Jump to content

What can Conservatives do?


Tony Hladun

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Fair criticism of Trudeau, but then the alternative on-offer is Pierre Poilievre, who was first elected without any post-secondary degree and who's never held a real job in his whole life.  The guy only earned his "Bachelor of Arts" degree when he was close to 30, and is a pure career politician. 

You don't need the alphabet letters behind your name to have good sense, vision and intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That's true, but if you wanna criticize Trudeau for his fluff degree you hold PP's in the same regard.  

Poor assertion.  Hear both of them speak, listen to what they say, you and I don't need letters behind our names to discern which one has the smarts.

You could have degrees and letters coming out your ying-yang and still have your shoes on the wrong feet.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Poor assertion.  Hear both of them speak, listen to what they say, you and I don't need letters behind our names to discern which one has the smarts.

Neither are making a great case for themselves. 🙃

#Bitcoin - Pierre Poilievre, May 2022

 

bitcoinsss.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, August1991 said:

Zero Interest in listening/watching to this link to a YouTube Op.

It is a talking-head.

If you only show me your face, talking - it is a talking head.

Talking heads.... ego   

 

so wait -> filth like MSNBC and Fox News can have a platform but the man above can not? 

Edited by Contrarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Where do you get that from Auguste's post ?  

The man is simply able to discriminate between content that he finds useful and content he doesn't.

I am using 0 vs 1 language Michael. 

We tried your way, the establishment way, and the populists are running wild. 

So I can play the game. I have a feeling your the type of person also that thinks a "centrist" is about moderation. 😄

Michael, a centrist is not a moderate, is just part of the game. Do you know anything about the movements in the 18th century in France by former ideologues? Of course you don't. That is above the standard. 

Also it does not take me long to figure things out, your a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Tough fight. Do you find it confusing at times? 

Edited by Contrarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

 

1. We tried your way, the establishment way,
2. and the populists are running wild. 
3. So I can play the game. I have a feeling your the type of person also that thinks a "centrist" is about moderation. 😄

4. Michael, a centrist is not a moderate. Do you know anything about the movements in the 18th century in France led by former ideologues? Of course you don't. That is above the standard. 

5. Also it does not take me long to figure things out, your a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Tough fight. 

1. "My way" 🤫
2.  Do you think that's a permanent situation ?  So, we're done with hierarchy now ?
3.  I don't know anything about you, nor would I presume to.  Not sure how you could have any 'feeling' about me.
4.  I read 'A Tale of Two Cities'
5.  Not really.  If you have to answer one of 3 questions on a ballot to colour your personality what kind of world is that ?  Sounds like Flatland.  I was brought up in a super religious environment, hard working, and small town but with a love of classic literature, sports, popular movies and television... a believe in people and democracy and in nature, but an idea of futurism, where we discussed McLuhan and the value of Tiger Williams and what Trudeau's Wage & Price Controls really meant.  We housed Chilean refugees and went to church extra during Lent.

Did you guess all that about me ?  I suppose so.

Anyway, if you have read 1/2 a dozen McLuhan books then you can see how I think.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. "My way" 🤫
2.  Do you think that's a permanent situation ?  So, we're done with hierarchy now ?
3.  I don't know anything about you, nor would I presume to.  Not sure how you could have any 'feeling' about me.
4.  I read 'A Tale of Two Cities'
5.  Not really.  If you have to answer one of 3 questions on a ballot to colour your personality what kind of world is that ?  Sounds like Flatland.  I was brought up in a super religious environment, hard working, and small town but with a love of classic literature, sports, popular movies and television... a believe in people and democracy and in nature, but an idea of futurism, where we discussed McLuhan and the value of Tiger Williams and what Trudeau's Wage & Price Controls really meant.  We housed Chilean refugees and went to church extra during Lent.

Did you guess all that about me ?  I suppose so.

Anyway, if you have read 1/2 a dozen McLuhan books then you can see how I think.  

Your a good man. Cheers with some water. 

Edited by Contrarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has gone exactly to where it proves the concern I tried to express in my video.  It's now all name calling and accusation and principles and issues are long forgotten.

 "In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve."  Joseph de Maistre  We deserve no better.

 

Edited by Tony Hladun
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tony Hladun said:

This thread has gone exactly to where it proves the concern I tried to express in my video.  It's now all name calling and accusation and principles and issues are long forgotten.

 "In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve."  Joseph de Maistre  We deserve no better.

 

I didn't realize that it was you in that video.. congratulations on being so handsome. You look like Larry David's fatter older brother. Anyway, I only listen to a few minutes which is a lot less than I'm going to ask from you for reading my post here. What did you think of the astronomical deficits Donald Trump voiced on the world? It caused capital c conservative Paul Ryan to leave politics. Were you aware of that?

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tony Hladun said:

We deserve no better.

 

How about some truth while marching into 2022. 

There is nothing wrong with the status quo from my view. I get to chose locally who I elect -> by personality. 

No room for nationalistic populism.

So I voted most parties along the years, depending on the man/woman/etc. 

Also wonder if in 300 years, when people will colonise space, if they will have room for social conservatism. 

Edited by Contrarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I'd say we're seeing the opposite, and the fact that more moderate, non-Trumpian candidates fared better in the mid-terms would signal this.  There are of course exceptions like Ron DeSantis, or people like Boebart in extremely safe republican districts succeeding, but by and large the culture-warriors and the election deniers were the ones who fared worse

Yes, moderates on both sides are fed up with the election deniers. It was that which allowed the Democrats to hang onto the Senate. But given there is so much BAD about Republican policy, such as it is, so little to attract people, it ought to also alarm Democrats and liberals that so many minorities are now shifting uneasily in place and glowering at the Democrats they see as making cities a mess with crime and homelessness and out of control drug addicts Democratic prosecutors refuse to lock up.  Schools in urban centers consume vast quantities of taxes but churn out poorly educated students while fixating on racial and identity politics and a bizarre fixation on transgender and other sexual choices. People fear for their kids futures and are getting angrier.

I would wager that if the Republicans hadn't put forth so many election deniers as to scare people into thinking they were going to end democracy they'd have won in a landslide. But election denial is not social conservatism so much as brainless stupidity. 

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Harper was a pragmatist.  He won because he muzzled the social conservatives in the base. 

No. He won because people were fed up with the Liberals. And then he turned out to be competent, and the Liberal and NDP scaremongering turned out to be so much nonsense. Canadians are rarely in a hurry to evict a party once they're in power unless they really get pissed off.

I'm not generally in favor of muzzling public representatives. There was a time when there were anti-abortion MPs and candidates in the Liberal party too, until Trudeau abruptly threw them all out because they didn't agree with his views. The Conservative party is better than that. But what he should have done was allow one of his people to put out a private members bill to ban abortion. Let it run right through, and allow a free vote so that it could be put to rest by a wide margin - which it would have been.

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I miss Harper and the leadership he offered, regardless of how he managed to look like Darth Vader in a sweater.  The fiscal conservative message he offered (but didn't always deliver) resonated with the swing voters in Canada that the Conservatives need, despite their wishes that it were otherwise.  

Unfortunately, people got tired of fiscal conservatism. They wanted a free-spending government. They thought they could borrow money forever and inflation would never return, and with it high interest rates. They enjoyed getting paid off by their government to do nothing. It's all about instant gratification now and to hell with what might happen ten years down the road.

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Which should serve as an indication on how unpalatable the CPC bases' social conservatism is to the RoC outside of the Prairies and rural Ontario. 

So what? Any Conservative majority - and it would have to be a majority because otherwise the NDP would prop up the Liberals - would need dozens of new MPs from central and eastern Canada. That would make it impossible for any kind of social conservative agenda to get passed. What do you care if some of the MPs from out west are against abortion? They'd never get anything passed anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada is self-destructing, and the Conservative Party largely is following down that path in the destruction of Canada.  The only part of the Conservative Party which takes a different view are called the social conservatives, but they are in a minority and overall given the bum's rush by the insiders and leaders of the party.  The president of the Quebec College of Physicians now wants to explore the possibility of the euthanasia of babies.  This is a new low and he is putting forward his arguments to the parliamentary committee which has oversight and studying the changing euthanasia law.  The Liberal government had already decided to open it up to the mentally ill  and the new law takes effect this coming Spring.  This is an all-time low in morality and demonstrates how far our country and government has sunk.

"The president of the Quebec College of Physicians wants to explore the prospect of euthanizing suffering babies and believes it’s nobody’s business but doctors’.

To be fair, Dr. Mauril Gaudreault would let parents have a say as well, so he’s not being totally arrogant.

Gaudreault’s rather obscene suggestion illustrates just how far down the slippery slope we have plunged when it comes to mercy killing, euthanasia, Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) , call it what you will.

It is worth quoting Gaudreault extensively from his testimony last week before the special parliamentary committee looking at MAID.

“Medical assistance in dying is a form of care, a medical act that may be appropriate in certain circumstances,” he said, according to the parliamentary translator. “It is not a political or moral or religious issue. It is a medical issue.”

So basically, you can trust me; I’m a doctor! No need to have discussions on the meaning of life, the value of a human being, or the philosophy of existence. No need, even, for society to take a stand, just leave it to the medical profession."

Michael Higgins: To Quebec doctors, killing babies is just another 'form of care' (msn.com)

Where are all the churches in Canada on this?  Where are the politicians and conservatives who claim to believe in God and the sanctity of life?  There seems to be a strange silence as well as the media very selectively only allowing liberals and progressives to be reported and speak to the public.  How often have we heard opposing views on such subjects as abortion or MAID on MSN such as the CBC or CTV?  Very rarely and very little.  Trusting MSN for your spiritual food or guidance on any morality is like trusting the Prince of Darkness.  It will lead you deeper into the depths of iniquity.

 

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Nope, sorry.  Bible-thumpers are a very different breed than everyday Christians.  You'd be considered one - the tasteless type prone to preaching and proselytizing to people uninterested in your religious messages.  

There is far more to it than "religious messaging" and abortion.  Talking about social conservatives opposition to abortion does not present an honest picture of what concerns so-called social conservatives.  That is just one issue of out many.  The whole thinking of the liberal left is from the pit of hell.  Their thinking is corrupt from beginning to end.  If something good comes out anything they do, it is only by pure accident. 

Christians oppose the woke agenda that the liberals and NDP are forcing down the throat of Canadians.  Like doctor-assisted suicide.  teaching school children they can choose which gender that suits them, same-sex marriage, not to mention countless other things, like pandering to every perverse lifestyle and ideology that comes along and is brought in from the third world.  Social conservatives are concerned about laws, education, Marxist globalism, Socialism, excessive reach and control of everyone's life and businesses, which means loss of freedom, and many other things that the liberals and progressives are doing.   It also seems the BC NDP are bent on setting up a separate legal system for aboriginals and giving them special privileges that nobody else has.  When will the billions in payouts for past wrongs ever end?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Nope, sorry.  Bible-thumpers are a very different breed than everyday Christians.  You'd be considered one - the tasteless type prone to preaching and proselytizing to people uninterested in your religious messages.  

There is basically only one kind of Christian, that is, one that believe in and accepts the Bible.  If you think Christianity is divided between Bible believers or what you say is "Bible thumpers" and those who don't believe the Bible, you don't understand anything about Christianity or the Bible.  One cannot be a Christian without believing in the Bible's basic teachings which includes spreading the gospel.  If one is a Christian they would understand what the gospel is and spreading the message of the gospel is a fundamental part of the Bible teaching.  

There is no such thing as a Christian who is not a "Bible thumper" which means someone who believes in the Bible and would support its teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

There is basically only one kind of Christian, that is, one that believe in and accepts the Bible. 

That's so clueless it's absurd, and not even worth debating.  

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

If you think Christianity is divided between Bible believers or what you say is "Bible thumpers" and those who don't believe the Bible, you don't understand anything about Christianity or the Bible. 

I don't think you understand anything about the world, or history or humanity.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

 But given there is so much BAD about Republican policy, such as it is, so little to attract people, it ought to also alarm Democrats and liberals that so many minorities are now shifting uneasily in place and glowering at the Democrats they see as making cities a mess with crime and homelessness and out of control drug addicts Democratic prosecutors refuse to lock up. 

That could be the case, but then this was one midterm season, the reality you describe was mostly localized (especially in places like Florida) and not yet indicative of a trend.  The shift of the Hispanic vote could be explained by how unpopular Joe Biden is and how worried people were about inflation and the economy.  

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Schools in urban centers consume vast quantities of taxes but churn out poorly educated students while fixating on racial and identity politics and a bizarre fixation on transgender and other sexual choices. People fear for their kids futures and are getting angrier.

They're not as expensive as ours 😐

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I would wager that if the Republicans hadn't put forth so many election deniers as to scare people into thinking they were going to end democracy they'd have won in a landslide. But election denial is not social conservatism so much as brainless stupidity. 

I agree on all points, except I think you understate the effect that Roe vs Wade had.  

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

No. He won because people were fed up with the Liberals. And then he turned out to be competent, and the Liberal and NDP scaremongering turned out to be so much nonsense. Canadians are rarely in a hurry to evict a party once they're in power unless they really get pissed off.

He won the first election because people were tired of the Liberals.  He won the subsequent ones because he was cynical, pragmatic and willing to compromise.  

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I'm not generally in favor of muzzling public representatives. There was a time when there were anti-abortion MPs and candidates in the Liberal party too, until Trudeau abruptly threw them all out because they didn't agree with his views. The Conservative party is better than that. But what he should have done was allow one of his people to put out a private members bill to ban abortion. Let it run right through, and allow a free vote so that it could be put to rest by a wide margin - which it would have been.

Maybe, but these things are all about narratives.  Harper understood that the electorate (outside of a minority) considers abortion a fundamental right and that they weren't going to tolerate challenges to it.  I can make up a bunch of silly examples of doofus private member bills I think even you'd agree would be problematic for the party.  

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Unfortunately, people got tired of fiscal conservatism. 

Trudeau's ascension was pre-ordained.  I said on this forum back in 2009-2010 it was going to happen.  I could probably find that post.  The brand was too strong, and people were tired of Harper, who wasn't nearly as fiscally conservative as people expected him to be, though he was certainly better than Trudeau.  

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

So what? Any Conservative majority - and it would have to be a majority because otherwise the NDP would prop up the Liberals - would need dozens of new MPs from central and eastern Canada. That would make it impossible for any kind of social conservative agenda to get passed. What do you care if some of the MPs from out west are against abortion? They'd never get anything passed anyway.

Because the Conservative Party would be considered guilty by association.  For the many Canadian, abortion rights are fundamental.  That needs to be part of the platform and the brand, and if it's not, and you have rogue MP's publicly attacking things like this, the average voter has reason to doubt.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, blackbird said:

That ended any further support for the CPC from me.  The only reason I vote for them is .....

WTF ?

You don't support them, but you still support them.

But now we know you don't support them, because you told us so.

If you lose faith what you do is you don't vote!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cougar said:

WTF ?

You don't support them, but you still support them.

But now we know you don't support them, because you told us so.

If you lose faith what you do is you don't vote!

I don't trust any political party.  I vote for the lesser of several evils. They are preferable to the liberals and far left NDP.   Not voting is giving more power to the liberal and left which is not a good option.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's so clueless it's absurd, and not even worth debating.  

I don't think you understand anything about the world, or history or humanity.  

You obviously don't understand anything about true or biblical Christianity.  The majority of what the world claims as Christianity is the Roman Catholic church which is a false religion.  It is totally unbiblical. 

But you think it is a form of Christianity because many of the liberals, left politicians belong to that religion but do not "proselytize".   Roman Catholics do not evangelize or spread the biblical gospel.  Many liberals are Catholic which would be the ones you approve of because they don't try to convert anyone or "proselytize".  They prove they are not Bible believers when they support abortion, same-sex marriage, assisted suicide, etc. as the liberal party does.  That is how you divide Christianity into two groups when in fact there is only one definition of a Christian, one who believes the Bible.

  You mock true biblical Christianity by accusing the true followers as "proselytizing", a derogatory term meant to demean and insult.  Yet you yourself proselytize your own political views and opinions and anti-Christian opinions such as supporting killing babies not yet born under the claim of freedom.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

You mock true biblical Christianity by accusing the true followers as "proselytizing", a derogatory term meant to demean and insult. 

I mock you and people like you, and the term is meant to describe exactly what you're doing here.  

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Yet you yourself proselytize your own political views and opinions and anti-Christian opinions such as supporting killing babies not yet born under the claim of freedom.  

Yes, I believe in freedom over fundamentalism and ancient religious dogma.  🤷‍♂️

Your beliefs are your own, and I'd have nothing really to say about them until you start trying to shove them down everyone's throat.  

  • Like 1
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
      10,498
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mariana
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Holubice went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Mariana earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Holubice earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Deluge went up a rank
      Experienced
    • CdnFox earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

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