CPC doesn’t have a word to say against preventing the unvaxxed from domestic travel?
Do they not realize that we used to be their base?
It’s hilarious that these InterNazis call us traitors while they demand our papers.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (68)
sorted by:
Why ask questions when you're not interested in the answers?
I'll explain this as simply as I can, and then you go ahead and sperg out about virtue-signaling mattering more election coutomes or whatever/.
The majority of Canadians support all that insanity.
So that means if a party ever wanted to get elected and put a stop to it, they would have to not say so in their campaigning. Because if they did campaign on putting a stop to the insanity, they would lose and then they wouldn't be able to stop it.
Unfortunately there's a segment of the electorate who, while they want to stop the insanity, can't wrap their heads around the strategy necessary to accomplish that, and instead sperg out at the party who's trying to get elected because said party won't virtue-signal about stopping the insanity, thereby torpedoing thiert election chances.
There is only one way to change course here, and you're attacking the only party that's trying. You're putting emotion and virtue-signalling ahead of strategy. If you want to see where that gets you, have a look at the PPC's polling numbers. They're doing exactly what you want, and they're stuck at rock bottom.
But the strategy isn’t working. No one but you thinks they have a chance of winning, and since when does anyone care about the majority of Canadians. They only need about 36-38% of them to gain virtual absolute power.
I don’t buy that there is only one path forward, and that is attacking the rights and freedoms of a segment of the population.
Maybe I’m wrong. I’m open to listening. What evidence beyond your word do I have that CPC would cancel their attacks on the unvaccinated.
It's working a hell of a lot better than your is. Once again, do you want them to take the Benrier approach and end up with 2-3% of the vote?
The majority of Canadians probably support all firearms being banned as well, so is that the next step of the CPC -- stop supporting firearm owners and kick out any MP that is pro-firearms?
That is called tyranny of the majority. Sometimes a party needs to stand up for it's core values.
I understand your reasoning for the CPC kicking out the Yukon MP, but I do not accept that as an answer. The loss of my vote is irrelevant anyway though, as the riding of Mississauga-Malton is looking at 56% Liberal support and only 20-something% CPC -- In which case I can comfortably vote my conscience, or not vote at all if I don't feel like it.
No because that's not an important election issue. Voters are concerned about Health care, covid, the economy and climate change.
Enjoy your zero seats because you refuse to understand electoral politics.
Yes, I'm "roasted" by a bunch of retards who think they can win an election with 3% of the vote. So rekt.
It died when you PPCtards colonized it and scared all the sane people away.
Yes of course. You poll in the low single digits because the polls are rigged. Then you come out of elections with a vote share in the low single digits because the elections are rigged.
Or maybe, just maybe, most of the country really does disagree with you. Did you ever stop to consider that?
I too hold beliefs that qualify as fringe in this country, but at least I have the self awareness to know it instead of having to concoct demented fantasies to explain reality away.
This is why you will always lose. If you take the "I'm the majority of opinion, it's the polls and the ballot counts that are wrong" you will never get anywhere because that point of view offers no solutions.
So you'd prefer they take the PPC approach and win zero seats?
Then why doesn't the PPC win seats? They're doing exactly what you want the conservatives to do, and they can't even keep their own party leader in parliament.