Scheer is out...who's next?

[bjstare]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure how accurate your statement is. Mind you I have only been researching her for the last 24 hours but her 2 main points regarding abortion are:
1) not allowing parents to abort a fetus based on the sex of the fetus
2) not allowing for coerced abortion

I think those are pretty commendable if you ask me. No where am I finding her stating that she wants to end abortions period...

Regardless of whether the details are commendable or not, all people are going to hear is "Shes banning certain types of abortions". That will cut her off at the knees.

[spikerS]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I love how accepted our racist and generally discriminatory attitudes are in our country in that we think someone being black and female improves their shot of getting elected. That somehow being white or male will prevent progressives from voting for you.

Reminds me of how cultured the US was for having 93-95% of African Americans vote for Obama.

That doesn’t sound like making voting decisions based on race at all lol, I thought that was supposed to be bad?

Of course it is bad. Everyone has biases, some are just socially acceptable and others not, but that doesn't make the biases disappear. I mean, the population generally sticks with their own races either consciously or subconsciously. While these biases have started to gradually erode over time, couples tend to be from the same race. I am not saying it is a bad thing, and I am not saying it is the rule as there are plenty of examples of intermixed relations out there, which is good, but primarily, people stick to their own race.

So yes, being a black woman is a big advantage for her. Woman's rights movements, SJWs, minorities, etc... They are gonna love her, regardless of her political stripes for the most part I believe. These are some pretty "big button groups" out there, and look how it was lauded in the US when Obama got elected and all the hubub about the first black american president. I would expect the same for Lewis if she gets elected as CPC leader and Prime Minister

[spikerS]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Regardless of whether the details are commendable or not, all people are going to hear is "Shes banning certain types of abortions". That will cut her off at the knees.

You do have a point there, but, each of the CPC hopefuls have similar stances on abortion...

[CompletelyNumb]

I think all 4 of them are too socially conservative to win a federal election.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You do have a point there, but, each of the CPC hopefuls have similar stances on abortion...

Mackay and O'Toole seem to be against it. They would allow an MP to introduce anti-abortion legislation, which should be a stance every leader has, but would vote against anti-abortion legislation.

Or am I reading that wrong?

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think all 4 of them are too socially conservative to win a federal election.

Kind of my thoughts.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think all 4 of them are too socially conservative to win a federal election.

In what other ways, besides abortion?

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Regardless of whether the details are commendable or not, all people are going to hear is "Shes banning certain types of abortions". That will cut her off at the knees.

this.

Just don't touch the A-word it if you want to be PM in this country. It might not be reasonable but its just the way it is.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure how accurate your statement is. Mind you I have only been researching her for the last 24 hours but her 2 main points regarding abortion are:
1) not allowing parents to abort a fetus based on the sex of the fetus
2) not allowing for coerced abortion

I think those are pretty commendable if you ask me. No where am I finding her stating that she wants to end abortions period...

Why do you think those two things should be banned?

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think all 4 of them are too socially conservative to win a federal election.

Ding-Ding. The Conservative base is too stupid (and socially controlling of other people's lives) to win an election these days, they don't understand the world around them.

[HuMz]

I would suggest that people ragging on social conservatives need to wake up and look at the world around them. Almost everything going around them is a social issue. And while the self-described moderates want to just focus on the economy and ignore any social topics, it doesn't fit reality. Every leftist cause under the sun is getting pushed and championed, with a direct large economic cost behind it all. Under the NDP gov, and under this Lib fed government, it has been a constant focus on abortion a million other social issues.

By only leaving the left able to speak to these issues, you're just making the problems worse and more expensive. Sheer didn't lose because of his social conservativism. He lost because he was weak and did everything he could to sidestep these social issues when they were brought up. He went out of his way to avoid most social issues.
There's little neutrality in this all. Leftist's and the media demand to know your positions on issues, and if they smell blood, they will do whatever they can in their power to destroy you. It's not hard to make the media look incredible stupid, because that's what most of them are. We just need someone smart enough to counter it, and I think Lewis is the only one whose got it. She doesn't play into the "gotcha moments", and she says things that most people can get behind.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would suggest that people ragging on social conservatives need to wake up and look at the world around them. Almost everything going around them is a social issue. And while the self-described moderates want to just focus on the economy and ignore any social topics, it doesn't fit reality. Every leftist cause under the sun is getting pushed and championed, with a direct large economic cost behind it all. Under the NDP gov, and under this Lib fed government, it has been a constant focus on abortion a million other social issues.

By only leaving the left able to speak to these issues, you're just making the problems worse. Sheer didn't lose because of his social conservativism. He lost because he was weak and did everything he could to sidestep these social issues when they were brought up. He went out of his way to avoid most social issues.
There's little neutrality in this. Leftist's and the media demand to know your positions on issues, and if they smell blood, they will do whatever they can in their power to destroy you. It's not hard to make the media look incredible stupid, because that's what they are. We just need someone smart enough to counter it, and I think Lewis is the only one whose got it. She doesn't play into the "gotcha moments", and she says things that most people can get behind.

The choices in economic policy by both sides of the aisle in the past ...50 years (?) has directly created this voting environment. If you are younger than a GenX demographic, you have growth up in a world where wealth is being concentrated much more so than in the past. So why would they vote for economic policy which they (rightly) see as never benefiting them? They may as well vote for social issues because that's the only thing they can impact anyway.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The choices in economic policy by both sides of the aisle in the past ...50 years (?) has directly created this voting environment. If you are younger than a GenX demographic, you have growth up in a world where wealth is being concentrated much more so than in the past. So why would they vote for economic policy which they (rightly) see as never benefiting them? They may as well vote for social issues because that's the only thing they can impact anyway.

Holy fuck I can't believe you just wrote that.

I also agree.

[HuMz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ding-Ding. The Conservative base is too stupid (and socially controlling of other people's lives) to win an election these days, they don't understand the world around them.

You were just claiming earlier that someone doesn't have decency because they refused to march in a parade. When you make voluntarily participating in a parade the litmus test as to who is decent, you fail the grasp the strong irony in trying to claim people other people are "socially controlling of other people's lives". When in reality, trying to paint someone as not being decent, all because they don't want to participate in a voluntary parade, is an incredibly manipulative and strong form of social control you're trying to apply to his life, and anyone who disagrees with you on this issue.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Holy fuck I can't believe you just wrote that.

I also agree.

I hate rent-seeking. Rent seeking on the left looks like taxation and re-distribution. Rent-seeking on the right looks like crony capitalism. Both lead to corruption and wealth concentration (facilitated the gov't!), just in different ways. Real capitalism and free market-ism is designed to closely couple your wealth with the benefit you bring to the economy and wealth creation. We're not there right now and when the public senses that the rent-seeking elites are taking but not creating wealth, then you get social disruption. Wealth inequalities are fine when they are aspirational, when they are perceived as rent-seeking, then you get Minneapolis, Chicago, etc

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You were just claiming earlier that someone doesn't have decency because they refused to march in a parade. When you make voluntarily participating in a parade the litmus test as to who is decent, you fail the grasp the strong irony in trying to claim people other people are "socially controlling of other people's lives". When in reality, trying to paint someone as not being decent, all because they don't want to participate in a voluntary parade, is an incredibly manipulative and strong form of social control you're trying to apply to his life, and anyone who disagrees with you on this issue.

Nobody is forcing anyone to march in a parade.

Don't march, don't get their votes. Only a problem if you need them to get what you want.

[revelations]

Welp, since no one wants to tell me why the cons are socially cons (I dont follow their party) - here are some of their official positions I dont agree with:

• Publicly funded healthcare (should be public + private, and is a provincial matter, not federal)
• No to reopening the abortion debate (let people decide for them selves)
• Prohibiting assisted suicide (let the sick and dying end their misery in peace and in control)

They also do not want to decriminalize drugs either - a huge failure and a complete disservice to the major cities suffering from the drug user crisis.

[duaner]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ding-Ding. The Conservative base is too stupid (and socially controlling of other people's lives) to win an election these days, they don't understand the world around them.

And this is the point where it needs to be pointed out that the Liberals have implemented and are trying to implement additional social controls on people's lives. That's what governments do. The issue isn't that conservatives don't understand the world around them, it's that they understand it differently. I would, obviously, argue that they understand it better but at a minimum, it's just different.

[GrammarSS]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The issue isn't that conservatives don't understand the world around them, it's that they understand it differently. I would, obviously, argue that they understand it better but at a minimum, it's just different.

Exactly, we understand that it's 2020 but they feel that it's 1920 (or wish it still was.)

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Welp, since no one wants to tell me why the cons are socially cons (I dont follow their party) - here are some of their official positions I dont agree with:

• Publicly funded healthcare (should be public + private, and is a provincial matter, not federal)
• No to reopening the abortion debate (let people decide for them selves)
• Prohibiting assisted suicide (let the sick and dying end their misery in peace and in control)

They also do not want to decriminalize drugs either - a huge failure and a complete disservice to the major cities suffering from the drug user crisis.

Interesting.

Letting people decide when to die: good, let people do what they want!
Letting people pay for their own healthcare: bad, people shouldn't be allowed to do what they want!

I don't get people who want to regulate other people.

How about hate speech laws and Liberals: bad! We must regulate people's mouths, but never their uteruses!

I wish Liberals and Conservatives just take each of their pet issues about controlling others' actions, and beat it.