Support NeoGAF

[matthewwhatever]

I think the ridiculous number of candidates is also a function of the fact Harper didn't groom anyone to be his successor.

Though considering the calibre of candidates, it's hard to blame him for that. The more we see of Leitch, Alexander, etc., the easier it becomes to understand why he tried so hard to consolidate everything out of the PMO.

1. its not a thing.....yet...good,
2. fuck you, don't tell me what I care about, you don't know me.
3. as I doubt your desire for rational debate or constructive discussion.
4. I would think it is enough to give anyone pause. shrug but I guess not you.

Thankfully I don't. I do, however, know enough about you from your posts to be able to tell exactly how much you're less interested in "rational debate or constructive discussion," and more interested in spouting alt-right nonsense under the guise of Just Asking Questions.

So what does it take for a candidate to win? Only the most number 1 choices, or is it more complicated than that?

50%+1 of the total points.

Basically, every riding in Canada is worth 100 points. We have 338 ridings, so they have 33,800 total points to allocate. The points get proportionally allocated by riding, so if a riding were to go O'Leary 22/Bernier 20/Leitch 15/O'Toole 10/etc, they'd get 22 points, 20 points, etc.

Nationally, since no one is getting 50% on the first ballot, the lowest-ranked person drops off, and his/her 1st-place votes are reallocated to the people their votes ranked second. In this case, say that Andrew Saxton comes in dead-last with 0.4% of the vote. Those 0.4% of voters then get reallocated around to whoever they had as their second choice - so some go to O'Leary, some go to Leitch, etc. They keep dropping people off until they get a winner -- which, as I said up top, is whoever reaches 50%+1.

They'll have a winner almost instantly, since all the voting is being doing in advance, but it'll most likely take *a lot* of rounds for them to reach a winner. With 14 candidates, they'll have to cut away a lot of people with less 1-2% of the vote to even break 30% of the points, let alone 50%.

 

[Mr.Mike]

So what does it take for a candidate to win? Only the most number 1 choices, or is it more complicated than that?

For a candidate to win they have win 50% + 1 of the points, where each riding has 100 points distributed according to distribution of votes in that riding. Every round the least popular candidate is removed and their votes distributed according to the next choice on their voters ballots, until one candidate has a majority of the points.

So Obhrai would probably be knocked out first, and then his votes would be distributed to his voters second choices. Then Peterson, then Saxton and so on

 

[AuthenticM]

Eh....no. Not a complete re-write. The Quebec Civil Code is based on the (relatively simplistic) Napoleonic code.

Common law systems (like criminal matters in Quebec and both civil and criminal matters in the rest of Canada) get highly complex. Many things should be changed from time to time, but generally laws can be interpreted as courts see fit, and other judges will use that precedent to ensure equal treatment if a law is no longer constitutional. It's complicated (a lot more complicated than Civil Law-esque systems), but it works! It's not really feasible to re-write it entirely.

I'm talking about presentation, silly. Not content.

And interpretation is not exclusive to Common Law.

 

[Pancake Mix]

I'm talking about presentation, silly. Not content.

And interpretation is not exclusive to Common Law.

It's just not as easy to clean up the presentation of Common Law legislation. It gets complex and the legal codes are generally much longer than in Civil Law systems. There are better uses of parliament's time than making it look neat.

Not exclusive, but the immense level of importance given to precedent is something that is unique to common law.

 

[AuthenticM]

For a candidate to win they have win 50% + 1 of the points, where each riding has 100 points distributed according to distribution of votes in that riding. Every round the least popular candidate is removed and their votes distributed according to the next choice on their voters ballots, until one candidate has a majority of the points.

So Obhrai would probably be knocked out first, and then his votes would be distributed to his voters second choices. Then Peterson, then Saxton and so on

I see. So voters would need to vote more than one time?

It's just not as easy to clean up the presentation of Common Law legislation. It gets complex.

Just for fun, I had rewritten one section of the Criminal Code while I was doing the Bar. I had kept the content exactly like it was, but I cleaned up its presentation. Common Lawyers have a tendency to overuse subordinate clauses, creating overly complex sentences. Many times one can encounter subordinate clauses inside subordinate clauses inside other subordinate clauses. It's crazy, and makes for a hard and heavy read. So I created new sentences and new paragraphs, while making sure no information was lost.

If my dumb ass can do it, I'm sure a team of paid lawyers and linguists can do it too, and better.

The immense level of importance given to precedent is something that is unique to common law though.

That is true.

 

[gutter_trash]

I find these CPC polls meaningless unless they poll actual card carrying CPC members

 

[Fuzzy]

I see. So voters would need to vote more than one time?

It's a ranked ballot.

 

[matthewwhatever]

I see. So voters would need to vote more than one time?

All the voting takes place at once, on a ranked ballot.

The complete rules are here.

I find these CPC polls meaningless unless they poll actual card carrying CPC members

The Mainstreet/iPolitics poll is actually a lot more accurate than the other ones. The initial poll from earlier in the week was of 5,000+ people who donated to the CPC last year -- so people who were likely/likely to become card-carrying party members -- and moving forward I imagine they'll be refining their sample so that it's just members. Leadership polling in a race like this is tough (there's no way to account for, like, Laurier--Sainte-Marie or Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie or Avignon--La Mitis--Matane--Matapédia, where they probably only have a few dozen members each), but these numbers are much more reflective of reality than anything Forum puts out.

 

[bloodydrake]

Thankfully I don't. I do, however, know enough about you from your posts to be able to tell exactly how much you're less interested in "rational debate or constructive discussion," and more interested in spouting alt-right nonsense under the guise of Just Asking Questions.

It must be so amazingly cozy to be parked so far out in the distant Left Loony land anyone right of you must be Alt-Right.

Meanwhile I'll sit here in the Center flip flopping on issues as people present compelling arguments from either side.

When the NDP makes the most sense I'll support em,(I've voted NDP more then all other parties combined in my life btw) When the Liberals do I'll support them, and when the Conservatives do I'll vote that way too.
I'm committed to no team. I want to hear the debate on the issue and and I want to be won over by the merits of the argument.I refuse to just be on team righteous.

I mean shit that must sound like text book NeoNazi Alt-Right to you I'm sure.

 

[maharg]

That's great, but they need to go further than what they said they would do. I'm talking about a complete rewrite and reorganization of the Code, just like what Québec did to the Civil Code of Lower Canada in 1991.

Something like that is far far more necessary in a civil code system than a common law system. In a civil code, courts are expected to treat the law as if it were written correctly. In common law we treat the law as flawed and the courts as the means to expose flaws.

Ancient laws that are no longer enforced don't really pose a huge problem because they take up none of the court's time. If suddenly police started charging people with blasphemy, the courts would rule on it and it'd probably be overturned.

Meanwhile, if you completely rewrote the entire body of common law you would make life very difficult for the courts because suddenly all their case law would be based on laws that were probably changed in some way. The entire body of law would need fresh working out.

I mean, there are advantages and disadvantages of both systems, and I'm not saying one is better than the other. But you can't just "clean out" the body of common law because much of it is written by the courts.

It must be so amazingly cozy to be parked so far out in the distant Left Loony land anyone right of you must be Alt-Right.

Meanwhile I'll sit here in the Center flip flopping on issues as people present compelling arguments from either side.

When the NDP makes the most sense I'll support em,(I've voted NDP more then all other parties combined in my life btw) When the Liberals do I'll support them, and when the Conservatives do I'll vote that way too.
I'm committed to no team. I want to hear the debate on the issue and and I want to be won over by the merits of the argument.I refuse to just be on team righteous.

I mean shit that must sound like text book NeoNazi Alt-Right to you I'm sure.

Haha oh this is rich. Matthewwhatever is many things, but far off in lefty loony land is not one of them.

 

[gutter_trash]

Laurier-Ste-Marie probably has the least CPC members per capita in the entire country probably,

guessing a CPC member there would carry tons of weight.. hmmmmmmm

should I?

 

[Dr.Acula]

Something funny to lighten the conversation a little: Brad Trost -- last seen arguing that this:

...was a convincing argument against same-sex marriage -- is now trying to push forward a Private Member's Bill that would eliminate the CBC entirely. He can't get a single other MP to support it, including any other CPC MPs.

I'm pretty sure both those fingers are same-sex...

 

[firehawk12]

Basically, you have to hope that everyone's second choice is Bernier. lol

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Just awful.

If one of those two end up running I vote strategically against them - no matter what my options are.

 

[bloodydrake]

Haha oh this is rich. Matthewwhatever is many things, but far off in lefty loony land is not one of them.

If what I've expressed is alt right, he sure as shit is, only way I'm on the far right is if your so far left you can't see past the middle of the field.

 

[maharg]

If what I've expressed is alt right, he sure as shit is, only way I'm on the far right is if your so far left you can't see past the middle of the field.

Amazing that everyone else lacks the self-awareness of where they sit on the political spectrum but you definitely know where you sit.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Haha oh this is rich. Matthewwhatever is many things, but far off in lefty loony land is not one of them.

Aww, shucks, you say the nicest things.

Laurier-Ste-Marie probably has the least CPC members per capita in the entire country probably,

guessing a CPC member there would carry tons of weight.. hmmmmmmm

should I?

Apparently Bernier is giving rebates of $10 towards anyone who signs up through him. That sounds vaguely illegal to me, but if you want to spend $5 instead of $15, you may want to look into that.

Basically, you have to hope that everyone's second choice is Bernier. lol

Not necessarily. The reason I think people like O'Toole/Raitt/Scheer have a chance is that even though they're all middle of the pack for the first choice ballots, people might park their votes with them for second or third because they're so relatively innocuous, whereas O'Leary/Leitch (and Bernier, to a lesser extent within the CPC) are much more all-or-nothing candidates. So when Obhrai drops off, his minimal support could go to the middle-of-the-road candidates, not to a frontrunner. Same with Chong (sorry, everybody, but he's not winning), Peterson, Saxton, etc. In a longer process like this one, you want to look at the 3/4/5 finishers, not 1/2. The 2006 Liberal Leadership race that produced Dion might be the best analogue, even if the voting was different -- if you have a hard bloc of voters who'll never go to the frontrunner, that makes it much, much harder for him/her. In this case, if O'Leary is starting out with an absolute ceiling of, say, 75% (and probably closer to 65-70%), he has to win by huge margins that probably aren't possible.

 

[bloodydrake]

Amazing that everyone else lacks the self-awareness of where they sit on the political spectrum but you.

I really don't see where I claimed to speak for anyone but myself. However if you try to push me to the far right to invalidate me and support your own bullshit made up characterization of me I'll push back..don't like it..don't do it.

 

[Infinite Stars]

My riding has a whopping 8000 Conservative voters. Is it worth it for me to try and register to stop O'Leary/Leitch?

 

[Mr.Mike]

My riding has a whopping 8000 Conservative voters. Is it worth it for me to try and register to stop O'Leary/Leitch?

Voters or members? If there's only 8000 voters then there's probably only a double digit number of members. You'd control multiple points by yourself.

 

[gutter_trash]

Aww, shucks, you say the nicest things.



Apparently Bernier is giving rebates of $10 towards anyone who signs up through him. That sounds vaguely illegal to me, but if you want to spend $5 instead of $15, you may want to look into that.
.

I would sign up if he gives me a Jos.Louis pastry personally

 

[bloodydrake]

My riding has a whopping 8000 Conservative voters. Is it worth it for me to try and register to stop O'Leary/Leitch?

Every vote provides funding at least, even if your one vote can't change a riding's outcome you are providing support for the party to grow with and increases in support matters to the party moral.
I absolutely wish we would get some better proportional representation and coalition governments would become the norm to force parties to find common ground to govern by. I'm sick of 37%ish representing the majority of Canadians.

 

[firehawk12]

Apparently Bernier is giving rebates of $10 towards anyone who signs up through him. That sounds vaguely illegal to me, but if you want to spend $5 instead of $15, you may want to look into that.

I don't see that on his website at least. Where do you see the news?

Not necessarily. The reason I think people like O'Toole/Raitt/Scheer have a chance is that even though they're all middle of the pack for the first choice ballots, people might park their votes with them for second or third because they're so relatively innocuous, whereas O'Leary/Leitch (and Bernier, to a lesser extent within the CPC) are much more all-or-nothing candidates. So when Obhrai drops off, his minimal support could go to the middle-of-the-road candidates, not to a frontrunner. Same with Chong (sorry, everybody, but he's not winning), Peterson, Saxton, etc. In a longer process like this one, you want to look at the 3/4/5 finishers, not 1/2. The 2006 Liberal Leadership race that produced Dion might be the best analogue, even if the voting was different -- if you have a hard bloc of voters who'll never go to the frontrunner, that makes it much, much harder for him/her. In this case, if O'Leary is starting out with an absolute ceiling of, say, 75% (and probably closer to 65-70%), he has to win by huge margins that probably aren't possible.

I suppose that's true. I think I'm just thinking as a non-Conservative hoping to sabotage the CPC leadership convention.

 

[gutter_trash]

My riding has a whopping 8000 Conservative voters. Is it worth it for me to try and register to stop O'Leary/Leitch?

how do you measure that? is there a website to check numbers of members per riding?

 

[matthewwhatever]

My riding has a whopping 8000 Conservative voters. Is it worth it for me to try and register to stop O'Leary/Leitch?

If that's the total number of votes the CPC candidate got in your riding in 2015, then you have to assume that only a fraction of those are card-carrying party members. Only something like 2% of Canadians are members of a party; assuming that CPC voters are a little more motivated to join based solely on the party's Reform roots, say that the total goes up to 5% for them. That means you're competing with...400-500 people? Your vote wouldn't be as powerful as one in Quebec, but it would move the needle a quarter of a point or so.

On the other hand, if you're in Alberta, and it's 8,000 *members*, then...yeah, you're probably not changing much.

I don't see that on his website at least. Where do you see the news?

This is according to a CPC friend of mine. No idea how to verify it, but she got that fundraising email recently!

 

[gutter_trash]

CPC ended in 4th place in my riding with a sad 4.1% (total of 2,242 votes)

Laurier-Ste-Marie:
NDP 38.27%
BQ 28.71% (Gilles Duceppe himself)
LPC 23.66%
CPC 4.10%
GRN 3.48%

sad, low energy

 

[maharg]

I really don't see where I claimed to speak for anyone but myself. However if you try to push me to the far right to invalidate me and support your own bullshit made up characterization of me I'll push back..don't like it..don't do it.

First of all, you absolutely are speaking for someone else when you try to define their political views the way you're doing right now. I have a hard time seeing how you can believe you're not doing exactly that.

But I'm saying that you're throwing stones in a glass house. What makes you immune to misunderstanding your place on the political spectrum? How do you know it's not that you're more right than you think you are and the centre looks like the "loony lefty land" (which, to be blunt, is a phrase that people on the far right like to throw around a lot). If that were true (and I'm not saying it is, actually), you would not be the first person to fall down a right wing rabbit hole and not notice until they were pretty deep in. I'm sure it happens the other way too, even.

And matthewwhatever is, from his posts in this thread, pretty much the model of a modern Canadian centrist imo. If you accused *me* of being on the far left I'd only have a few quibbles (I don't think anyone really fits well on a 2d political spectrum anyways), but it just don't fit him.

 

[bloodydrake]

First of all, you absolutely are speaking for someone else when you try to define their political views the way you're doing right now. I have a hard time seeing how you can believe you're not doing exactly that.

No. When someone says your spewing alt Right dogma filth, and your not. You have to conclude they are so far left, that from their perspective you must be alt right.
That isn't speaking for them..its trying to make sense of their bullshit. So quit trying to play the victim for him while he's attacking my character.

I'm saying that you're throwing stones in a glass house. What makes you immune to misunderstanding your place on the political spectrum? How do you know it's not that you're more right than you think you are and the centre looks like the "loony lefty land" (which, to be blunt, is a phrase that people on the far right like to throw around a lot)

Simply put I've tried to explained I'm not interested in being apart of a TEAM
i will agree or disagree with any item on the merit of the argument. I'm in the Center because i'm interested to hear from all sides and then decide where to align myself on an issue by issue basis.
From the perspective of a new voter I might seem more right then not, from the perspective of my elders i might seem more left then not. However I know I am open to any position that holds the compelling argument. THAT is where the center lives. Ironically I know you'll never believe it but i've never heard of that term before I wrote it.. well I'm a life long fan of Looney tunes but I digress)

And matthewwhatever is, from his posts in this thread, pretty much the model of a modern Canadian centrist imo. If you accused *me* of being on the far left I'd only have a few quibbles (I don't think anyone really fits well on a 2d political spectrum anyways), but it just don't fit him.

I wouldn't disagree till he tried to paint me as Alt Right..then I feel Im justified in determining he's a Left wing nut.

 

[matthewwhatever]

When you blather on about Sharia Law and the "intolerant left," and post Jordan Peterson videos saying "Really makes you think"...Then yes, I'm perfectly comfortable labeling you as an alt-right shill with nothing of value to say. If you're parroting talking points that come straight from The Rebel, it's a pretty clear sign that you're being intellectually dishonest at best.

 

[CazTGG]

Laurier-Ste-Marie probably has the least CPC members per capita in the entire country probably,

guessing a CPC member there would carry tons of weight.. hmmmmmmm

should I?

Might as well, i'm joining in because, while I live in an area that's rather sizeable and have made it quite clear I am ideologically opposed to ever supporting the Conservative Party of Canada in an election, let alone donating to them willingly, I will not stand idly by and potentially allow Leitch, O'Leary or the other obscene candidates to drag the party further to the right, let alone allow one of them to be Prime Minister and represent us on a global level when they talk about reinstating the niqab ban, revoke their initial support for a bill that would protect trans people under the guise of "muh 3 peach" or screening people visiting the country for "anti-Canadian values". Anecdotal as this may be, what few conservative-leaning folk I do talk to, Raitt and Chong appear to be their top picks so there may be hope that a Bernier, O'Leary or Leitch leadership isn't as possible as it currently appears to be.

I really don't see where I claimed to speak for anyone but myself. However if you try to push me to the far right to invalidate me and support your own bullshit made up characterization of me I'll push back..don't like it..don't do it.

No one is pushing you to the far-right any more than Chadwick Moore was "pushed" into becoming a conservative, so stop with the persecution complex that you entered into this discussion with when people dismissed your question of whether M-103 is designed to condemn Islamophobia (hint: It is clear what the motion is intended to do and this question should never have been asked to begin with) and invoked the slippery slope fallcy in regards to said motion that seeks look into the best way to combat the rise in Islamophobia will lead to legalizing a bill that will incarcerate people who criticize Islam as if courts wouldn't differentiate between criticism and hatred (not to mention the special protection other minority religions that already exist and do not prevent you from criticizing, say, Judaism, if that's a priority you feel is necessary):

However I also again saw her avoid any response that addressed the legitimate and rational question "What constitutes Islamophobia" abjectly refused to entertain the idea that it should be defined.

What so many here seem to unable to acknowledge is a legitimate concern over what it being agreed to in supporting the Motion.

Is it condemning irrational fear,xenophobic and prejudices about Islam or Muslims?
If so defined I think all but the true bigots like Leich would have supported it and moved on.

Or is it the one the OIC promotes" all expressions of opposition to or disapproval of Islam?

Thats the one that got people worried and rightly so.

A Motion isn't law and it isn't a Bill. To pretend it isn't related to further support for legalizing whats been agreed upon in the Motion is disingenuous.

I also think Jordan Petersons video is 100% on point and brilliant..if he or you or anyone cannot post a picture and say this is Mohammad without fear of reprisal..then its not phobia to be concerned.

You've used the same language many in the right use when discussing M-103, presenting it as a matter of "freeze peach" and mentioned concerns about Sharia law in the west despite neither of those even approaching what the motion constitutes and likely not knowing what Sharia law constitutes beyond a buzzword that's thrown around in right-wing circles as a stand-in for "Radical Moose Lambs" and accused, if indirectly, those who have disagreed with you of being left-wing loonie authoritarians:

I know it will blow your mind but sometimes people are willing to learn and broaden their view when they aren't completely shutdown and vilified for not just turning off their brain and being a cheerleader for whatever the Mob Of Left wing Authoritarians demand.

For the record yes I am concerned with things like Sharia law in the west,
I'm concerned with Misogynistic views on woman's rights,
I'm concerned about gay rights,
I'm also deeply concerned about the treatment of apostates.

You say you want to debate your "concerns", yet throughout this thread, you've done nothing but JAQ off and responded with hostility whenever those ideas were dismissed (many rightfully so) like telling matthewwhatever to fuck off.

1. its not a thing.....yet...good,
2. fuck you, don't tell me what I care about, you don't know me.
3. as I doubt your desire for rational debate or constructive discussion.
4. I would think it is enough to give anyone pause. shrug but I guess not you.

I do not have the patience to debate dishonestly presented ideas that are not worthy of discussion, especially when those ideas involve the hatred of any minority group, be it race or religion, are presented as a matter whose discussion should begin and end with "how do we ensure that the radicalization of a white terrorist and hatred of Muslims that lead him to murder six people and injure almost 20 others, all of which were targetted because of their religion of never happens again?". People have criticized your ideas because they're misinformed at best

 

[LordOfChaos]

I put the CPC Leadership poll thing into a chart that makes it easier to compare first and last choice percentages.

Interesting.

If O'Leary rolls Leitch for conservative leader, I'll be a little relieved. Still won't vote his way in the election, but relieved. I'm worried the media is drumming him up too much as Canadas Trump, when it's Leitch who is the real ideological terror.

 

[Infinite Stars]

If that's the total number of votes the CPC candidate got in your riding in 2015, then you have to assume that only a fraction of those are card-carrying party members. Only something like 2% of Canadians are members of a party; assuming that CPC voters are a little more motivated to join based solely on the party's Reform roots, say that the total goes up to 5% for them. That means you're competing with...400-500 people? Your vote wouldn't be as powerful as one in Quebec, but it would move the needle a quarter of a point or so.

On the other hand, if you're in Alberta, and it's 8,000 *members*, then...yeah, you're probably not changing much.

Yeah,sorry, that was my bad. 8,000 voted in my Victoria riding for the Conservative Candidate, so 400-500 voters? Sounds like I have some sway if I register to vote in the Leadership

how do you measure that? is there a website to check numbers of members per riding?

Was calculated using overall Voters, not party members. My riding went something like:


NDP: 45%
Green: 32%
Liberal: 12%
Conservative: 11%

 

[bloodydrake]

When you blather on about Sharia Law and the "intolerant left," and post Jordan Peterson videos saying "Really makes you think"...Then yes, I'm perfectly comfortable labeling you as an alt-right shill with nothing of value to say. If you're parroting talking points that come straight from The Rebel, it's a pretty clear sign that you're being intellectually dishonest at best.

seriously your the one that brought up sharia law, hook line and sinker,so me responding to you with some genuine honesty is somehow me blathering on..please

So you hate Jordan Peterson, Good for you, and his ideas! Bravo, and anyone that finds his ideas compelling is a an alt-Right shill.. k got it.

From my perspective anyone that close minded is a condescending douche bag just playing victim politics. But you have your audience you should Dance your Dance for them,play your game and build that echo chamber.

 

[CazTGG]

seriously your the one that brought up sharia law, hook line and sinker,so me responding to you with some genuine honesty is somehow me blathering on..please

So you hate Jordan Peterson, Good for you, and his ideas! Bravo, and anyone that finds his ideas compelling is a an alt-Right shill.. k got it.

From my perspective anyone that close minded is a condescending douche bag just playing victim politics. But you have your audience you should Dance your Dance for them,play your game and build that echo chamber.

Are you familiar with the term "projecting"?

EDIT: Since we're apparently still fixated on M-103, here's an interview with Iqra Khalid, the woman who came up with the motion: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/...3-about-threats-conspiracies-and-islamophobia

 

[Slavik81]

That is pretty much never used.

https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/type=decision&sort=decisionDate&text="blasphemous libel"

Back in the 70s, the UK blasphemy law was thought dead and pretty much never used... until it was used again. Better to have bad laws off the books than to leave them laying around, waiting to be rediscovered.

 

[gutter_trash]

here is a recent exchance between O'Leary versus Mark Cuban about Trump (yesterday)

O'Leary comes out as an apologist, weak and a tool.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000594280

Cuban calls out O'Leary's double steak when he points out the differences when talks about the subject privately compared to when he talks on TV

 

[Pancake Mix]

Please, please, please don't consider O'Leary the lesser of two evils...he's bad in different ways, but he's really just as bad. Same with Bernier...

They would be a tremendous embarrassment and destroy Canada's commitment to high levels of public service.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Please, please, please don't consider O'Leary the lesser of two evils...he's bad in different ways, but he's really just as bad. Same with Bernier...

They would be a tremendous embarrassment and destroy Canada's commitment to high levels of public service.

What public services do you see him wrecking? Most of the important public social services are run by the provinces.

 

[Pancake Mix]

What public services do you see him wrecking? Most of the important public social services are run by the provinces.

He could easily gut the Canada Health Act and transfers.

He wants to run Canada like a business, plain and simple.

 

[mo60]

A former Alberta PC MLA says that he may vote for the Alberta NDP in the next provincial election if the Alberta NDP moves more to the centre.He also ripped up his PC membership card because he uncomfortable Jason Kenney's idea of uniting the right(uniting the Alberta PC's with the wildrose)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ron-ghitter-jason-kenney-disband-pcs-1.3989816?cmp=rss

Thomas Lukaszuk my former MLA also is thinking of ripping up his membership card once Kenney wins on March 18th.

 

[CazTGG]

Apparently, Nick Kouvalis is still working for Kellie "I stole a photo of a woman suffering from an eating disorder and altered it to suit my bigotry" Leitch, just not as the campaign manager (he's volunteering): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ative-leadership-leitch-says/article34068481/

Also: Yes. She really did this. Original picture:

Leitch's beyond fucked up twisting of said image:

 

[Silent Chief]

Are you familiar with the term "projecting"?

EDIT: Since we're apparently still fixated on M-103, here's an interview with Iqra Khalid, the woman who came up with the motion: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/...3-about-threats-conspiracies-and-islamophobia

A phobia sounds like a condition that needs treatment. I can see the irony with homophobia, as a response to those that describe homosexuality along the same lines. I don't have a clue where to begin with Islamophobia. I'd rather just talk about diversity, inclusion and tolerance. I certainly feel that there should be no mention of specific religions in any law.

 

[AuthenticM]

If I become a member of the CPC, do I have to vote in the riding tied to my permanent address? Because I haven't changed my address yet, and I'm at a five-hour drive from there.

 

[Pedrito]

I just noticed Kellie put an image of the attack on Parliament Hill in the background. Yes Kellie, eventually, it will be forbidden to talk about shootings by muslims...because it's current year! Lololol

 

[firehawk12]

This is according to a CPC friend of mine. No idea how to verify it, but she got that fundraising email recently!

If you could get details, I'd appreciate it. The less money I have to pay to the CPC the better.

 

[gabbo]

Apparently, Nick Kouvalis is still working for Kellie "I stole a photo of a woman suffering from an eating disorder and altered it to suit my bigotry" Leitch, just not as the campaign manager (he's volunteering): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ative-leadership-leitch-says/article34068481/

Also: Yes. She really did this. Original picture:

Leitch's beyond fucked up twisting of said image:

She's scrapped clean through the bottom of the barrel and is digging into the soft dirt below.
This is sick

 

[cryptosporidium]

Just watched part of the debate between Chong and some other guy who i couldnt tell who he was.

Quite like Chong, though i feel his stances or at least the way he explains them will alienate a large part of the conservative base. Saying things like "we should adopt stances like the liberal party and make membership free" is bad politics/rhetoric (even though what he said was good).

 

[CazTGG]

So...this happened.

What is with Brian Mulroney sucking up to awful American presidents via performing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling"?

She's scrapped clean through the bottom of the barrel and is digging into the soft dirt below.
This is sick

I didn't mention this since it was only recently pointed out to me but the woman's brown eyes were altered to be blue...yeah...that puts a far more horrific spin than I previously thought.

 

[Kifimbo]

So...this happened.

What is with Brian Mulroney sucking up to awful American presidents via performing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling"?

More details here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...welcome-at-trumps-mar-a-lago/article34085505/

I think I'm fine with this. Even if it makes me uncomfortable, we're in a better position as a country with a man inside. And Mulroney is obviously good at this.

 

[mdubs]

More details here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...welcome-at-trumps-mar-a-lago/article34085505/

I think I'm fine with this. Even if it makes me uncomfortable, we're in a better position as a country with a man inside. And Mulroney is obviously good at this.

Me too. It sounds like more confirmation that Justin and our people did a great job on the trip as well, so I'm happy about that.