babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Vancouver Leadership debate 2

Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
My impressions: Niki Ashton: The best passion and energy by far, but too low on substance. Her best moment was defending her drug manufacturing against Singh. If Niki would stop treating treating debates like campaign rallies and focus that passion and energy more on her ideas, of which she has some great ones, she'd be unstoppable. As it she slips to third on my ballot should it arrive. Nash was likable, but seems to try for Niki's passion, but it comes off fake. Still very likable. See Dewar.below. Dewar made a nice attempt at making Nash look like a flip flopper again, and it looked like it,would succeed again, but Nash turned it into a blatant attempt to appeal to Cullen supporters. Cleaver move, but risky on Nash's part, she risks alienating voters who hate the liberals, but if she is on the final ballot she's boosted her chances of beating Mulcair by,appealing to Cullen voters. Downside is it maybe harder to get there now. Dewar was more animated this time and it suited him. Cullen, funny as hell, but without being class clown he moves up to second on my ballot. Topp I agree his best debate by far, he's starting to build retail experience, his doing so well is bad news for Nash, although he lobbed the biggest soft ball at her. See Singh below. Mulcair is awesome, but STOP READING YOUR NOTES, during opening statements and closing,statements. In between he rocked. Someone on twitter mention the Cullen, Dewar, Nash, and Topp benifited from Mulcair not being allowed in thier four way segment. I have a better understanding of where Mulcair wants to take the organization of the NDP and its alot less top down then the Jurist feared. Much more regional flavour, but retaining the national message of tripled bottom line sustainablity. That sinched it for me, Mulcair as winner. Two gripes though, one he needs to focus more on those in general labour and trades and I'm not,a fan,of forcing university education to conform to the economy, I see universities as more then employee factories. Singh. I'm going to go against the grain and takes Singh's side. Brian's greatest problem isn't charm, which,is,greatly improving, its with honesty. Was anything Singh said false, did Singh have it wrong? No. Brian Topp misrepresented things in a way that was condsending to Singh, Topp knew what Singh was saying was true, Singh even proved it, but,Topp still denied it. Topp made a statement he knew to be false. Which is lie by dictionary defination. Singh should not have took it personally, but Topp has to share the blame. Topp has also made up that Mulcair said he wants to move the party to the centre when Mulcair has said repeatedly that he does not want to move the party to the centre. Again misrepersentation. As for the God Bless thing, I have no problem with Singh's faith and clearly that was targetted to his religious base, not just sikhs, but religious dippers and a demographic which I believe will be key in defeating the tories.

Comments

Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

I made a good prediction in the closed thread - first post after the OP:

"Has Singh been disciplined? Will he make an apology at the debate? (I recall this was being discussed on the leadership thread)"

You may present your accolades now. Kiss


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
Oh before I forgot Tom also mentioned a new tax, undifferiated tax or something like that in addition to the fincial tax, what is that (I'd look it up, but I have no idea how to spell it).

Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
Boom Boom wrote:

I made a good prediction in the closed thread - first post after the OP:

"Has Singh been disciplined? Will he make an apology at the debate? (I recall this was being discussed on the leadership thread)"

You may present your accolades now. Kiss

*Brachina presents Boom Boom with the Golden Beavoose accolade* (a beavoose is an unholy hybred between beaver and moose, that I really hope a lab some where is working on :D)

NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Yes, I too think there is a little more to this "Singh is the bad guy here" tussle that is going on between him and Topp. 


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

There's more to it. But at the debate, Singh mismanaged it. Topp stayed out of it completely. And Cullen looked like a peacemaking, positive guy.

Outside the debate, it's been a total mess. Topp shouldn't have gotten insulting ("you haven't read the proposal"), and shouldn't have insinuated it's in there when it's not, when he could have easily said "well, I'm not going to write up every legal exception in a quick proposal, but obviously we wouldn't be punishing charities". When Singh finally pointed out that it wasn't in the proposal, he shouldn't have accused Topp of being a liar and wanting to punish charities. We're all New Democrats, and we should assume good faith with each other.

But most people haven't been following every debate that closely. A lot of people have only started tuning in within the past few weeks, since the membership deadline basically.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

There's no tussle. Topp is ignoring Singh.


bazie
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2011

My rankings was Mulcair>Cullen>>>Nash>Topp>Dewar>Ashton>Singh for reasons I expressed here


Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

I said it after Winnipeg and I'll say it again, Dewar is a Nerd! No one would vote for that guy for PM. He looks like a nerd, he sounds like a nerd, and he speaks like a nerd, bleech!!! (by the way, I probably was a nerd all the way through high school; hated rock, loved big band music and got beat up all the time, so I know one when I see one). There is no way I would vote for that guy and anyone who would consider it needs to have their head examined!

Ashton is simply too young. That is where the roboticness comes from. She is trying to sell Gravitas but it is backfiring. She has a very bright future, and I am certain she will be Canada's first Female PM!

Cullen great as always! I wish I was sure about his ability to win in Quebec, but I'm not.

Topp, better, but no way I'm voting for a party insider.

Singh, sigh! He'll get better, and his opinions will mmoderate with time.

Nash, I am so dissapointed by her. I really, really wanted to like her enought to vote for her as leader. Maybe she'll grow, but not ready now. She is genuine, smart, and I see she has real empathy. She would be a great leader some day if she can develop a bit of "Royal Jelly".

I'm still voting for Tom. I think he is a fighter and can win. I have my concerns, but trust the caucus he has around him. We saw so many of them today, so I am not worried about his being kept "on the path". More importantly, I turst the party membership to keep Tom and the rest of these guys, "honest".

I'm only voting for Tom.


Rabble_Incognito
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2012

Brachina wrote:
I see universities as more then employee factories..

We are robots, beep beep.

 


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

I went to the debate in Vancouver but didn't get there early enough to get a seat in the main room.  There was an overflow room with a large screen (perhaps several) and I'd estimate at least couple hundred people in that room.

At no point did I hear anyone clap for something Dewar said.  At one point when Dewar was speaking someone yelled "We want someone else!" and there was only laughter in response.

Cullen likely got the most applause.  Mulcair, Topp, Ashton, and Nash (I'd estimate in that order, although it's hard to tell) all got good applause at several points.

I agree with others that Peggy Nash performed better today than at other times in the past.  I think for me a part of that was her response to Paul Dewar.  Dewar seems like a candidate that others don't take seriously, at least in rhetoric.  I appreciated Nash's ability to respond to Dewar so effectively, in a way that would have been condescending if she weren't so nice.  What has been an issue for me with Nash is that she tells us that she's the one to lead but doesn't seem to really show us that she beleves it.  Much better today.

Mulcair seemed uninspiring to me, but likely performed as well as he needed to.  He seemed to have support in the room and he is truthfully able to say that he ran a positive campaign.  Also I thought some of his answers about generational inopportunity gave a good diagnosis of the problem (although a real solution plan was lacking).

I think Topp gave a few really great answers although he still seemed a bit awkward to me at other times.  I think mostly he gets a bit shifty when he talks about what a positive campaign he has run.  I think Topp has articulated a very clear direction to take and that means a lot to me.

I thought Ashton answered some questions really well, but I also saw some robotic platitudes.  I think she should have owned the youth related questions more than she did.  When the moderator interrupted her to ask, specifically, what would she do to get young people to vote, I think Ashton should have been able to knock it out of the park.  And so she missed an opportunity there.  I thought her closing statement was a bit overdone but it got big big cheers in the room.

I thought Cullen did great.  I love his humour and would rate him high on that alone.  While I'm not a fan of his joint nomination plan, I do think he was able to respond well to questions about it.  Also I felt like he is the most genuine of all the candidates.  Maybe this is presence or oratorical skill or something but at no point did I feel like he was giving us platitudes/bs (I think we got this at some point from evey other candidate).


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Wow, Arthur... I had Brian pegged as the best of the bunch today.  Laughing  Followed by Peggy, then Tom.

I still think this race is Mulcair's to lose.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Conspiracy theorists need to help me with this: immediately right after the debate, Topp and Nash kissed, and so did Cullen and Ashton. No one else kissed. Surprised

(it's possible other candidates kissed later)


Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Boom Boom:

Well, I guess I was speaking more globally. I agree Topp was encouraging today, and Peggy is best when she is being Peggy.

But, I still think Tom is our best option. The real problem is that all these candidates are so good that it is really hard to choose. I can just imagine when the Libs hold their leadership contest how much we are going to have to listen to "how superior the Lib leadership field is to anything that was offered by the NDP in their boring leadership contest" garbage.

By the way, I am not trying to flip flop, but I may just have done a bit of that right now...Ouch, that hurts this old Sailor's back! Surprised


Arthur Cramer
Online
Joined: Nov 30 2010

No one kissed Singh? It's like that Boxcar Willy song, poor Elijah, never been kissed, lol!Wink


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Arthur, it warmed the cockles of my heart to see Ashton and Cullen pucker up, because Ashton kept referring to Nathan as "Mr. Cullen" during the debate, even getting a hilarious retort from Nathan on that account. These two are obviously very good friends, and they make each other laugh.

 

And Peggy and Brian - that was so nice to see, old comrades puckering up for the cause. Kiss 

 

Brian won the debate, but Nathan wins 'best good humoured person'.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

wage zombie wrote:

I went to the debate in Vancouver but didn't get there early enough to get a seat in the main room.  There was an overflow room with a large screen (perhaps several) and I'd estimate at least couple hundred people in that room.

At no point did I hear anyone clap for something Dewar said.  At one point when Dewar was speaking someone yelled "We want someone else!" and there was only laughter in response.

Cullen likely got the most applause.  Mulcair, Topp, Ashton, and Nash (I'd estimate in that order, although it's hard to tell) all got good applause at several points.

I agree with others that Peggy Nash performed better today than at other times in the past.  I think for me a part of that was her response to Paul Dewar.  Dewar seems like a candidate that others don't take seriously, at least in rhetoric.  I appreciated Nash's ability to respond to Dewar so effectively, in a way that would have been condescending if she weren't so nice.  What has been an issue for me with Nash is that she tells us that she's the one to lead but doesn't seem to really show us that she beleves it.  Much better today.

Mulcair seemed uninspiring to me, but likely performed as well as he needed to.  He seemed to have support in the room and he is truthfully able to say that he ran a positive campaign.  Also I thought some of his answers about generational inopportunity gave a good diagnosis of the problem (although a real solution plan was lacking).

I think Topp gave a few really great answers although he still seemed a bit awkward to me at other times.  I think mostly he gets a bit shifty when he talks about what a positive campaign he has run.  I think Topp has articulated a very clear direction to take and that means a lot to me.

I thought Ashton answered some questions really well, but I also saw some robotic platitudes.  I think she should have owned the youth related questions more than she did.  When the moderator interrupted her to ask, specifically, what would she do to get young people to vote, I think Ashton should have been able to knock it out of the park.  And so she missed an opportunity there.  I thought her closing statement was a bit overdone but it got big big cheers in the room.

I thought Cullen did great.  I love his humour and would rate him high on that alone.  While I'm not a fan of his joint nomination plan, I do think he was able to respond well to questions about it.  Also I felt like he is the most genuine of all the candidates.  Maybe this is presence or oratorical skill or something but at no point did I feel like he was giving us platitudes/bs (I think we got this at some point from evey other candidate).

Thanks a lot for the analysis from the frontlines.

Even though a lot of us have been following the race from the beginning, I think this might still be the first or second debate for a lot of less devoted NDP supporters.

This debate really is last minute. Most people have put their vote in already. I still haven't received my voting package, so I guess I'll have some scrambling to do tomorrow.


nicky
Online
Joined: Aug 3 2005

I watched the debate with a roomfull of partisan Mulcair supporters who cheered him lustily at several points. Notably for his exchange with Ashton and for his closing statement. The consensus was great satisafaction with Tom's performance and general belief that he had won.

I think myself that it was more or less a four way tie with Cullen ahead by a nose. Mulcair can be said to have done well largely  because he was attacked by four of the other candidates and fended off their sallies very capably. I am not sure why they persisted in this approach debate after debate. The same questions, or at least close variants, were asked repeatedly. Ashton asked him essentially the same question in each of the last three debates.

This strategy of putting Mulcair on the defensive has not worked in my view. It has served to give him much more air time than the other candidates. More importantly it never has drawn any real blood. They should have known that Mulcair is very capable of standing up for himself and the more he demonstrates that he can do so the more voters are comfortable with him.

I thought Nash and Topp were better than before and that Cullen did quite well. But this serves Mulcair's purposes as well. If three of his pricipal opponents do well  (the less said about Dewar the better- he may actually have done better in the French debate) it is harder for anyone to break out of the pack and present a clear challenge to Mulcair. He is clearly in a better position to win if the vote split is 30 -15-15-15 than if it is 30-25-10-10.

So on balance I think Mulcair was advantaged today because:

1. He  protected his vote.

2. He made it safe for undecideds to move to him

3. No one has emerged as his clear challenger. 

 

I would be interested in hearing more about the crowd reactions and the turnouts at the respective parties. 

 


Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
Boom Boom wrote:

Conspiracy theorists need to help me with this: immediately right after the debate, Topp and Nash kissed, and so did Cullen and Ashton. No one else kissed. Surprised

(it's possible other candidates kissed later)

Peggy and Tom kissed :) Those candidates get around! ;)

vaudree
Offline
Joined: Sep 7 2001

Arthur Cramer wrote:

No one kissed Singh? It's like that Boxcar Willy song, poor Elijah, never been kissed, lol!

Didn't Marvin Mouse from Archie Wood used to sing that song?

I might as well start by singing Nathan Cullen's praises in this debate, because I don't plan to award him for his performance (riding cooperation plan).

That question Nathan Cullen asked Singh was gold - he was able to ding both Topp and Singh while coming out smelling like roses. Note that Cullen did not just say apologise but gave his own interpretation/re cap of what Singh said about Topp first - Cullen. It reminded me of my eldest (now 30) in daycare talking about a classmate who used inappropriate language: "MOM! Pino was a bad boy because he said X, Y and Z. I'm a good boy because I don't say X, Y and Z. MOM, I'm a good boy because I don't say X, Y and Z."

I get the feeling that the Mr Cullen / Christmas Cards bit was to throw Ashton off her game - because she has a limited time to give her second question and it was his attempt to trip her up and, later, to somewhat evade a line of questioning he was not completely comfortable with. Nathan Cullen can be very endearing while he is trying to trip up his opponents and throw them off their game.

Singh seemed genuinely offended, both by the idea that he was not smart enough to come up with his own strategy and with the idea that he should apologise to Topp when Topp started it, in his opinion. Singh did come off as someone who holds grudges. He may have found the "side-kick" allegation offensive. Singh mentioned that he was pro-choice and believed in God because he feels that they run counter to Sikh stereotypes - the former shows that, in his opinion, he did not switch Gods so much as switched religions (ie interpretations of God). The "God Bless Canada" thing, I think, was to appeal to Sikhs who see themselves as loyal Canadians and to the religious left (Social Gospel, Bundists, progressive Muslims) who don't feel that they should check their religion at the door.

One thing that I have noticed, even when Singh talked about his religion on line, is that he tends to stick to the aspects that the Sikh and Protestant religions share rather than focus on the differences between the two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7mlIbOfETg&feature=related

Mulcair looked tired - handled himself well, though.

Nash looked invigorated and the suit suited her better.

Dewar did not do as well as even his usual.

Liked Ashton's opening, though she seems to think that New Politics started with Tommy Douglas.

 


Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
What was up with Ashton referring to other candidates with mister? I thought it strange... and then Cullen picked up on it of course.

Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
What was up with Ashton referring to other candidates with mister? I thought it strange... and then Cullen picked up on it of course.

It's a mister-y to me.


dacckon
Offline
Joined: May 19 2011

I haven't been on babble in a while so anyways, what I thought of each of the candidates was that aside from Singh they all did very well.

 

Singh has grown to be more irritating, his attack on ideology when debating Niki was really insulting to me. I felt personally insulted.

Mulcair did well, he has shown that he has a calm personality. I could personally tell when he is spinning, but then again I assume most Canadians won't pick up on his spin. He has a certain degree of cunning.

Topp keeps on improving, its a shame that this is the last debate. I hope there are more unofficial debates to see how he grows. I noticed he did lob a softball to Peggy. I liked his reference to political leaders who (Hollande who is slapping Sarkozy around in the polls) are fighting for tax fairness. Regarding his constant confrontations with Singh, he should have at the beginning paraphrased Clement Attlee's view on charity vs taxes. Singh would have been dead in the water. What would he have done? Attacked the greatest prime minister the UK ever had? Ahhhh, the missed oppertunities are the most interesting eh.

 

Nash did very well, but I am yet again worried on her ability to give a straight answer. Sometimes Nash, there is a great beauty in being direct with a yes or no response.

Dewar did well, but I still fear he is a deer in the headlights.

Cullen is funny, but he did get owned by Mulcair. Unfortunately he has turned his candidacy into a one issue thing, when he had other great policies/a personality.

 

At the end of this debate I know who my #1 candidate is, but the rest is a mystery to me. Only time will tell and I do hope for a critique of my views from objective people regarding this debate.


Skinny Dipper
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2005

Question for Brachina:

Based on your statement, "Mulcair wants to take the organization of the NDP and its alot less top down then the Jurist feared. Much more regional flavour, but retaining the national message of tripled bottom line sustainablity," what is triple bottom line sustainability? I hope you or someone else can help me.

Thanks.


Skinny Dipper
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2005

dacckon wrote:

Dewar did well, but I still fear he is a deer in the headlights.

I was just about to make the same comment about the deer in the headlights.


Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

Skinny Dipper wrote:

Question for Brachina:

Based on your statement, "Mulcair wants to take the organization of the NDP and its alot less top down then the Jurist feared. Much more regional flavour, but retaining the national message of tripled bottom line sustainablity," what is triple bottom line sustainability? I hope you or someone else can help me.

Thanks.

link


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

The word that best sums up Dewar for me is "haughty". Laughing


flight from kamakura
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2006

i've just been thinking and talking about this debate for the past couple hours, here are a few more thoughts:

topp really is a clever guy.  from his first answer on culture, i felt like he took the words right out of my mouth, as if he'd spent the last week talking directly to me about how to reboot his campaign in the final days and then took every single bit of my advice.  and later, when he very cleverly attacked mulcair in his exchange with nash, you could just feel not only that he knew exactly what to say and how to say it, but that he knew exactly what position mulcair had to take in the debate, a poise that only mulcair has so far demonstrated.  and mulcair took precisely that position - he re-iterated many of his longstanding campaign themes, very broadly appealing to the canadian electorate, and avoided falling into any of the pitfalls that a less seasoned campaigned could have delving foolishly into specifics that might confuse or bore his audience.  mulcair and topp strike me as very cunning operators, and when their opponents tried to rise to their level (as ashton foolishly attempted in her question to tom, which frankly only made him look better, and cullen, whose little injections here and there gave me the impression that he's really winging it, the charismatic politician par excellence), they just made the two quebecois seem all the more impressive.

singh is really not there, and i'd be disappointed if he became even an ndp mp.  it seems clear that he's on a one-man quest to make his mark on the party, and he's feeling frustrated and under-appreciated, and he honestly strikes me as more of a cowboy than even cullen, probably very difficult to work with, the sort of contentious type that i'm sure all of us recognizes from constituency or neighborhood association meetings, or student councils or whatever.  i'd wonder if he was even lsd bad.

ashton is the sort of politician i actually don't like at all.  knowing i'll offend someone (if people bother to read my posts anymore), i'll say that in a way, her, nash and dewar have come to form this trifecta in my mind of the sort of rah-rah thoughtless party hacks that we really don't need.  contrasting her complete lack of nuance with the masterfully subtle attacks levelled by topp and the pitch-perfect defensive performance of mulcair, it's actually a wonder that she hasn't yet dropped out.  she doesn't speak for the youth, she doesn't represent new politics, and she doesn't really bring anything to the race.  it was her best debate, but not a good one, imo.

having watched dewar's past few performances, i can't fathom who his constituency is.  the guy is profoundly inarticulate, near unilingual, and even after all this time, he hasn't any more substance to his discourse that he did when he began.  i actually even wonder if this guy belongs on the front bench at all, he has this george bush look sometimes like he thinks he's made a good point when he hasn't, like he knows he probably shouldn't be there.


Aristotleded24
Online
Joined: May 24 2005

flight from kamakura wrote:
ashton is the sort of politician i actually don't like at all.  knowing i'll offend someone (if people bother to read my posts anymore), i'll say that in a way, her, nash and dewar have come to form this trifecta in my mind of the sort of rah-rah thoughtless party hacks that we really don't need.  contrasting her complete lack of nuance with the masterfully subtle attacks levelled by topp and the pitch-perfect defensive performance of mulcair, it's actually a wonder that she hasn't yet dropped out.  she doesn't speak for the youth, she doesn't represent new politics, and she doesn't really bring anything to the race.  it was her best debate, but not a good one, imo.

Much of the criticism Ashton has faced in this campaign she has faced simply because she is a young woman, a refelection of the fact that the only appropriate role our culture tells young women to play is that of pretty sex objects. Sloganeering? Which candidate hasn't done that this race? She speaks 5 languages, an important skill set in an increasingly interconnected world. How many languages can the other candidates speak? She has also faced voters in the public and won 2 out of 3 of those contests. How many times has Brian Topp done that? And to deride her because she's "too young?" Funny, that sounds exactly like the lines the Liberals and Conservatives used about the NDP candidates in Quebec. Is that to say that young people shouldn't be involved in politics and should not be taken seriously? And we wonder why voter turnout is so low among that age group?

Make no mistake, if her name was Nickolas Ashton instead, she would not be facing this kind of criticism.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

230 posts on the Vancouver debate.

Is there a Cliff's Notes version?

So many geeks.


Ippurigakko
Offline
Joined: May 30 2011

Aristotleded24 wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:
ashton is the sort of politician i actually don't like at all.  knowing i'll offend someone (if people bother to read my posts anymore), i'll say that in a way, her, nash and dewar have come to form this trifecta in my mind of the sort of rah-rah thoughtless party hacks that we really don't need.  contrasting her complete lack of nuance with the masterfully subtle attacks levelled by topp and the pitch-perfect defensive performance of mulcair, it's actually a wonder that she hasn't yet dropped out.  she doesn't speak for the youth, she doesn't represent new politics, and she doesn't really bring anything to the race.  it was her best debate, but not a good one, imo.

Much of the criticism Ashton has faced in this campaign she has faced simply because she is a young woman, a refelection of the fact that the only appropriate role our culture tells young women to play is that of pretty sex objects. Sloganeering? Which candidate hasn't done that this race? She speaks 5 languages, an important skill set in an increasingly interconnected world. How many languages can the other candidates speak? She has also faced voters in the public and won 2 out of 3 of those contests. How many times has Brian Topp done that? And to deride her because she's "too young?" Funny, that sounds exactly like the lines the Liberals and Conservatives used about the NDP candidates in Quebec. Is that to say that young people shouldn't be involved in politics and should not be taken seriously? And we wonder why voter turnout is so low among that age group?

Make no mistake, if her name was Nickolas Ashton instead, she would not be facing this kind of criticism.

 

I like your comment! I agree with you, i dont like who says "shes too young" dont matter how old she is, i wanna see she win! she will be ever young and woman prime minister!

I wonder is there any youngest or woman prime minister or presidential in the world? Iceland - woman prime minister etc that all i think now.

 

Way to go Niki!


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments