My assumption? The candidate himself said it. The press reported it. And what did the CPC do? Not a single word from them.
Like for example what if they found some white supremacist crap in his history?
This is now an assumption.
.. kind of falls apart ..
You know what also falls apart? Your credence when on one day you say that the CPC has to support vaccine mandates to even have a chance to get elected and get triggered when everybody tells you how wrong you are and then 48 hours later you do a 180.
You told me that it's a losing strategy for the CPC to go against vaccine mandates. That supporting vaccine passports will only alienate the people who are already voting for the PPC. These are your words.
So tell me, is it still a losing strategy to oppose vaccine mandates and passports, because the only people who don't support these are going to vote for the PPC either way?
Your assumption that he's telling the truth. You believed him at face value without a shred of evidence.
You know what also falls apart? Your credence when on one day you say that the CPC has to support vaccine mandates to even have a chance to get elected and get triggered when everybody tells you how wrong you are and then 48 hours later you do a 180.
Once again, I was explaining why I thought the CPC would do that, assuming your narrative (the guy was fired for vaccine comments were true), based on the available information. In retrospect you're right, I should have questioned the veracity of that turd's narrative, since now it looks like it was complete BS.
And now he's gone. The CPC didn't give any explanation why they fired him.
I was explaining why I thought the CPC would do that
You were explaining that the CPC has to be for vaccine mandates, otherwise they will lose the next election. And suddenly O'Toole comes out against vaccine mandates and you go around telling everybody how wonderful this is. The problem is not O'Toole here. You are the problem. You see someone criticizing the CPC and you run to their defence with "oh, they have to do this because otherwise they won't get elected" and "you just don't understand how to win elections" and a day later you look like an absolute retard, because the position you argued against is suddenly the CPC line.
My assumption? The candidate himself said it. The press reported it. And what did the CPC do? Not a single word from them.
This is now an assumption.
You know what also falls apart? Your credence when on one day you say that the CPC has to support vaccine mandates to even have a chance to get elected and get triggered when everybody tells you how wrong you are and then 48 hours later you do a 180.
You told me that it's a losing strategy for the CPC to go against vaccine mandates. That supporting vaccine passports will only alienate the people who are already voting for the PPC. These are your words.
https://omegacanada.win/p/12jvytUfaK/x/c/4JDDSSAfIEo
https://omegacanada.win/p/12jvytUfaK/x/c/4JDDSSBnh5g
So tell me, is it still a losing strategy to oppose vaccine mandates and passports, because the only people who don't support these are going to vote for the PPC either way?
Your assumption that he's telling the truth. You believed him at face value without a shred of evidence.
Once again, I was explaining why I thought the CPC would do that, assuming your narrative (the guy was fired for vaccine comments were true), based on the available information. In retrospect you're right, I should have questioned the veracity of that turd's narrative, since now it looks like it was complete BS.
Why shouldn't I believe him? Not even a month ago the CPC gave him the confidence to run in the next federal election.
https://twitter.com/jonasjsmith/status/1414949795236618243
And now he's gone. The CPC didn't give any explanation why they fired him.
You were explaining that the CPC has to be for vaccine mandates, otherwise they will lose the next election. And suddenly O'Toole comes out against vaccine mandates and you go around telling everybody how wonderful this is. The problem is not O'Toole here. You are the problem. You see someone criticizing the CPC and you run to their defence with "oh, they have to do this because otherwise they won't get elected" and "you just don't understand how to win elections" and a day later you look like an absolute retard, because the position you argued against is suddenly the CPC line.
Because yesterday's events directly contradict his narrative.
The same way CPC's silence speaks volume.