Trudeau promises gender parity in cabinet

137 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

NorthReport wrote:
Unwise I think as it confirms the weak Justin meme the Conservatives have been promoting effectively for some time now The JNR Justin Not Ready ads have had an impact
quizzical wrote:

i thought it was soooooo cutesy wootsy of his mom to be out politicing for him and playing her poor little bullied boy schitck on Sunday's The West Block.

Interesting comment quizzical. Sounds exactly like what bullies say to silence anyone who would dare criticize them. Do you think Margaret Trudeau should stop writing books? Or do you think she should refuse interviews while her son is running or refrain from commenting?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Unwise I think as it confirms the weak Justin meme the Conservatives have been promoting effectively for some time now The JNR Justin Not Ready ads have had an impact
quizzical wrote:

i thought it was soooooo cutesy wootsy of his mom to be out politicing for him and playing her poor little bullied boy schitck on Sunday's The West Block.

Interesting comment quizzical. Sounds exactly like what bullies say to silence anyone who would dare criticize them. Do you think Margaret Trudeau should stop writing books? Or do you think she should refuse interviews while her son is running or refrain from commenting?

Pondering, you still pretending not to do personal attacks on other posters here? Becuase that is one.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Unwise I think as it confirms the weak Justin meme the Conservatives have been promoting effectively for some time now The JNR Justin Not Ready ads have had an impact
quizzical wrote:

i thought it was soooooo cutesy wootsy of his mom to be out politicing for him and playing her poor little bullied boy schitck on Sunday's The West Block.

Interesting comment quizzical. Sounds exactly like what bullies say to silence anyone who would dare criticize them. Do you think Margaret Trudeau should stop writing books? Or do you think she should refuse interviews while her son is running or refrain from commenting?

Pondering, you still pretending not to do personal attacks on other posters here? Becuase that is one.

No it isn't. I am challenging quizzical's comment on Margaret Trudeau. Her comment is a putdown of Margaret Trudeau without any quote to back up the criticism of Margaret Trudeau's comments or behavior being "cutesy wootsy".

What do bullies do if a third party, especially a mother, defends their victim or criticizes the attackers?

Quizzical's commentary on Margaret Trudeau does resemble the approach bullies take. If anyone else defends the target it is used as proof that the target must be weak, especially if it is the target's mother or sister and the target is male.

Margaret Trudeau doesn't deserve to be attacked for her opinion. Trudeau shouldn't be attacked based on his mother's comments. She is not part of his campaign. The focus of the interview was her latest book on aging, not politics.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Unwise I think as it confirms the weak Justin meme the Conservatives have been promoting effectively for some time now The JNR Justin Not Ready ads have had an impact
quizzical wrote:

i thought it was soooooo cutesy wootsy of his mom to be out politicing for him and playing her poor little bullied boy schitck on Sunday's The West Block.

Interesting comment quizzical. Sounds exactly like what bullies say to silence anyone who would dare criticize them. Do you think Margaret Trudeau should stop writing books? Or do you think she should refuse interviews while her son is running or refrain from commenting?

Pondering, you still pretending not to do personal attacks on other posters here? Becuase that is one.

No it isn't. I am challenging quizzical's comment on Margaret Trudeau. Her comment is a putdown of Margaret Trudeau without any quote to back up the criticism of Margaret Trudeau's comments or behavior being "cutesy wootsy".

What do bullies do if a third party, especially a mother, defends their victim or criticizes the attackers?

Quizzical's commentary on Margaret Trudeau does resemble the approach bullies take. If anyone else defends the target it is used as proof that the target must be weak, especially if it is the target's mother or sister and the target is male.

Margaret Trudeau doesn't deserve to be attacked for her opinion. Trudeau shouldn't be attacked based on his mother's comments. She is not part of his campaign. The focus of the interview was her latest book on aging, not politics.

Perhaps Pondering doesn't understand the distinction between public figures who are not babblers, and babblers. A babbler can express almost any opinion of a public figure. Calling a public figure nazi, racist, homophobe, stupid, narcissist, or any other insult is OK. However, personal attacks on other babblers, such as calling one a bully, are not. Only the ideas in the post may be attacked, not the poster.

Now, I admit that I have failed that standard a few times, perhaps even with respect to Pondering, but I try to avoid such behaviour, and I expect to be criticized when I fail.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Unwise I think as it confirms the weak Justin meme the Conservatives have been promoting effectively for some time now The JNR Justin Not Ready ads have had an impact
quizzical wrote:

i thought it was soooooo cutesy wootsy of his mom to be out politicing for him and playing her poor little bullied boy schitck on Sunday's The West Block.

Interesting comment quizzical. Sounds exactly like what bullies say to silence anyone who would dare criticize them. Do you think Margaret Trudeau should stop writing books? Or do you think she should refuse interviews while her son is running or refrain from commenting?

Pondering, you still pretending not to do personal attacks on other posters here? Becuase that is one.

No it isn't. I am challenging quizzical's comment on Margaret Trudeau. Her comment is a putdown of Margaret Trudeau without any quote to back up the criticism of Margaret Trudeau's comments or behavior being "cutesy wootsy".

What do bullies do if a third party, especially a mother, defends their victim or criticizes the attackers?

Quizzical's commentary on Margaret Trudeau does resemble the approach bullies take. If anyone else defends the target it is used as proof that the target must be weak, especially if it is the target's mother or sister and the target is male.

Margaret Trudeau doesn't deserve to be attacked for her opinion. Trudeau shouldn't be attacked based on his mother's comments. She is not part of his campaign. The focus of the interview was her latest book on aging, not politics.

This is not the first time that you have called people here bullies for expressing opinions negative to Liberals. You need to stop this if you want any respect around here in future (you have little now for this same type of stuff). Nobody else gets to do personal attacks the way you do and I don't know why. Calling people who post here names is attacking them personally.

Opinions about public figures are not protected here. Public figures are only protected against libel or threat not negative opinions. Libel would be at a high standard like a deliberate lie posted maliciously -- not a negative characterization of something that is true.

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Unwise I think as it confirms the weak Justin meme the Conservatives have been promoting effectively for some time now The JNR Justin Not Ready ads have had an impact
quizzical wrote:

i thought it was soooooo cutesy wootsy of his mom to be out politicing for him and playing her poor little bullied boy schitck on Sunday's The West Block.

Interesting comment quizzical. Sounds exactly like what bullies say to silence anyone who would dare criticize them. Do you think Margaret Trudeau should stop writing books? Or do you think she should refuse interviews while her son is running or refrain from commenting?

Pondering, you still pretending not to do personal attacks on other posters here? Becuase that is one.

No it isn't. I am challenging quizzical's comment on Margaret Trudeau. Her comment is a putdown of Margaret Trudeau without any quote to back up the criticism of Margaret Trudeau's comments or behavior being "cutesy wootsy".

What do bullies do if a third party, especially a mother, defends their victim or criticizes the attackers?

Quizzical's commentary on Margaret Trudeau does resemble the approach bullies take. If anyone else defends the target it is used as proof that the target must be weak, especially if it is the target's mother or sister and the target is male.

Margaret Trudeau doesn't deserve to be attacked for her opinion. Trudeau shouldn't be attacked based on his mother's comments. She is not part of his campaign. The focus of the interview was her latest book on aging, not politics.

Perhaps Pondering doesn't understand the distinction between public figures who are not babblers, and babblers. A babbler can express almost any opinion of a public figure. Calling a public figure nazi, racist, homophobe, stupid, narcissist, or any other insult is OK. However, personal attacks on other babblers, such as calling one a bully, are not. Only the ideas in the post may be attacked, not the poster.

Now, I admit that I have failed that standard a few times, perhaps even with respect to Pondering, but I try to avoid such behaviour, and I expect to be criticized when I fail.

Listen to the interview. She talks about her book on aging except when she is directly asked questions about Justin. About bullying, she responds that when the boys were children she would go to the school and sort it out with the other mothers. Who should she go to now? The Governor General? The Queen? That's it.

I did not call quizzical a bully. I said:

Interesting comment quizzical. Sounds exactly like what bullies say to silence anyone who would dare criticize them. Do you think Margaret Trudeau should stop writing books? Or do you think she should refuse interviews while her son is running or refrain from commenting?

I think and hope that quizzical will agree with me. That her comment was unfair to Margaret Trudeau who didn't say anything out of line.  This:

i thought it was soooooo cutesy wootsy of his mom to be out politicing for him and playing her poor little bullied boy schitck on Sunday's The West Block.

was a cheap shot at Trudeau's mother and by extension him.

Should we get on Catherine Pinhas now? 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/09/thomas-mulcair-catherine-pinhas-...

“They see him as a big brute — which is totally false. I could never be with a brute,” she says, her brown eyes flashing. “He is nice, he is kind. ...That, I would like people to know,” she says, grabbing his hand tenderly. He smiles at her....

She tells The Huffington Post Canada that she worries about Mulcair, and she hates seeing negative stories about him.

“I don’t like it at all,” she says, looking at Mulcair, as the waiter brings the fish sitting on a bed of spinach.

How sweet. It's like a Harlequin romance! Margaret Trudeau released a book on aging that has nothing to do with JT. It is inevidable that she will be asked her opinons on the election. Likewise, it is inevidable that Pinas will be dragged into the campaign even though she is a private person with no claim to fame. If she refused to discuss Mulcair at all then that would be the story.

Bullying is a real problem in our society and so is the degration of political discourse. The early Harper campaign against Trudeau was bullying.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/stop-being-me...

Seven students from an Ottawa-area Catholic school have written to Harper asking that he pull Conservative attack ads, which began running within hours of Trudeau claiming the Liberal leadership last month.

The students join Margaret Trudeau, the Liberal leader’s mother, who earlier this month called out Harper for “bullying [her] Justin.”

The students’ letter-writing campaign comes as a new poll suggests the attack ads may have backfired.

Indeed, the ads were more likely to leave a negative impression about Harper and the Conservatives than they were about Trudeau and the Liberals, according to The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey.

Teacher Natalie Casault said the idea came from the students themselves during a lesson on government last month. To the kids, she said the ads looked just like cyberbullying, which they’d learned about a couple of weeks earlier.

The ads feature video of Trudeau doing a mock strip tease for a charity event, his head surrounded by fairy dust as a narrator sneeringly recounts his past experience as a camp counsellor and drama teacher.

I'd like the kids to get the message that Trudeau's Mom is right and that political discourse should rise above bully style attacks.

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
What do bullies do if a third party, especially a mother, defends their victim or criticizes the attackers?

Are you referring to children?

Or adults who bring their moms to work to help settle disputes?

quizzical

wow, i just saw this. what a fkn nerve pondering to call me a bully because  of how i viewed her  commentary. i never bullied margret trudeau in my commentary ffs.

 if she would stuck to flogging her fkn book, which has suscpicious release timing, and not ventered into her  "poor poor son" crap, there woulda been no comment from me at all.

so why don't you stop  bullying me or trying to... as you are actually doing the bullying in this situation.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

I did not call quizzical a bully. I said:

Interesting comment quizzical. Sounds exactly like what bullies say to silence anyone who would dare criticize them.

So using this logic it be fine to say that you are doing what assholes do. Then I would not be calling you an asshole now would I?

And that would be okay with you?

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

wow, i just saw this. what a fkn nerve pondering to call me a bully because  of how i viewed her  commentary. i never bullied margret trudeau in my commentary ffs.

 if she would stuck to flogging her fkn book, which has suscpicious release timing, and not ventered into her  "poor poor son" crap, there woulda been no comment from me at all.

so why don't you stop  bullying me or trying to... as you are actually doing the bullying in this situation.

I did not call you a bully. I said your comment is one that bullies use to silence criticism and it is. That doesn't mean you are a bully, you are not in a position to bully Margaret Trudeau. It means you are emulating a tactic used by bullies.

So defend your comment if you disagree. I watched the interview. Please quote what she said that earned your disparagement.

http://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-west-block

There is the interview, 5 minutes 27 seconds.

At about the 3 minute mark she is asked if "anyone" on parliament hill is listening to her and she laughs and says that Justin read it in one night and makes a joke about the part on sex then immediately starts talking about senior health. As soon as she finishes speaking Tom Clark again brings it back to JT by saying that she is also a mother. He goes on to say that she knows because of one part of her life where she saw sort of the meanest part of politics and now as a mother you know your son is going to be...

MT then says: Oh, bullying, Tom bullying, laughingly, and Tom says. "you don't seem to worried about that". MT responds I used to have to go to the principals office you know if one of the little ones was being bullied and sort it out with the other mothers and I don't know where I should go with this one is the Queen or the Governor General?

By asking if she should go to the Governor General or the Queen she mocked the notion that she was needed to defend him.

Where is the poor poor son part? 

There is nothing suspicious about the release of her book. It isn't her first. The death of her mother was a turning point for her as it is for many people. A friend was in a home because she alzheimers.

MT's history with mental illness has been used to disparage JT. JT doesn't need reminders of the scandals that swirled around his parents during his father's time in office. Even if that were not the case I don't see MT's book on aging impacting the election.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I did not call quizzical a bully. I said:

Interesting comment quizzical. Sounds exactly like what bullies say to silence anyone who would dare criticize them.

So using this logic it be fine to say that you are doing what assholes do. Then I would not be calling you an asshole now would I?

And that would be okay with you?

"Asshole" would be difficult to support because it's so general but maybe. It would depend if you were right. If said "that's what assholes say" because I defended Trudeau on daycare, no, I don't think that would be supportable. If I attacked Mulcair by making some slur about beards and you said "you sound like an asshole" or even "you are an asshole" I'd agree with you. Or, if I had made a joke and you were deliberately misconstruing it, I would argue back and probably call you a jerk. I'm all for being direct. It's the pussyfooting around I have no patience for.

NorthReport

Moderators, please close this, another one of these Pondering threads.

 

Pondering wrote:

 

"Asshole" would be difficult to support because it's so general but maybe. It would depend if you were right. If said "that's what assholes say" because I defended Trudeau on daycare, no, I don't think that would be supportable. If I attacked Mulcair by making some slur about beards and you said "you sound like an asshole" or even "you are an asshole" I'd agree with you. Or, if I had made a joke and you were deliberately misconstruing it, I would argue back and probably call you a jerk. I'm all for being direct. It's the pussyfooting around I have no patience for.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What do bullies do if a third party, especially a mother, defends their victim or criticizes the attackers?

Are you referring to children?

Or adults who bring their moms to work to help settle disputes?

I don't know of any adults who have brought moms to work to help settle disputes. Do you? Have you even listened to the interview?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I did not call quizzical a bully. I said:

Interesting comment quizzical. Sounds exactly like what bullies say to silence anyone who would dare criticize them.

So using this logic it be fine to say that you are doing what assholes do. Then I would not be calling you an asshole now would I?

And that would be okay with you?

"Asshole" would be difficult to support because it's so general but maybe. It would depend if you were right. If said "that's what assholes say" because I defended Trudeau on daycare, no, I don't think that would be supportable. If I attacked Mulcair by making some slur about beards and you said "you sound like an asshole" or even "you are an asshole" I'd agree with you. Or, if I had made a joke and you were deliberately misconstruing it, I would argue back and probably call you a jerk. I'm all for being direct. It's the pussyfooting around I have no patience for.

Okay well here is the thing: it would not be okay for me to say you are doing what an asshole would do and it is not okay for you to say that someone else is doing what a bully would do. In both cases it suggests that this is what the person is -- people are presumably defined by what they do.

I was curious to see how you would respond -- I suspect you would just do your usual thing again -- And I see you have -- you get to define how and on what topic you can attack others and you get to decide how and on what topic others attack you. That is quite a great set-up.

What I understand from this is that you can make attacks and in theory others can attack you only so long as it is in response to some specific thing that you have no intention of saying -- or put differently you can do a personal attack when you define it as okay and others can attack you only if you define it as okay.

Glad we cleared that up.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
wow, i just saw this. what a fkn nerve pondering to call me a bully because  of how i viewed her  commentary. i never bullied margret trudeau in my commentary ffs.

 if she would stuck to flogging her fkn book, which has suscpicious release timing, and not ventered into her  "poor poor son" crap, there woulda been no comment from me at all.

so why don't you stop  bullying me or trying to... as you are actually doing the bullying in this situation.

I did not call you a bully. I said your comment is one that bullies use to silence criticism and it is. That doesn't mean you are a bully, you are not in a position to bully Margaret Trudeau. It means you are emulating a tactic used by bullies.

So defend your comment if you disagree. I watched the interview. Please quote what she said that earned your disparagement.

http://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-west-block

There is the interview, 5 minutes 27 seconds.

At about the 3 minute mark she is asked if "anyone" on parliament hill is listening to her and she laughs and says that Justin read it in one night and makes a joke about the part on sex then immediately starts talking about senior health. As soon as she finishes speaking Tom Clark again brings it back to JT by saying that she is also a mother. He goes on to say that she knows because of one part of her life where she saw sort of the meanest part of politics and now as a mother you know your son is going to be...

MT then says: Oh, bullying, Tom bullying, laughingly, and Tom says. "you don't seem to worried about that". MT responds I used to have to go to the principals office you know if one of the little ones was being bullied and sort it out with the other mothers and I don't know where I should go with this one is the Queen or the Governor General?

By asking if she should go to the Governor General or the Queen she mocked the notion that she was needed to defend him.

Where is the poor poor son part? 

There is nothing suspicious about the release of her book. It isn't her first. The death of her mother was a turning point for her as it is for many people. A friend was in a home because she alzheimers.

MT's history with mental illness has been used to disparage JT. JT doesn't need reminders of the scandals that swirled around his parents during his father's time in office. Even if that were not the case I don't see MT's book on aging impacting the election.

 

ffs pondering even mentioning bullying inrespect to a leader of a party running to be the leader of a country is  over the top, and not just by a little. and it turns Justin into a victim, which is where she was selling the poor poor Justin meme.

she was there flogging her book on aging, on a political talk show. of course the timing is suspect. how many Canadians get on the West Block to flog a book on aging or anything else?

try to stop blowin smoke up my ass ok.

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:
quizzical wrote:
wow, i just saw this. what a fkn nerve pondering to call me a bully because  of how i viewed her  commentary. i never bullied margret trudeau in my commentary ffs.

 if she would stuck to flogging her fkn book, which has suscpicious release timing, and not ventered into her  "poor poor son" crap, there woulda been no comment from me at all.

so why don't you stop  bullying me or trying to... as you are actually doing the bullying in this situation.

I did not call you a bully. I said your comment is one that bullies use to silence criticism and it is. That doesn't mean you are a bully, you are not in a position to bully Margaret Trudeau. It means you are emulating a tactic used by bullies.

So defend your comment if you disagree. I watched the interview. Please quote what she said that earned your disparagement.

http://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-west-block

There is the interview, 5 minutes 27 seconds.

At about the 3 minute mark she is asked if "anyone" on parliament hill is listening to her and she laughs and says that Justin read it in one night and makes a joke about the part on sex then immediately starts talking about senior health. As soon as she finishes speaking Tom Clark again brings it back to JT by saying that she is also a mother. He goes on to say that she knows because of one part of her life where she saw sort of the meanest part of politics and now as a mother you know your son is going to be...

MT then says: Oh, bullying, Tom bullying, laughingly, and Tom says. "you don't seem to worried about that". MT responds I used to have to go to the principals office you know if one of the little ones was being bullied and sort it out with the other mothers and I don't know where I should go with this one is the Queen or the Governor General?

By asking if she should go to the Governor General or the Queen she mocked the notion that she was needed to defend him.

Where is the poor poor son part? 

There is nothing suspicious about the release of her book. It isn't her first. The death of her mother was a turning point for her as it is for many people. A friend was in a home because she alzheimers.

MT's history with mental illness has been used to disparage JT. JT doesn't need reminders of the scandals that swirled around his parents during his father's time in office. Even if that were not the case I don't see MT's book on aging impacting the election.

 

ffs pondering even mentioning bullying inrespect to a leader of a party running to be the leader of a country is  over the top, and not just by a little. and it turns Justin into a victim, which is where she was selling the poor poor Justin meme.

she was there flogging her book on aging, on a political talk show. of course the timing is suspect. how many Canadians get on the West Block to flog a book on aging or anything else?

try to stop blowin smoke up my ass ok.

She was probably invited because she is Justin Trudeau's mother and the only reason she is well known is because she was married to Pierre Trudeau. That doesn't mean she accepted because of either or that she whipped up her book because JT was running. If she had been there to talk about Justin she would have spent more than 5 seconds out of 5+ minutes talking about him and she would have mentioned his name. Clark tried to get her on the topic twice and both times she brought the subject back to her book and aging within seconds.

The woman has to be in her seventies by now. I wasn't paying any attention to politics back then as I was involved in my own nightmares but it was impossible not to have some awareness of what was happening and Margaret Trudeau's "inappropriate" behavior was headline news. When Clark alluded to her having her own experience with meanness he was alluding to her own experiences in the spotlight.

She didn't deserve your comment. When she spoke of going to the Queen or the Governor General instead of the principal she was making the point in a joking fashion that it isn't her job to protect JT anymore and went back to discussing her book.

quizzical

lol. she sure did, and so did the Liberal machne who orchastrated this BS of her flogging her book on a political show and pretending "no big deal she's just flogging her book".

you're funny. not in a good way.  i'm done with you. no respect left. won't waste my time.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

lol. she sure did, and so did the Liberal machne who orchastrated this BS of her flogging her book on a political show and pretending "no big deal she's just flogging her book".

you're funny. not in a good way.  i'm done with you. no respect left. won't waste my time.

Well I still have respect for you. In another thread I referred to a young woman as a "girl" which wasn't appropriate even though I meant no disrespect to her by it. It doesn't mean I'm not a feminist. It just means I slipped up.

Likewise I never considered you a bully, but the way you sneeringly described Margaret's interview was in my view inappropriate and is reminiscent of something a bully would say. The Liberals don't run The West Block. Tom Clark invited her on, yes because of who she is, but she kept the interview to her book.

Mulcair has had family come forward too. If Catherine Pinas accepts an interview should I sneer at her too? Should I mock Mulcair for showing off grandchildren? Should I mock him for his "I walked to school uphill both ways" stories?

Margaret Trudeau stayed on the topic of her book. She didn't defend JT or say anything about meanness in politics. The families of politicians are used to humanize them. She didn't deserve your comment.

MegB

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Unwise I think as it confirms the weak Justin meme the Conservatives have been promoting effectively for some time now The JNR Justin Not Ready ads have had an impact
quizzical wrote:

i thought it was soooooo cutesy wootsy of his mom to be out politicing for him and playing her poor little bullied boy schitck on Sunday's The West Block.

Interesting comment quizzical. Sounds exactly like what bullies say to silence anyone who would dare criticize them. Do you think Margaret Trudeau should stop writing books? Or do you think she should refuse interviews while her son is running or refrain from commenting?

This is quite obviously a personal attack. And don't bother with the acrobatic backpedalling language that you used to rationalize calling a babbler a bully - it's wasted on me.

Pondering

MegB wrote:

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Unwise I think as it confirms the weak Justin meme the Conservatives have been promoting effectively for some time now The JNR Justin Not Ready ads have had an impact
quizzical wrote:

i thought it was soooooo cutesy wootsy of his mom to be out politicing for him and playing her poor little bullied boy schitck on Sunday's The West Block.

Interesting comment quizzical. Sounds exactly like what bullies say to silence anyone who would dare criticize them. Do you think Margaret Trudeau should stop writing books? Or do you think she should refuse interviews while her son is running or refrain from commenting?

This is quite obviously a personal attack. And don't bother with the acrobatic backpedalling language that you used to rationalize calling a babbler a bully - it's wasted on me.

You're the boss.

quizzical, I apologize.

quizzical

you know pondering, just what are you apologizing for? i'm not big on empty apologies but i'm curious.

for wrongly accusing me of being a bully?

your lack of respect shown by your wrongful badgering of me?

of your lack of respect in telling me what to think on what i believe?

other?

BRF

"Mini Trudeau promises gender equality in cabinet" seeing as women do more work than men there will have to be less women in that cabinet, the only catch being you have to form govt' to form cabinet....

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
you know pondering, just what are you apologizing for? i'm not big on empty apologies but i'm curious. for wrongly accusing me of being a bully? your lack of respect shown by your wrongful badgering of me? of your lack of respect in telling me what to think on what i believe? other?

I never thought you were a bully but obviously that is how people interpreted my words anyway so I am sorry for how I worded myself and that I offended you.

I still think your comment about Margaret Trudeau was uncalled for so I can't take that back. If I were Trudeau I would want her to stay off television. I suspect she was told not to talk about him because she never even said his name once in the five minutes. She certainly didn't spend any time praising him. Clark asked her if her book would influence Trudeau's policy and she didn't bite.

I was young at the time but I still remember her being pilloried by the press, and she was mentally ill. She is in her seventies now. Do you really think that interview would sway anyone to vote for Trudeau?  Did Clark ask her on the show because she is Trudeau's mother? I'm certain he did and the network was probably hoping she would embarass Trudeau.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

She is in her seventies now.

That's the second time you've said that. She is actually 66.

socialdemocrati...

We're close to election time, so we're close to being able to verify each party's credibility on this issue.

PARTY: Male Candidates : Female Candidates = X:1 ratio

  • CONS: 253:59 = 4.2 : 1
  • BLOC: 38:15 = 2.5 : 1
  • GREEN: 142:62 = 2.3 : 1 
  • LIBERALS: 214:100 = 2.1 : 1
  • NDP: 166:128 = 1.2 : 1

 

 

 

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

We're close to election time, so we're close to being able to verify each party's credibility on this issue.

PARTY: Male Candidates : Female Candidates = X:1 ratio

  • CONS: 253:59 = 4.2 : 1
  • BLOC: 38:15 = 2.5 : 1
  • GREEN: 142:62 = 2.3 : 1 
  • LIBERALS: 214:100 = 2.1 : 1
  • NDP: 166:128 = 1.2 : 1

And yet the NDP is not promising gender parity in Cabinet where it matters. If they wanted to one-up the Liberals they could name the portfolios women would have with the NDP.

quizzical

offs pondering, ya can't name the portfolios before people are really elected. and the liberals have a 2 to 1 ratio instead at being  as almost candidate parity like the NDP. 

 

just shows what lying liars the liberals are.

socialdemocrati...

Another "optics" response. It's not always about the perception of "one-upping" in the middle of a campaign. It's about committing to something for years, and actually getting it done. How credible is a party that promises gender parity but has twice as many male candidates as they have women? Why is it that the Liberal party makes huge vague promises in the middle of a campaign, instead of working towards them over several years?

David Young

As of August 15th, the Liberals have 100 female candidates out of 314 nominated candidates; 31.9%.

The Conservatives have 59 female candidates out of 312 nominated candidates; 18.9%.

The Greens have 62 female candidates out of 204 nominated candidates; 30.4%.

The NDP has 128 female candidates out of 294 nominated candidates; 43.5%

I'm wondering why noone has been bringing up the issue on the campaign trail!

Oh, right!  When it comes to the media, the Justin (It-For-Me) Trudeau Liberals can do no wrong!

(Thanks to the PUNDIT'S GUIDE web-site for the stats!)

 

 

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Another "optics" response. It's not always about the perception of "one-upping" in the middle of a campaign. It's about committing to something for years, and actually getting it done. How credible is a party that promises gender parity but has twice as many male candidates as they have women? Why is it that the Liberal party makes huge vague promises in the middle of a campaign, instead of working towards them over several years?

Completely credible. They don't need an equal number of candidates they only need enough talented women to form half the cabinet which they have. There is nothing vague about it either and the annoucement was not made during the campaign it was made months ago. Even if it were announced after that would be perfectly normal. Mulcair will also be making policy announcements during the campaign.

Mr. Magoo

Will he commit to gender parity in a shadow cabinet? 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Will he commit to gender parity in a shadow cabinet? 

I doubt it because he would not know how many seats he would have lessening his chances of having elected enough women to fulfil the spots. In any case I don't care because hardly anyone even knows about shadow cabinets and their members. The cabinet itself is far more visible and its members (theoretically) have direct power.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
In any case I don't care because hardly anyone even knows about shadow cabinets and their members. The cabinet itself is far more visible and its members (theoretically) have direct power.

Oh, certainly.  But I'm just thinking that if the unthinkable happens and Justin doesn't form government, will his commitment to equality extend to a shadow cabinet, if the Libs form opposition?

And while you might think that the shadow cabinet is negligible, I have to wonder whether elected female Libs would feel the same way.  Maybe they'd like to be equally represented, no matter how less visible it is.

mark_alfred

The NDP's approach is better.  It gets to the root of the problem, which is that there needs to be more women running, which leads to more women elected, more women in cabinet, etc.  Look at the Alberta NDP.  Complete success.

Policywonk

Pondering wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Another "optics" response. It's not always about the perception of "one-upping" in the middle of a campaign. It's about committing to something for years, and actually getting it done. How credible is a party that promises gender parity but has twice as many male candidates as they have women? Why is it that the Liberal party makes huge vague promises in the middle of a campaign, instead of working towards them over several years?

Completely credible. They don't need an equal number of candidates they only need enough talented women to form half the cabinet which they have. There is nothing vague about it either and the annoucement was not made during the campaign it was made months ago. Even if it were announced after that would be perfectly normal. Mulcair will also be making policy announcements during the campaign.

They have to get enough of them elected first.

 

socialdemocrati...

The NDP's big policy announcements, like the Senate, or corporate tax increases, or child care, or electoral reform, are all long-standing stances they've had for years. The Senate is a perfect example of how they work, because they ramped up their attention on this issue during a highly relevant scandal, but it's fundamentally something they've been working towards for decades. 

So why is that the Liberals promised gender partiy just a few months before an election, right when they nosedive in the polls? The overwhelmingly male dominated slate reveals how much this is about "optics" and "one-upmanship" rather than any commitment to equality.

Pages