Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5512
Reputation: 276.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:27 am    Post subject: Globe editorial: Andrew Scheer's weird tolerance level Reply with quote

This is part of the continuing series on the futility of the Scheer approach in retail politics. This is what happens when a Conservative poses as a squishy Liberal.

Quote:
Globe editorial: Andrew Scheer’s weird tolerance level
INCLUDES CORRECTION
PUBLISHED JANUARY 3, 2018

Federal Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer gave a recent interview to The Globe and Mail in which he tried to sell the Tories as Canada's party of tolerance and acceptance. He didn't nail it.

Mr. Scheer argued that his party is more tolerant of differing views than the Liberal Party is, and as proof he cited Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's requirement that Liberal MPs must support a woman's right to choose in any vote on abortion in the House of Commons.

And then he said that, if elected, he would not allow anyone in his party to table legislation to restrict or ban abortion, and that "when the [Conservative] caucus takes a final decision on a position, then the rest of the MPs are asked to support that."

There is exactly zero daylight between his position and that of Mr. Trudeau.

Mr. Scheer is personally opposed to abortion, as are many Conservative voters. And yet he insists, almost to a fault, that a Tory government led by him would silence any Conservative MPs who tried to raise the issue.

Perhaps he believes that to say otherwise would cost him votes in a country where abortion rights are supported by the majority, and by the Supreme Court.

If so, where Mr. Trudeau's position on abortion is credibly based on personal conviction, Mr. Scheer's is the ugly offspring of political expediency. As such, it is hardly evidence of his party's support for a diverse range of views.

Mr. Scheer was equally clumsy on the issue of LGBTQ rights, insisting he is a supporter. But as an MP, he voted against gay marriage in 2005, and as party leader he refuses to take part in Pride parades.

"Not everyone marches," he says. And fair enough. But while he claims the LGBTQ community should not take his absence from Pride parades as de facto proof that he isn't a supporter, he's happy to let that same absence send a signal to his political base about his beliefs.

Mr. Scheer has apparently made it a priority to rebrand his party as a Canada's brightest beacon of tolerance. Based on what we've seen, he may not be the person for the job.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/globe-editorial-andrew-scheers-weird-tolerance-level/article37489091/


Does anyone, outside of the winner on the 13th ballot believe that what the country needs now is someone who apes the failure we presently have in the PMO?

Or does the membership of the Conservative Party just line up, pull their forelock, and say Yes sir yes sir, three bags full? THESE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING US! Scheer is using us to fatten his resume. That's all.

He has never shown us that he shares our points of view. Think on that. He has only ever said things that would keep him out of trouble.

Stop contributing to this ... it's a doomed effort. My opinion.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8414
Reputation: 282.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scheer's position on social issues is confusing but at the same time , can you blame him ? social issues are rather toxic especially in quebec and urban Canada and the current make up of parliament would pretty much defeat anything on the first vote , so its a rather hopeless cause at the moment ( and surely be defeated in a court challenge even if it passed a house vote somehow )


allowing a cpc mp to bring forward a motion on abortion would be doomed for failure as the liberals , ndp and bloc would vote it down by a large margin , so it would be for purely symbolic reasons ? and there is really no appetite from the general public for such a debate

as for scheer marching in a pride parade , its one of those doomed if he does and doomed if he doesn't . as the cpc base in western Canada would be turned off by a leader marching in a pride parade in downtown Toronto . but at the same time he annoys the progressives in urban Canada by not showing up
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5512
Reputation: 276.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If he has no issues with the Liberals on all these "social issues", why wold he go to the Globe&Mail with that?

Why is he talking about abortion? Do you know anyone else with the megaphone that's talking about abortion? They're trying to engineer our boys into girls, and he's getting all mealy-mouthed about abortion?

Why doesn't he face the fact that the Supreme Court won't let us make abortion illegal?

You only get so much time in the spotlight, do you want to use it this way?

The problem is -- he doesn't know what the issues are! He gets his sense of that from the media, which means he is unequipped, in the most basic sense, to understand what normal life is like. His leadership is based on the fact that he was enrolled in French immersion as a child, and not much else!

I haven't quite given up on him yet, but I think I should. I certainly intend to stop my annual donation. You should too.

Andrew Scheer is supposed to represent us. Instead, he is acting like a 'brand', trying to fool the people into voting for him by being as much like Justin as he can. He wants to be a competent form of Justin.

Not me. I thought that the opposition was supposed to be an alternative.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8414
Reputation: 282.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
If he has no issues with the Liberals on all these "social issues", why wold he go to the Globe&Mail with that?

Why is he talking about abortion? Do you know anyone else with the megaphone that's talking about abortion? They're trying to engineer our boys into girls, and he's getting all mealy-mouthed about abortion?

Why doesn't he face the fact that the Supreme Court won't let us make abortion illegal?

You only get so much time in the spotlight, do you want to use it this way?

The problem is -- he doesn't know what the issues are! He gets his sense of that from the media, which means he is unequipped, in the most basic sense, to understand what normal life is like. His leadership is based on the fact that he was enrolled in French immersion as a child, and not much else!

I haven't quite given up on him yet, but I think I should. I certainly intend to stop my annual donation. You should too.

Andrew Scheer is supposed to represent us. Instead, he is acting like a 'brand', trying to fool the people into voting for him by being as much like Justin as he can. He wants to be a competent form of Justin.

Not me. I thought that the opposition was supposed to be an alternative.



I have no idea where the idea for this globe and mail meeting or editorial came from ?


but the reality is when an opposition party holds a leadership race and elects a new leader , there is virtually Zero chance of that leader getting dumped before the next election . the caucus is clearly willing to go into 2019 with Scheer


at this moment I don't see any other alternatives , its true Bernier came second but he had very little caucus support and he seems to have accepted the fact he lost , well maintaining a role within the party

in terms of possible leaders from eastern Canada with seats in the house of commons I see very few options and some who previously held seats or previously wanted the job have moved on , like Jason Kenney who is running in alberta .
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5512
Reputation: 276.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is what I mean by forelock tugging.

There are no rules here. Scheer doesn't have a right to our support. If anything, we have a right to be accurately represented.

What shocks me is that the membership has been so completely cut off from any way to affect the party leadership. Caucus support? Who cares. Those guys work for the party, they don't represent us. They sell us on a program that has bee focus-group tested and all of that. If they want to know what we think, they'll hire a pollster.

Maybe it's time to split the party. It now is clear that the price of the merger was to become a new form of the Progressive Conservative Party. We have jettisoned the participation -- if not the funding practices -- of the CA and Reform Party.

This 'editorial' is a 'dog whistle'. Accusations of racism are always a danger for politicians on the right because of our supposed political kinship with the Nazis. Or at least this is what government education teaches people.

It's a lie, of course, but that's why they call it government education. They also teach that gender is a matter of choice. We are all racist authoritarians as far as they are concerned. (You will not how our troll went to racism to explain the loss of audiences in the NFL all while simultaneously claiming there was no decline in audiences.) Its a reflex amongst those brainwashed by government education.

But is anyone going to tell me that he would have done worse by championing men and pointing out their virtues, their need for protection from raging courts who are abandoning the traditions of Anglo-Saxon justice, etc? Or take up the issue of what the schools are doing to our kids in terms of recruiting them into homosexuality?

It isn't that he's dumb, it's that he's in the bubble. He's not a fighter, he's a guy who expects everyone to stop talking when he stands up. Not only that, but he's dishonest if he really does not personally support abortion. At no level does this make sense, and the results are predictable.

Has he ever actually done anything before this, other than rising up the party hierarchy based on the general level of workable French amongst Conservatives?

He doesn't relate to the Tim Hortons clientele who Harper appealed to. He's letting the media be his guide, probably because he feels no pressure from the membership, who in the old Progressive Conservative mould, was supposed to stand idly by and remember the Queen while they voted as the boss said.

Those days have passed.

But why is my suggestion worse than what he's doing?

ADDENDA: An excellent review (by Canadian standards) of the legal changes that our lesbian premier of Ontario is having implemented. The government will soon be able to force you to allow your minor child to take hormone blockers and the like if that child wants to pretend to be the other sex for awhile. Under the encouragement, no doubt, of professional, government-trained and government-certified teachers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gwXmT11wNc

And here's our firebrand, rousing the nation ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVlzb7fRB0s

See what I mean?


Last edited by Bugs on Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:07 pm; edited 2 times in total
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1034
Reputation: 113.6
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

(You will not how our troll went to racism to explain the loss of audiences in the NFL all while simultaneously claiming there was no decline in audiences.)

Gosh, are you eluding to me? If so please show me where I did that ?

Thanks !
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5512
Reputation: 276.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you mean "alluding"? I elude you every chance I get.

Quote:
Trump has virtually no affect on the NFL and your links confirm it. People have been tuning out for years and it has been ramped up this year.
Why?
CTE
Racism over Colin K


But you knew that all the time, didn't you?

Look, this had descended into an area -- name-calling -- where you are more adept than I am, so why don't you "elude" me. It isn't as if I take you seriously.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1034
Reputation: 113.6
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Do you mean "alluding"?

I did. Thanks for the correction.
Quote:

Look, this had descended into an area -- name-calling -- where you are more adept than I am, so why don't you "elude" me. It isn't as if I take you seriously.

Of course you say you dont. But you do .

Easy to understand if I were posting lies falsehoods and inanities and someone kept pestering these post with the truth I'd get pissed off too!

Youre upset your posts are proven time and again to be BS. (well not all )
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8414
Reputation: 282.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
This is what I mean by forelock tugging.

There are no rules here. Scheer doesn't have a right to our support. If anything, we have a right to be accurately represented.

What shocks me is that the membership has been so completely cut off from any way to affect the party leadership. Caucus support? Who cares. Those guys work for the party, they don't represent us. They sell us on a program that has bee focus-group tested and all of that. If they want to know what we think, they'll hire a pollster.

Maybe it's time to split the party. It now is clear that the price of the merger was to become a new form of the Progressive Conservative Party. We have jettisoned the participation -- if not the funding practices -- of the CA and Reform Party.

This 'editorial' is a 'dog whistle'. Accusations of racism are always a danger for politicians on the right because of our supposed political kinship with the Nazis. Or at least this is what government education teaches people.

It's a lie, of course, but that's why they call it government education. They also teach that gender is a matter of choice. We are all racist authoritarians as far as they are concerned. (You will not how our troll went to racism to explain the loss of audiences in the NFL all while simultaneously claiming there was no decline in audiences.) Its a reflex amongst those brainwashed by government education.

But is anyone going to tell me that he would have done worse by championing men and pointing out their virtues, their need for protection from raging courts who are abandoning the traditions of Anglo-Saxon justice, etc? Or take up the issue of what the schools are doing to our kids in terms of recruiting them into homosexuality?

It isn't that he's dumb, it's that he's in the bubble. He's not a fighter, he's a guy who expects everyone to stop talking when he stands up. Not only that, but he's dishonest if he really does not personally support abortion. At no level does this make sense, and the results are predictable.

Has he ever actually done anything before this, other than rising up the party hierarchy based on the general level of workable French amongst Conservatives?

He doesn't relate to the Tim Hortons clientele who Harper appealed to. He's letting the media be his guide, probably because he feels no pressure from the membership, who in the old Progressive Conservative mould, was supposed to stand idly by and remember the Queen while they voted as the boss said.

Those days have passed.

But why is my suggestion worse than what he's doing?

ADDENDA: An excellent review (by Canadian standards) of the legal changes that our lesbian premier of Ontario is having implemented. The government will soon be able to force you to allow your minor child to take hormone blockers and the like if that child wants to pretend to be the other sex for awhile. Under the encouragement, no doubt, of professional, government-trained and government-certified teachers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gwXmT11wNc

And here's our firebrand, rousing the nation ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVlzb7fRB0s

See what I mean?



still when considering the situation are things really that bad , now I'm referring more to trudeau than scheer .

but when I look at trudeau I can't think of a political figure in Canadian history who had so many advances over his opponents , were talking about advantages that few other leaders have ever had yet alone at the same time


- he is the son of a high profile former PM and has a celebrity following , that was something we hadn't seen before

- he has a lot of the media on his side ( although that's not really new for a liberal )

- massive social media presence , never has a Canadian political figure had millions and millions of followers online , they don't mean much now as a lot are likely low information voters but what about during an election ? he can literally reach millions with one click or post

- allies in government in nearly every provincial legislature except Manitoba and sask , its uncommon for a liberal PM to also have a liberal premier in Ontario to work with

- the cpc still has an advantage financially but people often like to donate to the party in power so this advantage is fading , the liberals have more money than in the past

- an ndp party with a leader who doesn't even have a seat , a green leader with a seat but old news no one pays attention to her , a bloc quebecois less relevant than ever with few seats , and a new cpc leader few Canadians are familiar with



but according to polls , even using some of the more optimistic ones ( Nanos ) the liberals are polling around 40% nationwide , that might sound impressive compared to the liberals 5 or 10 years ago but trudeau has historical advantages on so many fronts not seen in years , I don't think its actually that impressive when you think about it
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5512
Reputation: 276.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jordan Peterson discussing this specific issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp7tCUMVFYo

At about the 4 minute mark, he discusses how members of Conservative Party are too gutless to say anything and the party is afraid to take a position. Bill 89 passed without a single dissenting vote! That's not leadership.

What Scheer seems to be doing is waiting for public opinion to swing around to the point where he can lead from behind with safety. We need a leader that is willing to take some hits, but lands some blows at the same time. People can decide if there is such a debate. Without one, they tend to think everyone agrees.

RCO, you have seen on here how people avoid this topic, even though their own children could be at risk. They are afraid. The intimidation works on celebrities and media people by attacking reputations and working on sponsors. We know about these.

But for the ordinary male, working in an administrative bureaucracy, his problem is staying clear of HR. They feel they have an obligation to provide a safe work environment for women and if it means a few men have their dreams crushed, so what? And they do it without the men every knowing of the charges against them. Their career is simply side-lined. But nobody knows about the scale of this, including me, but trust me -- it's a lot bigger than you think it is, and it's greater the younger you are. Why? Because these ideas are being implanted in schools, and they amp up their presentations year by year.

That's what has to be highlighted.

The other ways it works is that parents, these days, even "helicopter parents", walking their twelve-year-olds to school every day, trust the schools. They think they're learning how to read, write, and do math, but they aren't -- at least not anywhere near the standards of ... say, the 1930ies! ... but those parents don't realize the big danger is IN the schools. Their children are having ideas implanted in them that will make it easier to survive in a competitive economy.

Trudeau isn't even being opposed. Sure he looks inevitable, but believe me, he's low hanging fruit. When he attacked vigorously, he looks like a deer in the headlights. Look at the video of Andrew describing how he got his first job! What a stirring defence of small business! There's no fire in the belly! There's no sense of urgency. In fact, why did he want the job? To fatten his resume for when he goes for the top job at the UN?

We live in Ontario. We know what Butts and his gang have done to us. Now they're in Ottawa, thinking they have the formula for eternal rule. We see how they are losing fiscal control despite huge revenues. Do we have to wait until Andrew grows a pair?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Globe editorial: Andrew Scheer's weird tolerance level

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB