HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Canadian Politics Part VIII: The Nifty Extended Thread Title Edition

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-26-2014, 09:25 PM
  #51
hisgirlfriday
Registered User
 
hisgirlfriday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulf View Post
And the Senate expense fun continues. Does not look good when you defy your own party and go on a trip and then expense it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/don-...aims-1.2584930
I know it's expecting too much given that Monday Night Football probably wasn't even airing in Canada during his tenure as a MNF host, but it bothers me that this dude's name is Don Meredith and no one made a "Turn out the lights... the party's over" joke.

hisgirlfriday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2014, 09:50 PM
  #52
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,670
vCash: 500
Coyne hits the nail on the head:

Quote:
In normal times, under a normal government, the Fair Elections Act would have been withdrawn by now, or at least be in serious trouble. The past few weeks have seen the bill denounced as a threat to democracy by the chief electoral officer, the former chief electoral officer, several provincial elections officials, academic experts domestic and foreign, and newspaper editorials across the country.
Quote:
If this were a normal government, it would have sought the widest possible input on the bill, in recognition that this was no ordinary piece of legislation. Even a radical government, with little time for consensus-seeking in pursuit of its agenda, would understand that an elections bill is different, in that it touches, not just on this or that question of policy, on which there will always be disagreement, but on the public’s faith in the democratic process — on which there should be no disagreement. Indeed, a radical government would be especially concerned on this point — for it would want to arm itself with an unassailable popular mandate to enact the changes it desired.
Quote:
And so we face the likelihood, as incredible as it sounds, of the government using the majority it won in the last election to pass a bill widely perceived as intended to fix the next — and contesting that election in the shadow of illegitimacy the bill would cast. It will do so, what is more, not in spite of the opposition it has aroused, but because of it: because it has convinced itself that all such opposition, from whatever source, proceeds from the same implacably partisan motives as its own.

This is how you get to 28% in the polls: when every criticism is only further proof that you’re right. It’s one thing to fleece the rubes in the grassroots with this nonsense — They’re all out to get us! Please send money! — but when you start to believe your own rhetoric, your brains turn to mush. It makes you incapable of acknowledging error, or even the possibility of it. And so it blinds you to the train wreck to which you are headed.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...al-government/

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2014, 10:03 PM
  #53
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,445
vCash: 256
Something definitely needs to be done about that bill

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2014, 10:05 PM
  #54
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,791
vCash: 663
Maybe the Senate could do something? Oh wait, the Senate is also majority Conservative. I guess you're screwed.

Concordski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2014, 10:11 PM
  #55
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,445
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concordski View Post
Maybe the Senate could do something? Oh wait, the Senate is also majority Conservative. I guess you're screwed.
They have sent back bills during this majority. They might again.

I hope so

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2014, 10:32 PM
  #56
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Make Say Think View Post
Something definitely needs to be done about that bill
Ultimately it may be the courts yet again who rein in the excesses of the Harper government as with its overreaching law and order agenda and attempts to circumvent the appointment procedures for the SCOC for Quebec judges.

Here is an article that looks at past cases under the Right to Vote provisions of the Charter - Why the Conservatives’ “Fair Elections Act” Could Be Unconstitutional

Such a challenge could be founded upon the SCOC decsion Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj where the Supreme Court tied its interpretation of the Canada’s elections law to the Charter right to vote.
The Supreme Court determined that, under its “substantive approach,” the Election Day “procedures” of the Canada Elections Act are subordinate to the Charter right to vote. Last Tuesday, and partly in response to the Etobicoke Centre controversy, Opitz’s party introduced Bill C-23, which would change those polling procedures. In particular, the so-called “Fair Elections Act” would eliminate “vouching,” which would prevent voters without proper paper identification from casting ballots in future elections.

Vouching—which is permitted by Section 143(3) of the current version of the Canada Elections Act—is the process by which a qualified elector may prove her identity by taking an oath and being vouched for by another qualified elector whose name appears on the voters’ list for the same polling division. If the Conservatives’ proposed “Fair Elections Act” becomes law, then such vouching will no longer be permitted.

Yet, if courts follow the logic that underlies the Supreme Court’s decision in Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj, then these stricter voter-identification requirements may not survive Charter scrutiny. Without vouching, the provisions of the Canada Elections Act that require voters to show identification in order to vote may be unconstitutional.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has already found that voter-identification restrictions, on their own, infringe the Charter right to vote. Last month, in Henry v. Canada (Attorney General), Madam Justice Ryan determined that “the rights given under [Section Three] of the Charter are restricted only by citizenship and connection to an electoral district,” and that “any legislation which has the effect of encumbering the explicit words of [Section Three] breaches the right and must be justified under [Section One] of the Charter.” (Section One allows legislatures to place “reasonable limits” on rights provided that those limits “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”)

The applicants in Henry were qualified voters—two of them occasionally homeless, one of them elderly and visually impaired—who challenged the constitutionality of the voter-identification restrictions in the current version of the Canada Elections Act. Both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal found that, though the identification requirements infringed the Charter right to vote, they were nonetheless “demonstrably justified”—and thus constitutional.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2014, 05:34 PM
  #57
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,912
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Ultimately it may be the courts yet again who rein in the excesses of the Harper government as with its overreaching law and order agenda and attempts to circumvent the appointment procedures for the SCOC for Quebec judges.

Here is an article that looks at past cases under the Right to Vote provisions of the Charter - Why the Conservatives’ “Fair Elections Act” Could Be Unconstitutional

Such a challenge could be founded upon the SCOC decsion Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj where the Supreme Court tied its interpretation of the Canada’s elections law to the Charter right to vote.
The Supreme Court determined that, under its “substantive approach,” the Election Day “procedures” of the Canada Elections Act are subordinate to the Charter right to vote. Last Tuesday, and partly in response to the Etobicoke Centre controversy, Opitz’s party introduced Bill C-23, which would change those polling procedures. In particular, the so-called “Fair Elections Act” would eliminate “vouching,” which would prevent voters without proper paper identification from casting ballots in future elections.

Vouching—which is permitted by Section 143(3) of the current version of the Canada Elections Act—is the process by which a qualified elector may prove her identity by taking an oath and being vouched for by another qualified elector whose name appears on the voters’ list for the same polling division. If the Conservatives’ proposed “Fair Elections Act” becomes law, then such vouching will no longer be permitted.

Yet, if courts follow the logic that underlies the Supreme Court’s decision in Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj, then these stricter voter-identification requirements may not survive Charter scrutiny. Without vouching, the provisions of the Canada Elections Act that require voters to show identification in order to vote may be unconstitutional.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has already found that voter-identification restrictions, on their own, infringe the Charter right to vote. Last month, in Henry v. Canada (Attorney General), Madam Justice Ryan determined that “the rights given under [Section Three] of the Charter are restricted only by citizenship and connection to an electoral district,” and that “any legislation which has the effect of encumbering the explicit words of [Section Three] breaches the right and must be justified under [Section One] of the Charter.” (Section One allows legislatures to place “reasonable limits” on rights provided that those limits “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”)

The applicants in Henry were qualified voters—two of them occasionally homeless, one of them elderly and visually impaired—who challenged the constitutionality of the voter-identification restrictions in the current version of the Canada Elections Act. Both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal found that, though the identification requirements infringed the Charter right to vote, they were nonetheless “demonstrably justified”—and thus constitutional.
Pretty much what I figure will happen, someone will challenge it in court and they will end up making the final decision.

beowulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2014, 05:40 PM
  #58
Jamie Thomas
Registered User
 
Jamie Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 923
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Excellent article. This government is really frustrating, they don't give a **** about anything other than their agenda and don't listen to any voice but their own.


Last edited by Jamie Thomas: 03-29-2014 at 05:49 PM.
Jamie Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2014, 06:04 PM
  #59
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Thomas View Post
Excellent article. This government is really frustrating, they don't give a **** about anything other than their agenda and don't listen to any voice but their own.
They have to listen to the courts.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2014, 06:09 PM
  #60
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Thousands of Death Records Turned Over to Truth and Reconciliation Commission

One of the most shameful parts of Canada's past has again been painfully exposed as the hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) looking into the horrific abuses of Canada's aboriginal residential school system have come to close. The hearings in Edmonton were the seventh in a series of such public hearings across Canada. The TRC has held a series of national events in Winnipeg, Inuvik, Halifax, Saskatoon, Montreal and Vancouver.
The Indian residential schools of Canada were a network of "residential" (boarding) schools for Aboriginal peoples of Canada (First Nations or "Indians"; Métis; and Inuit, formerly "Eskimos") funded by the Canadian government's Department of Indian Affairs, and administered by Christian churches, most notably the Catholic Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada. The system had origins in pre-Confederation times, but was primarily active following the passage of the Indian Act in 1876, until the mid-20th century. An amendment to the Indian Act in 1884 made attendance at a day, industrial or residential school compulsory for First Nations children and, in some parts of the country, residential schools were the only option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia..._school_system

The TRC now will put together its report and recommendations and they have been granted a one year extension of their mandate to do so.
http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/index.php?p=3
The commission delving into the sordid legacy of Canada's Indian residential schools was wrapping up nearly four years of public hearings Sunday, where thousands of victims recounted stories of cruelty and abuse at the hands of those entrusted with their care.

The heart-breaking accounts — almost all videotaped — will now form part of a lasting record of one of the darkest chapters in the country's history.
...
The children, the commission heard, were sent hundreds or thousands of kilometres from home. Many were kept largely isolated from their families, sometimes for years.

Siblings were separated and punished for showing any affection to one another. Survivors talked of constant hunger, of beatings and whippings, of sexual abuse. Many died of disease or unexplained causes. Some killed themselves.

The damage done to those who did survive was often lasting.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/truth-...wrap-1.2591925

There had always been evidence of numerous deaths in the schools of the aboriginal children under care and some had even claimed it was akin to genocide... cultural genocide and ethnocide. Last week the scope of the deaths became more evident with the release of death records by the provinces. The initial estimates of 3000 deaths seems to be low and the actual death toll is expected to rise dramtically as the records are collated and compared to the attendance lists.

BC alone turned over almost 5000 death records.
The death records of tens of thousands of First Nations children who died during the time residential schools were operating in Canada have been handed over to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Several provincial governments gave up the records to the commission, which will now cross-reference the information with student lists to determine who among the children died while in the care of the church-run schools and where they might be buried.
...
British Columbia opened the floodgates with the release of 4,900 death records for children aged 4 to 19 — the first batch a few months ago and the latest on Friday.

The province's registrar general, who is in charge of vital statistics, appealed to colleagues across the country to open their archives, as well, and Alberta, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick followed suit.

Manitoba, Ontario and the territories are working with the commission on the release of their records, Murray said.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ha...793/story.html

There have been official apologies made including by government, the churches involved and the RCMP for their parts in this tragedy.

January 7, 1998 Statement of Reconciliation offered by the Honourable Jane Stewart, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development – including an apology to those people who were sexually or physically abused while attending residential schools – and established the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
https://www.itk.ca/historical-event/...reconciliation

On June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology, on behalf of the sitting Cabinet, in front of an audience of Aboriginal delegates, and in an address that was broadcast nationally on the CBC, for the past governments' policies of assimilation. The Prime Minister apologized not only for the known excesses of the residential school system, but for the creation of the system itself.

On Friday, August 6, 1993 at the National Native Convocation in Minaki, Ontario, Archbishop Michael Peers offered an apology to all the survivors of the Indian residential schools on behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada.
“I accept and I confess before God and you, our failures in the residential schools. We failed you. We failed ourselves. We failed God.

“I am sorry, more than I can say, that we were part of a system which took you and your children from home and family.

“I am sorry, more than I can say, that we tried to remake you in our image, taking from you your language and the signs of your identity.

“I am sorry, more than I can say, that in our schools so many were abused physically, sexually, culturally and emotionally.

“On behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada, I present our apology.”
http://www.anglican.ca/news/a-step-a...e-path/300174/

The Cathloic Church has never formally apologized but they are sort of sorry as set out in a statement released by the Vatican in 2009:
His Holiness recalled that since the earliest days of her presence in Canada, the Church, particularly through her missionary personnel, has closely accompanied the indigenous peoples. Given the sufferings that some indigenous children experienced in the Canadian Residential School system, the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity. His Holiness emphasized that acts of abuse cannot be tolerated in society. He prayed that all those affected would experience healing, and he encouraged First Nations Peoples to continue to move forward with renewed hope.
In May 2004, immediately prior to signing the historic first Public Safety Protocol with the Assembly of First Nations, RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli issued an apology on behalf of the RCMP for their role in the Indian Residential School System.
We, I, as Commissioner of the RCMP, am truly sorry for what role we played in the residential school system and the abuse that took place in that system.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/aboriginal...po-reg-eng.htm

On October 27, 2011 University of Manitoba president David Barnard apologized to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the institution's role in educating people who operated the residential school system.
The extraordinary statement in Halifax to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings is believed to be the first time a Canadian university has apologized for having a role in that dark chapter in the country's history.

"We want to add our voice to the apologies already made by churches and government," Barnard said Tuesday. "We have educated the people who became clergy and teachers and politicians and became involved in the system. I'm going to be making, on behalf of the university, a public statement of apology and reconciliation.

"This is an important thing for us to do as a university, and an appropriate place to do it," Barnard said.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...132600298.html

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2014, 06:26 PM
  #61
Philly85
Moody'
 
Philly85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,999
vCash: 500
Thank you for sharing that with us Wetcoaster. I came here to post something similar. This was a big week in Edmonton. People need to be aware - everyone, especially immigrants, of the history of residential schools in Canada, the history of First Nations in our country in general. It's a large, vital part. I also know that this Truth & Reconciliation event is also in part somewhat of a hoax. Hoax is maybe the wrong word but make no mistake, these old politicians want the book to be closed on this issue and piece of history. Many people want this to go away and just to move on. I think aboriginal folk do as well, and they want to continue the healing process - which will take generations - but in a different manner. There are so many crucial things to be aware of when it comes to the issue of residential schools and the history of native peoples in our country, and hopefully this event - while being a bit of a double edged sword as I mentioned - will spread awareness and help dissuade ignorance or cultural insensitivity towards this piece of history and native peoples in Canada.

Should deserve it's own thread quite frankly but I know it's not a sexy topic or one many people want to discuss. Just keep those eyes and ears open, I would encourage every Canadian to even do just a small amount research for themselves. I'm sympathetic to the plight of natives peoples in Canada, everyone should be.


Last edited by Philly85: 03-30-2014 at 06:40 PM.
Philly85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2014, 07:32 PM
  #62
Xelebes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,975
vCash: 500
There is a couple tangentially related threads, but a thread by its own would not be bad.

Xelebes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2014, 09:48 PM
  #63
Jamie Thomas
Registered User
 
Jamie Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 923
vCash: 50
Dmitri Soudas fired as CPC executive director

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dimi...ctor-1.2592198

Quote:
Dimitri Soudas has been forced out as the Conservative Party of Canada's executive director after trying to interfere with his fiancée's Conservative nomination battle.
I know I won't shed a tear for this guy

Jamie Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2014, 12:18 AM
  #64
Free Torts
Registered User
 
Free Torts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,137
vCash: 883
Send a message via MSN to Free Torts
Dmitri Soudas and Eve Adams. Blech. Those two deserve each other.

Free Torts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2014, 12:43 AM
  #65
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
The combative Soudas was Harper's choice to run the party in the lead-up to the 2015 federal election. Soudas was appointed over the protests of cabinet ministers and national council members who pushed for other candidates.

Harper short-circuited those candidacies by having council members to his living room at 24 Sussex Dr. for a show-of-hands vote on Soudas.

Soudas made hundreds of calls trying to drum up support Sunday as it became clear what was happening, sources told CBC News, but he had already angered many in the party — including some Conservative MPs ​— by getting involved in Adams's race in Burlington.

The conference call wasn't announced until late Sunday evening and members of the council weren't told what the call would be about, sources said.

Disgusting.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2014, 06:58 PM
  #66
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Ten days ago the Federal Court issued an injunction allowing individuals who were previously licensed to continue to grow medical marijuana despite the new laws coming into effect.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...postcount=1020

The feds have now appealed that ruling.
The federal government is appealing an injunction that allows people to continue to grow medical marijuana while a full legal challenge plays out in the courts.

It is the latest salvo in a series of legal actions over how the government administers its medical pot program.

Earlier this month, Federal Court Judge Michael Manson ruled that patients currently licensed to grow their own marijuana will be permitted to produce the drug even after new regulations banning the practice take effect Tuesday.
http://www.news1130.com/2014/03/31/f...e/?cid=dlvr.it

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2014, 03:29 PM
  #67
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Just when you think Justin Trudeau could not get anymore illogical, he proves you wrong. It even left George Stroumboulopoulos somewhat bemused.

And it took him less than 2 minutes to do it.


Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2014, 05:04 PM
  #68
Howard Beale
Registered User
 
Howard Beale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Just when you think Justin Trudeau could not get anymore illogical, he proves you wrong. It even left George Stroumboulopoulos somewhat bemused.

And it took him less than 2 minutes to do it.

So basically he's saying the party leadership won't hand-pick candidates, but they can veto ones that prove themselves unsuitable. I don't see that as too unreasonable. How do other parties handle the process?

Howard Beale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2014, 05:58 PM
  #69
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,445
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Beale View Post
So basically he's saying the party leadership won't hand-pick candidates, but they can veto ones that prove themselves unsuitable. I don't see that as too unreasonable. How do other parties handle the process?
It's a bit of a contradiction when someone says "you get to pick who runs but not the people I don't want you to pick"

I think it's the right way to do things but explaining to people who want nothing more than to see you fail will lead to "gotcha" moments.

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2014, 09:31 PM
  #70
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Beale View Post
So basically he's saying the party leadership won't hand-pick candidates, but they can veto ones that prove themselves unsuitable. I don't see that as too unreasonable. How do other parties handle the process?
No basically he is placing his foot in his mouth yet again.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2014, 09:41 PM
  #71
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,798
vCash: 500
The whole thing is somewhat ironic since Trudeau himself was a hand picked candidate.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2014, 09:42 PM
  #72
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
The whole thing is somewhat ironic since Trudeau himself was a hand picked candidate.
Bazinga!!!

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2014, 08:27 AM
  #73
Johnny LaRue
Registered User
 
Johnny LaRue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kudamatsu-shi, Japan
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,186
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Bazinga!!!
I never thought I would see you use a line from The Big Bang Theory.

I would also say that bringing up Rob Ford was dumb. If Rob Ford ran a legit nomination campaign, then there is no reason he shouldn't be allowed to run if the leadership claims that it is allowing open nomination campaigns.

If the party leadership can simply veto any candidate Trudeau doesn't like, then essentially they can choose the candidate they want whenever they want.

Johnny LaRue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2014, 08:36 AM
  #74
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,182
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny LaRue View Post
I never thought I would see you use a line from The Big Bang Theory.

I would also say that bringing up Rob Ford was dumb. If Rob Ford ran a legit nomination campaign, then there is no reason he shouldn't be allowed to run if the leadership claims that it is allowing open nomination campaigns.

If the party leadership can simply veto any candidate Trudeau doesn't like, then essentially they can choose the candidate they want whenever they want.
Uh, he uses them constantly. Where the hell have you been?

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2014, 09:21 AM
  #75
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,445
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
The whole thing is somewhat ironic since Trudeau himself was a hand picked candidate.
I fail to see the irony in someone getting picked, winning the party leadership and changing a bit how the nomination process is done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny LaRue View Post
I never thought I would see you use a line from The Big Bang Theory.

I would also say that bringing up Rob Ford was dumb. If Rob Ford ran a legit nomination campaign, then there is no reason he shouldn't be allowed to run if the leadership claims that it is allowing open nomination campaigns.

If the party leadership can simply veto any candidate Trudeau doesn't like, then essentially they can choose the candidate they want whenever they want.
No it does not "essentially give them power to chose whoever they want" at all, doing so would be disastrous for the leadership

It allows the leadership to remove elements it does not like, just like the CPC takes care of it's own fringe lunatics. The LPC is doing it in the open and we will see if it's going to produce anything positive for the party; I very much doubt it but that's because most people are dumb, not because it's a bad idea.

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.