Around 2/3 of the Conservative base are social conservatives and libertarians, Mackay does not hold any socially conservative, or libertarian, values. He does not represent the base.

What is the point of electing a leader that appeals to liberals but not the base? A conservative who appeals to liberals is not a conservative in any sense.

When did the liberals ever appoint someone who appealed to conservatives? Never. Why is it always us that have to bend our arse?

I hold the view that the conservatives need to be conservative in the truest sense rather than trying to placate the whims of the liberals.

And no, conservatism is not racist. Our talking points are founded in the constitution, that Canada is an English, and a French, country, that Canada is a Christian country. This is all in the constitution, and we shouldn't be apologising for it.

The solution is not to follow the liberal narrative, the solution is to take control of the narrative. Canada is an English, and a French, country. Canada has a Christian heritage. Canada has North American values. This is in the constitution, and we need to own it. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to any of these, they are exempt, which means that the Charter shouldn't be dictating the cultural narrative.

This is why I am frustrated with the ridiculous liberal narrative started by the Trudeau dynasty, this isn't the only way forward. Did we just forget all of Canadian history before 1982? Were previous Prime Ministers and Governor-Generals un-Canadian because they didn't follow the liberal narratives prior to 1982? Of course not, because the Charter and the liberal narrative is not the end all and be all of Canadian identity, we're missing the 400+ years that preceded that.

Samuel de Champlain doesn't fit the current liberal narrative, neither thus Francois de Laval, or even John Graves Simcoe. They're all White straight males of English, and French, heritage, that were Protestant, and Catholic, they came to the New World to establish a monarchic and democratic society according to their values, not some retarded love-child of the United Nations.

Around 2/3 of the Conservative base are social conservatives and libertarians, Mackay does not hold any socially conservative, or libertarian, values. He does not represent the base.

What is the point of electing a leader that appeals to liberals but not the base? A conservative who appeals to liberals is not a conservative in any sense.

When did the liberals ever appoint someone who appealed to conservatives? Never. Why is it always us that have to bend our arse?

I hold the view that the conservatives need to be conservative in the truest sense rather than trying to placate the whims of the liberals.

And no, conservatism is not racist. Our talking points are founded in the constitution, that Canada is an English, and a French, country, that Canada is a Christian country. This is all in the constitution, and we shouldn't be apologising for it.

The solution is not to follow the liberal narrative, the solution is to take control of the narrative. Canada is an English, and a French, country. Canada has a Christian heritage. Canada has North American values. This is in the constitution, and we need to own it. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to any of these, they are exempt, which means that the Charter shouldn't be dictating the cultural narrative.

This is why I am frustrated with the ridiculous liberal narrative started by the Trudeau dynasty, this isn't the only way forward. Did we just forget all of Canadian history before 1982? Were previous Prime Ministers and Governor-Generals un-Canadian because they didn't follow the liberal narratives prior to 1982? Of course not, because the Charter and the liberal narrative is not the end all and be all of Canadian identity, we're missing the 400+ years that preceded that.

Around 2/3 of the Conservative base are social conservatives and libertarians, Mackay does not hold any socially conservative, or libertarian, values. He does not represent the base.

What is the point of electing a leader that appeals to liberals but not the base? A conservative who appeals to liberals is not a conservative in any sense.

When did the liberals ever appoint someone who appealed to conservatives? Never. Why is it always us that have to bend our arse?

I hold the view that the conservatives need to be conservative in the truest sense rather than trying to placate the whims of the liberals.

And no, conservatism is not racist. Our talking points are founded in the constitution, that Canada is an English, and a French, country, that Canada is a Christian country. This is all in the constitution, and we shouldn't be apologising for it.

The solution is not to follow the liberal narrative, the solution is to take control of the narrative. Canada is an English, and a French, country. Canada has a Christian heritage. Canada has North American values. This is in the constitution, and we need to own it. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to any of these, they are exempt, which means that the Charter shouldn't be dictating the cultural narrative.

This is why I am frustrated with the ridiculous liberal narrative started by the Trudeau dynasty, this isn't the only way forward. Did we just forget all of Canadian history before 1982? Were previous Prime Ministers and Governor-Generals un-Canadian because they didn't follow the liberal narratives prior to 1982?

Around 2/3 of the Conservative base are social conservatives and libertarians, Mackay does not hold any socially conservative, or libertarian, values. He does not represent the base.

What is the point of electing a leader that appeals to liberals but not the base? A conservative who appeals to liberals is not a conservative in any sense.

When did the liberals ever appoint someone who appealed to conservatives? Never. Why is it always us that have to bend our arse?

I hold the view that the conservatives need to be conservative in the truest sense rather than trying to placate the whims of the liberals.

And no, conservatism is not racist. Our talking points are founded in the constitution, that Canada is an English, and a French, country, that Canada is a Christian country. This is all in the constitution, and we shouldn't be apologising for it.

The solution is not to follow the liberal narrative, the solution is to take control of the narrative. Canada is an English, and a French, country. Canada has a Christian heritage. Canada has North American values. This is in the constitution, and we need to own it. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to any of these, they are exempt, which means that the Charter shouldn't be dictating the cultural narrative.

This is why I am frustrated with the ridiculous liberal narrative started by the Trudeau dynasty, this isn't the only way forward. Did we just forget all of Canadian history before 1982?

Around 2/3 of the Conservative base are social conservatives and libertarians, Mackay does not hold any socially conservative, or libertarian, values. He does not represent the base.

What is the point of electing a leader that appeals to liberals but not the base? A conservative who appeals to liberals is not a conservative in any sense.

When did the liberals ever appoint someone who appealed to conservatives? Never. Why is it always us that have to bend our arse?

I hold the view that the conservatives need to be conservative in the truest sense rather than trying to placate the whims of the liberals.

And no, conservatism is not racist. Our talking points are founded in the constitution, that Canada is an English, and a French, country, that Canada is a Christian country. This is all in the constitution, and we shouldn't be apologising for it.

The solution is not to follow the liberal narrative, the solution is to take control of the narrative. Canada is an English, and a French, country. Canada has a Christian heritage. Canada has North American values. This is in the constitution, and we need to own it. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to any of these, they are exempt, which means that the Charter shouldn't be dictating the cultural narrative.

Around 2/3 of the Conservative base are social conservatives and libertarians, Mackay does not hold any socially conservative, or libertarian, values. He does not represent the base.

What is the point of electing a leader that appeals to liberals but not the base? A conservative who appeals to liberals is not a conservative in any sense.

When did the liberals ever appoint someone who appealed to conservatives? Never. Why is it always us that have to bend our arse?

I hold the view that the conservatives need to be conservative in the truest sense rather than trying to placate the whims of the liberals.

And no, conservatism is not racist. Our talking points are founded in the constitution, that Canada is an English, and a French, country, that Canada is a Christian country. This is all in the constitution, and we shouldn't be apologising for it.

The solution is not to follow the liberal narrative, the solution is to take control of the narrative. Canada is an English, and a French, country. Canada has a Christian heritage. Canada has North American values. This is in the constitution, and we need to own it.

Around 2/3 of the Conservative base are social conservatives and libertarians, Mackay does not hold any socially conservative, or libertarian, values. He does not represent the base.

What is the point of electing a leader that appeals to liberals but not the base? A conservative who appeals to liberals is not a conservative in any sense.

When did the liberals ever appoint someone who appealed to conservatives? Never. Why is it always us that have to bend our arse?

I hold the view that the conservatives need to be conservative in the truest sense rather than trying to placate the whims of the liberals.

And no, conservatism is not racist. Our talking points are founded in the constitution, that Canada is an English, and a French, country, that Canada is a Christian country. This is all in the constitution, and we shouldn't be apologising for it.

Around 2/3 of the Conservative base are social conservatives and libertarians, Mackay does not hold any socially conservative, or libertarian, values. He does not represent the base.

What is the point of electing a leader that appeals to liberals but not the base? A conservative who appeals to liberals is not a conservative in any sense.

Let me ask you something, when did the liberals ever appoint someone who appealed to conservatives? Never. Why is it always us that have to bend our arse?

Around 2/3 of the Conservative base are social conservatives and libertarians, Mackay does not hold any socially conservative, or libertarian, values. He does not represent the base.

What is the point of electing a leader that appeals to liberals but not the base? A conservative who appeals to liberals is not a conservative in any sense.