Conservative Crosses Floor to Join Carney’s Liberals

[Nationalist]

On 11/5/2025 at 10:45 AM, Nefarious Banana said:

Politics1990, herbie, and eyeball . . . . three flies on the Liberal sh!tpile.  Stay the course, keep buzzing!

Actually...I kind of agree with the argument that Poiliere is partially responsible for the carney. He should have attacked the carney about stealing his election platform. He failed and now we're stuck with this flop.

The only saving grace is, the carney is a dullard so Poilievre should be able to steer in some manner.

[eyeball]

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Awww lookit you, "not supporting" the liberals again  LOLOLOL

Look at you supporting them. LMAO!

[herbie]

One should support the greater of two evils, because it is GREATER rather than the lesser because it is merely BETTER.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Look at you supporting them. LMAO!

[August1991]

On 11/6/2025 at 3:46 PM, Nationalist said:

Actually...I kind of agree with the argument that Poiliere is partially responsible for the carney. He should have attacked the carney about stealing his election platform.

...

Agreed.

======

Poilievre should have known what the Liberals were doing in his Ottawa riding.

Do I want a guy like that to negotiate with Trump? 

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, August1991 said:

 

Poilievre should have known what the Liberals were doing in his Ottawa riding.

Do I want a guy like that to negotiate with Trump? 

 

Yeah.  More than i want carney. 

PP's people made a mistake. He'll learn from it and move on. 

Carney has pretty much sold us out to the states, the negotiations are now complete trashed, the americans are admittine we were never close to a deal, our eocnomy is going in the crapper and every month we get more tariffs put on our goods. 

Carney can't even negotiate his budget with his peers. 

So yeah i'll take PP any day of the week. 

[August1991]

Guys like Nixon, Charest, Clinton, Bourassa - even Mackenzie King - lost for obvious reasons, but came back.

Poilievre lost for no reason. Like Dukakis.

[August1991]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

.....

Carney can't even negotiate his budget with his peers. 

....

Agreed. And he has all the anglo media on his side. 

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Guys like Nixon, Charest, Clinton, Bourassa - even Mackenzie King - lost for obvious reasons, but came back.

Poilievre lost for no reason. Like Dukakis.

What are you talking about?
 

No reason. You didn't hear about trump during the election? You didn't watch careny pause parliament and shut down the gov't to run his fake little leadership race? you didn't watch the ndp collapse as they were so afraid of the us that they reduced the ndp to below party status?

Why do you talk about politics when you have no idea?

[Goddess]

If you look at his voting record, d'Entremont voted against many Liberal pet projects - censorship and ending the mandates being the main ones, he voted against their abortion stuff once - very strange that the Libs would want a guy like that.

He also abstained from votes. A LOT.

He's a dullard, for sure.  No wonder he didn't get the Deputy Speaker appointment.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Goddess

[SpankyMcFarland]

This is part of how our system works. We elect MPs, not parties, and how often do parties of any stripe refuse to take a floor-crosser in? 

With that said, I don’t think I’d have the stomach to do this unless there was a major matter of principle involved. You’ll be hated by one party and distrusted by another. 
 

Edited November 13, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

This is part of how our system works. We elect MPs, not parties, and how often do parties of any stripe refuse to take a floor-crosser in? 

 

The NDP does and has refused out right. When people cross the floor to them they make them run in a by-election.

The conservatives have also told people not to cross the floor. They don't accept everybody. You don't hear about those ones cuz they never try, they reach out to the conservatives and the conservatives say maybe not,

I know it's not the way the system is designed or how it works. If it was there would be no parties at all. You would just elect your MP and off they would go. The system is specifically designed so that unless otherwise stated the MP works within the framework of a party and the members of that party get an opportunity to pass policy and have a say in the leadership and all kinds of other things that come along with that

So no matter how you slice it it's a betrayal. Maybe sometimes it is justified such as in the case of Emerson which was a very specific and unusual example but most of the time it's not

I'm reluctant to say it should be banished because it is a valid form of protest available to back ventures if they feel their party has really gone astray. But I do feel they should be forced to citizen independent until the next election which carries with it financial issues that makes for crossing less desirable.

The only reason you're defending it now is because it happened to work in your favor

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 11/5/2025 at 2:07 PM, WestCanMan said:

What a f'n piece of garbage that guy is. 

I really have mixed feelings towards Maritimers because a lot of my best friends from the navy and even from out here in BC are from NS and NFLD, but politically I detest them. They get 1.6 votes per person and always vote for welfare and cultist BS. 

At least get your insults correct. You’re wildly generalizing about Atlantic Canadians there, not just Maritimers. 
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The only reason you're defending it now is because it happened to work in your favor

Not true. 

Edited November 13, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Not true. 

I see no evidence to the contrary.

Edited November 13, 2025 by CdnFox

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I see no evidence to the contrary.

You have no evidence. Does my second paragraph above sound like I heartily endorse this practice? 

Edited November 13, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The system is specifically designed so that unless otherwise stated the MP works within the framework of a party and the members of that party get an opportunity to pass policy and have a say in the leadership and all kinds of other things that come along with that

That's simply not true. Our Constitution doesn't even mention a Prime Minister.

AI Overview:

Canada's parliamentary system was not explicitly designed for political parties in its foundational documents, but evolved from the British Westminster model, where a two-party system was the traditional view.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The only reason you're defending it now is because it happened to work in your favor

The only reason you're attacking it is because it didn't work in your party's favour.

AFAIC the party system is the main cause of the sludge in our governing system that keeps everything mired in politics. It's a bane on efficiency and above all else accountability.

Notice Britain is a goddamn mess too.

 

Edited November 13, 2025 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

You have no evidence. Does my second paragraph above sound like I heartily endorse this practice? 

The one where you said you couldn't do it unless it was a matter of principle?

I don't think it really speaks to it one way or another overly much. Clearly not a ringing endorsement of it in general but also not exactly lashing out against it. Your earlier comments where you specifically refer to the current one were much more positive. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

That's simply not true. Our Constitution doesn't even mention a Prime Minister.

 

Our constitution is not the dseign of our parliamentary system. it includes elements of it but the design is not included nor intended to be included there. FPTP isn't included in it either yet we have that  

So I'm not sure why you would suggest that something that isn't in the constitution is not part of how our system is designed. That would be entirely false

And my original statement is accurate.

So your AI quote isn't relevant. While our foundational document doesn't lay it out that way it absolutely was designed. Nobody tripped and accidentally created the Office of Prime Minister. Nobody slipped on a banana peel and accidentally invented parties.

Our system is absolutely 100% designed around a party system. The constitution is not the only document that deals with how our government is designed.

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

 

The only reason you're attacking it is because it didn't work in your party's favour.

 

Where did I attack it? 

Oh I get it you're making up fake stuff I never said to try and argue with that because you're losing the argument again. Yawn.

Quote

 

AFAIC the party system is the main cause of the sludge in our governing system that keeps everything mired in politics. It's a bane on efficiency and above all else accountability.

Notice Britain is a goddamn mess too.

 

That's because you're uneducated on how the system works or any of its details. How I literally just had to explain to you that our system was designed and didn't accidentally happen because you thought that the only place it could have been designed was in the constitution which is bananas.

The party system is imperfect but it has some extreme strengths compared to many of the other options. And it is how we are designed. So it is wrong to say that people only vote for the representative and not the party