GT: Canadian Federal Election 2019

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Blows my mind that, despite numerous explanations, Scheer supporters still don't get the issue at hand here.

Oh I understand fine...its just that i realize it for what it is.

And I am no "Scheer supporter" thanks.

This is in todays Star and i'm just fine with it.

“April’s the convention, it’s a long time away. But it could be a bloodbath between here and there,” said one well-connected Tory.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Oh I understand fine...its just that i realize it for what it is.

Your first post came across as if you either didn't really understand it, or you're not particularly interested in looking at the issues from the other side.

[zamler]

Moral superiority is a helluva drug.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by zamler

Moral superiority is a helluva drug.

Who's acting morally superior here? If anything, the only people acting morally superior would be those chastising others for voting for the party of corruption. And they're not necessarily wrong either.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Your first post came across as if you either didn't really understand it, or you're not particularly interested in looking at the issues from the other side.

My issue is that...there is nothing to "look at" as far as that stuff goes.

Its already been debated, legislated, and put to a test in the courts and now is the law of the land.

Personal beliefs aside (which everyone is and should be entitled to regardless of their position in the world) it was stated, repeatedly, that any bill addressing those issues would never see the light of day as far as getting to a vote.

So to consistently bring it up as some sort of wedge issue was not only wrong, it was disingenuous.

My thoughts anyhow.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1186610935731048450

[transplant99]

Some key Conservative insiders described the situation to the Toronto Star as a “bloodbath,” while expressing their deep disappointment in how Scheer and his inner circle ran the campaign and failed to come up big in Ontario and Quebec.

There is a feeling in the party they should have won this vote, with Justin Trudeau and the Liberals facing the SNC-Lavalin and blackface scandals.

Some experts say it’s no wonder some are already talking about replacing the face of their party.

“Not only one knife will come to get you, many will,” University of Toronto political scientist Nelson Wiseman explains. “There are a lot of people in the Conservative Party who have leadership ambitions.”

Insiders say he will face challenges and have to work hard to survive a leadership review in April.

https://www.660citynews.com/2019/10/...nt-leadership/

[zamler]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Who's acting morally superior here?

Trudeau and a large portion of his voting base. Moral superiority is one of the pillars of his platform.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

My issue is that...there is nothing to "look at" as far as that stuff goes.

Its already been debated, legislated, and put to a test in the courts and now is the law of the land.

Personal beliefs aside (which everyone is and should be entitled to regardless of their position in the world) it was stated, repeatedly, that any bill addressing those issues would never see the light of day as far as getting to a vote.

So to consistently bring it up as some sort of wedge issue was not only wrong, it was disingenuous.

My thoughts anyhow.

But the legality of SSM and abortion are not the sole metrics by which to judge progress on women's, LGBTQ, and minority rights. Do you truly think we've hit the ceiling in terms of how far we should go advancing those rights and interests?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by zamler

Trudeau and a large portion of his voting base. Moral superiority is one of the pillars of his platform.

Hate to break it to you but "acting superior" is pretty much a pillar of every political party.

[stone hands]

I’m pretty sure the point he is getting at is:

Surely there is someone out there who could lead the conservatives who does not hold those personal views in the first place for it even to become a question

Why shoot yourself in the foot by giving the other parties that ammunition in the first place? His lack of desire to legislate based on his personal beliefs isn’t even a question if you pick a guy who doesn’t hold those beliefs in the first place. I mean Ffs it’s not rocket science. Many people here seem confused as to why enough Canadians voted for a corrupt hypocrite over someone who holds personal beliefs many(dare I say most) Canadians find utterly unpalatable

[nik-]

Originally Posted by zamler

Trudeau and a large portion of his voting base. Moral superiority is one of the pillars of his platform.

It was basically their campaign strategy.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I’m pretty sure the point he is getting at is:

Surely there is someone out there who could lead the conservatives who does not hold those personal views in the first place for it even to become a question

Why shoot yourself in the foot by giving the other parties that ammunition in the first place? His lack of desire to legislate based on his personal beliefs isn’t even a question if you pick a guy who doesn’t hold those beliefs in the first place. I mean Ffs it’s not rocket science. Many people here seem confused as to why enough Canadians voted for a corrupt hypocrite over someone who holds personal beliefs many(dare I say most) Canadians find utterly unpalatable

Well there's that aspect too. If Scheer held anti-semitic, anti-miscegenation, or other unpalatable views that he claimed he wouldn't legislate on, most people wouldn't bat an eye at voters not wanting to vote for him. The argument in the other thread was that those views have been unpalatable for much longer than anti-abortion and anti-SSM views. I asked how long views can be unpalatable before they should be unelectable and no one could give me a straight answer. Well it appears the Canadian electorate has provided us with that answer.

[burn_this_city]

Zero chance Scheer survives the leadership review, he's a mediocre leader that ran a listless campaign hoping his opponent imploded.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I’m pretty sure the point he is getting at is:

Surely there is someone out there who could lead the conservatives who does not hold those personal views in the first place for it even to become a question

Why shoot yourself in the foot by giving the other parties that ammunition in the first place? His lack of desire to legislate based on his personal beliefs isn’t even a question if you pick a guy who doesn’t hold those beliefs in the first place. I mean Ffs it’s not rocket science. Many people here seem confused as to why enough Canadians voted for a corrupt hypocrite over someone who holds personal beliefs many(dare I say most) Canadians find utterly unpalatable

FFS indeed. This is why Canada is in such a mess (make no mistake it is). Trudeau is a ####ing PRETEND champion of rights and equality. Let me get this straight, it's better to vote for a massive hypocrite because he SAYS over and over he's equality jesus. Doesn't matter he did something more racist than any PM in recent memory.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by transplant99

My issue is that...there is nothing to "look at" as far as that stuff goes.

Its already been debated, legislated, and put to a test in the courts and now is the law of the land.

Personal beliefs aside (which everyone is and should be entitled to regardless of their position in the world) it was stated, repeatedly, that any bill addressing those issues would never see the light of day as far as getting to a vote.

So to consistently bring it up as some sort of wedge issue was not only wrong, it was disingenuous.

My thoughts anyhow.

You're ignoring the fact that Scheer would vote for anti abortion legislation if it came down to it. He didn't say it wouldn't see the light of day initially. He changed his tune too late and it seemed disingenuous.

He said he wouldn't re-open it but he can't stop MP's from bringing it forward and that he'd vote pro life if he had to.

He only changed his tune in recent weeks.

What he needed to say was despite my personal beliefs I will vote to maintain the status quo if I were required to vote.

Even if he isn't going to re-open the topic he certainly doesn't sound like he would make access easier, and when you allow anti - abortion activists/protesters be representatives of your party you're also sending a clear signal.

Despite the fact that you might not care about the issue you can't downplay what those rights and that access means to some just like they shouldn't downplay what a pipeline means to some.

With the recent anti abortion laws that passed in several US states people have a right to be concerned.

For the record I legitimately believe that Scheer had no desire to re-open it but the way he answered the questions cost him because he was too much of a coward to step up and put his religious views to the side.

For me a candidate being overly religious is already a strike against, and it's the same for others whether that's a part of their platform or not. If I believe their religious views are going to influence their policy I'm out. Period.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by zamler

FFS indeed. This is why Canada is in such a mess (make no mistake it is). Trudeau is a ####ing PRETEND champion of rights and equality. Let me get this straight, it's better to vote for a massive hypocrite because he SAYS over and over he's equality jesus. Doesn't matter he did something more racist than any PM in recent memory.

If we're comparing Scheer to Trudeau on LGBTQ and abortion rights, both in terms of actions and rhetoric, the difference is night and day. Come on.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Between Scheer and Trudeau, one fought and won to get gender identity added to the Canadian Human Rights Act list, the other actively opposed it. That's all I need to know about their ability and want to help the LGBT+ community.

This was in 2017, so we don't need to bring up anything a decade ago.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1186610935731048450

If you're looking for Humility or hell, lets just boil it down to 'reality' then you really shouldnt be looking at Justin Trudeau.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by nik-

No, people get it, they just don't put the same value on it that some apparently do. It's not a lack of understanding.

One horribly corrupt party, two that want to directly target our largest industry and one that has a leader with ####ty views but stated he won't legislate on it.

If people want to make the choice to vote against someone with ####ty personal opinions and vote for someone who legitimately tried to make corruption the law of the land, that's their right. Just don't try to sell it to me as some morally superior position, it's just ####tier in a different way, a tangible one.

If you think Ontario went Liberal because of Scheer being a boogyman you've lost the plot.

Doug Ford is unpopular and Scheer basically ran on the exact same platform as him (at least on the main talking points) - no carbon tax and cutting taxes /balancing a budget at the same time (i.e. cutbacks).