The decline of the federal Conservatives founded in 2003

McKay was the least conservative, but after how he lied and killed off the PCs in 2003, he doesn't deserve to lead anything.

alan smithee wrote:

Erin O'Toole ....hahahahahahaha...WOOOO! unilingual anglo from the West. Say goodbye to Quebec support..haha...4 more years of the Liberals. EXCELLENT!

What really made me sick to my stomach was the favt that Lewis was 3rd with just over 30%. She's a fucking idiot.

It's too soon for the Liberals to be popping champagne.  It's true that in theory MacKay was a bigger threat to the Liberals because of his supposed appeal to red tories/blue liberals & swing voters, but it's possible O'Toole will turn out to be a stronger opponent in a general election than expected.

Btw, O'Toole isn't from the West -- he represents Durham in Ontario, and emphasized the fact that he was born in Montreal in his speech last night.  He's not fluent in French, but he's better at it than MacKay.  He reached out to BQ/Nationalist voters, as well.

O'Toole may turn out to be a smarter leader than Scheer or MacKay.

Misfit wrote:

Leslyn Lewis is not an idiot. She is extremely intelligent. She entered the race late and gained strong support base very quickly. That makes her very impressive actually. I just happen to disagree with her political ideology. 

She's believes in demons. Nuff said

Apparently Lewis had the most votes on the 2nd ballot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election#Full_results

alan smithee wrote:

That's a good point. I didn't know he was from Ontario (he came across Albertan) and I didn't know he spent 15 minutes in Montreal.

I ask you. Have yoiu watched what's going on in the US? I will be voting for the Liberals and I hope they merge with the NDP (not permanantly) This person's agenda must be prevented. Like how Bernie backs Biden. Country over politics. Sorry. The Liberals and NDP should incessantly HAMMER him about his agenda. I don't believe the majority of Canadians are SoCons.

I agree with you that O'Toole is Harper/Trump lite.  I was just saying he shouldn't be underestimated.

Earlier this year Trudeau had put the Liberals back in majority territory in the polls with good approval from the Covid crisis.  However, Trudeau's latest ethical controversy has taken the Liberals back down into minority territory in the polls.  If O'Toole plays his cards right, he has a shot at winning a minority.

Misfit wrote:

Allan,

Leslyn Lewis's belief in demons speaks nothing to her intelligence. You are entitled to agree or disagree with her regarding the validity of demons but that doesn't give you the right to insult her for what she believes in.

Then go vote for this quack. I don't care if  her intelligence is superior to Einstein. I heard her platform. She's a lunatic

josh wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Allan,

Leslyn Lewis's belief in demons speaks nothing to her intelligence. You are entitled to agree or disagree with her regarding the validity of demons but that doesn't give you the right to insult her for what she believes in.

Why not?

Excuse me?

Misfit]</p> <p>[quote=alan smithee wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Allan,

Leslyn Lewis's belief in demons speaks nothing to her intelligence. You are entitled to agree or disagree with her regarding the validity of demons but that doesn't give you the right to insult her for what she believes in.

Then go vote for this quack. I don't care if  her intelligence is superior to Einstein. I heard her platform. She's a lunatic

There seems to be a real maturity deficit here with you. You don't talk to people like that. You don't tell people to go vote for someone when they explain to you that rudely insulting that person's intelligence is offensive and unacceptable. This has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with what the candidate believes but rather about your toxic behaviour toward others.

I'll also remind you that this is a left wing board. Simply hating the Conservatives and announcing your love for another less severe neo-liberal right wing party and fantasizing for the elimination of the only viable left wing party in Canada is also extremely rude and disrespectful. 

There are Conservatives who post on this board. Most of them post in a manner which I find enhances the discussion of issues. They have the ability to disagree without being toxic and insulting to others. 

\

/quote]

You know I am sure you are the only person on this board who will play apo;ogist to this sick individual. Maturity level? I  write something you attack----CONSTANTLY....Even when I'm right and when I call her a quack,that she is  sick and lunatic I am right.

READ HER PLATFORM. NO progressive would defend this maniac. NONE. Except you. Hmmm...why is that?

Find anyone who will defend your opinion on this, I am a big enough person to admit I have said a lot of shit at babble and I have been wrong. More than once. This time the consensus would be that I am right. Go ahead. Ask ANYBODY here if Leslyn Lewis is a dangerous maniac. Go ahead.

I think you are a pest. But to defend this person? Fuck you anbout how bad my politics is. Name a Liberal that is as sick and demented  as this person.

*crickets8

Yeah thought so. Get  over your Liberal derangement syndrome and face REALITY. Shake yoursdelf from your bubble.   

BABBLE POLL

Is  Leslym Lewis a maniac?

a)No... she's a well  respected doctor who is above critictsmp

b)Yes...she's an out right maniac

OK. Let's get to the bottom of this.

Allan wrote:

"This time the consensus would be that I am right. Go ahead. Ask ANYBODY here if Leslyn Lewis is a dangerous maniac. Go ahead.

I think you are a pest. But to defend this person? Fuck you anbout how bad my politics is. Name a Liberal that is as sick and demented  as this person.

*crickets8

Yeah thought so. Get  over your Liberal derangement syndrome and face REALITY. Shake yoursdelf from your bubble.   "
 

1. There is no concensus about anything here, only a discussion between you and I about your insulting and toxic behaviour towards others.

2. Now you have changed her label to a dangerous maniac. Now, if you take out the word maniac and stick with the word dangerous which I even mentioned myself as a valid issue when pertaining to social conservstism, of course, you will find wide consensus on this board including myself.  But you didn't say that. You called her an idiot which she is not.

3. You have wildly accused me of defending her. I have done no such thing. 
 

4.  You challenged me to name a Liberal eho is as sick and demented as Leslyn Lewis. I will reframe that to mean who is a social conservative like Leslyn Lewis.  I can name Liberals who are social conservatives. I have met NDP people who are social conservatives who support restrictions on abortion but happen to be pro union and support the NDP on broader social issues. We have personal friends who are devout Catholic, devout Liberals, and devout pro life. There is nothing about social conservatism that is unique to one party.

Justin Trudeau had to enact a policy that in order to run as a Liberal candidate while he is leader of the Liberal party that no one will be allowed to vote or champion against pro-choice legislation. He did this because social conservatism is everywhere including in his and your own political party. 

Oh, and about demons and angels and personal beliefs. I grew up in a household where you had to go to church every Sunday. Angels were these little trinkets that you put up and hung on Christmas trees every year but I never personally believed in angels myself even though they are mentioned in the Bible and they are in the Christmas story you hear every year.

Then as an adult, I challenged a woman who said that angels exist and that she can see angels. I told her that I have never seen angels. She said that I do have one who follows me around. She described him to me and his energy shape. She gave me his age and a story about him. 
 

Over the years I have met other people who claim to see angels. I have asked them if I have one. They have all described to me the exact same story. They have mentioned his shape, his age, and why he latched on to me.

This could all be just a coincidence or they could be telling the truth that there actually are angels. Whether you believe in the existence of angels or not is really not an issue. It is just a belief and one of many.  What has changed for me from these encounters with people who claim to be able to see angels is that I am not as definite about my own skepticism because really I'll never know. That is why it is a belief.

Dark angels are demons. Some people have referred to alcohol as a demon. Anger, jealousy, pride, envy, greed, etc., have all been used in context with the word demons. Demons can be dark spirit beings or they could more commonly be referee to as negative forces within ourselves. So believing in demons could simply mean to believe in negative energies within ourselves.

A big problem with us is that we have focused too much on what we believe to be true is the only way, and then forcing our belief systems onto others. We did that to First Nations people here, and we have done that all around the world, believing that our God and our religion is the one true religion or belief to have. Christian missionaries have spanned the entire globe preaching for a conversion to Christianity as the one true way.

So, when we attack someone like Leslyn Lewis and call her an idiot for believing in the existence of something we may not believe in, we are doing exactly what we criticize the social conservatives for being, and that is for attacking and judging others for beliefs which we deem to be different and inferior to our own. 

Michael Moriarity wrote:

While I don't want to get into the debate about Ms. Lewis, I do think there is a significant difference between an atheist refusing to believe in angels, for which no objective evidence is available, and an evangelical Xtian refusing to believe in evolution or the geological age of the earth, even though there is a shit-ton of evidence for those things.

I agree. The only problem is when the atheist acts like an asshole and mocks and insults the people who do believe in angels.

Oh, like Sarah Palin using her authority to shut down the museum of paleontology and destroy the fossils, and to destroy books in the library which contradicted her belief that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. I think you are referring to that kind of destructive denialism.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/deadlineusa/2008/sep/02/palinversusthemuseum

Misfit wrote:

Oh, and about demons and angels and personal beliefs. I grew up in a household where you had to go to church every Sunday. Angels were these little trinkets that you put up and hung on Christmas trees every year but I never personally believed in angels myself even though they are mentioned in the Bible and they are in the Christmas story you hear every year.

Then as an adult, I challenged a woman who said that angels exist and that she can see angels. I told her that I have never seen angels. She said that I do have one who follows me around. She described him to me and his energy shape. She gave me his age and a story about him. 
 

Over the years I have met other people who claim to see angels. I have asked them if I have one. They have all described to me the exact same story. They have mentioned his shape, his age, and why he latched on to me.

This could all be just a coincidence or they could be telling the truth that there actually are angels. Whether you believe in the existence of angels or not is really not an issue. It is just a belief and one of many.  What has changed for me from these encounters with people who claim to be able to see angels is that I am not as definite about my own skepticism because really I'll never know. That is why it is a belief.

Dark angels are demons. Some people have referred to alcohol as a demon. Anger, jealousy, pride, envy, greed, etc., have all been used in context with the word demons. Demons can be dark spirit beings or they could more commonly be referee to as negative forces within ourselves. So believing in demons could simply mean to believe in negative energies within ourselves.

A big problem with us is that we have focused too much on what we believe to be true is the only way, and then forcing our belief systems onto others. We did that to First Nations people here, and we have done that all around the world, believing that our God and our religion is the one true religion or belief to have. Christian missionaries have spanned the entire globe preaching for a conversion to Christianity as the one true way.

So, when we attack someone like Leslyn Lewis and call her an idiot for believing in the existence of something we may not believe in, we are doing exactly what we criticize the social conservatives for being, and that is for attacking and judging others for beliefs which we deem to be different and inferior to our own. 

 

READ goddammit! Check her PLATFORM. When someone wants to impose their religious bullshit into public policy, I call peoploe like that MANIACS. Just like Ms Lewis. She can go fuck herself....With a crucifix.

Let's check some  Liberal policy. Legal cannabis.  They kept their promise. During the pandemic, the Liberals CHOSE to go into DEBT to make sure you had food and your bills were paid, Bought a pipeline to bail out Alberta. .You're just looking for fights. Go on facebook and knock yourself out.

Trudeau’s crisis-driven ‘reset’

quote:

In Canada, however, the capitalist class is fortunate to have the political centre dominated by a totally loyal and safe alternative to the Conservatives.

As Canadian capitalism has come into its own as a global exploiter and doubled down on implementing neoliberal austerity domestically, Liberal-Tory power sharing has served this agenda very effectively. In some regards, the Liberals have even outdone the Tories. The Chrétien-Martin austerity budgets of the mid-1990s were the turning point in terms of dismantling the post-war Canadian welfare state. Yet the Liberals have managed to preserve their ill-deserved progressive credentials which they contrast to their more crudely reactionary rivals.

This astounding Liberal ability to run with the hare and hunt with hounds is expressed very well in the person of Trudeau’s replacement for Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland. In 2013, the year she was elected to the House of Commons, she gave a TED talk on “the rise of the new global super-rich” in which she thundered against increasing inequality, the global plutocracy and the crony capitalism out of which this layer had emerged. Yet, this very same plutocracy has very little to fear from Freeland.

A whole book could be devoted to exploring Chrystia Freeland’s services in the cause of global exploitation. Speaking as Foreign Affairs Minister in 2017, she suggested that massive increases in military spending were necessary because “Canadian diplomacy and development sometimes require the backing of hard power.” She played the leading role in the development, out of the most compliant and submissive regimes in Latin America and the Caribbean, of the so-called Lima Group, as a force devoted to overthrowing the government of Venezuela and reopening it for exploitation by the very global plutocracy she previously condemned. Nor can Freeland‘s imperialist antics be viewed as having been improvised on the go. Her vision of a Canadian role in dominating Latin America conjures images of Manifest Destiny. Last year, as she prepared to broker a meeting of the Lima Group, she declared: “This is our neighbourhood. For Canadians, we have a very direct interest in what happens in our hemisphere. That is why we have been so active and will continue to be so active.”

Now that she has taken up the role of Finance Minister, at a time of considerable crisis, gun boat diplomacy and regional domination have been put aside in favour of a commitment (in words, at least) to a progressive turn on the domestic front in the face of the pandemic. One Liberal who has worked closely with Freeland dutifully announced to the media that “She is a social interventionist activist, so she believes in the power of government and also believes in the redirection of funds to those who need it most.”

The reset

Freeland’s tenuous record as a force for good in the world offers a clue as to what we may expect from the Liberals after they regroup and bring forward a blueprint for a response to the economic fallout from the pandemic. Apart from their own self-inflicted credibility issues, they are improvising in the face of a massive and complex series of crises. The neoliberal decades have been marked by the corrosion of the pillars of social provision, particularly income support programs, so as to reduce workers’ bargaining power and step up exploitation. The pandemic lockdown and the threat of mass destitution that came with it, forced governments to take extraordinary measures of support that ran counter to everything they had been doing over recent decades.

For the most greedy and reckless elements of the capitalist class, the best way forward appears to be a rapid economic reopening, along with the removal of temporary income supports so as to drive people back into still unsafe workplaces. However, the situation is not without its complications. It seems very unlikely that we can avoid further waves of the pandemic, and consequently more lockdowns. Hopes for a quick “V-shaped” economic recovery have been dashed. Moreover, the enormous protests that erupted after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the beginnings of other resistance, such as that of tenants facing eviction, raise the prospect of serious social unrest in the harsh times ahead.

In this situation, the drive to reopen and return to neoliberal coercion is being tempered by fear and uncertainty about what lies ahead. This is playing out in different countries in different ways. In the United States, partisan discord has thrown everything into disarray and it is unclear what will become of the presently suspended extended unemployment insurance benefits. But whatever deal is finally struck, the measures taken are clearly going to fall far short of meeting existing needs. In the UK, the furlough scheme that has kept many afloat during recent months is coming to an end in October with predictably disastrous effect. Germany, on the other hand, is expected to extend its equivalent system of emergency provision.

In this situation, the Trudeau Liberals seek a way through that serves the interests of Canadian capitalism, while preserving a manageable level of stability and social peace. In response to some pressure, they have announced a $37 billion package that grants a one-month reprieve for the doomed Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), establishes modest new “recovery” benefit programs and timidly enhances the system of austerity-damaged Employment Insurance (EI). However, Trudeau would have us believe that this is the trickle that precedes a huge wave of social reform. He told the media that “This is our chance to build a more resilient Canada, a Canada that is healthier and safer, greener and more competitive, a Canada that is more welcoming and more fair.”

We would be foolish to take the Liberals at their word when it comes to the prospects of substantially strengthening the social infrastructure since they are unwilling to impose the cost burden on the banks and corporations or to renounce the international neoliberal agenda they have prosecuted until now. It was not that long ago that Trudeau promised a bold national housing initiative and this proved to be a major disappointment and a stalking horse for neoliberal redevelopment. Since Trudeau’s minority government will have to find support if it is to win a confidence vote in September, the only real issue is whether it can secure the backing of the NDP. That remains an open question. But there is reason to worry that the NDP will demand relatively little and settle for even less allowing the Liberals to emerge with a response to the crisis that appeases Big Business while largely failing to secure the needs of workers and communities.

Pondering wrote:

The Liberals are just about guaranteed the next election unless Trudeau turns out to be an ax murderer.

The Liberals may win another minority, but it may be difficult for them to win a majority unless they can win back some of the BQ seats in Quebec.  Right now the BQ seems to be holding onto the gains it made in the 2019 election.  If the numbers stay like that the Liberals are probably likely to see a repeat of 2019.  (Although a Conservative minority can't be entirely ruled out).

You can be a Canadian Prime Minister as long as you have the votes in the House of Commons and it is absolute dictatorial power if you have a majority.

Stephen Harper - 9 years, 271 days

Jean Chrétien - 10 years, 38 days

Sir Wilfrid Laurier - 15 years, 86 days

Pierre Trudeau - 15 years, 164 days

Sir John A. Macdonald - 18 years, 359 days
William Lyon Mackenzie King - 21 years, 154 days

Pondering wrote:

Thank you epaulo. That was a terrific read. I do think at times it has been important to vote Liberal to stop the Conservatives but I think that time has past. Looking at the demographics the Conservative's time is past.

If the Liberals fail, we have a Conservative government. You are foolish. What? The NDP will be the new natural alternative? A party who can hardly best 25% support? Keep lying to yourself.

Misfit wrote:

Why are there 6% Trump supporters in the NDP? WTF?!?

"He's a disrupter! He's anti-war!"

Misfit wrote:

Why are there 6% Trump supporters in the NDP? WTF?!?

There were Bernie supporters who voted for Trump in 2016 based on his promises to not sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and to withdraw U.S. troops from the middle east and Afghanistan. Democrats were promising neither.