Jump to content

Don Martin: The Trudeau tipping point is within sight


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure - liberals have often had great success with lying.

Stephen Harper promised to recapitalize the Canadian military

lie : Paul Martin did more, Paul Martin went on the spending spree, it was Harper who cut the defence budget

Stephen Harper promised to reform Gun Control

lie : he actually imposed minimum sentences for minor gun infractions

which literally the Liberals have repealed now

die in a fire of your own making, Progressive Conservative Party of Canada

nobody believes in you, least of all conservatives

I'm with the PPC even if we are the fringe minority, call me a Deplorable, I don't care 

frankly, I'd just keep the Liberals in office for now, let them run amok, Canadians deserve it

if you think the Liberal policies are a disaster

then just stand aside and let Canadians learn the hard way, let it burn

Canadians will only learn the price of left wing economics

when they are living in tent cities with their children, getting beat down by the cops

let them get a taste, let them feel the whips upon their backs

let the Liberals crush Canadians under their jackboots, it's good training

I take the long view, nothing will be decided by voting

the culture itself will have to change, by crucible

I've voted for the Conservatives many times, I just voted for Doug Ford the other day

then Doug Ford simply became a crony of Justin Trudeau, backing Trudeau to the hilt

voting doesn't change anything, the Conservatives simply adopt all the Liberal policies

voting for conservatism in Canada has proved to be pointless, for decades now

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

They fail but they do not fail badly. Harper didn't fail badly. But chretien got thrown out by his own people, and his successor was destroyed by an upstart party that just got created at the polls, sinking the libs into a decade of being in a political backwater despite the fact they were the natural ruling party for decades.

He failed BADLY

So, by those criteria, did Margaret Thatcher fail BADLY?

For my money, any politician that gets re-elected is a success, at least at the electoral side of politics. Twice or more of that makes them a big success on selling their message. It’s an unbelievably difficult game. And there are worse ends than being voted out by your own party. One of them is staying on too long. Churchill should have retired when he was defeated in 1945. Instead he hung on as leader for another ten years despite being physically unfit for office, and another nine years as a backbencher until he was almost dead. I’ll end with a quote from Enoch Powell, of all people:

Quote

“All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.”

 

 

 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Stephen Harper promised to recapitalize the Canadian military

lie : Paul Martin did more,

Nope. Harper green lit more. THe libs just cancelled it when they got in power. Not his fault.
 

Quote

 

Stephen Harper promised to reform Gun Control

lie : he actually imposed minimum sentences for minor gun infractions

 

It would appear you are the liar sir. And it's a very distasteful lie - you appear to be using the 'bait and switch' method for the most part.

Gun control refers to the civillan ownership of firearms, not the criminal use of firearms.  He definitely reformed "gun control", and in a major way.  He also increased punishment for those who misused guns. Which he also campaigned on. s

So - as you know, my policy is "if you have to lie to make a point, then you probably don't have a very good point to begin with"

And by the way - harper was in charge of the CPC... not the PC.  THe PC party isn't around any more. That alone shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.

As to the rest of your rant, Good.  We don't need people of your lower intellect associated with the CPC. its actually quite handy to have your party as a home for the mentally deficient to keep them out of the way of more honest conservatives. Makes it easy to say "the CPC isn't radically right - THOSE guys are". You go ahead and stick your head in the sand, we'll let you know when it's safe to come out again. 

In the  meantime i'm sure justin appreciates your support. As you say, your goal is to keep him in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

In the  meantime i'm sure justin appreciates your support. As you say, your goal is to keep him in power.

suck it, Erin O'toole

better to have the actual Liberals with their jackboots upon our throats, than the phony Con cucks

at least conservatives get riled up when the Liberals are in power, all to the good

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I can't help your complete misunderstanding of history. All i can do is correct you when you're wrong. You should be thanking  me, not getting upset.

If you read a little more i woudln't have to help you out. But next time if you don't know the answers just ask, i'm happy to explain the actual facts as they actually occurred to prevent you being wrong in the future.

the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada ?

you have no credibility, none

conservatives despise you, Liberals despise you, you don't actually have any constituency at all

even when you get elected, that's just disgruntled Liberals voting you in

hence why you always pander to the Liberals, even after years of supposedly running against them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

The troll's welfare check is coming to an end. Now is his final kick with swearing and trolling, then he will dissapear like the coward fake he is for a few days. 

I have it ready, the screenshot software, in case you slip again, careful with the Lager.  :lol:

you already defame me without restraint

go ahead and post your screen shot, I dare you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Not now, I am waiting for the big day to come in very angry and drop even bigger one that the ones that I have in which you threaten me and my family which is passed out by the way. 

So neo-nazi that celebrated the German revolt, who are you fooling here? 

I know already what to do with you, an element like you needs to be pissed off and called upon his deranged behaviour and you will crack. Is just physics.

I never threatened you nor your family, I don't know what you mean

meanwhile you are calling me a "Neo Nazi" which is a defamatory lie

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Keep using the word "defamatory"  as you think that intimidates me. I know basic law, and lawyers for advanced law.

Do you thinkng you are talking to a "woke" leftist, boy? 

Are you born in 93? You must be a youngster, is another theory I have. Like who do you think you are used to talking with? Who are you fooling, again? I am not born here to talk political corectness with every deranged person over the internet.

---> Anyways,  I want to respect the house of this admin, because this forum helped me in my worst times so will leave you alone for now, it seems you are trying self control, a safe space is needed even for you.

you are rambling nonsensically, I don't know what you are talking about

you are calling me a "Neo Nazi" obviously to libel my reputation, that is defamation by definition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Keep up the "work."

Yes, on my interests it says "Satire", will be also happy to explain to a judge including screenshots of your comments about neo-nazism if you say I "defamed" you.

Listen, my platform might go mainstream, one of the things before they kick me out from here, might have exposing fake Canadian military trolls over the internet. I think the real military will support me.

When it will be official, as we live in a free society, you will be able to bring a lawsuit or whatever you want.

Then, as any civilized society we will go in front of a rational judge and he will decide. Is that easy. The system is great. 

Now is just words, me lowering to your level to troll you.

I am not a National Socialist, I have never expressed support for National Socialism nor anything like

I am not fake Canadian military, I served 17 years in the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps, decorated for my service

even If I can't sue you, you are still engaging in defamation by publishing false statements of fact about me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

The money will run out by tomorrow.

Don't forget to come back and delete some messages, the internet however, is forever, especially for extremists which pretend to be other than what they are not in my view.

Good luck traveler. Now, will keep my promise and won't respond for today, said what I had to said.  

See you tomorrow or the next days

(=)

again, you are rambling nonsensically, which is what you do ceaselessly, falsely accusing me of this and that /shrugs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

no he wasn't

the Mulroney Conservatives ended up running the largest deficit in Canadian history

which became a crisis when the international bond markets downgraded Canada's ratings


OK, these things don’t turn around in a year or two. The analogy of the ship of state captures this. The problem with overspending started under Trudeau. You have to look at where the PCs started on deficits, debt and inflation compared to where their predecessors started, and where they ended up. Wilson and Mazankowski began to right the ship and Martin continued the job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So, by those criteria, did Margaret Thatcher fail BADLY?

you can't really compare our system with the british. For example what happened to her could not happen here - for Chretien to be hounded out of power was unbelievable.  In england it's quite common.

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

For my money, any politician that gets re-elected is a success, at least at the electoral side of politics.

I can't argue - winning an election is indeed pretty much the definition of electoral success. :)

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Twice or more of that makes them a big success on selling their message. It’s an unbelievably difficult game. 

It really isn't.  People crave stability. Two terms is pretty normal and you really have to mess up to get less than two if you get elected in the first place. Even in the states presidents who aren't that popular manage to squeak out two terms. It's very rare for there to be a single term prime minister or president.  And by term i mean 4 years ish.

 

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

And there are worse ends than being voted out by your own party.

No there isn't! Not DURING a term anyway - that's all but unheard of in Canada. You can't even "vote them out" in canada. they have to have messed up so bad that their party is so sick they basically all threaten to quit and go to a general election! 

I mean I suppose getting assassinated is worse but that's about it!

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

 

One of them is staying on too long. Churchill should have retired when he was defeated in 1945. Instead he hung on as leader for another ten years despite being physically unfit for office, and another nine years as a backbencher until he was almost dead. I’ll end with a quote from Enoch Powell, of all people:

That's not worse. Politically that's still impressive. I think he should have knocked it off sooner for sure but to hold power in your party THAT long in england is something else.

Being kicked out of your own party after two wins by an upstart who would then go on to lose the obvious majority to a minority and then lose entirely and have the party completely trashed for three elections on top of it when they were the established party is definitely worse by any reasonable measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

you can't really compare our system with the british. For example what happened to her could not happen here - for Chretien to be hounded out of power was unbelievable.  In england it's quite common.

I can't argue - winning an election is indeed pretty much the definition of electoral success. :)

It really isn't.  People crave stability. Two terms is pretty normal and you really have to mess up to get less than two if you get elected in the first place. Even in the states presidents who aren't that popular manage to squeak out two terms. It's very rare for there to be a single term prime minister or president. 
 

Our Canadian system is literally based on the British system. To answer the question I posed, Thatcher was, of course, a highly successful PM but time tarnishes every career. They all come back to earth in the end. People became tired of her and her party could see that. Getting rid of her was a good move because the Tories won the next election with their new leader as the Liberals won with Martin. Harper should have seen it was time for him to go as well. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Our Canadian system is literally based on the British system.

Wow.  Tell me you know nothing of politics without telling me.

They're both westminster based systems but it is "literally" very different that the british one.  That's like saying that china and the us gov't is the same because they're both 'repbulics' according to the name. Or that a hundai pony and a lexus are the same car because they're both based on internal combustion engines.

Pretty much all the westminster gov'ts are a little different from each other. They share some common elements but if you thought they were the same you have quite a bit to learn. In fact there's even differences between parties within the system.

As mentioned the british can throw out the leader of their party while they're still PM.  Sooooo - how does that work in Canada? What's the mechansim there? What law allows that? I mean - you disagreed when i said that it was different in canada than the uk so by all means - educate us all and tell us how that works. How could chretien have been 'voted out' of leadership?

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

 

To answer the question I posed, Thatcher was, of course, a highly successful PM but time tarnishes every career. 

It doesn't 'tarnish' it. Many retire successful but unpopular even if they lose an election. Mulroney was very successful, harper was successful, there are many others who are.

Chretien was not. HE didn't even lose in an election, he was forced out and is known primarily for his scandals of shawinigate and the 'brown envelopes' of shame.

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Getting rid of her was a good move because the Tories won the next election with their new leader as the Liberals won with Martin.

The liberals didn't win - they were forced to a minority gov't (which means they lost less badly than everyone else.).  Nobody took enough seats to win. And then he was destroyed in the next go around. And his opponent was someone who the public didn't know well fighting his first campaigns and the liberals were the natural ruling party with massive funding.

Chretien ended badly, martin ended badly.

This really isn't that complex. And honestly if you don't know there's a difference between canada's system and the brits i'm afraid you're not really qualified to be talking politics in detail in the first place.

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Harper should have seen it was time for him to go as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

As mentioned the british can throw out the leader of their party while they're still PM.  Sooooo - how does that work in Canada? What's the mechansim there? What law allows that? I mean - you disagreed when i said that it was different in canada than the uk so by all means - educate us all and tell us how that works. How could chretien have been 'voted out' of leadership?

it's exactly the same in Canada

you only remain Prime Minister so long as you have the confidence of the House

your own MP's can vote you out and replace you with another MP as the leader of the party

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

it's exactly the same in Canada

Oh look, dougie has arrived to prove how little he knows

8 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

you only remain Prime Minister so long as you have the confidence of the House

But you remain leader of the party regardless. Sigh. 

8 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

your own MP's can vote you out and replace you with another MP as the leader of the party

No they can not :) LOL - what provision allows for that? Which line in the constitution says that's ok or which party constitution does? Sure as hell isn't the liberals.

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY for the liberals right now to force justin trudeau out of the leadership. They can try to convince him to step down, they can threaten to force an election if the doesn't step down (which he could win) , etc but they cannot force him to step down.

If they vote against the confidence of the house then there's an election. And if trudeau were to win that election he'd still be leader and there'd still be no way to get rid of him. He has to lose an election first If he loses the election then they can vote to have a leadershio review and vote on him then, but then they're out of power.

It is entirely different.

For god's sake, why even open your mouth and make yourself look like a dolt when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

You're wrong on that Dougie . . . . many believe in the PCC and are willing to give Pierre Poilievre  a chance.

oh I sincerely hope I am wrong

but Stephen Harper too came in as a Western populist conservative firebrand

I was inspired by Stephen Harper, I voted for Stephen Harper, I very much like Stephen Harper personally

Stephen Harper now after the fact is indicting the left as being fundamentally Marxist

but after the big promises of conservative reform, it never actually happened

the Liberals have no compunction about imposing a radical leftist agenda, they make huge sweeping changes

then the Conservatives come in for a brief interval, merely to tinker around the margins

then the Liberals are back in no time, making huge sweeping changes

I've been through this cycle too many times now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Really. I suspect this isn't actually what you believe but i'll bite:   What did he promise he would do that he deliberately didn't do?

 he promised to reform gun control to prevent prohibition & confiscation

then all he did was impose minimum sentences for minor gun infractions, which the Liberals have repealed

then at the very end, he said Canadians needed guns to defend themselves

after nine years in office doing absolutely nothing about that

now the Liberals are declaring that we don't even have the fundamental human right of self defence 

while they are confiscating guns arbitrarily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Really. I suspect this isn't actually what you believe but i'll bite:   What did he promise he would do that he deliberately didn't do?

he promised to recapitalize the miltary

to include vitally needed Close Combat Vehicles in Afghanistan

to include the F-35 to replace the CF-18's

but then he actually cut the defence budget, cancelled both CCV & F-35

what the military actually got, was only what Liberals had already ordered

and now it's Justin Trudeau who is going to buy F-35 & even P-8 to replace the CP-140's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 he promised to reform gun control to prevent prohibition & confiscation

He did no such thing. At all. He promised to get rid of the gun registry and he did And even that was only possible with a majority gov't.

Show me ANYWHERE he promised to make it so they couldn't prohibit or confiscate guns. That wouldn't even be possible wihtout a constitutional amendment.

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

then all he did was impose minimum sentences for minor gun infractions, which the Liberals have repealed

And get rid of the gun registry. which in fact makes confiscation HARDER by far.

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

then at the very end, he said Canadians needed guns to defend themselves

He said it in the middle too, but whatever.

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

after nine years in office doing absolutely nothing about that

Except get rid of the gun registry, repeal the backstabbing RCMP's attempts to ban green rifles etc, and that's mostly with a minority gov't.

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

now the Liberals are declaring that we don't even have the fundamental human right of self defence 

while they are confiscating guns arbitrarily

Yeah - and they're ALWAYS going to do that and there's nothing any other gov't can do about that. Other than amend the constitution which will never happen.  The moral there is not  "harper was a leftie", the moral there is 'don't vote liberal'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - and they're ALWAYS going to do that and there's nothing any other gov't can do about that. Other than amend the constitution which will never happen. 

actually, the right to self defence and the right against unreasonable seizure are already in the constitution

Section 7 & Section 8

the Canadian judiciary simply fails to uphold the constitution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

can you expand on that, no mockery, will like to hear your view?!

the arbitrary nature of gun seizure in Canada is blatantly unreasonable

it's not based on anything other than feelings

a twelve gauge slide action shotgun is not safer than an automatic rifle

a handgun is not more dangerous than a bolt action rifle

breed bans are inherently illogical

it's not about the gun, it's all about the shooter

Edited by Dougie93
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...