Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Anyways, my views on the pretty empty headed pony are well known here, so no point in me rehashing the subject.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
What's to be concerned about? A style over substance GQ playboy that became leader of his party because of who he is not what he's done possibly running the country. What could go wrong?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by old-fart
Having said that, as another poster said earlier, what is somewhat amusing is JT's 'hey look at me, we are totally different and have a brand new way of doing things' attitude when really, he isn't and doesn't. Dude has never accomplished a damn thing in his life on his own, yet he somehow thinks he's fit to run the country.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
Way to take a stand junior.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shnabdabber
But, but...
Trudeau is SO dreamy! Guys!?!
|
It's always a great way to tell how intellectual someone's critique is by how quickly they go to the "attractive/doesn't 'deserve' it" line. It's basically a calling card for people who have read a couple articles in the Sun, maybe.
Physical appearance aside (conservatives would scoff if one of the largest criticisms of Harper was that he was an awkward nerd), how old was Trudeau when he became the leader of the opposition? 41. How old was Harper? 43 (but guys! Trudeau is so young!).
How much had each accomplished before they were leader of the opposition?
Trudeau - Held office for 6 years, supposedly dependent on his name, 2 degrees
Harper - Held office for 9 years, supposedly dependent on the incompetency of others and his father's friends, 1 Master's degree
How different are these two? Really? Their politics are different, so perhaps people could show their intelligence by going to the well of their politics without relying on the embarrassing comments about physical appearance and experience. It's the calling card for a severe lack of enlightenment.