The only notable discussions I recall in this thread are the occasions that some people involved with them have said really stupid stuff. As in this case, since whoever tweeted that on the organization's Twitter is voicing an absurd stance.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
The fact that she deleted the tweet is the problem, I don't see anything wrong in talking about it
what if she tweeted something like "kill all black people" and deleted it instead? you'd want us to ignore it because "almost no one will ever see it"?
The tweet she deleted is pretty important, I wouldn't vote for her now knowing how spineless she is
what if she tweeted something like "kill all black people" and deleted it instead? you'd want us to ignore it because "almost no one will ever see it"?
The tweet she deleted is pretty important, I wouldn't vote for her now knowing how spineless she is
Exactly this.
You're not wrong. BLM serve an important role and do important work, even if I think policing white people on quoting Beyonce is the most misguided use of a cultural appropriation critique possible. Political pandering? Point to be made there.
Really? You think this is a valid analogy at all?
She made a marketing tweet, someone who is presumably actually black mildly objected to it, she mildly removed it and apologized. This is not an earth shattering event.
Yes, a politician tweeting "kill all black people" would be worthy of discussion regardless of whether or not they deleted it immediately. Obviously.
my analogy is a little crazy, I admit it sorry :lol
still, my point remains that this is not just "a tweet", when you run to be in charge of this country and you can't stand up to a claim I honestly think is absolute bullshit, I want to know it. I can be reasonable and understand some claims I don't agree with, but that one is beyond my threshold of acceptability
cryptosporidium
Member
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
That was painful to read. No wonder the NDP is in free fall, that is not where most people's heads are at all.
gutter_trash
Banned
Noble Prize Winner
: Senator Lynn Beyak stands by residential school remarks, cites 'fake news'
Tory senator ignores calls for an apology, asks for an audit of money 'flowing in and out of reservations'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lynn-beyak-stands-by-fake-news-1.4028126
WTF!!!!
/s
Tory senator ignores calls for an apology, asks for an audit of money 'flowing in and out of reservations'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lynn-beyak-stands-by-fake-news-1.4028126
WTF!!!!
The senate really bringing its A game to seeming more and more despicable this week.
She's trying turn it around but is by no means clever enough to pull it off
I'm amazed that in a developed country you can get stuck in your car on a highway for a whole night in the cold with no one doing anything because of a snow storm. Laurent Lessard didn't handle this well at all. When journalist interviewed him the morning after it seemed like he had no idea what was happening. Phillipe Couillard's governement keeps tumbling down. Just recently it was the Justice Minister that was hopeless and doing nothing while big criminal trials were canceled and the accused went free because the delays for the procedures were too long now it's poor handling of transport crisis. This is all ignoring all that happened last year.
p_xavier
Authorized Fister
Governance is such a big issue that isn't being tackled. Everyone is doing its job but no one doing the job. Hopefully this will be a major wake up call. People died because of bad governance.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I think we're going to have to start having laws against residential school denialism like some countries have laws against Holocaust denialism.
Also, can we get an audit on her? If Le Pen is any indication, these far-right people tend to be hardcore projectors when they accuse others of corruption. ��
Yup!
PoliGAF is an echo chamber that can be too divorced from reality at times.
Remember when it was the belief of the overwhelming majority here that not only would Hillary win, but that Trump would lose by one of the biggest margins in history?
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Those "path to 400" maps were fun while they lasted. ;_;
Not sure if Bernier is going to get in trouble for this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/03/16/kevin-oleary-maxime-bernier-contest-rules_n_15416572.html
Edit: It looks like O'Leary is claiming this and he didn't actually state which campaign is doing the thing he is claiming they are doing.His organizers just brought a complaint to the attention of Conservative party officials and they are looking at it now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/03/16/kevin-oleary-maxime-bernier-contest-rules_n_15416572.html
Edit: It looks like O'Leary is claiming this and he didn't actually state which campaign is doing the thing he is claiming they are doing.His organizers just brought a complaint to the attention of Conservative party officials and they are looking at it now.
What would be the advantage of signing people up without their knowledge?
matthewwhatever
Member
That O'Leary claim of vote-rigging is so ridiculous in so many ways:
1) It shows a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics of this leadership race: while it doesn't hurt to sign up members, in a weighted system like this it doesn't help in the same way it would in a delegated system or a 1M1V system, either. The only way it would have a significant impact would be if the Bernier campaign was doing it in dozens and dozens of ridings, which -- unless I'm missing something -- isn't what's being alleged.
2) I don't know how signing people up without their knowledge wins someone any votes, unless O'Leary is going to further claim either a) mail fraud on a pretty huge scale (since the Bernier campaign would have to literally steal blank ballots out of these people's mailboxes), or b) that CPC HQ won't notice if lots and lots of brand new members all have their ballots being mailed to the same place. Neither of those things seems very plausible.
3) Even if there were huge numbers of members being signed up, the party membership lists are shared amongst all leadership campaigns. O'Leary's conspiracy requires that either a) these new members being signed up without knowing won't notice when they suddenly start getting inundated with campaign messages from all the candidates, or b) all of the other leadership candidates are conspiring to hide the fact that a significant number of the new members don't really exist. While I don't think that highly of most of the candidates, I also don't think that they'd all secretly agree to go to those kinds of lengths to screw over Kevin O'Leary.
4) Memberships cost campaigns money. Even if they're signing up members using a fake card, they still have to give the central party $15 for every member they sign up. I know that Bernier has a pretty significant fundraising advantage over all the other candidates, but that seems like a pretty big waste of money. On top of that, leadership campaigns need to file expense reports with Elections Canada, and I think that EC would notice if they were spending thousands of dollars on signing up illegal members.
5) Even if all of those things are true, why would the CPC be rigging the vote in favour of Bernier, of all people? Why wouldn't they try to rig it in favour of someone like Scheer or Raitt or O'Toole, who don't hold beliefs that will sink the party in 2019?
It's just all so nonsensical, and it makes him sound so weak. Frontrunners don't usually come out and say that everyone is conspiring against them. I know that Trump made that work in the US, but their selection system didn't work against him when he made it. In the CPC race, you need second ballot support, and I don't see how this will make anyone like him anymore.
Of course, maybe I should put on my own tinfoil hat and say that maybe O'Leary is looking at the numbers, realizing he can't win, and plotting an exit strategy. Here are his first-choice numbers:
And here are the people who say he's their last-choice candidate:
From his perspective, it'd be better for his brand to take his ball and go home, screaming that everyone is conspiring against him, than it would be for him to lose outright.
1) It shows a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics of this leadership race: while it doesn't hurt to sign up members, in a weighted system like this it doesn't help in the same way it would in a delegated system or a 1M1V system, either. The only way it would have a significant impact would be if the Bernier campaign was doing it in dozens and dozens of ridings, which -- unless I'm missing something -- isn't what's being alleged.
2) I don't know how signing people up without their knowledge wins someone any votes, unless O'Leary is going to further claim either a) mail fraud on a pretty huge scale (since the Bernier campaign would have to literally steal blank ballots out of these people's mailboxes), or b) that CPC HQ won't notice if lots and lots of brand new members all have their ballots being mailed to the same place. Neither of those things seems very plausible.
3) Even if there were huge numbers of members being signed up, the party membership lists are shared amongst all leadership campaigns. O'Leary's conspiracy requires that either a) these new members being signed up without knowing won't notice when they suddenly start getting inundated with campaign messages from all the candidates, or b) all of the other leadership candidates are conspiring to hide the fact that a significant number of the new members don't really exist. While I don't think that highly of most of the candidates, I also don't think that they'd all secretly agree to go to those kinds of lengths to screw over Kevin O'Leary.
4) Memberships cost campaigns money. Even if they're signing up members using a fake card, they still have to give the central party $15 for every member they sign up. I know that Bernier has a pretty significant fundraising advantage over all the other candidates, but that seems like a pretty big waste of money. On top of that, leadership campaigns need to file expense reports with Elections Canada, and I think that EC would notice if they were spending thousands of dollars on signing up illegal members.
5) Even if all of those things are true, why would the CPC be rigging the vote in favour of Bernier, of all people? Why wouldn't they try to rig it in favour of someone like Scheer or Raitt or O'Toole, who don't hold beliefs that will sink the party in 2019?
It's just all so nonsensical, and it makes him sound so weak. Frontrunners don't usually come out and say that everyone is conspiring against them. I know that Trump made that work in the US, but their selection system didn't work against him when he made it. In the CPC race, you need second ballot support, and I don't see how this will make anyone like him anymore.
Of course, maybe I should put on my own tinfoil hat and say that maybe O'Leary is looking at the numbers, realizing he can't win, and plotting an exit strategy. Here are his first-choice numbers:
And here are the people who say he's their last-choice candidate:
From his perspective, it'd be better for his brand to take his ball and go home, screaming that everyone is conspiring against him, than it would be for him to lose outright.
Obviously the explanation is c) Bernier has used his limitless campaign funds to pay for a P.O. box for every fake registration.
Wake up, sheeple!
Simon Belmont
Banned
That's fucking ludicrous he's obviously got a mole in Canada Post.
matthewwhatever
Member
Somehow O'Leary's campaign decided this was a good idea:
It reminds me of the scene from The Simpsons' Cape Fear parody with Sideshow Bob and all the rakes.
And Maxime Bernier's response is vicious:
It reminds me of the scene from The Simpsons' Cape Fear parody with Sideshow Bob and all the rakes.
And Maxime Bernier's response is vicious:
firehawk12
Subete no aware
"I'm a winner". lol
Everyone is Trump
Everyone is Trump
gutter_trash
Banned
Simon Belmont
Banned
Wait, O'Leary said it was a waste of time for him to be an MP? How in the world is he considered a serious candidate by anybody?
The darkest timeline.
Seems conservatives would rather win than lead. If i were a conservative voter I would be ashamed at the mockery that O'Leary is trying to bring to the party, yet it seems many of them are fine with someone with literally no knowledge of how our political system operates to be the person they nominate.
I actually kind of wonder if we or some other Westminster system government will eventually face a constitutional crisis over a PM not bothering to seek a seat in the commons. It's nearly entirely a matter of convention, so long as their caucus/party is still willing to support their lack of presence in the house and they hold a majority.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Right, but it would be best if it didn't come to that.
I don't think it'd be a constitutional crisis though, as you can technically do that. If it happened again, the thing is, it'd have to be a party leader who ran for and lost a seat as we both know. That's one thing and technically allowed...but if it's some guy who wants to be President of Canada on the other hand, that's not alright. O'Leary has no respect for parliament.
Simon Belmont
Banned
Aren't you going to kind of look like a wiener when it's you're not there to vote, introduce bills, or participate in question period?
Well, the unwritten nature of these conventions means that anything happening out of the norm for an extended period is probably going to wind up a crisis of some sort. See for example the prorogation crisis in 2008, where Harper's legal right was pitted against a vague convention that he shouldn't interfere with the house's right to make a motion of non-confidence against him.
And that was a much less dearly held ideal than the one that says the PM should hold a seat in the house.
And that was a much less dearly held ideal than the one that says the PM should hold a seat in the house.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Are contemporary Prime Ministerial powers predicated on the PM actually being an MP?
Could a Senator be PM?
Could a Senator be PM?
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
British Prime Ministers used to sometimes come from the House of Lords (the equivalent of the Canadian Senate). I believe Lord Salisbury was the last when he resigned in 1902.
Just doesn't happen anymore. Someone from the Senate is unlikely to win the party leadership.
I am near-100% certain that the PM must be a sitting MP.
edit: Interesting. Just checked Wikipedia and it says that it doesn't matter as long as that person holds confidence from the house.
Nope. PM powers continue to be delegated from the Crown.
Simon Belmont
Banned
I think it's kind of a moot point. It would be hard to imagine somebody being seen as "Prime Ministerial" when every leader ever has been a sitting MP and is shown more often than not conducting business in the house.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Edit: My mistake
John Turner was a PM without a seat for his entire tenure in 1984, since he was out of the Commons when he won the leadership and then lost the general election a few months later (winning a seat at the same time).
King lost his Prince Albert seat, but had one of his Ontario backbenchers step aside and held that seat until his retirement. He wasn't out of the Commons.
Yeah, I keep forgetting about Turner for some reason as he's the most recent example of this, right?
Simon Belmont
Banned
Exceptions prove rules. It's much more likely that you're about to experience the rule than the exception. (Also 1948 is before mass media as we know it and the war could have played a part in the 1945 election /straws)
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
ahhh, by-election in Glengarry, Ontario later in 1945. That was the second time he did that.
https://www.thoughtco.com/prime-minister-william-lyon-mackenzie-king-508528
https://www.thoughtco.com/prime-minister-william-lyon-mackenzie-king-508528
This weekend will be really interesting and anti-climatic in alberta politics. Looks like centrist PC members are thinking of joining the AB party once kenney wins.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/...-as-conservatives-choose-new-leader-1.4026275
Also it looks like preston manning keeps on trying to influence Alberta poltics.From the above article.
Clark says he was called by Reform Party founder Preston Manning, now president of the conservative think-tank Manning Centre. The centre promotes the idea of one united Conservative party in Alberta but has not officially endorsed the Kenney campaign.
"[Manning] said he wasn't calling on behalf [of Jason Kenney] per se," Clark says. "We know, I think, where his sympathies lie, so I'm not interested in that, I'm not interested in working with Jason Kenney. He doesn't reflect my values."
Clark says he got the impression Manning was making him an offer that "if you come and join us, then I'll give you that.
And so when someone says, 'I can't promise you anything, but you're the sort of person who would be well positioned to be in cabinet,' well, that's how that happens, apparently," says Clark.
Also o'leary wasn't lying about what he said earlier.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/conservative-vote-rigging-investigation-1.4030828
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/...-as-conservatives-choose-new-leader-1.4026275
Also it looks like preston manning keeps on trying to influence Alberta poltics.From the above article.
Clark says he was called by Reform Party founder Preston Manning, now president of the conservative think-tank Manning Centre. The centre promotes the idea of one united Conservative party in Alberta but has not officially endorsed the Kenney campaign.
"[Manning] said he wasn't calling on behalf [of Jason Kenney] per se," Clark says. "We know, I think, where his sympathies lie, so I'm not interested in that, I'm not interested in working with Jason Kenney. He doesn't reflect my values."
Clark says he got the impression Manning was making him an offer that "if you come and join us, then I'll give you that.
And so when someone says, 'I can't promise you anything, but you're the sort of person who would be well positioned to be in cabinet,' well, that's how that happens, apparently," says Clark.
Also o'leary wasn't lying about what he said earlier.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/conservative-vote-rigging-investigation-1.4030828
Yeah, I heard this on the drive home. O'Leary was actually right?!
matthewwhatever
Member
...did not see that coming.
If they can prove that Bernier was behind it, it'd be interesting to see who that benefits. Theoretically, I guess, it gives O'Leary a boost, since he's Bernier's top rival right now, but at the same time, his approval ratings -- even among Conservatives -- are still bleak, and being right about this one thing doesn't change any of his enormous negatives. If anything, it may even reinforce the idea that he's not all that interested in whether the Conservative Party lives or dies.
Definitely interested in seeing the next iPolitics/Mainstreet poll!
Well, this happened just as the Alberta PCs are voting: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alan-hallman-assault-charge-pc-leadership-convention-1.4031301
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked