Actually I think he has the most right ideas of all the candidates. But that doesn't mean anything. Brace yourself, because I'm gonna redpill you on electoral politics here:
Objective right and wrong count for nothing in a democracy because every voter has a different subjective sense of right and wrong. You think X is right, the other guy thinks X is wrong, and both of your votes are worth the exact same. It doesn't matter who's actually right, it just matters how many people with votes agree with X vs disagree with X. The actual rightness or wrongness of X doesn't matter.
A savvy professional politician who openly panders to a fringe minority at the cost alienating himself to 98% of the electorate is not playing to win. That's playing to lose. The politician who does that is doing so to engage that small group of people for some ulterior reason other than winning elections. In Max's case, to make money.
Last I checked Bernier isnt taking money from taxpayers by force, so I dont understand your critique. I wont begrudge a man for getting paid for his time and 100k isn't what I would call skyhigh money. His platform has value and his message is the right one.
Contrast that against O'Toole who gets paid by us whether we like it or not. Please feel free to explain why O'Toole's mandated salary is more acceptable than Bernier's voluntarily funded salary.
Last I checked Bernier isn't taking money from taxpayers by force
Actually he is. He's making his full MP pension, which is funded by money forcibly taken from taxpayers. The money he's paying himself from party donations is on top of that.
Yeah but that has nothing to do with the PPC. If you cared about government corruption you might want to start with Erin and the boys at the CPC. I am sure they get a bit off the top for protecting supply management.
Any politician that supports climate alarmism and the destruction of Canada's resource industry is at best ideologically compromised, but also could be on the take from lobbyists, working as an agent of a foreign interest or even just being a grifter profiting off of foundations and charities (Example 1, Trudeau, J)
Any politician that supports climate alarmism and the destruction of Canada's resource industry is at best ideologically compromised
So what does a politician who's opposed to all of that do when the vast majority of the electorate want it? Just keep campaigning against and keep losing? How do you get to make your beliefs on the matter policy id you never get elected?
That's the problem. You guys don't understand how the game is played. That's why you're stuck at 2% support. You're putting principle above strategy. And principle alone can't win you elections when most of the electorate disagree with you.
Are you suggesting that Max has the wrong ideas? Perhaps he should wear some stilettos and get on board with the climate/COVID alarmists?
Because that's what Erin O'Toole is doing.
Actually I think he has the most right ideas of all the candidates. But that doesn't mean anything. Brace yourself, because I'm gonna redpill you on electoral politics here:
Objective right and wrong count for nothing in a democracy because every voter has a different subjective sense of right and wrong. You think X is right, the other guy thinks X is wrong, and both of your votes are worth the exact same. It doesn't matter who's actually right, it just matters how many people with votes agree with X vs disagree with X. The actual rightness or wrongness of X doesn't matter.
A savvy professional politician who openly panders to a fringe minority at the cost alienating himself to 98% of the electorate is not playing to win. That's playing to lose. The politician who does that is doing so to engage that small group of people for some ulterior reason other than winning elections. In Max's case, to make money.
Last I checked Bernier isnt taking money from taxpayers by force, so I dont understand your critique. I wont begrudge a man for getting paid for his time and 100k isn't what I would call skyhigh money. His platform has value and his message is the right one.
Contrast that against O'Toole who gets paid by us whether we like it or not. Please feel free to explain why O'Toole's mandated salary is more acceptable than Bernier's voluntarily funded salary.
Actually he is. He's making his full MP pension, which is funded by money forcibly taken from taxpayers. The money he's paying himself from party donations is on top of that.
Yeah but that has nothing to do with the PPC. If you cared about government corruption you might want to start with Erin and the boys at the CPC. I am sure they get a bit off the top for protecting supply management.
And you can prove O'Toole is involved in corruption?
Any politician that supports climate alarmism and the destruction of Canada's resource industry is at best ideologically compromised, but also could be on the take from lobbyists, working as an agent of a foreign interest or even just being a grifter profiting off of foundations and charities (Example 1, Trudeau, J)
So what does a politician who's opposed to all of that do when the vast majority of the electorate want it? Just keep campaigning against and keep losing? How do you get to make your beliefs on the matter policy id you never get elected?
That's the problem. You guys don't understand how the game is played. That's why you're stuck at 2% support. You're putting principle above strategy. And principle alone can't win you elections when most of the electorate disagree with you.
https://i.imgur.com/TwIedao.png
Cool. So how's the uncompromising &"I'm right and the rest fo you can go fuck yourselves"* approach working out for Max?
LOL why are you so angry all the time?
inb4 the PPCers show up and start REEEEing.
"Greasy ham hocks"?
Good lord that's cringe.
You know, when I suggested that you learn how to meme, I meant learn how to meme and then start posting memes. Not the other way around.
Here's a piece of free meme coaching: Just using imgflip to call people childish names isn't memeing.
You've spent a LOT more than ten seconds obsessing about me.