Canadian Politics

[17to85]

2 minutes ago, Atomic said:

That's too bad.  I just saw that he is not anti-gay but I guess that's the best we can hope for from the conservatives in today's political climate.

The only thing he has said is that he's not going to bring gay marriage back into the political arena, but that's more a case of saying they're not going to test fire their loaded shotgun into their foot. Guy is basically Harper-lite in his policies from what I can tell. Social conservative trying to avoid pissing off too many people by going full bore down that road while still throwing some bones to the base that supports you. 

He really was the status quo candidate, I think he was even quotes saying that the last election wasn't lost because of their policies but rather the way they presented them, so that tells me it's the same old **** the conservatives were doing prior. I personally hope they get their asses absolutely handed to them next time around so they can kick the social conservatives to the back of the line where they should be. 

[blue_gold_84]

1 hour ago, iHeart said:

And for the record I am not ignorant, I just got my facts mixed up

Which demonstrates a lack of knowledge... Otherwise known as ignorance. 

46 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

I'm very much a centrist and I don't like how our parties are all moving away from the centre. That should be the space the Liberals fill, but I agree they've moved further left than they used to be.

Seems like a sign of the times, as much as it pains me to say it. It's a vicious circle.

[17to85]

2 hours ago, iHeart said:

And for the record I am not ignorant, I just got my facts mixed up

ignorant of the definition of ignorance too it seems. 

Here, let me help, 

ig·no·rant

ˈiɡnərənt/

adjective

 

lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"

lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

@iheart just be lucky u dont remember the Mulroney years.

[SpeedFlex27]

9 hours ago, iHeart said:

link spamming? I was sharing tv news because it was cancellation season

 

And for the record I am not ignorant, I just got my facts mixed up

It's one thing to get the politics of a PM mixed up from a hundred years ago but to not know Brian Mulroney was leader of the Progressive Conservatives, you really can't say anything to explain how you didn't know. Except you didn't know. BTW, we've all said dumb things here. Welcome to the club. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by SpeedFlex27

[FrostyWinnipeg]

36 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

It's one thing to get the politics of a PM mixed up from a hundred years ago but to not know Brian Mulroney was leader of the Progressive Conservatives, you really can't say anything to explain how you didn't know. Except you didn't know. BTW, we've all said dumb things here. Welcome to the club. 

Millennials!

[bearpants]

I want to support conservatives because I feel like they are our best hope to be socially progressive with conservative fiscal policy... which is exactly the kind of party I would support... but he says he is pro-life and anti-gay marriage... which tells me he is anti-basic human rights... the plus is that he says he doesn't plan on bringing up these issues if in power...

I'll have to wait to learn more about this fellow before passing too much judgement...

[Mark H.]

1 hour ago, bearpants said:

I want to support conservatives because I feel like they are our best hope to be socially progressive with conservative fiscal policy... which is exactly the kind of party I would support... but he says he is pro-life and anti-gay marriage... which tells me he is anti-basic human rights... the plus is that he says he doesn't plan on bringing up these issues if in power...

I'll have to wait to learn more about this fellow before passing too much judgement...

He's just throwing a bone to his base.  The Conservatives have MPs that need to have a talk with themselves. They claim to be pro-life but are anti-refugees - a life is a life. 

[kelownabomberfan]

18 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

@iheart just be lucky u dont remember the Mulroney years.

or the Trudeau years (first iteration).  Yuck.  

[The Unknown Poster]

20 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

He's just throwing a bone to his base.  The Conservatives have MPs that need to have a talk with themselves. They claim to be pro-life but are anti-refugees - a life is a life. 

Its hard to believe in someone who is anti-gay in this day and age.  pro-life, I understand.  There were times when it was easier to "disagree" about basics, especially when the leader would say, despite his believes, he had no plan to re-open the debate.   When Harper was first running for PM, we heard all the fear mongering about what crazy things he'd do.  He did none of it.  And whatever his personal beliefs were, he was smart enough to win rather then lose.

I know very little about this new leader.  Has he really said he is ANTI gay marriage?  For **** sake, its 2017. 

[Fatty Liver]

17 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Its hard to believe in someone who is anti-gay in this day and age.  pro-life, I understand.  There were times when it was easier to "disagree" about basics, especially when the leader would say, despite his believes, he had no plan to re-open the debate.   When Harper was first running for PM, we heard all the fear mongering about what crazy things he'd do.  He did none of it.  And whatever his personal beliefs were, he was smart enough to win rather then lose.

I know very little about this new leader.  Has he really said he is ANTI gay marriage?  For **** sake, its 2017. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/andrew-scheer-leadership-1.4136808

"But Scheer opposes the very notion of a woman deciding to end her own pregnancy. He has described a bill normalizing same-sex marriage as "abhorrent," not only to him and other Catholics but to every member of every "faith community."

"Canadians do have Scheer's word that despite his strongly stated positions, he would not as prime minister introduce legislation re-opening the abortion question or same-sex marriage"

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/andrew-scheer-leadership-1.4136808

"But Scheer opposes the very notion of a woman deciding to end her own pregnancy. He has described a bill normalizing same-sex marriage as "abhorrent," not only to him and other Catholics but to every member of every "faith community."

"Canadians do have Scheer's word that despite his strongly stated positions, he would not as prime minister introduce legislation re-opening the abortion question or same-sex marriage"

Disgusting.

[Atomic]

54 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

He's just throwing a bone to his base.  The Conservatives have MPs that need to have a talk with themselves. They claim to be pro-life but are anti-refugees - a life is a life. 

That would be a valid point if most refugees lives were in danger (some are, the vast majority are not).  There is a big difference between importing 20-35 year old men en masse to our country and defending the rights of an unborn child who cannot defend itself.

[Wideleft]

I did not create this.  Feel free to challenge.

 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

Clearly that was written by a biased opposition to him, just by how many points were worded.  But assuming the bulk of it is generally accurate, the Cons are unbelievably stupid.  And its this kind of bullshit that will make me a liberal *puke*

[Wideleft]

11 minutes ago, Atomic said:

That would be a valid point if most refugees lives were in danger (some are, the vast majority are not).  There is a big difference between importing 20-35 year old men en masse to our country and defending the rights of an unborn child who cannot defend itself.

You're going to have to define "danger" before stating whether or not the majority is safe.  Safe from what?  Rape? Starvation? Persecution? Murder? Drowning? Robbery? All the above? 

Edited May 30, 2017 by Wideleft

[Wideleft]

4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Clearly that was written by a biased opposition to him, just by how many points were worded.  But assuming the bulk of it is generally accurate, the Cons are unbelievably stupid.  And its this kind of bullshit that will make me a liberal *puke*

I agree about the explicitly biased wording and was hesitant to share for that reason, but a little research would back up the claims based on everything else I've read.  He's also ever had one "real" job in his life - selling insurance for 6 months.  And the Conservatives complained about a drama teacher....

[Fatty Liver]

15 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I did not create this.  Feel free to challenge.

 

 

New Conservative leader=Old Conservative leader.  Nothing new here, they will do their very best to obscure Scheer's personal beliefs to make him more palatable to Canadians.  He's got what it takes, to run in the States!

[blue_gold_84]

20 minutes ago, Atomic said:

That would be a valid point if most refugees lives were in danger (some are, the vast majority are not).  There is a big difference between importing 20-35 year old men en masse to our country and defending the rights of an unborn child who cannot defend itself.

[Atomic]

If you all want to equate the situation of an unborn fetus with that of a refugee that's your prerogative but don't expect people to take you seriously.

BTW I'm pro choice, I just think it's a ridiculous comparison.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Atomic

[The Unknown Poster]

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

48 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 

Bernier pulling a Cretien, go ahead you lose this one. I'll win the next one.

[17to85]

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

I agree about the explicitly biased wording and was hesitant to share for that reason, but a little research would back up the claims based on everything else I've read.  He's also ever had one "real" job in his life - selling insurance for 6 months.  And the Conservatives complained about a drama teacher....

I mean given the way it's written you could pretty much put any Conservative's picture there and it'd be relevant to the people who write the way that's written. 

Bottom line is it was a status quo pick by the Conservative party, and I don't see how that does anything but guarantee the Liberals another 2 terms. They'll get their asses kicked next time and think "oh just need time for people to warm up to the new leader" but then they'll get their asses kicked again the following time and perhaps then they will stop and say "wait a minute, this back asswards social conservatism doesn't fly anymore, we better change"

My hope is they get absolute wrecked next time so it forces them to get with the times quicker. 

[blue_gold_84]

Is it just me or are the Cons and Dippers in utter disarray but refuse to acknowledge it...? The latter hasn't appeared to be cohesive since Layton passed away. As for the Cons, they try to pass off this "big happy family" narrative but it looks like lot of discord below the surface. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by blue_gold_84

[17to85]

They are totally in disarray. The Conservatives can't come to grips with the fact that the country is tired of social conservatives and the real reason they had power was because the Liberals were just in their time out and not actually losing touch with the country. 

The NDP meanwhile are lost because the core left wing part of the party didn't like the idea that they actually moved towards the middle to try and win an election so they're fighting to pull back left while the ones that want to win are trying to keep heading towards the middle but the Liberals have effectively taken that position back and I don't think the NDP knows what it wants to be right now.