Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Ewall87

Does Maxime Bernier's PPC stand a chance?

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I breezed through a DND personality test when I shouldn't have. I was a pacifist at the time, DND was hiring only infantry, I mouthed off some Hollywood lines about wanting to serve my country, and off to training I went.

So what happened, Did you make it through basic, what Regt did you serve with.

there is not much personality screening for entry level jobs  Yes the recruiting dept will take anyone with a heart beat, because of human rights, and lowering of standards. they do tend to weed those out in basic training, or within the first couple of years.  personality screening comes in is for those jobs that are going to cost millions to further train you in....like spec ops, sat comms, pilots , high security clearance, dangerous jobs like SAR tech etc,  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

So what happened, Did you make it through basic, what Regt did you serve with.

there is not much personality screening for entry level jobs  Yes the recruiting dept will take anyone with a heart beat, because of human rights, and lowering of standards. they do tend to weed those out in basic training, or within the first couple of years.  personality screening comes in is for those jobs that are going to cost millions to further train you in....like spec ops, sat comms, pilots , high security clearance, dangerous jobs like SAR tech etc,  

I passed basic and completed most of infantry training before they realized I wasn't a good fit. I was physically healthier than most except for a few but struggled mentally with living with the training platoon 24/7. Are you suggesting a nearly-year-long personality test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Machjo said:

I passed basic and completed most of infantry training before they realized I wasn't a good fit. I was physically healthier than most except for a few but struggled mentally with living with the training platoon 24/7. Are you suggesting a nearly-year-long personality test?

In the military your always being accessed, but once your interviewing more sensitive jobs, dangerous jobs, jobs requiring high levels of security such as Canadian eyes only top secret  then the interviews become well more intense, and more intrusive and done with professional interviewers.

Not for immigrants, or refugees, but during a serious of interviews professional could get a good read on a persons personality traits, beliefs, etc . I mean immigrants do see case workers more than once... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

In the military your always being accessed, but once your interviewing more sensitive jobs, dangerous jobs, jobs requiring high levels of security such as Canadian eyes only top secret  then the interviews become well more intense, and more intrusive and done with professional interviewers.

Not for immigrants, or refugees, but during a serious of interviews professional could get a good read on a persons personality traits, beliefs, etc . I mean immigrants do see case workers more than once... 

How did Russell Williams fall through the cracks? He made it to commandant of one of Canada's most important air bases.

If they're testing competence and willingness to follow orders, that's one thing, but good luck testing fundamental beliefs. Totally separate playing field there.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Machjo said:

Only within the Liberal caucus. No law prevents a Liberal MP to vote his conscience. At most, Trudeau can remove him from caucus but he still keeps his seat and his vote in the House. Also, no one is forced to run under the Liberal banner, So Trudeau's powers are limited in the matter.

Wrong. MPs. All Liberal MPs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Machjo said:

Only as members of the Liberal caucus. The worst he can do is remove them from caucus.

How do you think people get the opportunity to run in the election in the first place? 

They do exactly as they’re told. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Argus said:

I accept the logic of your position. The problem is, as I see it, that Scheer has virtually no chance of defeating Trudeau with or without Bernier. He's a personally unappealing man with no charisma and no ideas.

Scheer may be less charismatic than Trudeau, but Trudeau has 4 years of utter failure under his belt and his selfie game has gotten old. Once they hit the debate stage Trudeau will be stammering as usual, trying to answer tough questions.

He has to answer to the devastation of the Alberta economy, the rise of western separatism, SNC, Adm Norman, several other ethics breeches, the fact that he has given away money that we can't afford overseas and told veterans that they are asking for too much, he has accepted islamic state terrorists back with open arms, etc.

Scheer doesn't have to be charismatic on the debate stage, he just can't fall asleep or drop a poopie.

Quote

He's shown a strong reluctance to stand up for anything that would cause controversy or take chances. I expect an election campaign to be run the same way, with no grand ideas, no big offers or policies to garner notice, and vague promises to 'do better' on a host of issues, with no specifics.

He can't take the stern right approach that Bernier is taking. Even taking one position over there gives Trudeau a wide open lane to the votes in the center, and it gives CBC and CTV the chance to portray the Conservatives as racists, etc. 

The right is locked up for the conservatives. They won't lose a single vote to the Libs. Scheer doesn't need to cater to those voters. He also recognizes that not everyone who voted for Trudeau last time around was a myopic Liberal toady. A lot of those votes from 2015 are up for grabs now, along with the majority of votes from the center. That's Scheer's target demographic. 

Scheer just has to say that he won't be a stooge on the international stage, look weak AF in China, India, and the US, won't have scandals galore, women won't be leaving his party or getting kicked out, he won't run up massive debt, or be hated by veterans.... 

The fish jumped in the boat, Scheer just needs to hit it with the oar. He doesn't need to use a shotgun, it would be counter-productive. If one wrong word slips out of Scheer's mouth in the next 3 months that will be literally all we hear about on CTV and CBC. 

Quote

He's basically hoping people will vote for him as the only alternative to Trudeau.

That would be more than enough. If Trudeau was in a coma for the last 4 years it would have been a vast improvement.

Quote

 

Meanwhile, the economy is strong, and Trudeau will come out with a slew of new offers for everything from daycare to pharmacare. Canadians rarely dump a sitting PM after just one term with a strong economy. Even his father got re-elected after his first term, despite a poor economy.

 

Our economy is riding on the coattails of the US economy, as always. When Canadians think of this government they think of massive debts and nothing to show for it.

If Trudeau wants to run on the promise of new offers [more debt] then his infamous "budget will balance itself" quote will come front and center. 

Quote

Remember, the Conservatives need a majority to take power. Anything else will leave Trudeau in power with the other Left wing parties propping him up. That's arguably worse than what we have now as both parties would demand sharply more Left wing policies, especially on the environment.

I don't believe the polls that are coming out saying that the Libs are even with the C's, or just a bit behind. The pollsters tried that in the US too - "The cool kids are voting for Hillary. You should too!"

In Canada fake polls are the media's way of saying: "The scandals weren't a big deal, no one cares about them. The cool kids still love Trudeau." No one's buying it.

Trudeau virtue-signalled and faked his way to power. Scheer's blandness leaves Trudeau no lane for virtue-signalling. Trudeau can't even act like the women's champion anymore because the women in the Lib party either got kicked out for being strong, independent thinkers or they left of their own accord. That PR disaster awaits Trudeau in this election too. He's screwed. He could actually lose a virtue-signalling battle with Scheer. 

The media didn't get the chance to run a 3 year smear campaign on Scheer like they did on Harper. Duffygate was half the battle for Trudeau, just referring to it over and over for 3 years. There's no "Scheergate" for the media to sink their teeth into. Not even close. The MSM is like an innocent bystander for now. All they can do is try to stay on damage control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Wrong. MPs. All Liberal MPs. 

The PM has no coercive power over them beyond removing them from caucus after which they become independents, at least not legally anyway. What? He'll hire a hit man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

How do you think people get the opportunity to run in the election in the first place? 

They do exactly as they’re told. 

No law requires anyone to run under a party banner. Independents have run and been elected as independents before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Machjo said:

No law requires anyone to run under a party banner. Independents have run and been elected as independents before.

Case in point -> the person at the centre of the thread topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

When Canadians think of this government they think of massive debts and nothing to show for it.

I think this is projection, since I'm Canadian and that's not the first thing that comes to mind.  What comes to mind is that JT did not follow through on his promise to scrap the FPTP.  And how annoying he is to listen to with his "ah ah" every time he speaks.  What also comes to mind is that my daughter really is better off, and so are her kids.  Also, that when I retire I'll be marginally better off than I would have been under a conservative government.  I also note that our unemployment rate is the lowest its been in decades and as much as any PM has control over that, JT deserves the credit.  I see that, rather than scrap the pipeline, he purchased it - something Alberta and his detractors never give him credit for.  Can you imagine how many environmental votes he lost at that point?  JT has nothing to do with Alberta's economic issues; that is the result of world events and the lack of foresight of provincial governments when their economy was booming.   

I really don't know how someone can support a president who has increased US debt by more than almost any other president during good economic times, while simultaneously condemning JT for doing the same.   If increasing debt while the economy is doing well is poor fiscal management, it is poor fiscal management whether done by your 'friend' or your 'enemy'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Machjo said:

The PM has no coercive power over them beyond removing them from caucus after which they become independents, at least not legally anyway. What? He'll hire a hit man?

He’s the leader of the party. Get it?

You can’t just go inform the liberal party that you’re going to be running in the next election as their MP candidate in your own riding. 

The Liberal party chooses who gets to run. They’re not looking for people who represent their constituents - they’re only accepting people who are in lock step with Trudeau. 

That’s not democratic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WestCanMan said:

The Liberal party chooses who gets to run. They’re not looking for people who represent their constituents - they’re only accepting people who are in lock step with Trudeau. 

Is there a party somewhere that allows people who disagree with the party leader to run as candidates?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Machjo said:

No law requires anyone to run under a party banner. Independents have run and been elected as independents before.

Omfg. The Liberal Party. 

Everyone in the Liberal Party “has to vote pro-abortion”. Has to. There’s no option to vote according to the will of your own constituents. You’ll be out of the liberal party. Gone. 

Have fun winning re-election when you’re an independent and they put a former NHL player against you in your riding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Is there a party somewhere that allows people who disagree with the party leader to run as candidates?  

The Conservatives don’t all vote as a block. Scheer didn’t say that they all have to vote one way or the other or they’re gone.

That would be 100% contrary to the founding principles of our form of representation. 100%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I think this is projection, since I'm Canadian and that's not the first thing that comes to mind.  What comes to mind is that JT did not follow through on his promise to scrap the FPTP.  And how annoying he is to listen to with his "ah ah" every time he speaks.  What also comes to mind is that my daughter really is better off, and so are her kids.  Also, that when I retire I'll be marginally better off than I would have been under a conservative government.  I also note that our unemployment rate is the lowest its been in decades and as much as any PM has control over that, JT deserves the credit.  I see that, rather than scrap the pipeline, he purchased it - something Alberta and his detractors never give him credit for.  Can you imagine how many environmental votes he lost at that point?  JT has nothing to do with Alberta's economic issues; that is the result of world events and the lack of foresight of provincial governments when their economy was booming.   

I really don't know how someone can support a president who has increased US debt by more than almost any other president during good economic times, while simultaneously condemning JT for doing the same.   If increasing debt while the economy is doing well is poor fiscal management, it is poor fiscal management whether done by your 'friend' or your 'enemy'.

JT increased the debt catastrophically. It will be decades before we get back on track. 

Obama doubled the US debt. Trump got the economy going strong enough to actually cut into the debt but he gave out too much in tax breaks. The US economy is up where it has never been in our lifetimes and we are riding their coattails. 

JT isn’t making things better for your daughter. Social programs that exist now will have to be scaled back because our debt is too high. 

JT has also been caught in several ethics breaches, including unduly influencing the court proceedings for SNC Lavalin, a strong lobbyist which has bribed a federal official in the past, to the tune of $2M.

He’s allowing terrorists to come back without facing prosecution. Is that good for your daughter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WestCanMan said:

The Conservatives don’t all vote as a block. Scheer didn’t say that they all have to vote one way or the other or they’re gone.

That would be 100% contrary to the founding principles of our form of representation. 100%. 

Scheer has not yet formed government.  In the meantime:  Harper muzzles anti-abortion MPs.

Also, maintaining party discipline is a long-standing feature of Canadian politics; it's not something JT just came up with.

Trudeau 'freed' the Senate so formerly Liberal Senators can vote as they wish.   Has the Conservative leader done so?

I essentially agree with you that always towing the party line does not allow MPs to adequately represent their constituents; it's part of why I would like to scrap FPTP.  But pretending JT is somehow different or unusual in this regard is dishonest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

He’s the leader of the party. Get it?

You can’t just go inform the liberal party that you’re going to be running in the next election as their MP candidate in your own riding. 

The Liberal party chooses who gets to run. They’re not looking for people who represent their constituents - they’re only accepting people who are in lock step with Trudeau. 

That’s not democratic. 

But we're not a one-Party state so it doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Omfg. The Liberal Party. 

Everyone in the Liberal Party “has to vote pro-abortion”. Has to. There’s no option to vote according to the will of your own constituents. You’ll be out of the liberal party. Gone. 

Have fun winning re-election when you’re an independent and they put a former NHL player against you in your 

A Liberal MP could vote pro life at any time. He'd just be cocked out of caucus and sit as an independent, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Scheer has not yet formed government.  In the meantime:  Harper muzzles anti-abortion MPs.

Also, maintaining party discipline is a long-standing feature of Canadian politics; it's not something JT just came up with.

Trudeau 'freed' the Senate so formerly Liberal Senators can vote as they wish.   Has the Conservative leader done so?

I essentially agree with you that always towing the party line does not allow MPs to adequately represent their constituents; it's part of why I would like to scrap FPTP.  But pretending JT is somehow different or unusual in this regard is dishonest.  

Scrapping FPTP would strengthen the power of the party. I'd rather keep FPTP but remove party names ballots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

1.  JT increased the debt catastrophically. It will be decades before we get back on track. 

2.  Obama doubled the US debt.

3.  Trump got the economy going strong

4. enough to actually cut into the debt but he gave out too much in tax breaks.

5. The US economy is up where it has never been in our lifetimes and we are riding their coattails. 

6.  JT isn’t making things better for your daughter. Social programs that exist now will have to be scaled back because our debt is too high. 

7.  JT has also been caught in several ethics breaches, including unduly influencing the court proceedings for SNC Lavalin, a strong lobbyist which has bribed a federal official in the past, to the tune of $2M.

8.  He’s allowing terrorists to come back without facing prosecution. Is that good for your daughter?

1.  Fear-mongering.  The same claim is made about every goverment by every opposition.  

2.  Yup, under the "great recession".  Harper's record on deficit spending and increasing the Federal debt is also pretty bad, and for the same reason.  Funny how you don't use that to disparage JT.

3.  The economy was already going strong under Obama and that has continued under Trump. 

4.  I tried finding a cite supporting your claim that Trump has reduced the debt by any amount, but was unsuccessful.  I found lots of stuff saying he's increasing borrowing by billions while reducing tax receipts; simple math tells me this will increase debt.

5.  Would you say the same if Scheer were at the helm?  Or if Harper/Obama were still leading their respective countries?  In other words, is this statement based on facts or partisanship?  

6.  How about instead of cutting social programs we cut corporate welfare, increase taxes on multi-national corporations, make it impossible for the richest among us to avoid taxes.  How about we treat poor people, disabled people, single-parent families with respect and generosity instead of punishing them while fawning shamelessly over wealth. 

7.  Trump is nothing but an ethics breach.  That's ok though, cause he's making the economy hum and being cruel to the powerless while bowing and scraping to corrupt and authoritarian leaders.  Meanwhile, our economy hums along, JT is not bowing and scraping to the likes of Putin and KJU, and not being cruel to the powerless.  JT may have faults, but he's nothing like the POS you've put on a pedestal.

8.  Fear-mongering and not true:

As part of a national strategy now being put in place, police are working with prosecutors to prepare charges and peace bonds against the detainees, 

In any case, my daughter is much more likely to be injured or killed by a non-Muslim, European-descended, multigeneration Canadian Male between the ages of 18 and 35 than by any Muslim terrorist.  Please take your empty-headed fear-mongering and try it on people who couldn't think their way out of an paper bag.  There's plenty enough of them.

 

 

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dialamah said:

Sweet.  So we can be sure that every Muslim employed by the Feds or any government or company that tests for soft-skills is not a threat to Canadian culture.  You must be relieved.  :)

I'd be more relieved if we tested them before we let them into Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'd be more relieved if we tested them before we let them into Canada.

I know of an Algonquin who converted to Islam if that's your concern. Do you propose a law against conversion? The Dark Ages all over again?

And again, when testing for beliefs, litle prevents a person from lying and few CBSA officers have anywhere near the psychological qualifications for that kind of profiling.In fact, few psychiatrists do unless you're referring to in-depth analysis over an extended period and even then. Determining religious beliefs is not the same as diagnosing mental illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...