2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[Fishbone Jones]

It's telling that after all the mismanagement of the pandemic, the mismanagement of taxpayer funds, lies, deceit, theft, authoritarianism, divisiveness, destroying our natural resource sectors, selling our sovereignty, theft of Canadians' personal property, kowtowing to China and protecting her agents. Being a fascist, calling patriotic citizens racists, misogynists, terrorists, people that don't deserve a spot in our society, people that are just taking up room, trying to destroy lives, families and employment, Then pays actual terrorists $10 million each and allow them to walk free in Canada. After all of the anti Western, anti democratic, globalist WEF embracing bullshit from this spoiled little brat, that anyone here would still support a cancer such as this, is beyond me.

 

[Remius]

It's telling that after all the mismanagement of the pandemic, the mismanagement of taxpayer funds, lies, deceit, theft, authoritarianism, divisiveness, destroying our natural resource sectors, selling our sovereignty, theft of Canadians' personal property, kowtowing to China and protecting her agents. Being a fascist, calling patriotic citizens racists, misogynists, terrorists, people that don't deserve a spot in our society, people that are just taking up room, trying to destroy lives, families and employment, Then pays actual terrorists $10 million each and allow them to walk free in Canada. After all of the anti Western, anti democratic, globalist WEF embracing bullshit from this spoiled little brat, that anyone here would still support a cancer such as this, is beyond me.

It’s more telling that an opposition that clearly want to stay in opposition offers not much else than the line of hyper partisan attacks and hyperbolic statements that you just listed and keeps losing.

I don’t support Trudeau. But I want better than that line of attack. That’s why PP is not going to get my vote. He’s only offering more of the tired old eff Trudeau garbage,

 

[brihard]

I voted CPC last election. I might not (actually will not) if PP is the leader. I’d rather PP lose to whoever even if Trudeau, if it means the CPC comes to its senses and either splits or course corrects. I’d be willing to risk another LOC minority gvt.

Does it mean voting for Trudeau? Campaign will decide that but my vote has a direct impact in PPs riding and can impact if PP gets re-elected in his own riding. Lots of people in the riding are not too happy with him right now but it’s hard to gauge if that will be enough to see him defeated. And time can change that as well.

I strongly agree with this. I’m also in Pierre Poilievre’s riding. I voted for him last election because O’Toole was at the helm. If PP wins the leadership of the party, I absolutely will not vote for him. I don’t like the thought of supporting Trudeau in government. But zero chance I’ll support offering Poilievre a shot at Prime Minister.

Best case, Trudeau hangs up his gloves and Freeland steps up and gets chosen as party leader. I find her impressive. She’s very well educated (a Rhodes Scholar, no less), has worked a twenty year career in the private sector and been in a senior managerial role in a major media company. She has researched and published a master’s thesis and a couple of books, so she can work and see things through/ and the fact that she’s looked hard and critical at the relationship between governments, business, and the ultra-rich appeals to me. In Cabinet she’s overseen negotiation of a couple major trade agreements, she’s at least dipped her toe into intergovernmental affairs (and federal/provincial stuff will be important in our economic future), and has run finance. That’s a pretty compelling background so long as you find her politics tolerable, which I do. Though she only has 11 more years on this earth than PP, she’s done vastly more with her time. She could potentially be an excellent PM if she also has the savvy to assemble a skilled cabinet.

 

[Brad Sallows]

We don't need successful politicians. We need successful statesmen. In an elected government, every competent statesman must first be a competent campaigner. But not every competent campaigner is a competent statesman, unfortunately.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I strongly agree with this. I’m also in Pierre Poilievre’s riding. I voted for him last election because O’Toole was at the helm. If PP wins the leadership of the party, I absolutely will not vote for him. I don’t like the thought of supporting Trudeau in government. But zero chance I’ll support offering Poilievre a shot at Prime Minister.

Best case, Trudeau hangs up his gloves and Freeland steps up and gets chosen as party leader. I find her impressive. She’s very well educated (a Rhodes Scholar, no less), has worked a twenty year career in the private sector and been in a senior managerial role in a major media company. She has researched and published a master’s thesis and a couple of books, so she can work and see things through/ and the fact that she’s looked hard and critical at the relationship between governments, business, and the ultra-rich appeals to me. In Cabinet she’s overseen negotiation of a couple major trade agreements, she’s at least dipped her toe into intergovernmental affairs (and federal/provincial stuff will be important in our economic future), and has run finance. That’s a pretty compelling background so long as you find her politics tolerable, which I do. Though she only has 11 more years on this earth than PP, she’s done vastly more with her time. She could potentially be an excellent PM if she also has the savvy to assemble a skilled cabinet.

So, pretty much the same criteria they used to put Sajjan into the MND's seat then?

 

[mariomike]

The CPC lost fair and square.

Good to know the last election was "fair and square". Hopefully, the next one will be as well.

Given that he* was minister for electoral reform for a year, really don't want to hear anyone complain about how the system doesn't favour the CPCs.

* Pierre Poilievre

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The only reason I can see Trudeau not running is how hard this has been on his family and marriage, as there is really no credible threat to another LPC minority.

Anyone who thinks PP is the solution doesn't pay attention to how polarising his attack dog style is or how thin his resume really is. The guy has been an MP for a long time, but outside of some soundbites in the house and on committees, but the only thing he ever seems to have accomplished was introduce the 'Fair Elections Act' which really just added in a bunch of voter restrictions and restrict what the chief electoral officers could do, so was a pretty US republican style voter suppression bill designed to combat the non-existant electoral fraud.

Given that he was minister for electoral reform for a year, really don't want to hear anyone complain about how the system doesn't favour the CPCs.

Guy came out of uni, became an MP at 25 but rates himself as a populist, man of the people, despite never having had a real job. Classic 'kid in short pants' that is trying to position himself as a credible leader when his only life experience is within the rose coloured halls of Parliament and disassociated from reality. Probably fit in perfectly with the inflated egos at TBS though.

So if JT 'just wasn't ready' or 'wasn't experienced' what is this guy? Skippy just seems like Scheer 2.0, but possibly more annoying. Sounds like a real recipe for electoral success....

His resume is as thicker trudeau's. He worked for Telus as a teen, and he started his own polling and consulting business, with Jonathan Denis, now Alberta’s justice minister and solicitor general, that operated for ten years. Trudeau? A drama teacher's assistant who was fired from his only job under a cloud of suspicion. He is solely responsible for his marriage woes. When he, allegedly, had to sign the NDA for diddling a minor, Sophie moved him to the caretaker's quarters.

"which really just added in a bunch of voter restrictions and restrict what the chief electoral officers could do, so was a pretty US republican style voter suppression bill designed to combat the non-existant electoral fraud." That's some tight tinfoil shit right there. Who knew that clean, up to date voter lists, government issued ID to vote and better control of mail in ballots was so seditious and undemocratic.

State investigations in Arizona and Wisconsin have proven voter/ election fraud in the last election with margins large enough to swing the vote. You won't find anything in the Legacy media, but the info is out there if you're interested enough to look.

The top Wisconsin Election Fraud Investigator, Special Counsel Michael Gableman, while testifying at the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections last week said, “I believe the legislature ought to take a very hard look at the option of decertification of the 2020 Wisconsin general election.”

 

[Fishbone Jones]

He could, except Canadians are not fans of being dragged off to the polls for purely partisan reasons.

Woe to any party that forces an election it seems. Justin Trudeau will bide his time, and probably do his full mandate before making that mistake again, if the opposition lets him of course.

But the math remains, can he hold on to what he has while finding another 15156 votes spread evenly though those 10 ridings? Another 100k votes overall in ontario, the maritimes and quebec should be enough to grab what he missed.

So if the political winds are in his sails, hes 10 seats and a stone throw away in votes away from a majority, i think hes a shoe in to run again.

Hard to say. His ego demands he walk away a winner. He can do that by passing the torch while in power. Then it's his choice and not leaving the decision to Canadians to fire his incompetent ass, lets him retain face.

 

[Remius]

Wisconsin? Arizona? Wrong country.

Proof about trudeau”s wife? His diddling of a minor?

Getting close to slander here.

Polievre has a thinner resume than Trudeau. He can’t unite the party. He won’t get my vote. If he’s the leader. I’m lucky that I can actually a vote that matters in having polievre keep his seat. I plan to use it accordingly.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Using the US election system as a comparison is waste of time, the term 'gerrymandering' was coined to describe the insane manipulations they make and is a crazy mix of local and state policies, where we have a standardized, country wide approach. Tin hat shit is thinking what is happening in the US happens here with no proof, despite the systems being radically different.

Yes, requiring ID people can't afford to get does restrict voting rights, and telling the local electoral officers they can't warn people to ignore robocalls giving out false info on voting locations is direct interference with the abilities of the public service to provide fair elections.

If you want to dig into things, why does the CPC require a leadership candidate to but up $300k?

 

[brihard]

It’s nice to see Army.ca returning to it roots and going back to accepting our old standards of political discourse in this subforum.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Brihard is right here folks....lets keep it civil as I have no hesitance to bin this whole thread.

If all you have is insulting the person you don't want, then maybe you should look deeper as to why you have nothing to play the person you do want up.

 

[RangerRay]

I would be pleasantly surprised if Pollievre managed to unite the party and attract the votes needed to win a general election, his positioning on the “Freedom Convoy” notwithstanding. I just don’t see it, however.

I also feel the same about Jean Charest. In 1997, the PC’s under Charest came a distant fourth in every province west of Ontario, except for Alberta where they were a distant third, and won one seat west of Ontario. Their performance in Ontario wasn’t that much better either.

I don’t see either front runner uniting the party and appealing to the broader public. I don’t know enough about Patrick Brown to judge how he may do, other than he has some “Me-Too” baggage that won’t help.

 

[suffolkowner]

I would be pleasantly surprised if Pollievre managed to unite the party and attract the votes needed to win a general election, his positioning on the “Freedom Convoy” notwithstanding. I just don’t see it, however.

I also feel the same about Jean Charest. In 1997, the PC’s under Charest came a distant fourth in every province west of Ontario, except for Alberta where they were a distant third, and won one seat west of Ontario. Their performance in Ontario wasn’t that much better either.

I don’t see either front runner uniting the party and appealing to the broader public. I don’t know enough about Patrick Brown to judge how he may do, other than he has some “Me-Too” baggage that won’t help.

I think Jean Charest is dead in the water. I cant see how he would be acceptable to the conservative base unless he is able to sign up enough supporters

 

[Blackadder1916]

I also feel the same about Jean Charest. In 1997, the PC’s under Charest came a distant fourth in every province west of Ontario, except for Alberta where they were a distant third, and won one seat west of Ontario. Their performance in Ontario wasn’t that much better either.

For context. While the "PCs under Charest came a distant fourth", the party increased their seats from two (2) to twenty (20) and regained official party status in the house. Admittedly, their main success was down east, but they sat third in the nation-wide popular vote (closely behind Reform).

 

[PuckChaser]

338Canada: Jean Charest's (near) impossible task

Seems like Charest is a lame duck, and might not be the saviour of CPC seats in Quebec either:

It is worth noting that Charest’s negative impressions are heavily concentrated in Quebec. His years in power at the National Assembly and his decade-long fight against the province’s sovereigntist parties has definitely left a mark on wide segments of the Quebec electorate. Therefore, while the CPC has tried on several occasions to appeal to Bloc Québécois voters in recent cycles (and mostly failed), the chances that it succeeds in doing so with Charest as leader are slim. Nonetheless, Poilievre’s Quebec numbers are nothing to gloat about: only 8 per cent of positive impressions against 27 per cent negative.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Tory leadership hopeful Jean Charest says he wouldn't change Canada's firearms laws​

Conservative leadership candidate Jean Charest said Thursday he wouldn't touch Canada's existing gun laws — including when it comes to a ban on "assault-style" firearms.

Good luck with that.

 

[Dana381]

But that ban isn't a law is it?

 

[Remius]

338Canada: Jean Charest's (near) impossible task

Seems like Charest is a lame duck, and might not be the saviour of CPC seats in Quebec either:

He isn’t going to win the leadership. So it’s a moot point.

 

[brihard]

But that ban isn't a law is it?

Yes it is. “Law” refers both to statutes and to regulation enabled by a statute. Regulations at the federal level are generally put into effect by an Order in Council. It’s far from the only example in our system where a statute enables legally enforceable regulations. Another example of this that you may be very familiar with is the QR&Os.

I’ve seen plenty of people get up in arms - or not, I guess? - because the latest changes to our firearms law were regulatory, but law it most certainly is.