09.28.2019 06:41 PM

A Twitter thread for #CPC none of whom will listen to me


  1. Martin says:

    I have some USANIAN friends that whine about Trump constantly. I say to them all the time that if they feel that strongly about it then they should get off their asses and social media and do what you are suggesting in point 4.

    And the same idiots who refer to liberals as libtards also want to see Jagmeet crushed. They clearly don’t understand the concept of a split vote on the left.

  2. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    It comes down to weighing your individual values and priorities: vote what you most care about and what’s closest to your heart: obviously, Scheer loses votes with his Energy Corridor and doesn’t gain any where it counts. If the economy is your number one, vote accordingly. If your own personal finances are issue one, vote accordingly. Ditto for climate change and for increased federal transfers for health care.

    But none of those issues get my vote: I simply want Trudeau out and that’s why I’m voting CPC, without any dogmatic conviction or personal happiness. I’m already impatient to see the back of Justin. Nothing matters more to me than that. But THAT’S just me.

  3. Martin says:

    Getting me wound up here. Anyone who feels very strongly about their politics and can afford a cup of coffee at Tim’s every day better at least be donating 400.00 to the party of their choice. That is 100.00 after tax. I mean, seriously, if you feel that strongly about something, shouldn’t you part with 100.00 to back that up. Obviously people don’t based on the Elections Canada finance reports.

    • Phil says:

      As someone who has regularly parted with $400 I completely disagree, to start Andrew Sheer should be seen HUGGING and KISSING Doug Ford.

      Ontario is a key to this election and there are a lot of us who are proud of the PC party putting a stop to the LIberal excess of Turdo’s kissing cousins in Queen’s park. These are not old school Liberals but left leaning Dippers who want a seat in government.

      Ford Nation is Bumbling at times sure but clearly an opponent to the clown prince and one that could shift the balance of power.

      Look at that PPC vote split, might be minor but in places like London and KW and Brampton (all of 905) and other less regressive cities than Toronto people may actually like a true conservative message that is genuinely different than the Liberals.

      A few more seats in Quebec had Mad Max been appeased and this may not be as tight a race as it is.

      Me, I HAVE kept that money in my pocket for the first time in five elections because I don’t see enough difference to get me marching like i did for Harper or Mike Harris or Dougie.

      I think a lot of Conservatives would like a conservative to be a lot more Harper and a lot less Trudeau in his policies.

  4. the real Sean says:

    Agreed. I’m starting to think that Ontarians in particular are getting a little obtuse about re-electing Liberals for at least ten years automatically no matter the level of absurdity. Like seriously people, WTF more evidence do you need that this government / PM are way – WAY off side of normal? I suspect the polls will move a bit one way or another this week coming up and things will solidify after thanksgiving. Its often after long weekends when people are talking to friends and family that elections shift, if they shift at all.

    • People are used to government scandals. The main things that distinguish Trudeau scandals is that they don’t involve wasting a lot of money.

      • Derek Pearce says:

        Wow, excellent point, and one I’ve never seen any pundit anywhere note.

      • Joe says:

        Trudeau has wasted billions

      • Vancouverois says:

        Don’t they?

        There have been subsidies to large Liberal-supporting corporations, the fake electoral reform committee whose recommendations were never going to be respected unless they supported a ranked ballot, and adding another $70 billion or so to our national debt, among other things.

        I’d say that’s plenty expensive enough. It’s just that people don’t count them, or take the time to add it all up.

        • Derek Pearce says:

          Voters know that any government even when Conservative gives billions in subsidies to companies even when they campaign like they won’t, duh, they’re not stupid.

          Electoral reform is a policy issue not a wasting money issue, so why did you even bring that up in the context of this thread?

          In 2019 a deficit under $20 billion is peanuts and the Conservatives have promised the same thing. They are loathe to scare voters with deficit-slaying.

          Compared to AdScam or the Gas Plant scandals, there’s no “there” there for a lot of people, who are cynical about the justice system and what it takes to save jobs (without spending money). In SNC’s case, this is to them about saving jobs through the justice system & not through spending.

          Those of us who are appalled by the whole DPA/SNC thing are too idealistic for real electoral politics.

          • Vancouverois says:

            I count electoral reform as a money-wasting issue because the committee was a waste of taxpayer money. It was an obvious sham from the very start.

            Trudeau never had any intention whatsoever of changing the system to anything other than ranked votes if he could get away with it, and it was clear he couldn’t get away with it. But rather than simply admit it and pull the plug, he wasted money on this charade.

  5. Vancouverois says:

    I agree with the observation: Scheer *should* be far, far ahead.

    But is the fact that he isn’t a comment on him, or more of a comment on Canadian voters?

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      It’s both.

      • Vancouverois says:

        But more the latter than the former, I think.

        It reflects poorly on Canadian voters that Trudeau is in this race at all. He should have been forced to resign back in February, when the SNC-Lavalin scandal came to light.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:


          Look up the main synonym for backbencher in the dictionary and you’ll find spineless sheep with minds uniquely focused on maximum pension access. They care about nothing else, regardless of party. It’s always about what can the taxpayer do for me, Mr. or Ms. MP????

  6. Gilbert says:

    I agree that Andrew Scheer should be way ahead, but the Conservatives don’t want to peak to soon. If the polls suggested they had a big lead, maybe supporters of the Green Party and the NDP would vote strategically and switch to the Liberals.

    Here are a few reasons why I think the Conservatives might win a majority. They’ll probably get very high turnout. We know that Conservative voters are highly motivated to vote.

    At the same time, Liberals voters might simply stay home. Young Canadians and First Nations voters probably won’t support Justin Trudeau to the same extent as in 2015. If more photos and more scandals come out before election day, that could also make a big difference.

    We still have about three weeks to go. If Andrew Scheer does really well in the debates and convinces undecided voters to vote for him, he’ll win the election.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      Scheer knows it’s going to be a pile on against him in the debates because he’s more than vulnerable on climate change. He’s lucky that’s not Canadians’ signature issue otherwise he’d be done for. The Greens and NDP can make hay with this. The Liberals, not so much, because of so many other extraneous mitigating factors that suppress their vote (all thanks to Trudeau). But, of course, all parties will not take Scheer at his word on abortion and try to scare voters so they don’t vote CPC.

      The debates will tell us if this election is going to remain a referendum on Trudeau. If Liberal numbers take off after the English-language debate, then the Liberals will likely be re-elected. However, if Justin can’t move the numbers after three debates, then his government is definitely toast.

      • Pedant says:

        Here’s a dose of reality.

        Nobody gives a flying f*** about climate change. Nobody aside from humanities students in their early-20s who were never going to vote Conservative anyway.

        People want to know how the government is going rein in Canada’s soaring runaway cost of living, including one of the highest housing cost to income ratios on the planet, and prevent foreign nationals from taking advantage of Canadian taxpayers be it through money-laundering or porous borders.

        • Just replace “Climate Change” with “the Jews” , and I’m sure that’s what the people of Germany where telling themselves in the 1930s, and they had the excuse that they where faced an actual severe economic crisis.

          • Pedant says:

            Erm not really, because nobody is using “climate change” as a scapegoat for anything. It’s simply not an important issue in Canada, especially since China and India are largely ignoring any agreed reduction in greenhouse gases. Worse yet is that climate religion takes much needed oxygen away from real environmental problems such as humanity’s plastic addiction or rainforest destruction in Indonesia.

            Though a question for you – does Canada’s mass immigration policy (highest per capita intake in the Western world after New Zealand) increase or decrease the country’s carbon footprint?

          • Canada’s immigration does increase our carbon footprint because they (or thier children) are lifted out of poverty.

            In China and India they are lifting people out of poverty by the hundreds of millions, which is why thier emissions will take longer to decrease (I wish they where doing better) But while we are looking at them, rest assured they are looking back at us with our wealth (gained from 200 years of fossil fuel use) and our failure to act.

        • Robert White says:

          The Ottawa region has experienced two 100 year flood events that were well off the Six Sigma crash scale of weather/snow melt distributions. Each unpredicted snow melt cost the region over $1 billion in weather event related civil infrastructure damages that have destroyed budgeting of governance at all three levels.

          I give a hoot about Climate Event damage & cost to taxpayers & governance.


  7. Derek Pearce says:

    The most accurate reply to your post was “more people are voting against Scheer than for Trudeau”. I believe this to be true as well. For one thing, Ontarians are having some noticeable collective buyer’s remorse with Doug Ford. There’s pretty much nothing the federal Cons can do about that.

    For another, most Canadians are centre-left voters, but also just a wee bit racist enough to be uncomfortable with a guy in a real turban as PM but ok with a guy in a costume turban as PM. This is a contradiction in terms (re centre-left) but there you have it.

    Lastly, Scheer is bland which we all know can work in Canadian politics, but there is something about his blandness that is just… I can’t put my finger on it… it’s not that he exactly comes across as untrustworthy (he’s too unknown to come across as much of anything yet)… maybe in politics the Devil you know really does win more often.

    But as the whole point of your twitter thread notes, the above things I mentioned make most CPC supporters just derisively sneer “Libtard”. Well folks that ain’t the way to win votes even if it comforts you for a split sec. The voters are always right.

    PS- the people replying to you that “polls lie” or “Trump wasn’t supposed to win but did” are wilfully blind. Those kind of people I’ll feel zero empathy for when they go to bed angry and disappointed on the 21st. We don’t have an electoral college to eff things up,and polls actually are generally fairly accurate. Ah, and as always when I post here I must make it clear I’m NOT voting for the Liberals.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      People are used to a clear-cut choice: disliking or liking Harper. No happy medium there. Easy to decide how to vote. Scheer is one big question mark. Not seen as politically threatening but with a personality not specific enough to clearly button-hole. That makes some voters nervous. Scheer absolutely has to make his mark in the debates by clearly defining himself in a way that Canadians are comfortable with. That’s HIS enormous challenge. He hasn’t done so yet. As long as Canadians are uneasy, it’s leaving an huge opening for the Liberals. Scheer MUST seal the deal in the debates. Otherwise…

  8. Peter says:

    Has anyone here met anybody, even a rabid Con, who is excited by Scheer? Has he said even one memorable thing? He’s the perfect neighbour, nice, decent, slightly flabby and always helpful once you get by that grating smile. You’d trust him completely to take care of your house while you’re on vacation, but that doesn’t mean you’d choose him to run your country.

    How anyone watching what is going on in the States still thinks you can win just by trashing your opponent is beyond me. Assuming he isn’t going to set any hearts a-flutter with “the vision thing”, he should be putting his whole team front and center and presenting himself as the sober, steady captain. But apparently that’s not how politics is done today. Have the Cons all forgotten that bad boys get more dates than bland boys?

    • Andrew Jurgen Kaut says:

      So. Revote in the hypocrite bad pretty boy.

      You’ll regret going home with him after 20 years of marriage and will forever wonder what this nation could have been. 🙂

      • Peter says:

        I’m not the problem, Andrew. I was born forty years old wearing a blazer and grey flannels, so I’m fine with him. Sadly for me, and for the world, not everybody is so well-grounded. 🙂

    • Joe says:

      Look what we got from charismatic Trudeau; his miasma is wrecking our reputation around the world.

      I think I’ll vote for someone I’d trust with taking care of my house while I was on vacation.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      Well, looks like we are mostly sympatico as usual. The captain strategy might work but Conservatives are like women in the workplace — always held to a higher standard that’s unjust. That’s why CPC momentum is stalled. It’s not a question of that bullshit about peaking too soon. Rather it’s all about being comfortable with Scheer and being pretty sure he won’t go overboard in power like Harper stupidly did in 2011 as soon as he finally got his precious majority.

      MacKay has his own trust issues but most people are more comfortable with him than with Scheer. Scheer needs to reach MacKay’s Conservative MOR threshold to move the dime. Hope he has it within himself to accomplish that, cause Hamish and the others bloody well can’t do it for him.

      • Peter says:

        Maybe. I’m not in the party and don’t know all the dirty secrets but I can’t help thinking the stupidest thing the Cons did was to ban Lisa Raitt from running for leader. She might have destroyed Trudeau. I really hope she sticks around.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:


          With respect for Raitt, Ambrose is far more bankable in my opinion. But MacKay is most likely the favorite if Scheer blows the debates and meets his Waterloo. I don’t think he’ll blow the debates but you never know.

          • Vancouverois says:

            MacKay? Not only is he a Red Tory – something that doesn’t sit well with the main Formereformer base – but he has too much baggage.

            He’s also infamous among ex-Progressive Conservatives for having broken his promise not to unite with Reform to create the modern Conservative party. It’s good for the Conservatives that he did; but it’s something that can be pointed to demonstrate that his word is not to be trusted. And you can be sure that some people will never, never forget it.

          • Vancouverois,

            MacKay can win, Ambrose can win. That’s all that party needs to know should Scheer falter.

          • Vancouverois says:


            That’s quite a prediction to make before either of them is even running for the top job! I don’t agree with your evaluations to begin with; but it’s all just speculation anyway. If we ever get to the point that the Conservative party is choosing between them, the situation can be evaluated then.

            And a lot can change between now and whenever that may be.

        • Pedant says:

          It was Ambrose who was barred from running, since she accepted the interim leader position. Raitt did run for leader and didn’t get far, mostly due to her lack of French.

  9. Anon111 says:

    Scheer is running an unimaginative and boring campaign. All his policy ideas are recycled from the Harper years, which is probably one reason he isn’t getting any earned media. He is not providing a compelling reason for people to vote for him.

    • William R Morrison says:

      He’s not Trudeau. That’s compelling enough for me. I don’t need a leader who is exciting and makes my heart flutter. Just one who isn’t a hypocritical nincompoop.

      • Andrew Jurgen Kaut says:


      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        It’s voters like you who threw Harper out on his ass in 2015. I think in the end lightning will strike twice in the same place and Trudeau will be finished. Liberals want to make this campaign all about Scheer but it’s really about TRUDEAU and the way he blew his government right out of the water. Trudeau killed this government all by his magnificent self.

      • Scheer claims he believes in climate change, but presents virtual no plans to reduce emissions and criticizes other’s plans with blatant falsehoods. The consequences of Scheer’s disingenuousness is far more severe then Trudeau’s.

        • Peter says:

          Oh great. So we should vote for the feckless dishonest racist because he has the better climate change plan? Have you progressives all set yourselves on auto-pilot?

          • Scheer is a feckless, dishonest denialist.

            Is being a denialist as bad as being a racist? They are both

            – Counterfactual
            – Incoherent
            – Based on emotion rather the reason
            – Leads to millions of lives lost
            – Will be considered repugnant in the future

          • Peter says:

            I hope you are right about racism (although I have my doubts) but a hundred bucks says in ten years there will be more what you call denialists around. Climate scientists will still be doing their Chicken Little schtick, but the public will be wondering more and more why nothing significant seems to be happening. We’ve been hearing dire warnings about climate change for thirty-five years now. Noticed any significant changes in the climate where you live?

            I know, I know. Doomsday is coming soon and this is our last chance. It all reminds me of Monty Python’s First Final Farewell Tour.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Sorry Darwin, that cuts no ice with me. Trudeau has to pay for kicking out JWR and JP. And on election night, he will.

    • The Doctor says:

      Anon I agree. When Harper won he had punchy ideas that ordinary apolitical people could grab onto and remember. The GST cut was a perfect example. By comparison the CPC platform this year strikes me as too scattershot and too reactive.

      Also it seems to me that the scary hidden agenda thing that the Liberals trot out every election campaign still works. Granted I live in Liberal-prog bubbleland (Vancouver Centre), but that said lots of my friends spout out scary Scheer hidden agenda talking points in conversation. The Liberal War Room would be very pleased with their handiwork.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        They’d be more pleased if they actually voted. Don’t count on it. No one on fire in Liberal Land is going to run out to save Trudeau’s ass on voting day.

    • Robert White says:

      I fully agree that the CPC & Scheer are recycling Harper’s second term campaign. And they should have hired Warren for their War Room.

      I wrote to Scheer and advised him to hire me for the next election run given the fact that the Liberal Party has blown him out of the water on the Home Retrofit Tax Break of $40k per housing unit.

      Bill Morneau’s tax incentive is a winner and that alone will win them the whole election. From my perspective the race was lost last week after the tax incentives were announced.
      Clearly, all the parties are appealing to middle class Canadians that own Real Estate.

      CPC should have known to hire Warren for their run & War Room.

      Dumb mistake IMHO, Mr. Scheer.


  10. A. Voter says:

    After the 2015 federal election, the steps back to power for the Conservative party were obvious.
    1) Take back the traditional Tory seats they lost
    2)Pick up the Quebec nationalist vote.
    A conservative party hasn’t won big in Quebec since 1988. Every provincial party in Quebec wants new power-sharing arrangements with Ottawa, but the Conservatives don’t have the intelligence or imagination to put together an appealing platform for Quebec voters.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      Ha, ha. You just gave Vancouverois a heart attack. Naughty!

    • Vancouverois says:

      They Conservatives are already going too far with their insane proposal to led Quebec collect all taxes in the province – a shameful abdication of rightful federal powers.

      The reason why they haven’t won big in Quebec since 1988 is that Mulroney’s whoring the party out to separatism very predictably blew up in his face, because the separatists will never be satisfied. And that did enough damage to the country that people weren’t willing to give the Conservatives another chance until a generation later, when they had re-invented themselves.

      Pandering to separatism will always be a losing strategy in the long run, for the same reasons it was for Mulroney.

      Instead of constantly pandering to the separatists, the Conservatives would do better to oppose them strongly. They could oppose Bill 21, countering all the claims that they’re racist. They could oppose Bill 101 and the entire xenophobic rationale behind it, and maybe even pick up a few seats in Montreal by doing so.

      Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen any time soon. And both the Conservative party and Canada are poorer for it.

      • The Doctor says:

        Jagmeet is bending over the most for Quebec this time out, but I take your point. It’s amazing how Quebec consistently manages to make federal leaders make hoovering pathetic asses of themselves every federal election campaign.

        • Doc,

          What I find truly amazing is how English Canada pretends that 1982 was the most honorable of constitutional exercise. No sir, never a complaint from English Canada. Sure, we shafted Quebec six ways from Sunday but that’s just dandy, cause it’s only Quebec.

          Well, keep sleeping English Canada. One day we will walk and with your perennial comatose condition, you might also miss Alberta walking also. Any bets on which one of us is going to leave first?

          • Or to put it another way, Canada’s last chance is CML. After that, if we get fucked again, we walk.

          • Vancouverois says:

            How was Quebec shafted, exactly?

            The separatists certainly make a lot of noise and claim that Quebec was deprived of powers. But what were these alleged powers that were so cruelly torn away, and how exactly does their loss make the daily lives of average Quebeckers worse?

          • Vancouverois,

            Both of us have blinders on this issue as big as all outdoors. So let’s mutually put that aside and take this strictly as a question of international and domestic constitutional law: how many countries do you know on this planet who have adopted constitutional reforms without the explicit, written consent of one of its constituent parts? Answer: One, Germany. Bavaria was not on board when the constitution was modified. However, changes were subsequently made that allowed Bavaria to opt-in by way of Länder legislation. Now, tell me what most federal governments have done since 1982, and how much people in English Canada have fought to redress the unilateral imposition of the Constitution Act 1982 on Quebec, without her consent? Answer: ZIP. English Canada makes Trudeau look like a rank amateur when it comes to being emperor of hypocrites.

            As for what sovereignists claim: that’s outright bullshit. It has absolutely nothing to do with powers — it has everything to do with formal, explicit, written consent to be governed by this constitution and we never, ever, agreed to that. It was imposed on us without our consent. Period. That’s not how a federation was designed or is supposed to work. You can’t possibly defend the indefensible.

          • Vancouverois,

            Why do I take Alberta’s side vs. BC? Because it’s the right thing to do. I greatly fault Alberta for not transitioning faster away from fossil fuels but that is neither here nor there. Same thing with the sovereign right of BC not to have pipelines cross their jurisdiction without their written consent. BC’s objections are primarily environmental and based on inadequate $$$ heading BC’s way. But Albertans are like the rest of us: human beings, with families to feed and bills to pay and that comes primarily from a resource-based economy. They need at least another 20 years to transition out of oil and gas. Meanwhile, people have to be able to survive and not lose their livelihood or homes. THAT’S why I support Alberta, because in strict humanist terms, it’s the right thing to do.

          • Vancouverois says:

            Claiming that the Constitution was imposed without Quebec’s consent ignores a few important facts, including the fact that some 70-odd of Quebec’s 75 MPs voted in favour of it – and that Trudeau offered to hold a referendum in the province on the subject, but that Levesque refused.

            There’s certainly no question about the legality of the patriation.It was absolutely legal, according to the Quebec Court of Appeal itself – not to mention the Supreme Court.

            Can we agree that Quebec didn’t actually lose any powers, though? Because that’s actually the critical issue.

            The separatists absolutely DO go around pretending that the 1982 Constitution was a terrible imposition that limited Quebec’s powers. If that’s a lie, then Quebeckers need to be made aware of that, because it undermines the separatists completely.

            The claim that 1982 somehow reduced the province’s rights is the entire basis for the provincial government demanding extra powers: the pretense that it would only be restoring powers that were taken away from the province in 1981. That’s what Meech Lake was all about. And it’s important for everyone to realize that it was a lie.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:


            You’ve been to Quebec a billion times…

            First off, Quebec MPs were largely the direct representatives of the government that imposed it on us. Did any of those federal MPs run for re-election seeking a mandate as confirmation of said constitution being imposed on us? No. They weren’t that stupid cause they’d have all been goners.

            Secondly, the bona fide Quebec government rejected the deal. They had the mandate to speak for the province. To agree to a referendum, under federal control and rules would have totally delegitimized the Quebec government. There’s no way Lévesque, or any other premier, for that matter would have agreed to that. And only an idiot would think Trudeau would have backtracked on the 1982 deal had Quebec voted No in a referendum. Keep it real.

            No one said it was illegal. Immoral and indefensible but by all means legal.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            As for asking for more federal powers, you could give Quebec everything it wanted and more — and Quebec governments would always come back to the table for more. That’s quite simply the nature of the political beast. If I was Ottawa I would often hold the line too but sometimes a Cullen-Couture does far more for the federation and federalism than the opposite. Sometimes it’s actually win-win.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            Now, as to whether we lost powers in 1982, my best guess is that perhaps in areas of concurrent jurisdiction. Then there’s the matter of the federal spending power in areas explicitly delineated under the constitution as provincial jurisdiction. So Yes in both cases but it’s hardly the type of scenario that sovereignists would have us believe. In short, they are full of shit, for obvious axe-grinding reasons.

          • Vancouverois says:


            To be clear, I’m not a visitor. I live here now, and have since before the last referendum. (Hence “Vancouverois” rather than “Vancouverite”.)

  11. jsa says:

    I’m good with a tie, wish I could vote for one on the ballot. Majority governments are a bit too much like a dictatorship for me.

    • Phil says:

      The insanity of a minority in this country is only a conservative minority is a government held in check, a Liberal minority gets in bed with the NDP and it’s a pseudo majority, How did that work for Jack Layton? Oh yeah, it DIDNT he never served as prime minister from my recollection. Andrea Horwath never took over as premier.

      I would much prefer out MPs all subscribed for a big sister or big brother from the UK. There a majority leader doesn’t just run roughshod.

      If MPs stood up to Trudeau without fear of being booted from caucus we’d have something no matter who won and how big they won.

      Too many good men and women have been chosen to go to Ottawa to represent their constituents and have come home at their first visit after sitting in parliament absolutely BROKEN and disheartened to learn how little they are in the big picture.

    • jsa says:

      Federal ridings are a load of bullshit. The only thing my MP does, locally, is promote himself and his party. When he’s in Ottawa, he votes along with his party, his constituents interests don’t seem to be overly important to him. He’s not the guy to stop the PM from putting a garbage dump in my town…

      PC’s with a healthy minority government and Jagmeet Singh as leader of the opposition would be my ideal outcome. I wouldn’t mind having an Orange MP either, but I don’t think I’d ever want to see the party in power.

    • Pedant says:

      The risk there is a Liberal/NDP/Green coalition which would definitely mean an outright cancellation of the pipeline to the Pacific and very likely a national unity crisis in Alberta. Ever notice how national unity troubles flare up whenever the Liberals are in power?

      • Peter says:

        Indeed. As all the bien pensants rent their garments and predicted the world would end at the hands of The-Evil-Known-As-Stevie, none of them seemed to notice that we had more constitutional peace under him that we’ve had in years. Ditto for our international standing, unless your taste runs to kleptocratic failed states at the UN. But none of that mattered because he was…you know…Harper!

  12. sergeyigorev says:

    Hello google

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.