Hey Tories, drop the marijuana issue: pollster

André Turcotte has some bad news for the Conservatives: attacking Trudeau isn’t going to work

marijuana

Conservatives gathered in Ottawa for the annual Manning Networking Conference heard grim news today from pollster André Turcotte, who told them more Canadians are identifying with the Liberals—and that attacking Justin Trudeau over his support for legalizing marijuana isn’t the way to stop his party’s rise.

Turcotte, a professor at Carleton University in Ottawa with a long association with the right side of the political spectrum, said 31 per cent of Canadians he surveyed late last year generally identify with the Liberal party, 26 per cent with the Conservative party and 18 per cent with the NDP. When he asked the same question about which party Canadians most closely identified a year earlier, 26 per cent said Liberal, 25 per cent Conservative and 17 per cent NDP.

He urged Conservatives at the Manning conference to focus on issues that might help them regain momentum after a tough year, such as the challenges of an aging population. But on the energy Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s strategists have been expending attacking what they seem to see as one of Trudeau’s main vulnerabilities—the Liberal leader’s preference for decriminalizing marijuana–Turcotte warned that they are on the wrong track. Here he explains to reporters why no politician really wins by focusing on a file most voters regard as unimportant:




Browse

Hey Tories, drop the marijuana issue: pollster

  1. Cons have a tin ear for politics and for Canada….always have had.

    • And the Conservatives have the majority government, go figure.

      • Bloc Alberta, that’s why. Nobody else voted for them

        • Justin’s supporters have such a solid grasp of reality.

          That’s right. Outside of Alberta, Harper got no votes.
          And Justin’s unicorns will bring us “growth”.

          • LOL Rural types, sure.

            However 6 out of 10 Canadians didn’t vote for your Colonel Blimp

          • The same was true for Chretien.

          • LOL psssst Jim….your pants are on fire.

          • Chretien won 3 majorities with 40% of the vote +/- about 1.5%.

            LPC (Chretien)
            2000: 40.8%
            1997: 38.5%
            1993: 41.3%

          • Harper won’t

          • I didn’t say anything about Harper. I commented on Chretien winning 3 majorities with approx the same percentage of vote as Harper did.

          • Harp is the only rightwing party….the majority in this country voted centre-left

          • If NDP and LPC supporters were that interchangeable, there would not be 2 separate parties.

            At any rate, to get back on track, how exactly were my pants on fire?

          • NDP frequently vote Lib….probably some Libs vote NDP, no idea…..but again they’re talking merger

            Pants? I dunno Jim, you’re the one holding the matches.

          • *You* are the one that sad my pants were on fire, thus implying that what I said wasn’t true re Chretien winning majorities with about 40% of the vote (which of course he did).

          • I answered that Jim

          • Not really. You went off on tangents rather than stating precisely how you thought I was not being factual (which is presumably what you meant about pants being on fire).

          • Em likes to call other people liars when she gets caught in a whopper herself. Given the number of posts she makes, it happens several times a day. Don’t take it personally.

            If you want her to stop making stupid comments to you, ask her how her job as a Walmart greeter is going. She’ll get all huffy and stop talking to you ;-)

          • Meanwhile Trudeau is reaching to former Con voters. Whose side are you on anyway? Oh, that’s right you’re separating.

          • LOL whose side am *I* on?

            Put the white wine away JanBC, and get some rest.

          • Shank of the evening out here, dear. Sorry, I thought you wanted Harper gone.

          • I do. Always have.

            But in case you hadn’t noticed this site is alive with Con supporters…who campaign constantly. Why I don’t know because people on here don’t change position….but…..

            And in the meantime the Libs and NDP fight with each other…not very bright

          • Now why don’t the LPC and NDP get together and jointly support a move to preferential ballot voting (AV)? If the goal is indeed to see the CPC out of power, and kept out of power, then AV would be a logical step. And it would have the added bonus of actually making sense in a multiparty environment, unlike the current moronic FPTP system.

          • Because nobody wants it. I don’t know why you think they do.

          • I want it because it would put an end to vote splitting and produce majority governments in which the winner was everybody’s first or second choice.

            Why do you not want it?

          • Most people don’t want it because it would produce ‘pizza parliaments’, and it’s too complicated.

            I have been around for vote-counting….and I can tell you even putting an X in a circle is hard for many people.

            Either there’s a Lib/Dem merger….or one of them has to knock the other one out of the ring.

          • PR would produce pizza parliaments, which is why I don’t support it. But AFAICT AV would produce majority governments, and they would much better represent the will of the people than FPTP.

            It’s also not complicated to explain. You simply rank the people on the ballot in the order of your preference. Easy-peasy. Indeed if one believes that LPC and NDP supporters are mostly interchangeable, then this should be a no-brainer for the LPC and NDP to embrace.

          • Volunteer next time there’s an election….even a local one. See how people vote.

            In any case, it’s been voted on twice I think….in BC and Ont. People said no.

          • Ontarians voted against PR, not AV, I believe – there’s a big difference between PR and AV. And BCers was offered a
            bastardized form of AV. It is my *belief* that if people were offered straight, no-frills AV, they would accept it over FPTP.

          • They might….but frankly I don’t think most people are interested.

          • Jim_R, I have all kinds of studies and polls to back up my ‘belief’ that people want a more proportional system (not a full proportional system to be sure). Including an openness of all three parties now to look at various systems. Resolutions #31 AND #92 passed at the Liberal convention if you hadn’t heard. Also today in Brampton Ontario, Conservative MP Kyle Seebak will be hosting a “Town Hall on Proportional Representation and the Reform Act” at 2 p.m. at the Royal Canadian Legion, 80 Mary St.

          • Fascinating, Emily, that you don’t know the difference between PR and AV. I didn’t realize that. And how about we have both. We rank our candidates such that every MP is put into the HoC by a consensus of their constituents (to be noted, not necessarily the first choice of constituents) and parties are represented in a moderate proportion to first choice votes cast. It can be done, it isn’t rocket science to figure out how to vote, it wouldn’t create the pizza parliament you speak of with tons of new parties, and all three opposition parties are now very open to having a look at the best system for Canada. I say all opposition parties, but I’d like to point out that Kyle Seebak, a Conservative, is having a Town Hall today in Brampton called “Town Hall on Proportional Representation and the Reform Act” (2 p.m. Royal Cdn Legion, 80 Mary St). Also, we know Harper and Flanagan wrote “Our Benign Dictatorship” back when our dictator was benign, supporting proportional representation.

          • Being aware of the difference doesn’t mean I’m interested in it.

            If you want to spend your life chasing that idea, go ahead. I have other things to do.

          • Thanks for your permission, Emily. Good luck with your other things.

          • So many people with chips on their shoulder….Canadians have a culture of complaint, and that needs to change.

          • What colour are your glasses this morning? How is my comment showing a chip on my shoulder? How was that complaining?

          • LOL do you lot ever listen to yourselves?

          • Not on preferential balloting, they didn’t. You’re getting it confused with proportional representation.

          • Are you saying that Canadian voters are dumber than those in Australia? Because they seem to manage a ranked voting system just fine.

          • Voting in Australia is mandatory.

          • That is so, and also completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

          • Sigh…..well for one thing they have to learn how, don’t they….because they are required by law to vote.

            For another….if they don’t learn how and are just guessing at it…..that’s not good for the country. I have no idea how many ‘spoiled ballots’ there are in Oz

            And for all I know, they are taught how to do it in grade school.

          • None of these are good arguments for why ranked voting won’t work in Canada. It works in Oz. I’m of the perhaps controversial opinion that the majority of Canadians are well above the IQ of 85 and are capable of grasping the concept of first and second preferences. I would also be okay with interpreting a ballot with a single X marked (as we do now) as a single preference vote which would be disregarded in the event their chosen candidate is eliminated.

            And Emily, part of democracy means letting everyone vote, even if it means allowing the people who can barely tie their shoes an equal say.

          • Fine…..go volunteer at the polls next time.

          • Speak for yourself. Preferential balloting makes sense to anyone with half a clue. We haven’t had a truly representative government in decades; whichever party was in power was only there because they had the support of the largest minority set of voters.

            Those like me who want the change may be a minority, but we are a growing one. There are quite a few of us “nobodies”.

          • Thing is, Em, while you may not like Jim’s political stance, he was absolutely right with his numbers. Calling HIM a liar when he is clearly correct just makes YOU look the fool (as usual).

          • They are all statism parties, no real other options on the rigged ballot. There is left right and center, then there is libertarian, center and statism We only have statism on the ballot.

          • And he won a majority – that’s how it works. And most of us will be happy when the same system works against Harper.

          • Yes, that is exactly how it works. Now how was I not being factual?

          • Well, Emily gets out on these limbs and can’t find her way back to the tree.

          • Oops, thought I was responding to Emily. My apologies.

          • Disqus is malfunctioning – not showing who we are replying to. Fortinately, it’s pretty obvious on this discussion. And I just want to point to anyone following that you were having it out the other re Ukraine – we’re not exactly buds…

          • “We’re not exactly buds” is a fair way to put it.

          • She used to be janbc….and we were friends. I have no idea who JanBC is. Con operative probably. LOL

          • I have been JanBc since Macleans went to Disqus. I was bc on Bourque, which you claim to have no memory of. We were never friends.

          • Okay…..have it your way.

            Dungeon. Adios.

          • I don’t believe it’s a Con operative Emily, I think it’s likely young Hadrian, the newest member of the Trudeau Dynasty, kick starting his political career on the advice of Warren Kinsella.

            I think I mentioned earlier that everyone is using the nickname Wally in reference to young Hadrian out of respect for his historical antecedent, the construction minded Roman Emperor.

            By the way have you seen him? He looks a bit like Edward G. Robinson.

          • Correction – you and I were having it out…

          • I’ve already replied….but you and Jan are being too silly to listen.

          • No you haven’t. Please explain how I was not being factual.

          • Good, now explain it to Jim and we’ll all be happy.

          • Why don’t *you* explain why you thought I was not being factual?

          • No, you voted statism.

            Left and right is an illusion in Canada as all options on the ballot are limited to statism big fat huge inefficient government options. All the parties are statism, and want to manage people like hen chickens of state.

            Take Harper’s (and other PMs in the paste) stating “…it costs government…”

            Only way it could cost the government is if we are owned slaves of government and our income is really theirs. As it really costs government nothing, it costs the taxpayers.

            But we have the illusion of democracy and a rigged statism ballot. 3 placatory parties to present the false illusion of a difference where no difference really exists.

          • Since you are obviously Mr Statistics, could you dig up how many parliaments in the 20th century were conservative majorities?

            My guess is about 3 or 4 out of erm??? 30? like… 10%… just a guess mind you…

          • Amazing how people think things changed under Harper. Really, they haven’t changed at all. Change the politicians name, feed the old lies for new false hope and tax the people some more….same story for my 38 voting years.

            None of these politicians work for us, they work to manage us for statism. 3 placatory parties and not one party effectively for efficient, economical and effective government. Only solution they know is taxing us more for more governemtn bloat.

            Reason we don’t have money for young peoples jobs is our bloated governments are getting to much. Tax me for buying a job, I will spend less on someone else’s job.

            Politicians in Canada know the majority of voters are naive, easy to lead as they don’t vote for management of governemtn for them, they vote on fear, envy, greed and need to belong to a “party”.

            Democracy in Canada is a ruse. Like parliament, a very expensive stage show.

          • Liberals are THE party of fairy tales, lollipops and unicorns.

          • Who doesn’t like fairy tales, lollipops or unicorns?

          • If you’re a very young child.

        • Your province sent 70 odd Cons to Ottawa.

          • Ont has rural areas and ‘odd Cons’ as well.

          • Oh – so they don’t count? You said only Albertans vote Con – you might want to go back and correct that.

          • Gosh all these years you claim to have been on here, and you’ve never heard of ‘the Alberta attitude’…..interesting.

            Btw….you were leaving. Keep going.

          • Heard about – I believed I’ve railed about it frequently – but the fact is Ontario majorly determines who forms government – so you need to look at your own province. You have the seats, you’ve got to accept responsibility. Think a little, before you post.

          • No, actually it doesn’t….but either way I’ve got nothing to do with it. I’m a separatist….or did you forget that too?

            Think a little, before you post.

          • And she left in a huff…lol

          • You did? Good.

          • Nope. Fri night is my designated internet night.

          • Then don’t drink and post.

          • Seriously, you have to resort to that. Try defending the nonsense you post.

          • You’re the one that makes stupid off-topic attacks out of the blue m’dear….which clearly shows which of us is drinking.

          • No Conservatives elected in the GTA?

            Stop huffing the solvents Emily.

          • LOL another one who claims not to have heard of the ‘Alberta attitude’….which is rural.

          • You need help or euthanasia.

          • You need an education.

        • Actually, that’s crap. Alberta voted for conservative types all through the Chertien and Martin years as well.

          If you want to blame anybody for this majority, blame Ontario. They’re the ones who changed their votes and put the CPC in power, just like they’re the ones who’ll eventually turf them out.

          Alberta’s made itself into simply a progressive headwind in the country. We’ll never be truly “in” until we show we’re willing to change our votes.

          • Alberta went solidly Con…..Ont didn’t. Now we’re supposed to save you from yourselves?

            How long have you been Con provincially? Is Alberta ever likely to change it’s vote federally?

          • AB has always been solidly conservative – or at least, it has been for decades. So it is other jurisdictions that are the swing votes.

            It’s a dead-simple concept… one even you ought to be able to understand.

      • 61% of Canadians did not vote for them.

      • Every once in a while a horse that shouldn’t have even been in the race wins…

        Don’t forget who we are discussing here, the man is a separatist and he hates Canada and believes his province should drop out. Or.. was he just kidding?
        Of course he did have to purchase another political party to hide behind to get into federal politics… just saying… remember who you are defending, he isn’t even a real conservative,

    • Not all, just these fake conservatives. Not really much conservative about Conservative party really. They are a statism party like the others. Our ballot is rigged with 3 placatory parties all representing big inefficient government taxing and managing us like slaves. Only real result from voting is who gets more of our money for their buddies for doing less common good for it.

      But lots of money for uncommon good, buddy deals, bailouts, corporate and union welfare, money for nothign programs…. none represent the people who make this country work.

      Sad part is no one on the statism rigged ballot that will represent us.

      • Well that’s true. PCs, red Tories were ‘socially progressive, fiscally conservative’…..I was PC for 30 years

        Harpo’s bunch….not conservative, not Tory….just stupid.

  2. There may be a way for the cons to win, and they know it, its by getting rid of harper. Know the options are not all that great for the new slate of wanna be PMs, you have Kenny, who shuttles around the country on the taxpayers dime every day politicking for the con government, Brad the homophobe from sask., then you have James Moore, who is one of the only cons who has lost any weight last year, everyone else is still at the trough, and finally, Jim, he didn’t come back for you Prentice, who had to go out in the world of elites before he felt he had what it takes. This will be a blood bath, simply because of the size of their egos.

    • Why don’t you leave that sort of personalizing to the resident conbots? It looks better on them.

      • Yes, I had to remind somebody else of this today.

        • LOL and looked absurd doing it……

          • Sunny ways, dear.

          • I doubt that’s what your family calls it.

          • Find somebody else to spend the evening ranting at, I refuse to enable you.

          • LOL you never were able to finish what you started.

          • Maclean’s – PLEASE change your format so I don’t have to scroll through pages of chatter between these guys to get to the next thread!

          • Yeah, talking is such a problem.

        • Er, who’d that be? Is she behind me?

          • She`s right above you…lol

  3. It’s hard not to like Wall, but maybe, just maybe, he needs to go a little further west than he might normally go. That way he might realize that Trudeau’s decision to back the KM pipeline, but reject NG is not logically inconsistent at all. The latter faces huge obstacles, ones that wont be easily overcome with KM either, judging by some of the complaints coming out of the review process. If the Harper govt isn’t more careful they may well fail to get social license and buy in there too. How many freaking pipelines to the coast do you want before it becomes a farce to deny these pipelines will have a considerable effect on global emissions? You might be able to pull that one with keystone, but try it 3 or 4 times and you’ll have Neil back up here, idle no more back out and Rex forced to shill for CAPP yet again.

      • You’ve discovered that site too eh? Yeah i read about that a while back. The thing that bothered me the most was the letting go of De Sousa who was doing some really good work on that file….nothing CAPP gets up to would surprise me. I guess Peter O’Neil will be next? He did a great job of covering the Gateway review farce.

        • Nikiforuk has been pushed to the fringes but
          he’s still there.

    • I think somebody should come up with some sort of ocean immersion program that shows somebody like Wall exactly what magic the ocean is that can`t be understood unless you personally experience it. My parents were both from the prairies – came out after my father returned from WWII, and just fell in love with the whole environment. They bought a series of boats and I grew up spending every spring,summer,fall weekend exploring the coast and the gulf islands. You just can’t appreciate it by seeing pictures and videos – you have to get out there and see it, swim it, eat from it to really get what the FN feel about it.

      • Yep. You have to have been a BCer to know how much the province loves that coast. FNs more than anyone value it and know better than to take such a dumb risk with it.

        • Did you hear about the dead scallops and prawns out here – being blamed on the acidity of the ocean. When the scallops are opened they are – dead – and the shell is all rusty inside. Scary stuff.

          • Qualicum eh? Just down the road from my old stomping grounds, the Comox Valley.

      • I’ve worked with Brad Wall: he’s a very personable, witty, and bright fellow; he’s surprisingly conservative for someone of his age. He has no idea about what Canada is as a whole: our hugeness and our diversity. I’ve lived in three diverse regions of Canada; Brad’s from Swift Current. I know he’s going to try; I am confident he doesn’t get it, and likely can’t do it. I swear that half of his misunderstanding is based on the fact that our local media adore him; even a negative column leads with stating what a great, affable family man he is.

        • I have a very fond spot for Sask. I was shipped there every summer for a month (North Battleford) My uncle ran as Lib candidate I think a couple of times during Dief’s time, of course with no luck. So, politics were always being discussed. I go back every few years. What I like is that governments seem to be judged only on performance, without the polarization that we have out here. Brad seems to be a great booster for the province, but now the oil has pushed him to deal with the outside – like Washington and he seems a little out of his depth ( as do the other Premiers).

          • I have lived here far too long; I’m a Maritimer and one of these days, I hope to return to live on that land I still visit and pay taxes on every year. I find SK politics very polarized with a strong rural/urban split. I had more faith in Wall than I should have; he’s made decisions that have hurt our province and just for partisanship — I’m thinking here of his closing down our local public broadcaster, which had really grown the film and tv industry here, and delivered our distance education. And then he cancelled our film tax credit — we’ve lost so many producers; I read a stat that 1500 families have left the province to work in that industry elsewhere. But so far, things are still very rosy for Brad Wall, but not so rosy for any cultural, heritage, artistic industries in our province. And our cost of living has gone up exponentially the past few years and continues to climb at a far greater rate than anyone’s salaries are increasing.

          • The cost of living went up everywhere. Try Ontario under the Liberals…I mean criminals.

      • I am aware of several people in the Saskatoon area who would like to immerse Mr. Wall in the ocean :)

        • They’ll have to settle for the S. SK River.

  4. Don’t you love how Justin’s acolytes in the media have propped up this inherently flawed candidate to such a level that finding something…anything to attack him on like searching for the elusive holy grail?
    Justin being Justin. That will be enough. Yes the media can pretend away his utter shallowness and childlike intellectual capacity. But each time events such as “china is groovy man” or “hehe those dying Ukrainians are a riot” or “the Boston Bombers just need our love and understanding” occurs, the media charade that Justin is some serious candidate evaporates. And to think all of those events occurred in a softball environment.
    I for one can’t wait for Justin to make fools of the media come the hard slogging of an election campaign, when Canadians will rouse from their relative political slumber to pay attention to this great thinker the media has been telling them about.

    • You sir, are boring.

      • And repetitive …and boring…and repetitive …and boring…and…

    • The pollster being quoted was hired by the Cons. Personally, I’m hoping they don’t listen to him.

    • I wonder if they hand out oscars for building strawmen? It’s been a long time since wells kicked you off for repeatedly taking a dives, hasn’t it Chet?

  5. A single online poll taken in December is splashed around Canada’s media, with near euphoric reverence.
    I especially love the media clinging to the notion that the “gaffs” by Trudeau won’t affect voters. Get that Canadians? If a candidate will continually look like a buffoon on the campaign trail, that won’t matter.
    We might as well anoint our boy saviour now. It’s all but done.
    Oh the election will be fun to watch.

    • Yes it will. The CPC have long passed their “best before” date, but most haven’t realized it yet…

      It’s not that JT will win; it’s that Harper will lose. Most Canadians were never fond of him, and he’s turning more stomachs than ever before. Harper’s best hope is a NDP resurgence to split the center-left vote; that might be enough for him to hang on with a minority.

      • He’s “turning more stomachs”. Yes and I recall he was “destroying democracy” the last go ’round…in which his seat total increased.
        The partisan hatred shared by those on this site doesn’t seem to transcend to regular folk.
        Perhaps the political sky will fall on Harper as commenters here have been saying for the three previous elections. Though the track record is one in which the more dire the predictions of liberal commenters, the better Harper does.
        Harper will again increase his seats. The NDP will also gain, and the experiment to anoint a boy-child saviour will be a near death blow to the Liberal party.

        • He hasn’t destroyed democracy yet, but he & PP are working on it as we speak.

        • I just hope Harper keeps on the same tact – please keep encouraging him.

        • “The partisan hatred shared by those on this site doesn’t seem to transcend to regular folk”

          O the inhumanity of it all…when will Charles get a fair hearing?
          If irony could kill we’d be packing you in dry ice right about now Biffer boy.

      • Where did you get that BS? Harper will win again. Enough Canadians like his policies to give him another majority.

    • Methinks someone sounds a little too shrill and defensive. But then you always do, so maybe not!

    • its insulting to thik people would actually vote for JT fluff head

      • WTF?

      • lol because SH combover is so much better

        • the man boy child with pubes for a goatee

          • Pubs?

          • pubic hair

          • That pubes…pubs are where you go drinking beer. You’re welcome.

          • thanks man!

      • One wonders what you think of people voting for morbidly obese, crack-abusing, drunk-driving, criminal-associating, public-deceiving, spouse abusing mayors.

        • yeah your right, and even more grotesque is someone who pretends to be a good person and steals 1.1 billion $$ to save 2 seats

          • You’re referring to Harper’s G20 summit and gazebos in Muskoka? I couldn’t agree more.

          • no that wants stolen money, nore was it even close to 1.1 billion

          • Check the Wikipedia page. 858 billion dollars, which is about ten times what any other city spent to host a weekend summit.

            There is no example of any govt literally stealing a billion dollars in Canada. I know that sometimes it’s hard to grasp hyperbole. Both cases were just negligent waste.

          • almost a trillion $$$?? check your numbers LOLLL ahahhahaha. the cdn yearly GDP is barley a trillion a year. so your suggesting they spend all the money private/public sector a year in one riding??

          • Mistype, meant million, in line with the 1 billion mentioned earlier. You’re not one to talk, given your failure to learn the difference between your and you’re. Like I said, go read the Wikipedia article about G20 Toronto.

          • unlike the gas plants that helped absolutely no one and will lead to higher energy rates in Ontario. the money spent in muskoka actually had a benefit to the residents there as thing like cell towers and roads where fixed

          • That’s the Lieberal math.

          • What do you expect from Quebec Mafia that was hired to provide services and security?

          • I expect the government not to blow a billion dollars on a weekend summit. It makes hosting the Olympics seem prudent.

          • What do you expect from Quebec Mafia that was hired to provide services and security??

          • Perhaps unsurprisingly, I have low expectations of organized crime outfits. I’d like to think I could expect better from our government.

          • Lieberals entrenched it, and the Official Language Act perpetuates it.

          • So it’s the Liberal’s fault that the Conservatives spent a billion dollars on a weekend? Why should we elect non-Liberal governments if the Liberals are always accountable for government failures anyway?

          • You ask me? Ask Justin Trudeau why his father entrenched his mafiosi OLA in the Charter.

  6. Yeah – they were peppering the airwaves for about a week with a “concerned mother” worrying about “recreational drugs being made legal like liquor and cigarettes” with no apparent irony, while young kids played and school bells rang in the background [implication: JT wants to sell to five year olds!!!]

    The people I know mocked the ads for the sleazy obviousness of the background sounds. And of course there’s the fact that alcohol and tobacco are recreational drugs – both of which are more harmful and addictive than pot. Which raises the question: Are the Tories planning a New Age of Prohibition?

    It was laughable. And I think they probably heard as much from listeners, as the ads seem to have disappeared again.

    • I think they’re generally relying/preying on the inability of their support base to think critically. Indeed, why are the Tories not campaigning to prohibit alcohol and tobacco, which both do so much harm to our young people?

  7. Memo to headline writer: Please stop calling them Tories.

  8. Emily one wtf man let people talk on here I’m sick reading your arguments

  9. I am a small c conservation and want marijuana legalized.

    I see no reason for having police be used to help prop up prices for organized crime profits.

    Easiest way to eliminate the organized crime is to remove the profits. Economical too as it doesn’t require police state to do it.

  10. Only options on the ballot:

    Conservative statism manages us for their buddies.
    Liberal statism manages us for their buddies.
    NDP statism manages us for their buddies.
    Green superstate statism for junk science.

    So who do we vote for to get representation for the people who make this country work? Who manages not us, but manages government for us?

  11. Pingback: Podcast: Maclean's talks about the Fair Elections Act, Ukraine and other major stories of the week

  12. Pingback: The Conservatives' weekend of discontent - Macleans.ca

Sign in to comment.