Conservative Leadership Race

[Nefarious Banana]

On 11/7/2025 at 8:40 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

Now that the leadership of Mr. Poilievre is coming to an end, we need to make some decisions for the Party. 

Thinking that no one believes you're a Conservative supporter Queenie . . . . you or Mike.  Sheep in wolf's clothing?

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Thinking that no one believes you're a Conservative supporter Queenie . . . . you or Mike.  Sheep in wolf's clothing?

That is ironic. I have been wondering the same thig about you. Are you sure you are not a Socred or a republican? 🤠

[Army Guy]

10 hours ago, Barquentine said:

That's sad, but he can't compete.

One could always turn that around, Carney did not get a majority....so one would have to ask why? because PP can compete....

[Army Guy]

8 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Actually, the Libs would like an efficient helpful opposition but with PP all they get is constant stream of whining and complaining...no help in making things better.

I have said numerous times, I wished Rona Ambrose stayed in politics and became the Conservative leader. She  would have won...hands down.

I abandoned the conservatives when PP became leader... I realized he was a problem way back when he was in Harpers cabinet.

Yes, PP was the problem....you guys make me laugh, the problem was the Liberal party that had power for the last 10 years.....you conveniently forgot about all of that and concentrated on the fact You don't like PP....But switched your vote to the party that burnt Canada to the ground almost....Ya lets bury those facts....Lets give them another chance because the have a such an outstanding record in history of throwing our country under the bus....

The only thing that changed is the liberal party has a banker as a leader , the rest of the nightmare is still there producing the same crap....only now you can point out the leader is a banker....who has said a lot in the past 7 months but produced squat...And now many other bankers and economists are saying Carneys plans is not a good one.... 

[ExFlyer]

16 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Yes, PP was the problem....you guys make me laugh, the problem was the Liberal party that had power for the last 10 years.....you conveniently forgot about all of that and concentrated on the fact You don't like PP....But switched your vote to the party that burnt Canada to the ground almost....Ya lets bury those facts....Lets give them another chance because the have a such an outstanding record in history of throwing our country under the bus....

The only thing that changed is the liberal party has a banker as a leader , the rest of the nightmare is still there producing the same crap....only now you can point out the leader is a banker....who has said a lot in the past 7 months but produced squat...And now many other bankers and economists are saying Carneys plans is not a good one.... 

Maybe but, they liberals were less of a problem than the Conservatives and their 4 failed leaders.

You are right, I do not like PP and did change my vote and it looks like even conservatives are starting to see PP is not the leader they need.

Bottom line, Carney is still the choice by 3/4 of Canadians as the best choice of PM and that includes conservatives. Conservatives do not even like their on leader for PM.

Edited November 11, 2025 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

On 11/7/2025 at 11:24 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

The more determined the Socreds are to keep Pierre, the more likely the grits will win the next election and get fifth term. A 20 point gap is a steep hill to climb. The fact that our Party is tied in the polls with the Liberals but the Pierre is so disliked,  indicates he is the problem. 

 

You vote liberal. You're not making a particularly compelling argument considering you want to win the next election and therefore if what you're saying is true would want Poilievre to stay    

 

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Maybe but, they liberals were less of a problem than the Conservatives an their 4 failed leaders.

 

So you're saying Gretchen was a failed leader? And Paul Martinmust have been a fair later too then? Justin is definitely a failed leader by your measure

It sounds to me like the liberals have been failing every bit as much!

[Goddess]

18 hours ago, herbie said:

Well it appears someone thinks obstructionism and simplistic complaining is 'holding the govt accountable'.

Carney fails to prevent oncoming winter

Obviously, they've done more than that, since the Libs have stolen many CPC policies.

They implement them half-ways, but they have stolen a lot of the Cons policies.

[ExFlyer]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You vote liberal. You're not making a particularly compelling argument considering you want to win the next election and therefore if what you're saying is true would want Poilievre to stay    

 

So you're saying Gretchen was a failed leader? And Paul Martinmust have been a fair later too then? Justin is definitely a failed leader by your measure

It sounds to me like the liberals have been failing every bit as much!

Who is Gretchen?  Paul Martin was "fair", as you say, but he was just an interim after Chretien retired..

I did not like Justin but no, he was not a failure...he won 3 elections in a row..

Uhhh no...the liberals never lost 4 in a row with 4 different leaders LOL

[Goddess]

19 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I did not like Justin but no, he was not a failure...he won 3 elections in a row..

I guess if you count success as getting elected, then yes.

If you count success like most of us, meaning actually leading Canada to success, then no.

How's Justin's butthole today? 🙄

Will you ever need to come up for air and take a look at the reality or you're just content smelling his farts?

[Nationalist]

21 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Who is Gretchen?  Paul Martin was "fair", as you say, but he was just an interim after Chretien retired..

I did not like Justin but no, he was not a failure...he won 3 elections in a row..

Uhhh no...the liberals never lost 4 in a row with 4 different leaders LOL

So...your idea of a successful leader is that he got re-elected several times?

Ladies and gentlemen...this is a perfect example of the stupidity that leads to the stupidity that has been and still is the Canadian leadership. There is no thought to the betterment of Canada. Its all about winning the elections...by hook or by crook.

Canadians be damned.

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

There is no thought to the betterment of Canada. Its all about winning the elections...by hook or by crook.

Canadians be damned.

I've heard it said more than a few times - the Liberals are great at winning elections by manipulating weak-minded, uninformed people into voting for them and using the media to carry water for them.

But they SUCK at actually leading the country.

[Nationalist]

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I've heard it said more than a few times - the Liberals are great at winning elections by manipulating weak-minded, uninformed people into voting for them and using the media to carry water for them.

But they SUCK at actually leading the country.

Here they are in all their splendor...

 

Giggle.

The Liberal Party of Canada plays politics with the country. They display no concern for the people. Only for their own political careers.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Nationalist

[ExFlyer]

53 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I guess if you count success as getting elected, then yes.

If you count success like most of us, meaning actually leading Canada to success, then no.

How's Justin's butthole today? 🙄

Will you ever need to come up for air and take a look at the reality or you're just content smelling his farts?

And, to be Prime Minister of a Country...what would you count as success? Certainly not losing elections 4 times  in a row LOL

As for Justins private parts...why do you care...he is gone and living quite well.

I am up for air all the time...not up PP butt smelling his farts like so many here LOL

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Who is Gretchen? 

Sorry should have been Chretien.  My spell checker doesn't really like that name  

That really should have been obvious but I forgot how dumb you are..

I was just checking to see if you were hypocrite. You claim that harper is a failure because he lost an election or was thrown out of power.

Chretien was thrown out by his party, Martin lost an election justin was thrown out.... they were all losers according to your measure. 

So that'd be 'yes' to you being a hypocrite    No surprise, just pointing it out to others  

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

I guess if you count success as getting elected, then yes.

 

But harper got elected. Three times. And he claims harper's a failure because he lost his last election

4 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

And, to be Prime Minister of a Country...

But you call harper a failure and he was prime minister.

  Got you again kiddo  LOLOLOL 

[ExFlyer]

54 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

So...your idea of a successful leader is that he got re-elected several times?

Ladies and gentlemen...this is a perfect example of the stupidity that leads to the stupidity that has been and still is the Canadian leadership. There is no thought to the betterment of Canada. Its all about winning the elections...by hook or by crook.

Canadians be damned.

Well, I look at success in elections as those that win...and several times is a good indication of success.

I look at failure as those that continually lose.

So, what is stupidity...is it those that support winners or is it those that support continual losers???

Canadians choose who is the winner and it seems that 4 times in a row...they did not choose the complanitives 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Well, I look at success in elections as those that win...and several times is a good indication of success.

 

Then what was the problem with harper? You say he was a loser But he won three elections

[ExFlyer]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry should have been Chretien.  My spell checker doesn't really like that name  

That really should have been obvious but I forgot how dumb you are..

I was just checking to see if you were hypocrite. You claim that harper is a failure because he lost an election or was thrown out of power.

Chretien was thrown out by his party, Martin lost an election justin was thrown out.... they were all losers according to your measure. 

So that'd be 'yes' to you being a hypocrite    No surprise, just pointing it out to others  

But harper got elected. Three times. And he claims harper's a failure because he lost his last election

But you call harper a failure and he was prime minister.

  Got you again kiddo  LOLOLOL 

I am not your spell checker and you should read what you type before you post... It does not make me dumb but makes you a FAILURE  LOL

Chretien chose to retire in 2003 and Paul Martin was chosen as leader.

There was an election and Harper won. Yes, Harper won 2 minority and one majority but, he was forced to quit when he lost the election in 2015 and the complainitives were born and have not won anything since.

I never called Harper a failure, just everyone subsequent to him were failures.

The only thing you got is ability to deflect and to be wrong LOL  That is why you are such a monumental LOSER LOL

 

 

[ExFlyer]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Then what was the problem with harper? You say he was a loser But he won three elections

I never once said Harper was a loser. 

Just say you are a LOSER LOL

Harper had 2 good elections with minorities and failed on the third when he had a majority...

Why Harper lost

5 Reasons why Harper Lost

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34583753

"Stephen Harper lost the election not because Canadians rejected Conservative values, i.e., an aversion to big government, bureaucracy and regulation but because he came to be seen against democracy. Conservatives believe in smaller government, lower taxes and keeping the state out of the lives and businesses of citizens. But Mr. Harper sometime during his nine-plus years as prime minister began sacrificing our democratic institutions, especially the media, on the altar of his Conservative government."

https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/heres-why-harper-lost_b_8352896

 

[Legato]

28 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I never once said Harper was a loser. 

Just say you are a LOSER LOL

Harper had 2 good elections with minorities and failed on the third when he had a majority...

Why Harper lost

5 Reasons why Harper Lost

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34583753

"Stephen Harper lost the election not because Canadians rejected Conservative values, i.e., an aversion to big government, bureaucracy and regulation but because he came to be seen against democracy. Conservatives believe in smaller government, lower taxes and keeping the state out of the lives and businesses of citizens. But Mr. Harper sometime during his nine-plus years as prime minister began sacrificing our democratic institutions, especially the media, on the altar of his Conservative government."

https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/heres-why-harper-lost_b_8352896

 

 

The Huffandpuff post always went out of their way to denigrate Harper. That article if biased beyond belief.

Those are 5 reasons why people who still vote Liberal after 10 years of scandal are cunned stunts.

Edit:- Forgot to add location of baby blood spot.

                                                                                        Blood Spot Here------->

Edited November 11, 2025 by Legato

[Nationalist]

52 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Well, I look at success in elections as those that win...and several times is a good indication of success.

I look at failure as those that continually lose.

So, what is stupidity...is it those that support winners or is it those that support continual losers???

Canadians choose who is the winner and it seems that 4 times in a row...they did not choose the complanitives 

That explains a lot.

You care more for backing a "winner" of elections, than you do for the success of the nation.

That makes you shallow and rather unpatriotic.

[Army Guy]

19 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Maybe but, they liberals were less of a problem than the Conservatives and their 4 failed leaders.

You are right, I do not like PP and did change my vote and it looks like even conservatives are starting to see PP is not the leader they need.

Bottom line, Carney is still the choice by 3/4 of Canadians as the best choice of PM and that includes conservatives. Conservatives do not even like their on leader for PM.

Yes the conservatives were struggling at the time, But they were not the ones burning down the country that was the liberals...comparing the conservative parties leadership struggles to what the Liberals did to the country indicates is apples and oranges....Conservatives had nothing to do with any of that...

I think carneys numbers are much lower than 75 % and shrinking...., and at this point of time if we were to judge Carneys progress towards his campaign promises he has got almost nothing done....This budget was suppose to be his turning point but really we got nothing of any interest...

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, Legato said:

 

The Huffandpuff post always went out of their way to denigrate Harper. That article if biased beyond belief.

Those are 5 reasons why people who still vote Liberal after 10 years of scandal are cunned stunts.

Edit:- Forgot to add location of baby blood spot.

                                                                                        Blood Spot Here------->

Yeah OK...LOL

Conplainitives 0 Liberals 10+   LOL

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

That explains a lot.

You care more for backing a "winner" of elections, than you do for the success of the nation.

That makes you shallow and rather unpatriotic.

Yup, better than being a constant LOSER LOL

Makes me a WINNER and you a total LOSER LOL

Edited November 11, 2025 by ExFlyer

[ExFlyer]

33 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Yes the conservatives were struggling at the time, But they were not the ones burning down the country that was the liberals...comparing the conservative parties leadership struggles to what the Liberals did to the country indicates is apples and oranges....Conservatives had nothing to do with any of that...

I think carneys numbers are much lower than 75 % and shrinking...., and at this point of time if we were to judge Carneys progress towards his campaign promises he has got almost nothing done....This budget was suppose to be his turning point but really we got nothing of any interest...

Look, you can try as you might but Canadian chose Liberal this time around.

I realized you are pissed and upset but, the choice of leadership in the past 4 elections was on of the conservatives and clearly not of Canadians.

Think what you might but the Liberals are the ones in power and the conservatives are not...again.

As I have said numerous times, I voted liberal for the first time because of the choices in leadership the party members made. Canadians also made that choice.

This budget was and is supposed to be change and it will be . Even you have to admit change does not come instantly and even quickly, but it will. 

Hopefully, change will come to the conservatives as well and they will once again rule the roost.

[I am Groot]

On 11/7/2025 at 2:24 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

The more determined the Socreds are to keep Pierre, the more likely the grits will win the next election and get fifth term. A 20 point gap is a steep hill to climb.

Once it becomes obvious to more of the low-information public that Carney, like Trudeau, is all mouth noises and no action, I suspect that popularity gap will narrow considerably.

On 11/7/2025 at 2:24 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

The fact that our Party is tied in the polls with the Liberals but the Pierre is so disliked,  indicates he is the problem. 

Don't act like you're a conservative. You're a liberal.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Yeah OK...LOL

Conplainitives 0 Liberals 10+   LOL

Yup, better than being a constant LOSER LOL

Makes me a WINNER and you a total LOSER LOL

Wow.

A proud traitor.