know when they're within a certain distance of a registered private lobbyist.  The intent isn't to do away with lobbying, it's simply to make meetings with public representatives open to the public. Obviously the lobbyists would need to be contact traceable as a requirement of registering as a lobbyist.

Please don't tell me you actually believe swearing on a stack of hooey is all we need to ensure the public's interest and stake is properly represented and accounted for.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I think you must admire China where the government can do what it wants without worrying about public opinion...sort of like a certain Prime Minister was accused of.

You need lawyers because their job involves making laws.

As for a new crop, does that mean you are planning to run? Are you prepared to step away from your job for 18 months to campaign for the nomination? Do you have $30,000 to $50,000 to campaign for the nomination? You won't have any income coming in. Kiss your family good-bye because you will hardly see them until you get defeated or retire. Since you don't want a decent salary, do you have enough money for incidental expenses not covered by your MP expense account, such as when you are visiting a University campus meeting with the Young Conservative club, you pay for the coffee/ beer and when they invite you to buy their 50-50 tickets, you'll need to drop a $100. If you win, you will donate the money back to them. Everywhere you go, you will be picking up the tab, everyday. Everyone you meet will have their hand out. Your MP's housing allowance won't cover your housing expenses. When I worked for one of the major banks, one of our accountants had transferred in from a branch in Ottawa. He said you can't imagine the debt load many MP's have to carry.

So, you go for it because you are in it for the right reasons. Having just seen your platform, don't start spending that $140,000 yet because I don't give your chances of electoral success much hope. It appears, for someone interested in politics, you haven't met many Members of Parliament. Oh, and be prepared for the abuse. If you get elected, everyone will tell you they are your boss and you are a low life marxist liar and a crook. That is until their OAS cheque goes missing and you have to fix it. When you do, you will be a hero...for about 10 minutes and then you will be back to being a knuckle dragging bottom feeder who isn't worth $140,000 and your salary should be cut by another 10% because they can do the job better than you. You will be working 16 hour days, six and a half days a week, every week. If you take a few days off, you will be spotted by a constituent who will tell everyone what a lazy SOB you are. Even when you are on a holiday, you will have to stay in contact with your constituents. When you are in your riding, you will be going from meeting to meeting, coffee party to coffee party. Marion Pearson was at the last gathering of the day and the host asked if anyone had anything else to bring up. Mrs. Pearson responded "about eight cups of coffee and a half dozen doughnuts.

Then, another election is called and you will be spending a lot of money again. 

Well Parliament barely met over the past year.  16 hour days?  Does that include trips to Tofino?  Coffee and donuts doesn’t sound gruelling.

 I think some MPs do work quite hard.  Some.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Please don't tell me you actually believe swearing on a stack of hooey is all we need to ensure the public's interest and stake is properly represented and accounted for.

I believe you are responsible for electing people of integrity and merit. We hire these people so if they fail to live up to reasonable standards, that is on us for failing to do our due diligence. That is how you make Responsible government work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well Parliament barely met over the past year.  16 hour days?  Does that include trips to Tofino?  Coffee and donuts doesn’t sound gruelling.

 I think some MPs do work quite hard.  Some.   

Uhhh, you do know there was a pandemic that forced all of us to stay home. Be that as it may, they were still working remotely. You need to be in constant touch with the business community in your riding, the various groups like the Rotary Club, trade unions, religious organizations etc. When it is safe to do so, you are out meeting as many constituants as possible. You are always meeting people and listening to what they have to say. MP's who do not put in the work will not be re-elected and if it is their first term, no pension. If the voters do re-elect them, that is the voters fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Uhhh, you do know there was a pandemic that forced all of us to stay home. Be that as it may, they were still working remotely. You need to be in constant touch with the business community in your riding, the various groups like the Rotary Club, trade unions, religious organizations etc. When it is safe to do so, you are out meeting as many constituants as possible. You are always meeting people and listening to what they have to say. MP's who do not put in the work will not be re-elected and if it is their first term, no pension. If the voters do re-elect them, that is the voters fault.

Sorry I don’t agree.  They currently seem like an out of touch privileged group that largely cares more about self-preservation than improving life for most Canadians.  To think of how these reps looked after themselves when truckers were risking their health as essential workers then became treated like second class citizens with the imposition of vax mandates says it all for me.  Trudeau’s Canada is a shadow of the former Canada.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Sorry I don’t agree.  They currently seem like an out of touch privileged group that largely cares more about self-preservation than improving life for most Canadians.  To think of how these reps looked after themselves when truckers were risking their health as essential workers then became treated like second class citizens with the imposition of vax mandates says it all for me.  Trudeau’s Canada is a shadow of the former Canada.  

You are contradicting yourself. First you say they care more about themselves rather than improving life for most Canadians, then you critisize them for bringing in vaccine mandates to protect the lives of Canadians. If a group of people were to be treated as second class citizens, they would have been denied the opportunity to get vaccinated. Since they were allowed, even encouraged, to get vaccinated like everyone else, they are hardly second class citizens. Employers have a legal duty to protect their employees and customers, so how are they supposed to hire someone who refuses to get vaccinated to protect their fellow employees and to comply with US border regulations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I believe you are responsible for electing people of integrity and merit. We hire these people so if they fail to live up to reasonable standards, that is on us for failing to do our due diligence. That is how you make Responsible government work.

I believe all this too I just think we're long past the point where we can say our standards are adequate.

So why wouldn't government work with the due diligence I've proposed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You are contradicting yourself. First you say they care more about themselves rather than improving life for most Canadians, then you critisize them for bringing in vaccine mandates to protect the lives of Canadians. If a group of people were to be treated as second class citizens, they would have been denied the opportunity to get vaccinated. Since they were allowed, even encouraged, to get vaccinated like everyone else, they are hardly second class citizens. Employers have a legal duty to protect their employees and customers, so how are they supposed to hire someone who refuses to get vaccinated to protect their fellow employees and to comply with US border regulations?

Vaccine mandates are Charter violations.  Want to get vaccinated, go for it.  Want to wear masks, enjoy.  Your idea of protecting people is my idea of damaging people.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Vaccine mandates are Charter violations.

Then take it to court. You say there is a section in the charter that the public health orders are violating. I am sure the court will be very interested. I think you would have a better case if you claimed the Provincial Government denied your access to the vaccine or caused you to be exposed to another person who was not vaccinated in the workplace. It is the easiest thing in the world to get vaccianted.

It is ironic that you can be conscripted into the military and sent into battle to be exposed to lethal force, yet you say you should not be given a harmless vaccine to help save lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

a harmless vaccine to help save lives.

Not harmless.

Permanently damaged my sister and many others - 1 out of every 10,000, in fact - far higher than any other vaccines which are pulled from the market after less than 5 deaths.

Save lives?  Even Pfizer is saying now that their vaccine does very little, it's the reason you have to get "boosted" every 3 months, even though it actually wears off after a couple of weeks.

If you think it's worth it, to risk death and permanent disability, blood clots, heart attacks, lowered immune system for 2-3 weeks of 12% efficacy, enjoy your 10 jabs that Trudeau has planned for you. 

Some of us value our health more than that, though.

I'm flabbergasted by how out-of-touch you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I believe all this too I just think we're long past the point where we can say our standards are adequate.

So why wouldn't government work with the due diligence I've proposed?

The voters set the standards. For example, you have three years to prepare for the next Federal election, if everything goes as planned. That is three years to get to know the people who you will choose to stand for the nomination and the election. That is three years for you to select the best possible candidate for the nomination of the party of your choice and then convince the people of your riding to also support that person. That is where the due diligence lies...with you.

In your scenario, you are going to hire someone and then turn around and show you have no confidence in their integrity. Who gets elected in your riding is your choice. Why would you elect a person you have no confidence in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Not harmless.

Permanently damaged my sister and many others - 1 out of every 10,000, in fact - far higher than any other vaccines which are pulled from the market after less than 5 deaths.

Save lives?  Even Pfizer is saying now that their vaccine does very little, it's the reason you have to get "boosted" every 3 months, even though it actually wears off after a couple of weeks.

If you think it's worth it, to risk death and permanent disability, blood clots, heart attacks, lowered immune system for 2-3 weeks of 12% efficacy, enjoy your 10 jabs that Trudeau has planned for you. 

Some of us value our health more than that, though.

I'm flabbergasted by how out-of-touch you are.

If that were the case, why would the Provincial governments permit the vaccine to be administered? If you know this, why don't professionals who actually know what they are doing, permit it?

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If that were the case, why would the Provincial governments permit the vaccine to be administered?

Yes, that is the question more and more people are starting to ask.

When Pfizer says the vax is not recommended during pregnancy and breastfeeding due to lack of testing, why did our government tell women it WAS safe and force pregnant women to vaccinate and fire them from their jobs if they didn't?

Glad to see you are finally asking some questions. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why would you elect a person you have no confidence in?

I wouldn't. How can you have confidence in a system that avoids being audited, validated and verified for veracity?  Faith? We've tried that and it doesn't cut it.  I say we try making a few changes to the Lobbying Act and apply a little science and technology instead.

We get the government we deserve which is as it should be in a democracy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yes, that is the question more and more people are starting to ask.

When Pfizer says the vax is not recommended during pregnancy and breastfeeding due to lack of testing, why did our government tell women it WAS safe and force pregnant women to vaccinate and fire them from their jobs if they didn't?

Glad to see you are finally asking some questions. :)

My concern here is that for a person to knowingly participate in adminstering a dangerous substance to another human being under these circumstances, they would have to be a psychopath. It the case of the vaccines, we are talking about thousands of people involved in a conspiracy to poison millions of people. I have met a few people who were psychopaths. One of them was Larry Fisher who recently died in prison. But psychopaths are pretty rare. It is extremely unlikely that Pfizer, together with all of the provincial state and federal governments of many countries, could assemble that many psychopaths in the developement, testing and certification process to pull it off. If, when you say recipiants of the vaccines began having serious side effects, especially in pregnant women, all of the people in the Public Health agencies would only have allowed the administration of the vaccine to continue if they were psychopaths. That is a lot of mentally ill people all in health care. We are talking tens of thousands of psychopaths.

Next is the conspiracy angle. Two people can conspire to commit a crime. Occasionally, you can get away with three. More than that and somebody always talks. Very few people can keep a secret, especially if it involves criminal activity. In this case, can you concieve of tens of thousands of psychopaths keeping this a secret from their partners and girlfriends?

Then, there is the press. This is the kind of story that is blood in the water for journalists. Every news outlet would spread this story around the world for months. No government could stop it.

Your Pfizer documents, if genuine would have caused the global vaccine administration to halt vaccinations for pregnent women immediately. The fact that it didn't means the information was not what you fear it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I wouldn't. How can you have confidence in a system that avoids being audited, validated and verified for veracity?

"I'd double their salaries to compensate for a new requirement that they be subject to contact tracing while in office.   In-camera lobbying would be discontinued and registered lobbyists would also be subject to contact tracing."

Does your employer require you to work that way? I expect there could be a charter challenge in there. Just out of curiosity, is there some particular issue that sparked your interest in this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is extremely unlikely that Pfizer, together with all of the provincial state and federal governments of many countries, could assemble that many psychopaths in the developement, testing and certification process to pull it off.

Have you seen Pfizer's record for fraud?

 

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Your Pfizer documents, if genuine would have caused the global vaccine administration to halt vaccinations for pregnent women immediately.

They are not "my" Pfizer documents.  They belong to Pfizer. Pfizer was forced, by law, to release them.  They didn't want anyone to see them for 75 years.  Why do you think that is (again, given their propensity for medical fraud)?

And yes, vaccination for pregnant women should have been halted immediately.

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Next is the conspiracy angle. Two people can conspire to commit a crime. Occasionally, you can get away with three. More than that and somebody always talks.

There are also "useful idiots" who go along with it.  For money, for fame, for power - whatever their reasons are, it varies.

Many whistleblowers have been coming forward.  They are silenced and fired.  Why do you think that is?

Why do you think none of the MSM has reported on what the Pfizer documents say regarding pregnancy?  And why isn't our government, Tam or any of the provincial health officers alarmed by what the documents say?

As CMO of Canada, and with a responsibility to care for the health of 38 million people, why didn't Tam request the trial documents from Pfizer at the beginning?  She likely had more pull to get access to them, than the people who went to court to get access to them.  Yet she did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Why do you think none of the MSM has reported on what the Pfizer documents say regarding pregnancy?  And why isn't our government, Tam or any of the provincial health officers alarmed by what the documents say?

As CMO of Canada, and with a responsibility to care for the health of 38 million people, why didn't Tam request the trial documents from Pfizer at the beginning?  She likely had more pull to get access to them, than the people who went to court to get access to them.  Yet she did not.

Nor did anyone else on her team or the CMO's of 10 provinces and 50 states. Why? My guess is it wasn't as much of a concern as you think it is. It is like our friend Taxme who says climate change is a hoax. Stephen Hawking said it was very real. Now who do we believe, Hawking, or Taxme?

Who do I believe? Your sources or the best minds in the field of medicine?

I believe Jean Charest when it comes to politics. (See how I steered this back on topic. ?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is a pretty gloomy condemnation of people.

I guess.

I'm just saying that if I was CMO, responsible for the health of 38 million people, I'd want that information before I force-vaccinated them all with an experimental vaccine produced by a company with one of the highest fines for medical fraud in history.  And I certainly would not base force-vaccinating an entire population with that same experimental vaccine produced by a company well-known for fraud, on CBC headlines or based on what they "say" the trials show.

Sorry, if I don't agree with your view of Tam or Henry or Hinshaw as being the saviours of Canada or champions of Canadian health.

Hinshaw and Henry are both being hauled into court over their failure to check this all out before imposing damaging mandates and restrictions.

I agree with that.  They had a duty to report and act on the truth, not on CBC headlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is a pretty gloomy condemnation of people.

And an unrealistic idea of how organizations work in a society with a common morality.

How exactly would they hire people, to only select people who would play ball with such activity ?  Especially when all of your training, and all public dialogue goes against it ?

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pfizer was only one of three vaccines available. Most people in leadership received the AstraZeneca vaccine to show people it was safe. The more common alternative was Moderna. If you are worried about Pfizer, Moderna was available.

Speaking of the leadership contest, which leadership candidate best reflects the voters in Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Hinshaw and Henry are both being hauled into court over their failure to check this all out before imposing damaging mandates and restrictions.

No. According to the Calgary Herald, they were ordered to release documents to explain why the the BC and Alberta governments removed the mask mandates. It was nothing to do with imposing mandates. The plaintiffs wanted the mask mandates to remain in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...