Top Liberal defects to Tories

IkeaMan @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:16 pm

SamIAm SamIAm:

Waaaaa! Waaaaa! :cry:

Cry you little babies. Harper asked him before the election to come over if they won to run the Finance department. Now folks, this guy has had the magic touch and every job he's taken has fourished. Consider some of the other front runners and their abilities. At least Emerson has a proven track record.

Besides, politics is a blood sport. To even consider being a politicians normally means you've sold your soul. you guys are talking like these guys are saints and all have been blessed by the pope himself. Get real. Would you rather sit in second place and do nothing for two years, or sit in the cabinet and have a major say in what happens. Any of you deciding to sit on your ass for two years should stop bullshitting yourself and take the path David Emerson took.

Good luck David. Nice run for office. :wink:

We've got a real hot barn burner started here.....I love it! [cry]

PluggyRug @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:22 pm

There should be a by (buy) (bye) election.
Standards need to be met.

Tricks @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:24 pm

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

There should be a by (buy) (bye) election.
Standards need to be met.

I agree.

Canadaka @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:25 pm

Delwin Delwin:

This all seems very undemocratic to me, instead of winning the riding, the cons just offer cabinet seats to the other parties who did win. This guy's constituents really got cheated out of the democratic process. Only 2 weeks after t he election, he swithches sides after running under a totally different platform, esentially flip-flopping on every promiss he made. If he is a conservative, he should have ran as one, considering he knew both party platforms when he ran. There should be a referendum in his riding.

I agree

$1:

Emerson has to step down and an immediate by election needs to be held in his riding. Win or lose, it will demonstrate an adherence to a code of conduct that the Conservatives said they would bring to government.

I agree, and if they don't it will be held against the cons.

Delwin @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:27 pm

It shouldn't be too expensive for emerson to hold a by-election, he can just edit his pamphlets by adding "I will not", to every statement he made.

VitaminC @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:39 pm

Delwin Delwin:

It shouldn't be too expensive for emerson to hold a by-election, he can just edit his pamphlets by adding "I will not", to every statement he made.

There is zero chance of them holding a by-election in my opinion....

That riding was a close race between NDP and Liberal, with Emerson winning by 2000 votes....

CBC did interviews with ppl on the streets in his riding and they seemed pretty pissed....I doubt he would have a chance at winning in a by-election.

Chumley @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:44 pm

He probably wouldn't win in a by election, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. If the majority of people in his riding voted him in because he represented the liberal party, then he is not representing the people who elected him. If the people voted for him because they believed in him more than they believed in his party then that would be a different story. But how to say? Maybe a vote to see if a vote should be held??

TheGup @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:46 pm

People seemed pretty pissed in Newmarket - Aurora, too. We all know where that went.

And even the babblers are saying that he'd probably win in the event of a byelection.

By the way:

The Liberals criticising Conservatives (Delwin) for taking someone who switched sides, you get a big :roll: .

And the Conservatives trying to defend this, you also get a big :roll: .

Pretty lame on both sides.

Delwin @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:47 pm

Harper needs a Vancouver rep in his cabinet, even if it is a MP who was given zero mandate by his electorate to represent them as a conservative. I'm going to have to side with his people on this one, this guy is an a$$hole.

hamiltonguyo @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:50 pm

belinda did it part way through although you can argue about her motives...it clearly was not an attempt to turn a loss into a win with a cheap jump from party to party...BUT i dunno i fhes a good enough minister I could excuse him from wriggling his way into office...

Tricks @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:00 pm

lily lily:

Tricks Tricks:

lily lily:

$1:

but I see more of a reason for emerson then belinda.

Again... why? Last time you mentioned the timing. That's irrelevant.

What makes Emerson's crossing more acceptable than Stronach's... other than the direction?

How is timing irrelevant? One was while the liberal government was hanging in the balance. One was before the government was sworn in and had nothing to do with issues. The guy wants to be in a winning party, belinda wanted to be treated like a queen because she saved the libs ass.

Your opinion (and bias) is very clear, Tricks.

I know it is, but I can openly admit it

Tricks @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:07 pm

lily lily:

Admitting bias is not admirable, Tricks. It means you support the party blindly and will make excuses for them.

It makes you an apologist.

compared to posting that cartoon you did earlier, mine pales in comparison. I support the conservative platform. I don't like either of them crossing the floor. I just see more of a reason for emerson to cross. My opinion, i have stated my reasons and you choose not to accept them. If that is bias, then yes, I am bias. If I don't agree with it, how am I an apologist?

VitaminC @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:35 pm

Chumley Chumley:

He probably wouldn't win in a by election, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

What should happen has nothing to do with it. If they decided to have a by-election it would be like admitting they were wrong. And if Emerson ended up losing it would be a huge embarrassment.....

I say no way it will happen.

Tricks @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:49 pm

lily lily:

Tricks Tricks:

lily lily:

Admitting bias is not admirable, Tricks. It means you support the party blindly and will make excuses for them.

It makes you an apologist.

THe cartoon was on another thread. I had a reason for posting it, and will discuss it there if you like.

You're an apologist because you make excuses for 2 different people doing the same thing for the same reason because one belongs to your party and the other doesn't.

That's actually pretty clear.

I have made excuses for both because I don't believe they are bad people. I think I would still be saying the same thing if it had gone the other way. Though I cannot say for sure. I don't like what they did, and I think they should have had a by election in both cases. You are trying to defend the rights of the muslims to burn shit to the ground. That makes you an apologist.

Tricks @ Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:05 pm

lily lily:

I think you had better read not only what I'm writing... but what you're writing as well.

[?] Clearly my lack of intelligence fails to see what the hell you are getting at.

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

Board index » Politics » Canadian Politics