O'Toole wins nomination - is he our next Prime Minister? | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

O'Toole wins nomination - is he our next Prime Minister?

Reality check...

While O'Toole is better than Scheer he is still catering too much to the religious bigoted part of the party (the politically correct term THEY like is "Social Conservative"). It is one of the main reasons Scheer lost when he should have had an easy win, likely THE reason. Lewis and Sloan are hard core bigots, yes a women of colour can be a bigot. O'Toole won as the bigot vote went to him (as their least worst option, in their eyes) as the other two were eliminated. This is very important...

If they are serious about winning the next election his next steps will be telling. If he starts handing out plum critic appointments in his shadow cabinet to bigots as payback for his win it does not matter what he says as his actions tell us what he and the party stand for. If he does not then there is a chance. The problem, regardless of what he says these people have an agenda, if they gain enough power they will make their move against gay rights, women's rights, xenophobia, driving us back decades or more. So will he hand them power?

BTW, if you actually read the party rules/charter. Neither Lewis or Sloan should even be permitted to be members of the party! Yet, not only are they members they were permitted to run for the leadership, WTF?

Simple question, anyone who still supports this party (I am a long ago former member when there was a P in the name), do you want to defeat Trudeau or do you want to lose but support the bigotry? Does not look like you can have both winning and bigots in charge.
 
Last edited:
I'm an anti-racist, I think all you racist ****** should **** ***

Primate lives matter ???
 
backmarkerducati said:
Reality check...

While O'Toole is better than Scheer he is still catering too much to the religious bigoted part of the party (the politically correct term THEY like is "Social Conservative"). It is one of the main reasons Scheer lost when he should have had an easy win, likely THE reason. Lewis and Sloan are hard core bigots, yes a women of colour can be a bigot. O'Toole won as the bigot vote went to him (as their least worst option, in their eyes) as the other two were eliminated. This is very important...

If they are serious about winning the next election his next steps will be telling. If he starts handing out plum critic appointments in his shadow cabinet to bigots as payback for his win it does not matter what he says as his actions tell us what he and the party stand for. If he does not then there is a chance. The problem, regardless of what he says these people have an agenda, if they gain enough power they will make their move against gay rights, women's rights, xenophobia, driving us back decades or more. So will he hand them power?

BTW, if you actually read the party rules/charter. Neither Lewis or Sloan should even be permitted to be members of the party! Yet, not only are they members they were permitted to run for the leadership, WTF?

Simple question, anyone who still supports this party (I am a long ago former member when there was a P in the name), do you want to defeat Trudeau or do you want to lose but support the bigotry? Does not look like you can have both winning and bigots in charge.
Click to expand...

All he needs to do to be a viable alternative is act like a politician from this century instead of the last. You can still be fiscally conservative and be pro science and pro choice and equality.
 
Is fiscally conservative a formula for economic growth, or is it when you put the brakes on?
Now might not be the best time to stomp on the brakes.
 
backmarkerducati said:
BTW, if you actually read the party rules/charter. Neither Lewis or Sloan should even be permitted to be members of the party! Yet, not only are they members they were permitted to run for the leadership, WTF?

Simple question, anyone who still supports this party (I am a long ago former member when there was a P in the name), do you want to defeat Trudeau or do you want to lose but support the bigotry? Does not look like you can have both winning and bigots in charge.
Click to expand...
Interesting. What excludes them as members?

The second paragraph is harder. Trudeau is spending beyond even his wildest imagination. If Trudeau could keep his hand out of the cookie jar for a term, that would clean up my issues with him regarding ethics and wild spending. I have zero faith that he has even a slight inclination to do that. I believe his throne speech will double down with universal income etc to bribe votes out of the population. I don't want bigots in charge. Those are my two real options. Maybe one cycle of bigots is better than bankrupting the country? Bigot majority would be horrendous, maybe bigot minority is the best outcome? Lib/NDP wouldn't support "social" changes, that leaves the Bloc and they might be swayed with enough money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_F
GreyGhost said:
Interesting. What excludes them as members?

The second paragraph is harder. Trudeau is spending beyond even his wildest imagination. If Trudeau could keep his hand out of the cookie jar for a term, that would clean up my issues with him regarding ethics and wild spending. I have zero faith that he has even a slight inclination to do that. I believe his throne speech will double down with universal income etc to bribe votes out of the population. I don't want bigots in charge. Those are my two real options. Maybe one cycle of bigots is better than bankrupting the country? Bigot majority would be horrendous, maybe bigot minority is the best outcome? Lib/NDP wouldn't support "social" changes, that leaves the Bloc and they might be swayed with enough money.
Click to expand...

Among many but these two stick out with respect to bigotry:
2.1.7 A belief in the equality of all Canadians.
2.1.8 A belief in the freedom of the individual, including freedom of speech, worship and assembly.

2.1.7 is obvious as the bigots by definition do not believe in the equality of all Canadians if they are against the rights of specific groups and people.
2.1.8 they only believe in the freedom of religion for certain religious groups, but are against the same freedoms for others (Islam is most common but not the only one).

Another irony, you can't be for small government while at the same time wanting big government to control who people love, control marriage, what they do with their body, what brown women wear, who they worship, etc....

While I get the spending argument we do not get to decide at election time minority or majority government, it is not on the ballot.

The risk, spending deficits are everyone's problem and spread across the population, and across the globe so somewhat esoteric. Yes we dig a hole, like everyone else. At the same time are we saying to 8 million voters that received benefits that they shouldn't have? They did not deserve help? Conservatives would have left them high and dry?

Targeting individuals rights with bigotry has an immediate and real impact on those people, some later government can repeal those decisions but the impact to people's rights was already done. Tell black people from the Jim Crow era, "don't worry, it will be better in a hundred years or so..." Tell that 14 year old rape victim, sorry you have to carry that baby to term. Tell two people that love each other you are not allowed to do that now. Tell that child who suffers through the torture of conversion therapy, too bad you are evil. That is the cost.

I get it: Some people think well if these things do not impact me directly I should not care. Deficit impacts me, that is all I care about. Or they do not really care about spending as they like what these people are spouting and that is what they are motivated by. I guess it just goes down to specific character.

The question is simple for modern day "Conservatives" are these views and catering to people with these views more important than defeating Trudeau? Pick one. O'Toole will in the coming weeks.
 
Last edited:
GreyGhost said:
Interesting. What excludes them as members?

The second paragraph is harder. Trudeau is spending beyond even his wildest imagination. If Trudeau could keep his hand out of the cookie jar for a term, that would clean up my issues with him regarding ethics and wild spending. I have zero faith that he has even a slight inclination to do that. I believe his throne speech will double down with universal income etc to bribe votes out of the population. I don't want bigots in charge. Those are my two real options. Maybe one cycle of bigots is better than bankrupting the country? Bigot majority would be horrendous, maybe bigot minority is the best outcome? Lib/NDP wouldn't support "social" changes, that leaves the Bloc and they might be swayed with enough money.
Click to expand...

lol, you think?

that would be a very dangerous political marriage
National bigots in bed with Regional bigots

only thing that has prevented that so far
is the prairie bigots hate French Roman Catholics almost as much as Muslims
 
Unlike, O'toole, I felt Mckay would bring The Conservative Party into the future. Can't believe they pick O'Toole over Mckay. Holy Crow!
 
800over said:
exactly. There are people in the US who think it is reasonable to vote for a racist/sexist man child because the don't "like" Hillary. There is no comparison. Anyone willing to say that a Hillary presidency would have been worse? Only if you think life begins at conception and screw old people dying of Covid.
Click to expand...
4 more years of Hillary would have essentially been 4 more years of Obama. To many people in the U.S. that was not an option.
 
Evoex said:
4 more years of Hillary would have essentially been 4 more years of Obama. To many people in the U.S. that was not an option.
Click to expand...

Funny though because when you try to really pin them down on why not Hillary you get a range of answers, not many of which are actually based on hard evidence. Lots of things like Benghazi, butter heemails, etc etc. For Obama it was worse....lots of bluster covering up the fact that they just don't want to say they never liked the idea of a black guy in the white house for many of them.
 
big mouth, big ass, crazy laugh, condescending smirk

uneducated middle aged white guys were reminded of the X wife

you know who they flocked to
 
Our "system" is FUBAR
No matter who sits in gov't at least 50% of the population isn't happy...

It's about time we just develop an algorithm to make all our public policy decisions... Take all the emotion/subjectivity out of running the country.

Enter some data/parameters and let the program spit out the best solutions...

As far as "bigots" are concerned... Again, to 50% of the population ANY white guy sporting a blue tie in Ottawa is a bigot, regardless of any proof to that effect.
Frankly, Everyone is a "bigot" in their own way so...
 
Last edited:
Hack said:
Our "system" is FUBAR
No matter who sits in gov't at least 50% of the population isn't happy...

It's about time we just develop an algorithm to make all our public policy decisions... Take all the emotion ans subjectivity out of running the country.

Enter some data/parameters and let the program spit out the best solutions...
Click to expand...

The last few years we've had "team" politics. Have to dig way back to find compromise and cooperation. These days it's "I'm with X therefore I'm against Y by default".
 
jc100 said:
The last few years we've had "team" politics. Have to dig way back to find compromise and cooperation. These days it's "I'm with X therefore I'm against Y by default".
Click to expand...

True... It's all about who's in "power" or getting power and holding on to it.
'Seems like no matter how good a policy decision is the opposition opposes just out of spite. That said, the sitting gov't doesn't cooperate with anyone else either so...

Remember back when Ignatieff told us all that the liberal party was "ordained" to govern Canada..?
I like to think it was that smug, arrogant attitude that led to the astounding defeat in that election...
 
Last edited:
Hack said:
...
It's about time we just develop an algorithm to make all our public policy decisions... Take all the emotion/subjectivity out of running the country.
Enter some data/parameters and let the program spit out the best solutions...
...
Click to expand...

Computers can't make decisions that were never programmed into them, you might as well just put the programmer in charge.
 
should transition to Direct Democracy
no parties, no elections
wide open plebiscite on every issue

vote on your smartphone
contract it out to Facebook

bureaucracy enacts whatever Facebook tells them the people want
 
J_F said:
should transition to Direct Democracy
no parties, no elections
wide open plebiscite on every issue

vote on your smartphone
contract it out to Facebook

bureaucracy enacts whatever Facebook tells them the people want
Click to expand...
Exccept for letting Zuckerberg have any part of it I'm in. Savings in political pensions alone would entirely fund the system to replace the elected tits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_F
backmarkerducati said:
...Targeting individuals rights with bigotry has an immediate and real impact on those people, some later government can repeal those decisions but the impact to people's rights was already done. Tell black people from the Jim Crow era, "don't worry, it will be better in a hundred years or so..." Tell that 14 year old rape victim, sorry you have to carry that baby to term. Tell two people that love each other you are not allowed to do that now. Tell that child who suffers through the torture of conversion therapy, too bad you are evil. That is the cost....
Click to expand...
Are them fightin words. No, but they are loaded insinuations.

You're going to need a bit more support for your perspective - sounds more like a soapbox rant.
 
Hack said:
True... It's all about who's in "power" or getting power and holding on to it.
'Seems like no matter how good a policy decision is the opposition opposes just out of spite. That said, the sitting gov't doesn't cooperate with anyone else either so...

Remember back when Ignatieff told us all that the liberal party was "ordained" to govern Canada..?
I like to think it was that smug, arrogant attitude that led to the astounding defeat in that election...
Click to expand...

I'm left leaning and even I was happy when Ignatieff was rejected. Yes, smug and arrogant.
 
J_F said:
should transition to Direct Democracy
no parties, no elections
wide open plebiscite on every issue

vote on your smartphone
contract it out to Facebook

bureaucracy enacts whatever Facebook tells them the people want
Click to expand...

that’s how you get Brexit lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom