Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Andrew Scheer needs to go.


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I am leaning towards supporting Mr. Sheer simply because Taxme is making him look better and better. :D

You probably voted for Scheer anyway, right? I mean that it is either Trudeau or Scheer to vote for. The others are just a waste of time. So, in just what way am I trying to make Scheer look any better than a real and true conservative like Bernier? Come on, spit it out. :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Personally I want him gone. He has failed to make any kind of connection with Canadians. Despite Trudeau having a very low approval rating, despite his lies and ridiculous screwups with costumes, desp

People go off topic all the time. It's just the evolution of conversation. If you close every thread that drifts, no one will want to come here anymore.

You can't ask a brown man to leave! That's racist!

2 minutes ago, taxme said:

real and true conservative like Bernier?

I am dubious of Mr. Bernier's conservative credentials. I also question his judgement. 

I am coming to realise you and I disagree on so many levels that my default is the opposite of yours. OTOH, I don't have much of a track record on being right...although, I did get 10-1 odds that Cassius Clay would beat Sonny Liston in their first fight.

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

Scheer was fighting against the far right, the Greens, and the media.

If Trudeau's scandals got reasonable coverage then his popularity would have gone down more than just 6% (39 to 33). It wasn't just Scheer trying to steal votes from the Libs, it was also the Greens, NDP, Bloc, and PPC. All 5 of those parties tried to steal votes from the libs and they barely made a dent. That's entirely because of the power of the MSM. 

You can blame the MSM if you want, but , that fact is Canadians wanted Justin more than Scheer….thats the sad part considering everything Justin has done.... I think this election was all about how much can the tax payer pocket... liberals bought and paid for all those votes, in a few weeks we'll see how many promises he plans on keeping... Canadian tax payer is sooo gullible that way.. our memories are 2 seconds long, today they have the morals and values of a politician any ways....

Conservatives should remember the power of MSM, and once they do win, cancel CBC fat  ass... buy their own media company ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, taxme said:

The conservative party not only has bible thumpers in it but it would appear as though they have just as many leftist liberals in it also. So, why didn't the liberal conservative party win the election? They probably should have won. They are just as liberal and leftist and politically correct as the rest of them are. So, what happened? Scheer had a chance to massacre Trudeau during the debates, and make him look really bad and crooked, and he failed to do so. Scheer was the reason why the liberal conservatives lost the election. Scheer is a liberal wimp. 

I do not understand why people would want to vote for politicians who only want to give them more government and higher taxes, and want less freedom, and more immigrants. Personally, I think that most Canadians have become a bunch of no minds. They don't know what the hell they want anymore. Their brains appear to have turned to mush. Just my opinion, of course. 

Canadian PMs have come in two flavours since 68: Trudeauvian and Chrétienesque. A radical right-winger has yet to win office. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 11:36 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

I am dubious of Mr. Bernier's conservative credentials. I also question his judgement. 

I am coming to realise you and I disagree on so many levels that my default is the opposite of yours. OTOH, I don't have much of a track record on being right...although, I did get 10-1 odds that Cassius Clay would beat Sonny Liston in their first fight.

I guess the reason for that is that you are mostly a liberal and I am mostly a real and true conservative. The two will never meet in the middle. There is nothing to be feeling dubious about when it comes to Bernier. Bernier is a real and true conservative who is very politically incorrect. Bernier believe in less taxes, less government,  less immigration, and more freedom. Scheer does not. Scheer appears to be for those mentioned. Scheer needs to go. And all the rest just want to talk about housing and climate change, and how just those two alone will cost the Canadians taxpayer hundreds of millions of their tax dollars with nothing ever being resolved. Scheer and our other dear and wonderful leaders today are going to get together once again and are going to talk about and discuss homelessness in Canada. Plenty of tax dollars again will be blown by a bunch of political fools who could not get together on what the price should be for a cup of lemonade at a lemonade stand. Then they will talk about how much taxes and government should get involved in their government lemonade enterprise. 

It's very simple what to do about homelessness in Canada. Stop all immigration. Stop all this legal and criminal illegal refugee activity going on in Canada where all of these legal and illegal refugees get to be housed in hotels, fed, and clothed while our dear leaders leave their own Canadian people out on the streets living in tents out in the cold. By our politicians bringing in more refugees and allowing illegal ones also to enter Canada freely shows that they are more concerned about the rest of the world, and not with Canada or Canadians. Scheer avoids talking about refugees because he is all in favor of allowing more refugees into Canada. Scheer needs to go. A conservative he is not. 

This is how real and true conservatives will solve the problem. Stop all legal and illegal refugees from coming into the country period, except for some very serious situations where ones life may be in jeopardy. Most of those legal and illegal refugees are only just economic ones anyway, and are looked after like they are kings and queens. Even Scheer would not dare suggest such a thing because he has become too politically correct and too globalist as Trudeau has become. Scheer is no Canadian nationalist like Bernier is. Scheer needs to go, and the conservative party needs to have a real and true conservative like Bernier as leader. Otherwise, the conservative party will always end up in second place. The conservative party today does not look nor act like a real and true opposition party at all. Just saying. 

Those were pretty good odds to be getting for Clay. I guess that Cassius Clay has to be one of the greatest boxers to ever come along in the world of boxing, just like Tiger Woods has to be one of the greatest golfers to have ever come along in the world of golf. And Bernier has to be one of the greatest conservatives to have ever come along in Canada that I know of. Scheer must go. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Canadian PMs have come in two flavours since 68: Trudeauvian and Chrétienesque. A radical right-winger has yet to win office. 

There are just as many radical left-wingers in the liberal and NDP party's in Canada, as there may be radical right-wingers in the conservative party. It's funny how anyone who is a conservative must somehow have to be some kind of a radical right winger to people like yourself?

A radical right winger will never win office in Canada. Why, we cannot even get a Scheer conservative party elected in Canada. Canada is liberal, socialist country, and as far as I am concerned, conservatism in Canada has now been pretty much deleted. A few are left but divisive Trudeau will soon try to get rid of them soon. Quebec politicians have just about been in control of Canada for several decades now, and this will never change. Too many Canadians love their french Quebec rulers ruling over them. This truly a controlled Trudeau and Chretien country, and most Canadians like it that way. Aw well, what more can be said. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't always agree with Coyne, but in this he's correct. Leadership contests have become an exercise in corruption, with candidates 'recruiting' thousands of outsiders who have little or no connection to or interest in the party. That's how the Ontario PCs got Doug Ford. That's how the NDP were stuck with Jagmeet Singh. And to a certain extent that's how Scheer won the leadership. With the aid of Quebec dairy farmers who joined just to vote for him in order to keep Bernier from winning. They should just have the caucus vote in a new leader.

Here is what the next six months might look like for the Conservatives. Their leader, Andrew Scheer, having stumbled through an election campaign he might have won with a platform that was sure to lose, ignores widespread calls to quit in favour of hanging on until the April leadership review.

Unable to dislodge him before then, his critics in the party focus on ensuring he does not survive the vote. The months pass, filled with anonymous sniping in the media, and punctuated by increasingly strident calls for his dismissal from riding executives and party grandees.

At the convention, he neither does so well (more than 90 per cent support) as to clearly confirm his leadership, nor so poorly (less than 50 per cent) as to clearly end it, but something in between. Without consensus on what level of support (70 per cent? 75? 80?) would be sufficient, the leader might attempt to carry on — but in such a weakened state that he could do little but invite further attacks on his leadership.

Alternatively, he might step down, leaving the party leaderless for another six to nine months while it elects a replacement, by the same dirty, gameable system of mass membership sales that elected him. Either way, consumed with its own internal struggles, the party offers no serious opposition to the governing Liberals, probably for the life of this Parliament.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-conservatives-should-use-a-clean-quick-coup-to-replace-scheer-heres-how

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 4:06 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

I am coming to realise you and I disagree on so many levels that my default is the opposite of yours. OTOH, I don't have much of a track record on being right...although, I did get 10-1 odds that Cassius Clay would beat Sonny Liston in their first fight.

In retrospect, great odds for any fight but Clay was a rank outsider. Liston was the George Foreman of his time. 
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_vs._Sonny_Liston

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 2:32 PM, Dougie93 said:

The PRC has elections too.  Same system as in Canada; an elite consensus without an opposition. /shrugs.

By equating the people's Republic of China to our system demonstrates one of a few things.

1) you don't know the meaning of the word communism

2) you're oblivious to the concepts of epistemology and logic

3) you have no actual political philosophy and simply enjoy trying to get under people's skin

Whichever one it is , this is obviously not an attempt at a good faith argument

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

By equating the people's Republic of China to our system demonstrates one of a few things.

1) you don't know the meaning of the word communism

The PRC are not Communists, they're Fascists. Perhaps YOU might look into the meaning of Communism too. :ph34r:

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

The PRC are not Communists, they're Fascists. Perhaps YOU might look into the meaning of Communism too. :ph34r:

First off, he never made that distinction. Second it's most certainly classified as a communist regime. Thirdly and most important, nothing to do with the crux of my argument that equating the two is intellectually dishonest

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

First off, he never made that distinction. Second it's most certainly classified as a communist regime. Thirdly and most important, nothing to do with the crux of my argument that equating the two is intellectually dishonest

Oh I agree that it's hyperbole to equate Canada to China.

Still, just because they call themselves Communist doesn't mean anything. Lots of communist countries called themselves 'democratic' too. They weren't. Nazi Germany called itself Socialist. It wasn't. China now has all the patterns and structure of a fascist state, right down to the concentration camps.

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Oh I agree that it's hyperbole to equate Canada to China.

Still, just because they call themselves Communist doesn't mean anything. Lots of communist countries called themselves 'democratic' too. They weren't. Nazi Germany called itself Socialist. It wasn't. China now has all the patterns and structure of a fascist state, right down to the concentration camps.

Don't recall advocating in any way for the PRC. 

If you agree that the comparison is not a good faith argument, not sure why you felt the necessity to debate semantics, being that neither( communism or fascism) in any way correspond to Canada's political system

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Don't recall advocating in any way for the PRC. 

If you agree that the comparison is not a good faith argument, not sure why you felt the necessity to debate semantics, being that neither( communism or fascism) in any way correspond to Canada's political system

Here is my take on this conservative rebellion soon to begin. Not only has the conservative party lost pretty much half of their conservative member base to the Bernier PPC party, but now, after an in fight which will soon start, the CP will probably be cut in half once again. Talk about wanting to destroy a political party? This is the way to do it. And of course Trudeau and his liberal elite globalist ilk will be laughing their globalist fascist heads off at those conservative fools. If one wants liberalism support the Trudeau liberals or support Scheer or whomever the liberal conservative party leader will be one day. If one wants real and true conservatism, support Bernier. It's as simple as that. But whatever happens, Scheer needs to really get the hell out of here. Communism or fascism, both are the same. They are both in the belief that there must be a certain ruling elite class of fascist/communist party leader dictators leading the commie fascist pack, and the sheeple below them must do as they are told without a whimper or else. Freedom of speech does not exist under anyone of those two ism's. Liberalism can be included in there also. ;)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Don't recall advocating in any way for the PRC. 

If you agree that the comparison is not a good faith argument, not sure why you felt the necessity to debate semantics, being that neither( communism or fascism) in any way correspond to Canada's political system

I like to educate people. :)

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

Here is my take on this conservative rebellion soon to begin. Not only has the conservative party lost pretty much half of their conservative member base to the Bernier PPC party, but now, after an in fight which will soon start, the CP will probably be cut in half once again. Talk about wanting to destroy a political party? This is the way to do it. And of course Trudeau and his liberal elite globalist ilk will be laughing their globalist fascist heads off at those conservative fools. If one wants liberalism support the Trudeau liberals or support Scheer or whomever the liberal conservative party leader will be one day. If one wants real and true conservatism, support Bernier. It's as simple as that. But whatever happens, Scheer needs to really get the hell out of here. Communism or fascism, both are the same. They are both in the belief that there must be a certain ruling elite class of fascist/communist party leader dictators leading the commie fascist pack, and the sheeple below them must do as they are told without a whimper or else. Freedom of speech does not exist under anyone of those two ism's. Liberalism can be included in there also. ;)

No idea what this incoherent rant has to do with my post (or reality for that matter), but if you  say something intelligible or at least comprehensible, I'd be happy to respond

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservatives aren't going to win elections, when our schools teach Algebra and Calculus, instead of explaining how the economy really works. If we want to save conservationism, we have to go after our educational institutions, and force them to provide real-world education.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PPC2019 said:

Conservatives aren't going to win elections, when our schools teach Algebra and Calculus, instead of explaining how the economy really works. If we want to save conservationism, we have to go after our educational institutions, and force them to provide real-world education.

Algebra and Calculus are most definitely important, though most won't use them directly in professional life. The point of such studies is to train our brains to analyze, interpret and resolve complex problems.

Though I don't subscribe to your slanted, bias, partisan take on the situation, nor can i wrap my mind around how one could consider teaching math to be anti conservative. I firmly agree that courses on things like, civics, and how to balance a household budget should be part of the secondary curriculum

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

Algebra and Calculus are most definitely important, though most won't use them directly in professional life. The point of such studies is to train our brains to analyze, interpret and resolve complex problems.

Though I don't subscribe to your slanted, bias, partisan take on the situation, nor can i wrap my mind around how one could consider teaching math to be anti conservative. I firmly agree that courses on things like, civics, and how to balance a household budget should be part of the secondary curriculum

Ok but for 9/10 students Algebra does more harm than good. Most students hate that kind of math, and it causes them tremendous stress. They should only be teaching Algebra to a limited amount of students.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PPC2019 said:

Ok but for 9/10 students Algebra does more harm than good. Most students hate that kind of math, and it causes them tremendous stress. They should only be teaching Algebra to a limited amount of students.

Again the purpose of algebra is to teach the mind how to process complicated problems, a tool used in most aspects of life independent of "Mathematics"        i.e. anytime one employs logic or reason.

That being said, still not clear on your contention that the study of mathematics is somehow inherently bias towards conservatives, please explain

 

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

Again the purpose of algebra is to teach the mind how to process complicated problems, a tool used in most aspects of life independent of "Mathematics"        i.e. anytime one employs logic or reason.

That being said, still not clear on your contention that the study of mathematics is somehow inherently bias towards conservatives, please explain

 

So you're argument is that making students do complex equations is good for brain development. Well Algebra and Calculus is too outdated and abstract. Why not have students solve case studies in finance and come up with proposals to save failing companies? Why not ask students work with real-world numbers, and isolate inefficiencies in business, so they can learn solve real-world problems?

By making students learn abstract math, they have no real-world understanding of how money works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PPC2019 said:

So you're argument is that making students do complex equations is good for brain development. Well Algebra and Calculus is too outdated and abstract. Why not have students solve case studies in finance and come up with proposals to save failing companies? Why not ask students work with real-world numbers, and isolate inefficiencies in business, so they can learn solve real-world problems?

By making students learn abstract math, they have no real-world understanding of how money works.

One must crawl before they walk, if you can't master basic algebra, you lack the necessary tools to " come up with proposals to save failing companies"

If you read my original post you would see I completely agreed that we should be teaching real world situations in school.

You have yet to justify your statement that teaching math is anti conservative

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.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...