Stop playing their stupid game. You don't need a Jamaican immigrant woman to "prove" that you aren't an evil woman-hating racist. You also won't win anyone over with this "proof" because leftists will hate you regardless.
This is true. Despite having Lewis at the top of my own ballot, her being Jamaican wasn't a factor in my decision because I knew the Liberals and NDP would aggressively attack her for her social conservatism anyway. Even if they can't call her a racist outright on grounds of her skin color (very unlikely), they'll still call her retrograde, a neanderthal, etc.
But I think it does make it easier for the right, as much as one can say it exists in this country, to counterattack and make the left look like fools - and, just as if not more importantly, for the normie voters to see that.
Of course, your mileage might vary, in Lewis' case it certainly helps that she's quite charismatic and (to use a Bidenism) articulate as long as she isn't speaking in French; my outlook would've been less optimistic were she as sleepy and quiet a candidate as Ben Carson.
The only woman in this race is more conservative than 2/3 of the men, and a more effective saleswoman for conservatism in Canada than the remaining 1/3 (who ended up dead last as a result).
I have my doubts. Way back at the beginning, the Jacobins of the French Revolution hardly needed women to egg on their murderous antics, and were notoriously quite harsh toward the OG militant feminists (the 'revolutionary republican women') too.
You're trying to compare two vastly different issues.
Women WERE a huge part of the resolutions but they often acted in the background. Take Martha Washington for example. She held a decent bit of political power simply through relations and influence over her husband and her wive's group.
The big issue is that in a democracy when you give women the right to vote you give a greater mechanism by which the wife can be played against the husband. The role of the family is diluted and the ever-expanding State takes its place.
It is not in the best interest of any nation to cater to the random emotional wiles of women. Anyone who has been in at least one relationship can tell you that telling women yes to everything is a fucking awful idea.
Well yeah, women have always wielded varying degrees of influence in the background since Nefertari and Jezebel. I'm not disputing that, but what I did say was that the first time women as a bloc (instead of individual queens and princesses) tried to make a major powergrab, in the supposedly egalitarian and arch-progressive environment of the French Revolution no less, they got shut down fast.
That they were forced aside from the mainstream of politics still had no bearing on the Jacobin men carrying out radical programmes. Clearly, women can help, but they aren't necessarily a decisive factor in the leftward drift of western men over the past two centuries.
For what it's worth, I actually agree that strengthening the family unit at the expense of the state is highly preferable compared to the opposite, and that a fair tally will show that women's suffrage opened the gates for the destructive social transformation of the West that got rolling in earnest just a few decades later.
But, that is one genie that's clearly not going back into the bottle, not without a huge and probably violent reactionary wave that I don't foresee on the horizon anytime soon. And I consider it an outgrowth of the Enlightenment-born revival of popular democracy in general as a good idea - 'one man, one vote' took less than a century to turn into 'one person, one vote' after all - since the fall of ancient Athens, which definitely isn't going anywhere anytime soon without a hell of a lot of violence.
So, I'll support conservative female forces like Lewis (and, in the past, figures like Phyllis Schlafly and Mary Whitehouse) as a matter of pragmatism these days. Advocating a full repeal of the female franchise is a non-starter and wouldn't solve the huge problem of leftism-addled males running around anyway.
That shift gave degenerate organizations the ability to play husband against wife and guaranteed the collapse of the family structure. Now today we see the result. Virtually all "social justice" initiatives are started and led by bitter women.
Voting is an individual right. If you deny someone this right, you are essentially saying you know what is best for them, and that they should fall in line.
That's authoritarian bullshit that should never fly in a free society.
Voting is itself worthless if the enterprise does not exist to better the Nation.
Democracy is a failure precisely because of the idea of "voting as a right."
Does a 60IQ downie have the mental capacity to debate politics? No. Obviously not. Their vote is nothing but an extended vote of their handlers.
The same is true for women. Their vote should be tied to the vote of the family and the vote of the family is the responsibility of the husband.
By pushing for endless expansion of voting rights you're pushing for the endless degradation of the system of voting itself. Today it is no longer tied to family, no longer tied to land, and no longer tied to national origin. That's a mistake.
What you want is a fairy tale that doesn't exist. In reality your utopian desire is a fast-track to the dystopian hell we find ourselves in today.
I see you prefer the wealth of the nation over the wealth of the individual. In that case, why vote at all? Monarchy is a much more agile form of government and will serve to "better the nation" much more than any form of democracy. Autocracy and (actual) Facism are also fine choices.
Of course, the wealth of the nation always comes at the cost of the wealth of the individual. See: Modern China, the British Empire, Pre-War Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Rome, etc.
Also, funny how your posts are upvoted twice within seconds of posting. Either you've got a loyal simp refreshing the page, or you're using multiple accounts.
I totally get it, there are shitty women in politics right now. In the States we have Clinton, Harris, Pelosi, and a bunch of DAs who won't prosecute rioters. All of these people are absolute scum.
But do we condemn half of the human race because a few shitty people share a trait with them? By that logic, Men should never be allowed to own guns because most gun crimes are committed by men, whites should never be allowed to hold office again because Hitler was white, and the SJWs are correct in voiding the rights of white males because most of the slave owners were white males. The philosophy of holding entire populations accountable for the crimes and mistakes of a subset of said populations is nonsensical.
Unfortunately Lewis got eliminated in the second round, despite actually getting the most votes, because she came last in 'points'. FFS.
At least MacKay got crushed in the end, thank God. As a Lewis voter, I consider O'Toole to be neither great nor terrible, but at least a candidate I can live with & vote for.
so what if they are racist, it's becsuse people arent racist that their countries and heritage are being destroyed.
Anti rascism started out with noble ideas but is now just a tool to used ito justify the replacement and subjucation of the indeginous people of western society.
Stop playing their stupid game. You don't need a Jamaican immigrant woman to "prove" that you aren't an evil woman-hating racist. You also won't win anyone over with this "proof" because leftists will hate you regardless.
This is true. Despite having Lewis at the top of my own ballot, her being Jamaican wasn't a factor in my decision because I knew the Liberals and NDP would aggressively attack her for her social conservatism anyway. Even if they can't call her a racist outright on grounds of her skin color (very unlikely), they'll still call her retrograde, a neanderthal, etc.
But I think it does make it easier for the right, as much as one can say it exists in this country, to counterattack and make the left look like fools - and, just as if not more importantly, for the normie voters to see that.
Of course, your mileage might vary, in Lewis' case it certainly helps that she's quite charismatic and (to use a Bidenism) articulate as long as she isn't speaking in French; my outlook would've been less optimistic were she as sleepy and quiet a candidate as Ben Carson.
Women should not be in politics.
Change my mind.
The only woman in this race is more conservative than 2/3 of the men, and a more effective saleswoman for conservatism in Canada than the remaining 1/3 (who ended up dead last as a result).
And?
Without women having the right to vote and interacting directly with the political process all men would be much more conservative in general.
We are being dragged to the left by the emotional tyranny of women.
I have my doubts. Way back at the beginning, the Jacobins of the French Revolution hardly needed women to egg on their murderous antics, and were notoriously quite harsh toward the OG militant feminists (the 'revolutionary republican women') too.
You're trying to compare two vastly different issues.
Women WERE a huge part of the resolutions but they often acted in the background. Take Martha Washington for example. She held a decent bit of political power simply through relations and influence over her husband and her wive's group.
The big issue is that in a democracy when you give women the right to vote you give a greater mechanism by which the wife can be played against the husband. The role of the family is diluted and the ever-expanding State takes its place.
It is not in the best interest of any nation to cater to the random emotional wiles of women. Anyone who has been in at least one relationship can tell you that telling women yes to everything is a fucking awful idea.
Well yeah, women have always wielded varying degrees of influence in the background since Nefertari and Jezebel. I'm not disputing that, but what I did say was that the first time women as a bloc (instead of individual queens and princesses) tried to make a major powergrab, in the supposedly egalitarian and arch-progressive environment of the French Revolution no less, they got shut down fast.
That they were forced aside from the mainstream of politics still had no bearing on the Jacobin men carrying out radical programmes. Clearly, women can help, but they aren't necessarily a decisive factor in the leftward drift of western men over the past two centuries.
For what it's worth, I actually agree that strengthening the family unit at the expense of the state is highly preferable compared to the opposite, and that a fair tally will show that women's suffrage opened the gates for the destructive social transformation of the West that got rolling in earnest just a few decades later.
But, that is one genie that's clearly not going back into the bottle, not without a huge and probably violent reactionary wave that I don't foresee on the horizon anytime soon. And I consider it an outgrowth of the Enlightenment-born revival of popular democracy in general as a good idea - 'one man, one vote' took less than a century to turn into 'one person, one vote' after all - since the fall of ancient Athens, which definitely isn't going anywhere anytime soon without a hell of a lot of violence.
So, I'll support conservative female forces like Lewis (and, in the past, figures like Phyllis Schlafly and Mary Whitehouse) as a matter of pragmatism these days. Advocating a full repeal of the female franchise is a non-starter and wouldn't solve the huge problem of leftism-addled males running around anyway.
Islam is right about women
Glow Harder
Giving women the right to vote was a mistake.
That shift gave degenerate organizations the ability to play husband against wife and guaranteed the collapse of the family structure. Now today we see the result. Virtually all "social justice" initiatives are started and led by bitter women.
Voting is an individual right. If you deny someone this right, you are essentially saying you know what is best for them, and that they should fall in line.
That's authoritarian bullshit that should never fly in a free society.
Voting is itself worthless if the enterprise does not exist to better the Nation.
Democracy is a failure precisely because of the idea of "voting as a right."
Does a 60IQ downie have the mental capacity to debate politics? No. Obviously not. Their vote is nothing but an extended vote of their handlers.
The same is true for women. Their vote should be tied to the vote of the family and the vote of the family is the responsibility of the husband.
By pushing for endless expansion of voting rights you're pushing for the endless degradation of the system of voting itself. Today it is no longer tied to family, no longer tied to land, and no longer tied to national origin. That's a mistake.
What you want is a fairy tale that doesn't exist. In reality your utopian desire is a fast-track to the dystopian hell we find ourselves in today.
I see you prefer the wealth of the nation over the wealth of the individual. In that case, why vote at all? Monarchy is a much more agile form of government and will serve to "better the nation" much more than any form of democracy. Autocracy and (actual) Facism are also fine choices.
Of course, the wealth of the nation always comes at the cost of the wealth of the individual. See: Modern China, the British Empire, Pre-War Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Rome, etc.
I have not used the word or idea of wealth a single time in this discussion.
Do you understand at all what I've been saying?
Now we're arguing semantics.
Also, funny how your posts are upvoted twice within seconds of posting. Either you've got a loyal simp refreshing the page, or you're using multiple accounts.
Voting isn't a right in most parts of the world. At least not for men.
I totally get it, there are shitty women in politics right now. In the States we have Clinton, Harris, Pelosi, and a bunch of DAs who won't prosecute rioters. All of these people are absolute scum.
But do we condemn half of the human race because a few shitty people share a trait with them? By that logic, Men should never be allowed to own guns because most gun crimes are committed by men, whites should never be allowed to hold office again because Hitler was white, and the SJWs are correct in voiding the rights of white males because most of the slave owners were white males. The philosophy of holding entire populations accountable for the crimes and mistakes of a subset of said populations is nonsensical.
Simp
Fed
She's not gonna sleep with you.
Who exactly? My individualist ideals? Hate to break it to ya, but concepts don't have pussies.
Or mass for that matter.
Glow Harder.
It is short hand for accusing someone of being a Fed, or otherwise bad faith actor attempting to astroturf a community.
Unfortunately Lewis got eliminated in the second round, despite actually getting the most votes, because she came last in 'points'. FFS.
At least MacKay got crushed in the end, thank God. As a Lewis voter, I consider O'Toole to be neither great nor terrible, but at least a candidate I can live with & vote for.
https://twitter.com/JJ_McCullough/status/1297894974453764097:
The full data on the 2020 Conservative leadership race has been leaked. Here's one remarkable fact: Dr. Lewis won the popular vote in the second round of voting: https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/24003224/6a2fd06b9518d0a.pdf
so what if they are racist, it's becsuse people arent racist that their countries and heritage are being destroyed.
Anti rascism started out with noble ideas but is now just a tool to used ito justify the replacement and subjucation of the indeginous people of western society.