She worked to get him elected because of her dead aunt who was murdered under liberal policy. Then he crossed the floor.

[Moonbox]

21 hours ago, Venandi said:

Don't flatter yourself "buddy,"you shut down squat... your reflection on the importance attached to such rationalizations might be worth a moments reflection though. 

I don't hold much hope that you're actually capable of this sort of reflection. 

This is right out of the partisan playbook - criticizing or being outraged by something, but when confronted by the same behavior from "your side", you have a cheap "yes but this is different" explanation for why it's okay going the other way.  🥱

[Venandi]

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I don't hold much hope that you're actually capable of this sort of reflection. 

Good Lord, you brought this up, it was your example, and because of that I thought you at least had a passing familiarization with the circumstances and the ability to hoist aboard why I thought it made a bad example.

Clearly not though.

Then... THEN... the Fox explained it in far more detail than I thought was required at the time... but alas, you still don't get it.

For the record I don't like any of this stuff regardless who's doing it, nonetheless, the circumstances in your example are significantly different... go back and read his post over and over again until you understand it. 

As a matter of law (common practice, tradition, custom etc), it doesn't much matter what you (or I) happen to think about this because like it or not, we vote for the individual, not the party. it seems a lot of people don't get that.

As far as I'm concerned Chris was free to make that move and he had his reasons. I wish him well but I still don't like it.

The reason people here are upset about this is because he won by a slim margin and a lot of volunteers worked pretty damn hard to get that margin for him... he is (or was) the only conservative MP in the province.

Numerically this is a small mostly rural riding and it includes a large RCAF base, IMO that played a big roll in why he prevailed as a conservative so in the fullness of time I think he'll come to regret this decision. Then again, maybe he plans to retire when the next election is called... somehow that would make the defection even worse in my view.

In any case, next time around we will work just as hard for his replacement... actually, probably harder since many of us are still chaffing a bit... I still wish him the best but now I want him gone.

 

Edited November 11, 2025 by Venandi

[herbie]

Oh FFS carry on like it was a betrayal like Elizabeth May crossing the floor to the CPC, Karens,

Keep on denying there's a problem between historical Conservatives and this nutjob clusterf*ck that hijacked the Party.

[Venandi]

12 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS carry on like it was a betrayal like Elizabeth May crossing the floor to the CPC, Karens,

Keep on denying there's a problem between historical Conservatives and this nutjob clusterf*ck that hijacked the Party.

Thanks Herb... that made it all better. 

When I see trees voting for the axe I'm reminded of your particular brand of logic... the axe handle is made of wood so the axe is one of us. 

 

Edited November 11, 2025 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

On 11/10/2025 at 7:17 AM, Moonbox said:

I brought her up to shut down the goofy notion that the Conservatives are reluctant to accept floor-crossers.  Whether or not you or she or anyone else feels they can rationalize it isn't important.  

But they were and you didn't actually refute it. I pointed out exactly what the difference was.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I don't hold much hope that you're actually capable of this sort of reflection. 

This is right out of the partisan playbook - criticizing or being outraged by something, but when confronted by the same behavior from "your side", you have a cheap "yes but this is different" explanation for why it's okay going the other way.  🥱

I shot down your stupidity and I see now you're afraid to engage me again and address the points I made.

The partisan here is you. You are also the one who's incapable of reflection.

And as usual it only takes about two posts for you to embarrass yourself.

[Moonbox]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I shot down your stupidity and I see now you're afraid to engage me again and address the points I made.

I already addressed your "points".  You provided no objective standards nor qualifications to the goofy distinctions you tried to draw, so as I said, it was literally nothing more than a boring, "Yes but it's different when my guys do it because _____" 

Nobody is afraid of engaging with you.  Normal people have  standards when it comes to how they spend their time.  Declining to waste it on a miserable no-life who spends his entire day, every day, insulting strangers on the internet at the drop of a hat is part of being a functioning human.  🙃

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

I already addressed your "points".  You provided no objective standards nor qualifications to the goofy distinctions you tried to draw, so as I said, it was literally nothing more than a boring, "Yes but it's different when my guys do it because _____" 

 

In fact I provided several. You have an addressed any of them. Is absolutely objective to say that there's a difference between someone who just won an election and someone who is about to go to an election anyway. That is objectively different. Demanding that someone resign and then run for the office again makes sense if somebody just got that office but less sense if you're going to be going to an election in that time anyway. And i mentioned other factors

So what you're really saying is you're lying sack of shit as always. I made perfectly valid points, you can't address any of them so you have a little freak out and claim none of it's relevant because reasons you can't actually articulate and dismiss it

And that's why I say this is your version of partisanship not anyone else's. You can't explain why my points are relevant you just simply demand they are and try and walk away like the liberal shill you are

Conservatives are more reluctant to deal with floor Crossing. Generally speaking they do not solicit people to cross the floor, they are not as warm and fuzzy as the liberals are. The liberals have been trying to recruit this guy to cross the floor for 5 years according to anita Anand. Conservatives don't do that the same way

There are a few exceptions such as Emerson for very specific reasons because his skills were needed the benefit Canada and nobody else could do what he did. And he was recruited for a specific task, he did the task and left politics.

 

You embarrass yourself every time you come on to this forum. You're pathetic

[Moonbox]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Is absolutely objective to say that there's a difference between someone who just won an election and someone who is about to go to an election anyway.

There's a difference, of course, but it's clearly not an objective standard you're too concerned with considering how okay you are with Emerson crossing the floor to the Conservatives in 2006 immediately after the election.  That he apparently had "skills that were needed" is about as vague and subjective a rationalization as you could provide, so thanks for proving my point.  

The fact that Emerson's riding hasn't elected a Conservative candidate since the 1950's, and the fact that the Conservatives placed a distant 3rd place in the 2006 election is what makes his floor-crossing particularly slimy.  Where Etremont or Alleslev at least represent constituencies with strong support either way, Emerson went directly against the voters in his riding.  

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You can't explain why my points are relevant you just simply demand they are and try and walk away like the liberal shill you are

I can't explain your points are relevant because they aren't.  

You call me a Liberal shill, but that's hilarious coming from PP's resident fluffer.  

All I'm doing is pointing out your goofy double-standards and shitty logic.  I don't actually have a problem with floor-crossing in general, except maybe in cases like Emerson's.  An MP's duty is to his constituents above all.  Duty to the party or to volunteers who helped you get elected take a very distant back seat to that.  That's a standard that I'm happy to apply either way.  Your standards, as always, depend on the Party being discussed.  🙃

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

There's a difference, of course, but it's clearly not an objective standard you're too concerned with considering how okay you are with Emerson crossing the floor to the Conservatives in 2006 immediately after the election. 

 

I realize you're not terribly smart and that you can't read and retain simple statements.

I was very clear why Emerson was a specific exception. So to pretend that I haven't addressed that just shows you're being dishonest. Emerson ran for the liberals because he thought the liberals would win, because he was an expert in softwood lumber negotiations and he desperately wanted to negotiate a good softwood Deal for Canada, everybody knew he was the very best person to do that, and when the conservatives won they called him and said specifically come work on this and get Canada a good deal for us.

He was the only person that could, he change sides strictly for that purpose, and left politics as soon as it was done

But you ignore all that and pretend I didn't bring it up because you're dishonest

And this objective standard nonsense his childish. My claim is they are reluctant to accept floor crossers.  and they don't solicit them except for very special circumstances of which Emerson was one.

You brought up a specific circumstance I addressed that specific circumstance very clearly and why they didn't have a problem with it.

 

So once again you've been shown to be wrong and you're going on like a child because you can't cope. And you still can't explain why my points aren't relevant, You're just crying in your milk again.

 

Once again, the conservatives are reluctant to take floor crossers compared to the liberals, they don't solicit them like the liberals do except under very specific circumstances. I've already addressed the example you brought up, you have no more examples to offer and once again you kind of look a bit like a tard

And you are a liberal shill and a child.