Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

And the party rules governing membership requirements are irrelevant to you?

Not all of the parties have rules restricting membership if you are in an active member of another party.

I believe the Liberals added a rule last year because there was so much online chatter about trying to spoil the leadership race and prevent Carney from winning. I don't know if the rule is still there or not.

The conservatives have their rule about not holding membership in another federal party. They are scared to have their members go and flirt with the other parties.

NDP do not care because they are an actual party of the people.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Not all of the parties have rules restricting membership if you are in an active member of another party.

I believe the Liberals added a rule last year because there was so much online chatter about trying to spoil the leadership race and prevent Carney from winning. I don't know if the rule is still there or not.

The conservatives have their rule about not holding membership in another federal party. They are scared to have their members go and flirt with the other parties.

NDP do not care because they are an actual party of the people.

It's incredible who little you know about the things you advocate for and especially that you don't know the basics of the party you support.

From the NDP constitution (so much for being the party of the people as you put it):

Individual Membership (a) Individual membership shall be open to every resident of Canada, regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or national origin who undertakes to accept and abide by the constitution and principles of the Party and who is not a member or supporter of any other political party.

All three main parties plus the Bloc restrict membership to a single party.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I believe the Liberals added a rule last year because there was so much online chatter about trying to spoil the leadership race and prevent Carney from winning. I don't know if the rule is still there or not.

I didn't know that they changed it.

I tried to cancel my Liberal membership years ago when I signed up with the Green party and I received a response saying I could cancel if I wanted to, but they didn't care if people were members of both parties. The Green party said the same thing at the time as well.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Lol how in the hell do they keep Poilievre in that position after he lost a gimme of an election all on his own, proceeded to lose his own seat and needed to move to a different district altogether just to stay?! Not going to complain though haha.

Who would want the job right now? PP is just a placeholder at this point although he is likely to stupid to know it, what passes for the big dogs in the Tories aren't going to step up to lead a party almost certain to get beaten senseless by Carney, they will let Poilevre lead them to the next loss and then plan on stepping in when Carney retires

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

It's incredible who little you know about the things you advocate for and especially that you don't know the basics of the party you support.

From the NDP constitution (so much for being the party of the people as you put it):


All three main parties plus the Bloc restrict membership to a single party.

What’s the punishment?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What’s the punishment?

membership in the Conservative Party is surly punishment enough?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What’s the punishment?

Loss of moral superiority license.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Loss of moral superiority license.

Wha if the party I joined elects a leader that raped a bunch of kids? Should I double down and stick with them and make fun of everyone else for being political?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Loss of moral superiority license.

Neat.

What’s the actual punishment?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Neat.

What’s the actual punishment?

Email the parties and find out what their repercussions are.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Neat.

What’s the actual punishment?

Carries the same sentence as being a rapist pedophile in the US.







Absolutely nothing

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Email the parties and find out what their repercussions are.

It's incredible how little you know about the things you advocate against and especially that you don't know the basics of the party you support.

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by troutman

Only 2500 CPC members out of 600K + voted for PP?

He got 87 percent of the 3000 attendees so 2500ish which is 0.01 percent of conservative voters last election.
More interesting is that nearly 400 people paid a 1000 dollars to be at the convention and vote against pp

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's incredible how little you know about the things you advocate against and especially that you don't know the basics of the party you support.

Neat. Thanks for trying to contribute something useful.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

It's incredible who little you know about the things you advocate for and especially that you don't know the basics of the party you support.

From the NDP constitution (so much for being the party of the people as you put it):


All three main parties plus the Bloc restrict membership to a single party.

What is really incredible is how little this 'gotcha' moment matters. These aren't the basics, these are the fine print and inside the fine print they have other words about waiving Article III if the executive decides to. The position of the NDP on membership rules hardly matters when you consider the other two parties.

A members of the provincial NDP were auto-enrolled into the Federal NDP. Do you think they checked to see if those people were in another party beforehand? No.

Besides, the answer to following the rules is simple. You do not need to be an active member of multiple parties at the same time. Leadership races are the most important time and they hardly ever overlap. If you are passionate about a specific party's policies and the nuts and bolts of how that party works then maintaining an ongoing membership allows you to try and have your voice heard. Otherwise you can let your membership go when nothing is happening (like right now with the LPC).

Most importantly though, I would say that one should always join the parties in good faith. Go in to learn and participate and try to make the party better, because having multiple strong parties makes Canada better. The people who wanted to sabotage the Liberals are the reason these rules are in place.

It is weird that you focused on this so hard, but I am guessing you saw free argument points and not that you actually care about being able to join other parties.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Neat. Thanks for trying to contribute something useful.

Give it a shot yourself sometime.