It what got the Libs booted for Harper back in the day. So it is possible. Ironically it was also surrounding the cost of the gun registry.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Lewis
Baber
Poilievre
Charest
Brown
Aitchison
It what got the Libs booted for Harper back in the day. So it is possible. Ironically it was also surrounding the cost of the gun registry.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
As mentioned the CPC needs to do the following:
1) Elect PP as leader
2) Openly say the following
"Fellow Canadians, we are pro-choice, we are welcoming and cheer on the LGTBQ+++++ community and you can own a gun as long as you are following the laws and strict protocols in place"
The Liberals would collapse immediately.
Liberals: “They are lying”
Canadians: “Hurrr Durrr ohkay”
Originally posted by Thales of Miletus
If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
Originally posted by Toma
fact.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I don't see PP having the balls to say that. He ain't Harper.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
CPC should come out with having it a charter right as part of their platform..This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Jean Charest wrote an opinion piece in the national post.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jea...-or-government
Owning a gun? I completely agreeThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
If conservative voters are akchewally interested in economic policy above all else, they should be willing to concede the gun rights issue in its entirety. I find it annoying that the pro lifers and the gun people cost me money by clinging to their pet issues.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This. So much this.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Aitchison is probably the candidate the Conservatives need the most to actually win, he's the most centrist. But as messed up as the party is (internal politics), its highly unlikely he'll win the leadership vote.
There's good centrist (ie on social issues) and bad centrist (Red Tory). Which is he?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Unclear. But his wiki page seems promising without being polarized like PP or Charest.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Smells like another O'Toole tho.
Charest is a clown. A liberal running for the conservative leadership. just LOL.
Tap, Rack, BANG!
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/mic...rvative-valuesMeanwhile, a June 7-13 Angus Reid poll found that more Canadians would support a Poilievre-led party than a Charest-led one, including those who lean Conservative (57-18 per cent), PPC (77-2 per cent) and Bloc Quebecois (17-12 per cent).
Come on in Liberal voters, please tell me how Poilievre is the bad choice. Its almost like you don't get it.
Edit-
As for fiscal conservatism and socially progressive, it doesn't work. Woke policies are inherently based in wealth distribution. The closest socially progressive policy a conservative party should come to is libertarian, and even then, it should be more conservative than libertarian because a lot of people refuse to abide by the social contract required to participate in society.
Last edited by zechs; 07-07-2022 at 02:49 PM.
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Provincially, Smith is running on mandatory dick snips because one time she got cheese mixed with her cheesy discharge.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Federally, whatever the guy you mentioned being horny for is also doing that...
But don't worry because the leader doesn't matter. Because Honda civic class and Execute Branch, etc
I still think we need an Asian running an Accelerationist party.
European thinking is outdated when only left and right. Its like voting blue or red when what you really want is ice cream. 1 + 1 = magenta
Last edited by ZenOps; 07-09-2022 at 07:25 PM.
Cocoa $8,000 per tonne.
You can define anything as a pet issue. So far as firearms rights costing you money, if I didn't have a company with my name on the business license that has permits to have pretty much anything in its inventory for military/LE testing purposes, I'd be losing at least $100,000k, probably much more (double?) than that when I consider the optics/magazines/accessories that will be useless without the rifles to use them with. I'm one of the very lucky few that can transfer my newly prohibited property into such a company's inventory. I still can't use them other than at our testing facility/range, nor can I sell them. So their value is essentially gone. This doesn't even count handguns, which I've yet to calculate my loss, 25 .22 handguns alone (I collect, well used to now, older ones), and probably double that in 9/40/45/etc calibers. All of which I have now lost the ability to sell, trade, or hand down through inheritance.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
"Pet issue" - is it a pet issue when you have several million gun owners, out of an eligible male population (less than 5% PAL holders are women I've been told by the firearms center in the past) of say 18 to 70 year old men, that's a significant chunk of the population. 15 million firearms owned in Canada at a minimum according to the RCMP. That makes it a little more than a pet issue, it's a serious issue, mainly due to the precedent being set over the seizure of property by executive action/decree.
I've lost nearly as much in the market recently, likely more, so I feel it in the financial sector as well, but I don't agree that the firearms political issue is somehow preventing the CPC from being elected, and being able to reverse insane liberal fiscal policies. I can't see a whole lot of middle ground voters deciding to come over to the CPC side because they suddenly say they agree with recent liberal actions on the firearms front. Such voters would never believe such a thing anyway, even if it happened to be true IMO.
I'm past caring about the abortion issue, but IMO the lines have been drawn on that forever, people are either for or against, frequently regardless of their political party affiliation, I know lots of CPC people who go both ways on this issue, yet still wouldn't be caught dead voting for the Liberals or NDP. I'm sure the same is true for Liberal and NDP party people, although the number of pro lifers there is likely much less. I still don't see how the CPC is going to gain votes by agreeing with recent liberal firearms politics, or saying they are pro choice. The CPC would lose a lot more votes by pro life voters being angry and staying home/not voting, than they could ever hope to gain from the middle ground voters. By far, again IMO.
Yeah it's a pet issue. Everything other than fiscal and economic policy is a pet issue. Maybe healthcare policy can be included.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Last edited by Buster; 07-10-2022 at 10:47 AM.
IPA drinkers should get no health care.
Suntan for presidentThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote