If you signed up to vote in the Conservative Party for leadership, here is a run down I’ve done of what each Candidate on the Ballot stands for. Also, remember when Voting, to only VOTE FOR THE TOP TEN PEOPLE not anyone you wouldn’t choose! Since there is 14 candidates, you only have 10 top spots for voting.
Chris ALEXANDER: Former MP who lost his seat last election, voted against Stephen Woodworth’s Motion 312 (to study the definition of human life), so NOT pro-life (hopefully pro-choice!). Has spoken out against M-103 (on Islamophobia). Didn’t have the opportunity to vote on the issue of assisted suicide, but didn’t oppose or promise to re-visit it. Did pledge as immigration minister to favour refugee claims from LGBT Russians after the country introduced its “gay propaganda” law. Wants to find resources for
Indigenous Peoples because “If you can find resources for Syrian refugees, you can find resources for indigenous people.“
Does not have a pro-life voting record, and is pro-choice. He would welcome debate on other ideas, including abortion, supply management and privatizing Canada Post. Voted against C-14 which legalized assisted suicide. Bernier supported Motion 12, which would have re-opened debate on the definition of marriage in 2006, he spoke out in favour of dropping the old definition at the 2016 convention. He marched in Toronto’s pride last summer. Unfortunately he has tweeted:
“Our immigration policy should not aim to change the cultural character and social fabric of Canada, as radical proponents of multiculturalism want.” AKA: He’s xenophobic. Wants to cap immigration to 250,000 per year. Wants to support 35 million Canadians not Agriculture producers, believes in a mixed health care system, with private and public, elimination of federal health taxes and make each province in charge of their own services. Wants the military to get 2% - not sure if that’s 2% of NATO target or Budget.
Bernier says indigenous people should be responsible for their own prosperity rather than the government giving millions of dollars. There should be property rights on reserves and it’s unacceptable to still have boil water advisories in First Nations communities, says Quebecers are highest taxed and he would lower the tax so they can come out of poverty, he has been accused of being too much like Trudeau, apparently.
“While I support the position of our party not to reopen the debate, I respect the freedom of members on matter(s) of conscience.” Seems Pro-Choice. While he voted FOR Motion 12, he later retracted and said he was open for discussion on the meaning of marriage. Voted against C-14, and would rather see people die by their own will instead of through legally assisted suicide. Seems against Immigration, as well. Also wants women to uncover their face during ceremonies, and wants to “take back power” of Canada.
Michael CHONG: Best candidate so far, Pro-Immigration, Pro-choice, Pro-Same-sex Marraige, Pro-Transgendered rights, Pro Assisted Suicide. Really good french, apparently. Supports Indigenous peoples and wants them to have more rights, education and funding.
Kellie LEITCH: Pro-life, Anti-Immigration, Anti-Assisted Suicide, hateful rhetoric typical xenophobic trying to promote “Canadian Values” for screening of immigrants. PRO TRUMP. Approves dismantling of health care and thinks Climate change is a hoax.
Pierre LEMIEUX: Does not support any access to abortion under any circumstances! Anti-same sex marrage, and assisted suicide. Wants to repeal Transgendered rights bill, thinks Canadians are worried about terrorists and wants to improve security, plus reduce immigration and wants immigrants to speak french or english to be let in.
Pro-Immigration, Pro-choice, Pro-Same-sex Marraige - believes in equal human rights for all, Pro-Transgendered rights, Pro Assisted Suicide. Apparently his french is bad, though. Supports
peoples and wants them to see more rights and funding.
Kevin O’LEARY: Our of the race, thank god.
Erin O’TOOLE: Pro-life but says he will not bring his beliefs into legislation, meaning he wouldn’t stop abortions, Supports Same-sex marriage, against assisted suicide, wants immigration levels to be “stable,” and needs to maintain public security, doesn’t like that Canadian’s pay too many taxes and has a health care plan he wants to introduce, and supports supply management.
Rick PETERSON: Vancouverite, fluent in french, business man, not pro-life, “knows how to balance a budget,” supports same sex marriage, supports assisted suicide, says he wants to show Trump that they want American investments, wants to give agriculture tax breaks, wants to finance security to stop “bad people” from coming to Canada, and let the “good ones” in, wants to eliminate corporate business tax and believes this will help
peoples, believes that we will grow poor under Trudeau, just like Trudeau’s father let down Canada before.
Lise RAITT: Not generally concidered Pro-life, is for same sex marriage, against assisted suicide, she says Canadian’s are more upset about economic issues not immigration, French is okay but shaky, agreed with Bernier’s statement that ‘Indigenous Peoples should be responsible for their own prosperity, and not be given money, but that there shouldn’t be water-boiling alerts on reserves,’ but also is more concerned about general economic issues than specific
Indigenous issues. Believes Trudeau will leave debt for her children to pay for and doesn’t want that.
Andrew SAXTON: Pro-life, spoken against Islamophobia - saying that we need to stop criminals and terrorists from coming in, capping the immigration numbers at 250,000, says he’s a business man and can handle Trump. Seems really shady about putting anything down solid. Says that MP’s should be able to vote with their conscience, but doesn’t want to re-open anything the government has put through already.
Andrew SCHEER: Pro-life, voted in favour of re-opening the debate of what marriage should be considered (wants it to be between a man and a woman), against assisted suicide, wants to focus on security and to integrate immigrants into our communities.
Brad TROST: Pro-life, against same sex marriage, against assisted suicide, wants to work with Trump and says he will not be hard, believes Radical Islam is a clear and present danger to Canadians, thinks the entire system relating to
Indigenous Peoples needs to be redesigned, has very bad French.
I’ll try and simplify the healthcare debate and where we’re at right now (July 26).
Yesterday, McCain and Pence cast the deciding votes to begin debate on repeal and replace. The vote was 51/50. Before McCain came back and Pence came in for the tiebreaker, the debate could not have moved forward.
The vote yesterday wasn’t a vote on a particular bill, it was just a motion to move forward. It’s sort of like releasing the Kraken. The Kraken has not eaten anyone yet, but the gates, which were formerly very strong, are now opening.
There are several ways the Republicans can move forward now:
Repeal Obamacare without replacing it (already voted on)
Repeal Obamacare with a replacement that will severely cut Medicaid, kick 30+ million off insurance and lower taxes on the rich (House version)
Repeal Obamacare with a replacement that will severely cut Medicaid even worse, kick 20+ million off insurance and lower taxes on the rich (Senate version)
“Skinny repeal” (kicking 15 million off insurance in the short term and many more in the longer term)
Some unholy mixture of the above
They’ve already held a vote on repealing without replacing, but everyone already knew that wouldn’t pass. What they’re doing now by forcing votes on many different versions is finding out where each Republican lies and how many people they’re OK with killing. This is also crucial for Republican primaries. Right wing groups will record how each Republican votes, and the ones deemed insufficiently devoted to killing poor people will be scored badly, which means they might be challenged more successfully by more conservative candidates when election time comes. Democrats and allies will also be keeping track of votes to pressure in the opposite direction, but since many Republicans are in “safe” seats, they don’t have to care about that.
All we can do is block and delay from this point. But successful blocking and delaying is still possible, and we have to keep blocking and delaying until we can change the balance of power in the Senate.
Since Republicans took control of the U.S. House seven years ago, Democratic campaign officials have shown little interest in working with a small group of fiscal conservatives in their party to gain more seats.
But with Democrats clawing to reclaim the majority, that’s starting to change. The party’s House campaign arm is now building close ties with the previously ignored Blue Dog Coalition – which boasts that it’s not afraid to buck Democratic leadership – to prepare for next year’s elections, when all 435 seats in the chamber are up for grabs.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and party leaders are coordinating candidate recruiting and mentoring with the Blue Dogs. Both sides say there is a shared understanding that winning as many seats as possible in 2018 is more important than any Democratic purity test for potential candidates.
This is the Democrats’ agenda. Becoming a more thoroughly conservative party. Running conservative candidates as Democrats. They aren’t interested in socialization of shared goods that are treated as economic goods, which is what working class people need in the short term. They are interested in power and career stability. The party is interested in jettisoning its progressive reputation (which was never well-earned. I mean in my lifetime, the three Democrat presidents were not what you can call progressive.)
Eagle Scout Project benefits Greater sage-grouse and partnerships
When it came time to choose his Eagle Scout Service Project last year, 16-year-old Kolton Dahl had a pretty good idea that he wanted to do something related to the Greater sage-grouse.
Now in his junior year at Burns High School, Dahl had worked closely with Andrew Shields - a wildlife biologist at the Roaring Springs Ranch and an Eagle Scout himself - on projects monitoring Greater sage-grouse that call the ranch and neighboring public lands home.
South Korean Prosecutors Summon Ousted President Park Geun-hye
South Korean prosecutors on Wednesday summoned ousted President Park Geun-hye for questioning about a corruption scandal that led to her dismissal last week.
Park had been summoned to appear for questioning at 9.30 a.m. (0030 GMT) on 21 March, the prosecutors’ office said in a text message to the media.
South Korea is all set to hold a presidential election on 9 May to replace the impeached Geun-hye.
Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn, who has also been acting president since December, said earlier he would not run for president in the election. Hwang had emerged in opinion polls as a top conservative candidate even though he never declared an intention to run.
South Korea Upholds Park’s Impeachment
South Korea’s Constitutional Court upheld the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye on Friday, removing her from office over a graft scandal involving big business that has gripped the country for months.
Park is South Korea’s first democratically-elected leader to be impeached. A presidential election will be held in 60 days, according to the constitution.
The scandal has preoccupied the country for months, at a time when rival North Korea is pushing ahead with its missile programme and tension is brewing with China over a US missile-defence system being deployed in South Korea.
Park, 65, has been accused of colluding with a friend, Choi Soon-sil, and a former presidential aide, both of whom have been on trial, to pressure big businesses to donate to two foundations set up to back her policy initiatives.
She is also accused of soliciting bribes from the head of the Samsung Group for government favours, including the backing of a merger of two Samsung affiliates in 2015, that was seen to support the succession of control over the country’s largest “chaebol” conglomerate.
Did you see what Michelle Obama said? 'Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice' ?
i can only feel disappointment for any woman who actually looks to what a wealthy liberal has to say as an establishment sanctioned figurehead of womankind
women are a little over half of the population and yet get treated like a powerless minority who needs powerful figures to dictate to them how they should and shouldnt vote
you dont see rich, powerful men speaking to other men about how men should vote because he speaks for the *male voice*. its just assumed that men are responsible enough to vote according to their own interest and level of awareness - and they are respected for that. Hell, often times, men will vote for women because that woman’s voice speaks to them more than the male opponent of hers and yet, no male media-darling figurehead will crawl out a shit gutter to go AHEM MEN, YOU VOTED AGAINST YOUR OWN VOICE.
its all part of how liberals frequently infantilize women as a whole; as a group who should be dictated to rather than respected for their agency and informed opinions.
Alot of women voted trump, most white women did. Get over it. It’s not because those women are broken, listless and stupid, its because hillary was a fucking terrible candidate. THATS LITERALLY ALL THERE IS TO IT, BUT LIBERALS CANT HANDLE THAT
does it mean for us as women that we look at those two candidates, as
women, and many of us said, that guy, he’s better for me, his voice is
more true to me,” Obama said.
and? why is that inherently wrong to think? if you are conservative woman, of course the conservative candidate is more likely to speak to your own values. This liberal entitlement to a woman’s vote is disgusting and elitist
“Well, to me that just says you don’t like
your voice. You like the thing you’re told to like.”
hilariously enough, Michelle Obama here tells you that you shouldnt vote for who you are told to like…. while simultaneously telling you who you SHOULd as a WOMAN are to like?
how cfucking mindnumbingly smug, patronizing and inconsistent is that?
I fucking hate women or leftists who supposedly represent feminist values who end up treating other women like dumb cattle who are too irresponsible to think for themselves
so basically the four competitive turkish parties are as follows, in order of popularity:
AKP: erdogan’s party, describes itself as socially conservative, economically liberal party. islamist, “neo-ottoman”
CHP: “the founding party of turkey,” social-democratic, kemalist, republican, etc.
MHP: fascist, racist, pan-turkist, far-right, nationalist, anti-communist, “eurosceptic.” also called “grey wolves” (they have a paramilitary wing called the grey wolves), responsible for massacres of dissidents, particularly religious/ethnic minorities like alevis
After seeing the satirical gif set about ‘suppressing republican votes’, it actually got me thinking.
We need to vote.
Whether or not you agree with him politically, in the words of Bernie Sanders - “Republicans win when people don’t vote.” Throughout history, conservatives have used scare tactics to suppress liberal votes. Whether it was through Jim Crowe Laws, the KKK, or “Your Vote Won’t Matter” propaganda, Conservatives have desperately tried to keep liberals away from the booths. On top of this, many young people in America don’t even vote to begin with.
We are facing a crisis, people. In this next election there is a VERY LARGE possibility that one of two conservative candidates (Ben Carson and Donald Trump) could get elected. These people believe vaccines cause autism, that gun control will lead to genocide, that we should deport 11 million people, that we should build a 3 trillion dollar wall, that the wealthiest .5% of 1% of America should only pay 10% taxes, that corporate taxes should be eliminated, that Carbon Taxes should be eliminated, that global warming isn’t a problem, that we should mobilize the Sixth Fleet (a nuclear war fleet) in the Mediterranean, that we should antagonize Russia, that we should cut social security, that we should cut education, that we should cut equal and affordable health care, that we should ignore blatant civil rights violations, that we should deny human rights to people because of their gender or sexual orientation. They believe a woman cannot control her own body - and they should be punished by the actions of criminals. They believe that rape-culture isn’t a problem, that women need to “get over it.” They believe there’s no racism, they believe there’s no antisemitism, they believe the only problems are that a black man is sitting in the Oval Office.
These people have been endorsed by the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Terrorists, and supremacists as the “Only hope for a white America”.
And these people are counting on you not to vote.
They expect to rise to power by the silence of all of us - they expect us to think our opinions don’t matter.
The Declaration of Independence states that we have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If you think these rights are upheld by the conservative candidates, and you feel like all of the previous platforms I’ve stated are correct, then by all means - vote for them.
But if any of you, like myself, feel as though your ability to live freely, happily, and healthy will be harmed if these candidates are elected, I beg of you to take a stand and vote against them.
United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” If we abolish our fear of failing, our fear that “we won’t make a difference” and our fear that “We can’t make a change”, then perhaps we can begin to succeed, and we can vote these people out. Fear is an interesting tool because, for good or for bad, it can inspire the greatest change.
Voter apathy is a go to tactic for the conservatives. They have religious conviction on their side so even if they never have the ‘perfect candidate’, conservative voters believe so staunchly in a handful of popular topics that they will vote straight ticket regardless. Liberals on the other hand want a candidate who will fall in with the left view completely but will never get that and end up voting third party, joke voting, or not voting at all (sometimes as a form of protest! which is pointless!). We’re never getting a perfect candidate. It’s not happening. It’s shitty. It’s shit that our system is set up so voting for who you actually want to represent you is essentially voting for the other team. It’s shit that the most popular liberal reps are actually moderate right wingers.
It’s shit but it’s how it is right now, and unless you want to pursue a career of politics/law the only worthwhile way to play the shit game and have some sort of chance is to fucking vote.
can you tell me who's the most LGBT friendly and progressive party?
incidentally, it’s pride here in ottawa this weekend. good timing. :)
the NDP has a reasonably coherent lgbt policy. highlights include a pledge to end discrimination against lgbt refugee applicants; end lgbt discrimination in the legal system; and investing in programs for lgbt crisis relief (i want to be absolutely clear that when i use this phrase i mean “lgbt folks struggling to survive”; i know so-called “rehab” centres can be called ‘crisis centres’ and i am NOT referring to those). my usual criticism of NDP platform statements is that they’re not specific enough, but this isn’t bad, though there are not nearly enough specifics when it comes to rights for trans folks. still, they show a pretty decent understanding of the nuances of the needs of lgb persons and groups.
there are seven out, confirmed lgbt ndp candidates running for seats this election. the two MPs who currently share the duty of lgbt policy critic in the NDP opposition, dany morin and randall garrison, are both openly gay. the NDP has been the first party to have an lgbt critic in the shadow cabinet, and they are the only party with a commission specifically concerned with lgbt policy and politics.
historically, NDP’s been good for lgbt policy too. tommy douglas was the first to call for the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1967. libby davies, svend robinson, and bill siksay are examples of former NDP MPs who made pretty great strides for lgbt rights in canada. robinson, apart from being publicly vocal about the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, sponsored the inclusion of hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation under protection of canada’s federal legislation in 2004 after advocating for it since 1983. siksay repeatedly introduced Bill 389, “to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression,” until it was passed in 2009-2010. davies repeatedly introduced discussion of lgbt issues as part and parcel of her MP duties.
but, to reiterate, policies that cater specifically to trans and gender variant people are still largely lacking in ndp initiatives. among the gaps that still need to be covered for trans folks include laws against employment discrimination; provision of affordable shelter; increased crisis relief and outreach; the removal of barriers to changing birth certificate, passport, and driver’s licence inaccuracies; insurance coverage for therapy (if desired), hormones (if desired), and surgical procedures (if desired); better provision of health care in general; increased access to services; and so on. here is a petition from transequalitynow on what governments need to start providing to trans folks in canada. i do not have firsthand experience of the barriers encountered by trans folks in canada and welcome asks pointing out areas where all politicians must improve.
the green party have made several clear promises about how they will provide for lgbt folks:
Green Party MPs will:
-Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to explicitly include gender identity and gender expression as protected grounds of discrimination;
-Amend the Criminal Code to include gender identity and gender expression in the hate sentencing and hate propaganda provisions;
-Repeal s.159 of the Criminal Code [that stipulates age of consent for anal sex is 18 on grounds of “corruption of the youth”];
-Support public education to end prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity;
-End the targeting by Canada Customs of LGBTQ+ bookstores and other LGBTQ+ businesses;
-Ensure Canada advocates internationally for an end to state-sanctioned discrimination and violence against LGBTQ+ people. [x]
so, very similar to ndp priorities, but less is explicit with the greens than it was with the ndp. this may be because of ndp’s committee devoted entirely to lgbt policy. i thought it would be interesting to see a point by point comparison of npd versus green promises, so here’s a handy chart:
ndp and green may support other policies that are just not explicitly listed on the party webpages, so listen carefully to debates and statements as the campaigning goes on for issues that matter to you.
liberals: historically they’ve been good for lgbt rights, too. pierre trudeau tabled the bill to decriminalize homosexual acts in 1967 (enabled by Tommy Douglas, an NDPer) and passed it in 1969. he also removed homosexuals from the list of inadmissible immigrants in 1978. jean cretien passed protections on the grounds of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1995-96 (the motion originated with the conservatives in 1992-1993, though). chretien also modernized the definition of common law partnership to approximately equal the rights of marriage after one year of cohabitation for same-sex couples in 1999. paul martin more or less enabled same-sex marriage to be legalized in 2004-05. these aren’t small victories. the liberals have historically been instrumental in advancing gay rights in canada.
however, these days they’re being a little quieter about advancements in lgbt policy. it’s not that justin trudeau is against gay rights; he’s well known for being broadly in support of lgbt rights. it’s more that googling “justin trudeau gay rights” comes up with really alarmist pro-life websites deploring that his support of gay rights goes against his catholic upbringing. he’s being quiet enough about it that it is not the top result when searching for his name + the policy in question.
there are and have been many gay liberal MPs. i think the best way to summarize liberal support of lgbt policy is that they’re inclined toward policy that most affects lgbt members of the middle class. that matters! i’m not trying to deplore the advances liberals have made, or the fact that the party is likely to support lgbt bills that are introduced to the house. but lgbt poverty is unlikely to be much addressed by trudeau’s liberals, and i’ll be surprised if they table many lgbt rights bills themselves.
the conservatives are famously uncharitable toward lgbt folks, but they haven’t done nothing. mulroney repealed the ban on gay and trans folks in the military by mulroney in 1992, and kim campbell made a genuine effort to include protections on the grounds of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1992-1993 before she was unceremoniously shuffled out of office. but they’re, unsurprisingly, historically the least supportive party of lgbt rights.
i won’t belabour the point on how the conservatives have worked against lgbt folks. suffice to say that after same sex marriage was legalized by supreme court decision in 2005, stephen harper, then opposition leader, said, “same-sex marriage is not a human right,” and that “when elected Prime Minister […] I will bring in legislation that will define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” and then…
On the first day of the 2006 federal election campaign, the Conservative leader promised to put the Charter rights of gay Canadians to a free vote in Parliament. Harper’s position had been that civil unions would be a suitable substitute – “separate but equal,” you know – but the fact remains that just a simple majority could have been the beginning of the end of marriage equality.
The Conservatives won the election. The vote happened. But the majority of MPs had already moved on.
Stephen Harper soon did the same; the most the Prime Minister has since said on the subject is that he does not plan to say anything at all. “We have no intention of further opening or reopening this issue,” he said last year. [x]
all this doesn’t mean there aren’t gay candidates. scott brison was a conservative MP at the time that he fought quite publicly with other conservative candidates about their opposition to same-sex marriage. he’s no backbencher either; he was a contender for the leader of the Progressive Conservatives before they merged with Alliance in 2004. however, he ultimately crossed the floor to the liberals and became the first openly gay cabinet minister under paul martin, so that might say something about how great he felt being gay and conservative.
in conclusion, ndp and green have the most coherent lgbt policies; bloc supports lgbt motions as a matter of policy; liberals are pro-lgbt but have significantly less coherent policies; and the conservatives offer the least to lgbt constituents.