Conservative Party of Canada Holds Annual Convention

[King Heffy]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Electoral reform wasn't as easy as he thought it would be to do it. Still, he decriminalized pot, as he promised, despite the tooth and nail fight against the US. Surely that counts for something right?

 

There are a lot of reasons why electoral reform would not be desired by the elites of the country. Meanwhile, decriminalizing pot doesn't cost the elites anything.

He also has done more for Senate reform than any PM in my lifetime.

Edited August 26, 2020 by King Heffy

[Undrafted]

18 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Electoral reform wasn't as easy as he thought it would be to do it. Still, he decriminalized pot, as he promised, despite the tooth and nail fight against the US. Surely that counts for something right?

 

There are a lot of reasons why electoral reform would not be desired by the elites of the country. Meanwhile, decriminalizing pot doesn't cost the elites anything.

Except that wasn't the excuse he gave for abandoning proportional representation; he didn't even try that hard.  His flimsy excuse when confronted about it was asking the rhetorical question, "Do you really want someone like [one of the Conservative anti-immigrant MPs, Lisa Raitt, maybe] to have their own political party?"  And after that, proportional representation was never mentioned again by his government.

 

Electoral reform was the ONLY reason I gave my vote to the Liberals in that election.  I will NOT make the same mistake again.

[Warhippy]

22 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

Except that wasn't the excuse he gave for abandoning proportional representation; he didn't even try that hard.  His flimsy excuse when confronted about it was asking the rhetorical question, "Do you really want someone like [one of the Conservative anti-immigrant MPs, Lisa Raitt, maybe] to have their own political party?"  And after that, proportional representation was never mentioned again by his government.

 

Electoral reform was the ONLY reason I gave my vote to the Liberals in that election.  I will NOT make the same mistake again.

I didn't vote for them.  I voted for the best local candidate

 

If he wants my vote he's going to need to work damned hard to earn it as I'm not believing him

[Undrafted]

25 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I didn't vote for them.  I voted for the best local candidate

 

If he wants my vote he's going to need to work damned hard to earn it as I'm not believing him

Well, I guess that makes you smarter than me--I probably should've done the same.  However, I wanted (and still want) electoral reform that badly--people's votes should not go for nothing just because they happen to live in a safe riding of a party they don't support, regardless of which parties are in question in that scenario. 

And contrary to what Dazzle said, I don't think it's nearly that difficult.  After all, all three of the national parties (NDP, Libs, Cons) use a proportional system when selecting a new leader.  If they can do it within that framework, it wouldn't be such a monumental task to apply it to general elections. 

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, Undrafted said:

Except that wasn't the excuse he gave for abandoning proportional representation; he didn't even try that hard.  His flimsy excuse when confronted about it was asking the rhetorical question, "Do you really want someone like [one of the Conservative anti-immigrant MPs, Lisa Raitt, maybe] to have their own political party?"  And after that, proportional representation was never mentioned again by his government.

 

Electoral reform was the ONLY reason I gave my vote to the Liberals in that election.  I will NOT make the same mistake again.

Electoral reform was a bold attempt by a desperate party trying to be "progressive". To me, I realize that the reasons for the Liberals not to be able to deliver on it (but still deliver on other promises like pot) tells me that there was a lot of behind the scenes stuff that Trudeau can't talk about. I believe certain groups in society DO NOT want electoral reform, and thus, that is what happened. Oddly enough, Trudeau was willing to release senate members from the party. This was probably a good thing, yet people forget this. Note how the Conservatives did not follow suit. Was there a reason for this? You bet there was.

 

Politics is a game of blackmail. Think about why things happen more.

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

54 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

Well, I guess that makes you smarter than me--I probably should've done the same.  However, I wanted (and still want) electoral reform that badly--people's votes should not go for nothing just because they happen to live in a safe riding of a party they don't support, regardless of which parties are in question in that scenario. 

And contrary to what Dazzle said, I don't think it's nearly that difficult.  After all, all three of the national parties (NDP, Libs, Cons) use a proportional system when selecting a new leader.  If they can do it within that framework, it wouldn't be such a monumental task to apply it to general elections. 

But it is difficult. What advantage is there for a government (or a corporation, because let's face it, there is a ton of lobbying that happens that influence who come into power) to let more people's votes count for something? Aside from this vague utopian idea of democracy, there is no real advantage. It's best to limit the amount of votes that come in.

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

But it is difficult. What advantage is there for a government (or a corporation, because let's face it, there is a ton of lobbying that happens that influence who come into power) to let more people's votes count for something? Aside from this vague utopian idea of democracy, there is no real advantage. It's best to limit the amount of votes that come in.

ranked ballot was a legit option but there was too much opposition to it by the other parties. 

 

Proportional isn't the answer to everything thats for sure. i think electronic voting might have a bigger impact anyway by increasing participation, thats really been the big issue particularly on the left and voters under 30. But that might just be too hard to hack-proof. 

 

There may be a chance for the NDP to force a referendum on it, but I don't know that Singh has the cajones to be abel to make that happen. I'd still like to see it tho, and have 3 options: FPTP, ranked ballot and MMP.

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, Robert Long said:

ranked ballot was a legit option but there was too much opposition to it by the other parties. 

 

Proportional isn't the answer to everything thats for sure. i think electronic voting might have a bigger impact anyway by increasing participation, thats really been the big issue particularly on the left and voters under 30. But that might just be too hard to hack-proof. 

 

There may be a chance for the NDP to force a referendum on it, but I don't know that Singh has the cajones to be abel to make that happen. I'd still like to see it tho, and have 3 options: FPTP, ranked ballot and MMP.

I think it's worth considering why other parties don't want a so-called "democratization" of democracy. I believe parties don't really care about having people's voices heard. They just want enough votes so they can stay in power. That's it. Unlocking these unheard voices is not a priority - and if you think of it from their perspectives, why should this be important? Who cares if 40 percent (or whatever the turnout was) of the people don't come out to vote? Those votes could go unpredictably away from your party. No party is gonna love the power of democracy at that point. Democracy is a nice fantasy.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Dazzle

[VanIsleNuckFan]

On 8/25/2020 at 7:45 AM, Robert Long said:

I never said anything about someone who "wishes" to be something. 

 

I never said they were the same situation, butt they can end up in the same outcome for some kids.

 

People who go along with Jason Kenney and his "tell the parents' policy imo aren't really thinking about the child at all, or the risk they are putting them under. 

 

Anyone who would be an accepting parent would be OK with letting the child have the GSA space to work things out. Any parent not OK with it should not know as they are putting their kid at higher risk. If you put harm reduction for the child at the centre of your thinking and decision making, its pretty clear.

 

 

I completely agree with that with an asterisk that a parent should be notified about such things as its a slippery slope when parents are not automatically notified about what that STATE is doing with YOUR CHILD. Although I do agree their could be special cases where an exception could be made.

 

That's not what we were discussing though. Do you concede that what that child is going through is different than someone living under sharia law?

Edited August 27, 2020 by VanIsleNuckFan

[JM_]

12 hours ago, Dazzle said:

I think it's worth considering why other parties don't want a so-called "democratization" of democracy. I believe parties don't really care about having people's voices heard. They just want enough votes so they can stay in power. That's it. Unlocking these unheard voices is not a priority - and if you think of it from their perspectives, why should this be important? Who cares if 40 percent (or whatever the turnout was) of the people don't come out to vote? Those votes could go unpredictably away from your party. No party is gonna love the power of democracy at that point. Democracy is a nice fantasy.

I guess lets look at the case of the NDP (the CPC is easy to understand): why would the NDP say no to ranked ballot and stand so firm on MMP? whats wrong with some incremental improvement to the system? 

[JM_]

11 hours ago, VanIsleNuckFan said:

I completely agree with that with an asterisk that a parent should be notified about such things as its a slippery slope when parents are not automatically notified about what that STATE is doing with YOUR CHILD. Although I do agree their could be special cases where an exception could be made.

 

That's not what we were discussing though. Do you concede that what that child is going through is different than someone living under sharia law?

of course its different.

 

GSAs though are not "the state.". Its run by kids themselves at the school, usually with the guidance of a teacher or counsellor who help them set it up. 

[VanIsleNuckFan]

12 hours ago, Robert Long said:

of course its different.

 

GSAs though are not "the state.". Its run by kids themselves at the school, usually with the guidance of a teacher or counsellor who help them set it up. 

That's cool to know about, thanks for the info, I'll check it out further.

[JM_]

11 hours ago, VanIsleNuckFan said:

That's cool to know about, thanks for the info, I'll check it out further.

yeah its important to know its student-driven, not run by school boards. 

[VanIsleNuckFan]

57 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

yeah its important to know its student-driven, not run by school boards. 

100% and good on those students for taking the initiative. Future looks bright with people like that coming up. =)

[Undrafted]

On 8/26/2020 at 7:10 PM, Dazzle said:

Electoral reform was a bold attempt by a desperate party trying to be "progressive". To me, I realize that the reasons for the Liberals not to be able to deliver on it (but still deliver on other promises like pot) tells me that there was a lot of behind the scenes stuff that Trudeau can't talk about. I believe certain groups in society DO NOT want electoral reform, and thus, that is what happened. Oddly enough, Trudeau was willing to release senate members from the party. This was probably a good thing, yet people forget this. Note how the Conservatives did not follow suit. Was there a reason for this? You bet there was.

 

Politics is a game of blackmail. Think about why things happen more.

 

I think you give Trudeau too much credit.  Even if that were nothing more than a cynical election ploy for votes, he could've easily done a better job of at least looking like he was trying and blame any roadblocks on the other political parties (or lobbyists or whoever).  Instead, all he did was expose himself for the intellectual dilettante that he is, something he's done repeatedly since then with the long list of 'errors in judgement' that he's committed since then.

[Dazzle]

3 hours ago, Undrafted said:

I think you give Trudeau too much credit.  Even if that were nothing more than a cynical election ploy for votes, he could've easily done a better job of at least looking like he was trying and blame any roadblocks on the other political parties (or lobbyists or whoever).  Instead, all he did was expose himself for the intellectual dilettante that he is, something he's done repeatedly since then with the long list of 'errors in judgement' that he's committed since then.

See that's the thing. Some people don't give him any credit - and I fully agree that he hasn't capitalized when the Conservatives are run like a hot mess. He has done some good things but they are usually overlooked with the bad stuff, like deals with shady countries like Saudi Arabia, WE scandal (a totally avoidable situation), etc. There are many things he probably should have done better, make no mistake. But to give him no credit at all about decriminalization of pot, the ejection of Senate members from Liberal partisanship and other efforts, is a series of gross omissions. It seems funny to me that the outgoing Conservative leader has yet to give up his American citizenship, but had the talk about doing it. No one pressured him except himself. 

 

And I find it interesting that you'd rather a leader make excuses. Why?

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Dazzle

[Rush17]

The link shows the picture of a lady next to their current/former leader... i thought it was her. then i realized it some old guy. 

[JM_]

10 hours ago, Dazzle said:

See that's the thing. Some people don't give him any credit - and I fully agree that he hasn't capitalized when the Conservatives are run like a hot mess. He has done some good things but they are usually overlooked with the bad stuff, like deals with shady countries like Saudi Arabia, WE scandal (a totally avoidable situation), etc. There are many things he probably should have done better, make no mistake. But to give him no credit at all about decriminalization of pot, the ejection of Senate members from Liberal partisanship and other efforts, is a series of gross omissions. It seems funny to me that the outgoing Conservative leader has yet to give up his American citizenship, but had the talk about doing it. No one pressured him except himself. 

 

And I find it interesting that you'd rather a leader make excuses. Why?

 

So many of Trudeau's problems are own goals, its getter harder for people to take him seriously. But i don't think thats going to be a problem in the short term, people are going to be much more concerned about post-covid recovery and what kind of help they'll get which is where I think Freeland will do a very good job. 

 

But, next election I do think Trudeau is going to need to step aside, I don't know that his personal brand can survive to a majority government again. But never underestimate the CPCs ability to pick a bad leader  

 

O'Toole seems to be trying to stake out ground in an approach of "you'll be better off with us financially"  which is a bad take imo given how the next few years are going to be completely driven by covid recovery plans and he's not really going to be able to offer anything substantial. 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Robert Long

[stawns]

On 8/26/2020 at 5:41 PM, Warhippy said:

I didn't vote for them.  I voted for the best local candidate

 

If he wants my vote he's going to need to work damned hard to earn it as I'm not believing him

one thing about living in the NOrth OKanagan.........it's going conservative no matter whatmy vote is, so I can truly vote my conscience.  What I'd like to see is the Greens and NDP get their sh!t together and form one party, instead of splitting votes of people who are very close in their ideological beliefs

[stawns]

2 hours ago, Robert Long said:

So many of Trudeau's problems are own goals, its getter harder for people to take him seriously. But i don't think thats going to be a problem in the short term, people are going to be much more concerned about post-covid recovery and what kind of help they'll get which is where I think Freeland will do a very good job. 

 

But, next election I do think Trudeau is going to need to step aside, I don't know that his personal brand can survive to a majority government again. But never underestimate the CPCs ability to pick a bad leader  

 

O'Toole seems to be trying to stake out ground in an approach of "you'll be better off with us financially"  which is a bad take imo given how the next few years are going to be completely driven by covid recovery plans and he's not really going to be able to offer anything substantial. 

 

 

 

The Libs need to accept that a minority government is the best they're going to get right now and with JT at the helm.  Ride it for awhile, ride JT into the sunset and let Freeyland take over for the next election.  She's the backbone of the party anyway