Conservative leadership master thread

[The Green Barbarian]

All I can say is that BC's approach has indeed worked.

and all I can say is that carbon taxes are a terrible idea. Just think how much better off BC's economy would be, if we didn't have this silly tax. All in the name of a fairy tale.

[Omnitheo]

Your opinions on Climate Change don't change facts. Also you can't say BC's economy would be better without the tax, as it's currently doing better than most provinces which don't have the tax. Typically an economy without tax revenues will do worse than one with. But let's watch what happens in the US for more on that.

I would like to see where all the candidates stand on climate change. Should a conservative government enter power, will they stick behind Canada's international pledges on climate change? Or will we return to the backseat position and once more break our commitments as we did with the Kyoto Accords?

[The Green Barbarian]

Your opinions on Climate Change don't change facts.

Ok. What are the facts? I'm curious to hear your version.

Also you can't say BC's economy would be better without the tax,

Of course I can say that. Because it's true.

as it's currently doing better than most provinces which don't have the tax.

So what? Are you honestly trying to sell the concept that the only reason that BC is doing better than say, Saskatchewan, is because we stupidly tax carbon in BC? Seriously? There are NO other factors at play? At all? I don't know if you've ever been to Saskatchewan but trust me, it's a lot different than BC, in a lot of ways.

Typically an economy without tax revenues will do worse than one with.

I don't know what this means, and I don't think you do either.

But let's watch what happens in the US for more on that.

OK, let's do that.

I would like to see where all the candidates stand on climate change. Should a conservative government enter power, will they stick behind Canada's international pledges on climate change? Or will we return to the backseat position and once more break our commitments as we did with the Kyoto Accords?

I think that the average Canadian has been lied to so much about the man-made climate change myth that they would not support any party that was telling the truth about the whole thing being a giant hoax. It would be political suicide to come out and say the things that Trump is saying on the AGW myth (which is the truth!). I would support a candidate that wants to get rid of the stupid carbon tax. But I know that's never going to happen. If you convince the sheep that it is necessary, and even use red herrings like BC's horrible carbon tax to point to then the sheep will go for it, and no government is ever going to turn down the opportunity to fleece their gullible sheep citizens. Ever.

[Omnitheo]

GB we've through this song and dance ad nauseam. No amount of facts or scientific evidence will get you to stop claiming this to be a myth. I'm not going to let you derail another thread with this.

If you want to talk about Conservative Candidates views on climate change and what it means for your endorsement or not for them, go ahead, but if you just want to shout repeatedly that it's not real, kindly leave that to one of the other threads on the subject.

[rustled]

It's all very well and good for citizens like ourselves to continue to ignore how each and every one of the predictive models failed to prove the catastrophe narrative, to disregard all the cumulative data that disproves the catastrophe narrative, to disregard how a theory which started out as science has since been co-opted for politics.

It's all very well and good for us to ignore how we've become so dazzled by taxing carbon we've failed to see how our earlier and more pragmatic efforts to reduce pollution and protect the environment have been shoved firmly under the bus.

It's all very well and good for people like ourselves, chatting here and in coffee shops and over dinner tables, to continue believing carbon taxes are serving some esoteric greater purpose and not hurting anyone or anything in the process, despite all evidence to the contrary, simply because that's the narrative we've become comfortable with (or defended so much we can't bring ourselves to give it up).

But I'd expect far, far better from people who want to take a leadership role in government.

The other parties seem happy to let this expensive b.s. (masquerading as a solution) pile ever deeper. Let's see if anyone in the Conservative party will take this bull by the horns.

[The Green Barbarian]

If you want to talk about Conservative Candidates views on climate change and what it means for your endorsement or not for them, go ahead, but if you just want to shout repeatedly that it's not real, kindly leave that to one of the other threads on the subject.

That's exactly what I did! Did you even read what I wrote? And could you respond regarding your false claims that somehow a tax on carbon is good for the BC economy? Because this is complete balderdash.

[Rwede]

GB we've through this song and dance ad nausium. No amount of facts or scientific evidence will get you to stop claiming this to be a myth. I'm not going to let you derail another thread with this.

There's as much scientific evidence of AGW as there is a word "nausium."

Any of the candidates that support the fallacy of carbon taxes won't be getting my vote.

[The Green Barbarian]

.

The other parties seem happy to let this expensive b.s. (masquerading as a solution) pile ever deeper. Let's see if anyone in the Conservative party will take this bull by the horns.

On this issue alone I would vote for O'Leary. This was one of the few reasons I was glad Trump won. He is going to stop all of this needless waste and taxation all due to a fairy tale.

[rustled]

That makes Chong's case for him. Although I do believe he is using one of the higher estimates for the social costs involved. It could well be correct, as a substantial portion of Canadians do live in areas that will be affected by things like sea level rise.

Except that sea levels aren't rising and won't rise, so there is no social cost, at all. This is just apocalyptic nonsense, designed to fear-monger so that governments can steal more money out of our pockets. It's just legalized theft.

Sea levels are rising, though, slowly but surely, and will probably continue to do so for some time. We certainly haven't seen the catastrophic rise everyone was happy to prepare for by taxing carbon (!?), and there's an ebb and flow to the process, but overall they are rising and, from a strictly scientific point of view, there's some potential for acceleration through natural forces (undersea volcanoes, etc.).

There's no reason for hysteria, but there is reason to consider what the predictive models show is likely to happen, and what (if anything) might be done to mitigate the effects. Ditto for any of the repeating long-cycle climactic events that will shape necessary adaptation in various areas of the world.

Nothing's being done to plan for this, because we're all dazzled by dealing with CO2 and pretending we can control climate.

Harper's pragmatism around this topic served us well. The last thing we need is a Conservative who figures if enough money changes hands, if we sacrifice enough of the environment to wind and solar farms, we can change the climate.

I want a Conservatives leader who can balance the rampant idealism of the Liberals.

IMO, the last thing we need is a Conservative leader who will succumb to it.

[rustled]

.

The other parties seem happy to let this expensive b.s. (masquerading as a solution) pile ever deeper. Let's see if anyone in the Conservative party will take this bull by the horns.

On this issue alone I would vote for O'Leary. This was one of the few reasons I was glad Trump won. He is going to stop all of this needless waste and taxation all due to a fairy tale.

I'm not sure Trump will have much luck, but I think the tides of public opinion on this may be turning. People are beginning to question the narrative.

I'm interested in what O'Leary has to offer. Seems to me people who can't separate his tv persona from his political persona are selling him short. He has been more engaged politically than Trump. When the Dragons Den aired a show some years back about where and how the Dragons lived, I was impressed with how simply he lived. (Not just in comparison to the others. He struck me as not interested in flash.) Wonder if that's still his lifestyle? Fairly pragmatic, and I'm all for pragmatism.

[JollyGreenBully]

Ok. What are the facts? I'm curious to hear your version.

Off topic comment removed

Thanks for creating this thread Omni. I haven't been following the candidates that much and have learned a lot reading here and watching the debate you posted.

[GordonH]

What's up with Kevin not attending any of the official Conservative debates, does he actually want to be leader of the Party.
Members of Conservative Party of Canada deserve to hear from everyone running for the Leadership.
Yes, with 14 candidates it can be a challenge. That's just something each candidate needs to deal with.

[maryjane48]

im working for kelly leitch and some the wannabee conservatives do not have canadian values and will be deported to the whitehouse

[rustled]

What's up with Kevin not attending any of the official Conservative debates, does he actually want to be leader of the Party.
Members of Conservative Party of Canada deserve to hear from everyone running for the Leadership.
Yes, with 14 candidates it can be a challenge. That's just something each candidate needs to deal with.

His explanation was interesting. There's no opportunity for anything of substance, just lip service, with the current format. Lots of opportunity for sound bites and rote answers, but not for thoughtful discussion.

Our world is full of sound bites and rote answers, very short on thoughtful discussion, sparring instead of collaborating.

Maybe there's a better way to choose a leader.

[Barney Google]

His explanation was interesting. There's no opportunity for anything of substance, just lip service, with the current format. Lots of opportunity for sound bites and rote answers, but not for thoughtful discussion.

Our world is full of sound bites and rote answers, very short on thoughtful discussion, sparring instead of collaborating.

Maybe there's a better way to choose a leader.

Interesting that there were reported 500 attendees at the debate and 250 across the street at the

same time listening to Kevin speak.

I get Kevin's beefs about the format but at some point if he's truly serious,

he's gonna have to "play ball", at least some of the time, the way the Conservative want it played.

I think there are far too many candidates in the Con Pool right now and some weeding needs to be done.