GT: Federal Election

[rubecube]

Lol, check out these clowns:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/3403...9/?pnref=story

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Lol, check out these clowns:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/3403...9/?pnref=story

traitors

[Canuck-Hater]

So now that Trudeau is PM clearly ISIS will invade our beaches and kill us in our sleep.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

traitors

Not just that, but does anyone really want to live in a country founded by the braintrust from the Sun comments section? Also pretty hilarious that they've included B.C. and Manitoba in their "republic" when both of those provinces only had about 30% support for the Conservatives and would want absolutely nothing to do with such a stupid idea.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

So now that Trudeau is PM clearly ISIS will invade our beaches and kill us in our sleep.

They won't be invading... Trudeau is brining in 25,000 jihadists.... I mean refugees as we speak.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by troutman

Braid: Liepert paints woeful picture of campaign quarrels, lack of respect

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...ack-of-respect

A lot of MPs and defeated candidates are suddenly talking frankly, although usually off the record. They have years of conditioned silence to shake off — unlike Liepert, who’s probably impossible to muzzle under any conditions.

According to Liepert, the central campaign treated the city’s new candidates almost with contempt, despite the party’s continuing popularity in the city.

The party didn’t want to hear that Harper wasn’t popular, he says.

Liepert feels the campaign went badly off the rails when the Conservatives de-emphasized jobs and the economy to focus on niqabs and cultural snitch lines and even a rally with ex-Toronto mayor Rob Ford.

Some women in Harper’s caucus were furious that Harper consistently attacked two female premiers, Alberta’s Rachel Notley and Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne, and then appeared with an ex-mayor who lied about drug use and made lewd comments to women.

Harper didn’t really communicate with local candidates, Liepert says.

I dont know about most of this, but some women in Harper's caucus were upset that he consistently attacked two Provincial Premiers who represent opposition parties who just happened to be women?

It cant have anything to do with the fact that they're NDP and Liberal Premiers of Alberta and Ontario so it must be because they're women and Harper is a misogynist. Especially of all of Harper's past history of rampant misogyny.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont know about most of this, but some women in Harper's caucus were upset that he consistently attacked two Provincial Premiers who represent opposition parties who just happened to be women?

Except that it's pretty unprecedented for a sitting PM to go after premiers as publicly as he did.

It cant have anything to do with the fact that they're NDP and Liberal Premiers of Alberta and Ontario so it must be because they're women and Harper is a misogynist. Especially of all of Harper's past history of rampant misogyny.

Well I mean....

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/22/for-w...en-a-disaster/

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Lol, check out these clowns:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/3403...9/?pnref=story

and these clowns

http://www.blocquebecois.org/

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well I mean....

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/22/for-w...en-a-disaster/

So, hes blaming Harper giving more money in child benefits for a drop of women in the work force?

I dont even know what to say to that.

I notice the author is a 'Trudeau Foundation Scholar' as well.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

So, hes blaming Harper giving more money in child benefits for a drop of women in the work force?

I dont even know what to say to that.

I notice the author is a 'Trudeau Foundation Scholar' as well.

You kind of cherry-picked there, eh? You don't think no-showing a debate on women's issues and cutting funding to women's advocacy groups that included rape crisis centres is problematic?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You kind of cherry-picked there, eh??

Cherry picking? Your link defines such.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You kind of cherry-picked there, eh? You don't think no-showing a debate on women's issues and cutting funding to women's advocacy groups that included rape crisis centres is problematic?

That 'article' was the definition of Cherry-picking.

'No showing' at a debate on women's issues? He failed to attend a debate, it happens, he doesnt go to all of them. You know who else misses debates from time to time? Everyone.

Deriving that he didnt care about women's issues from that is at best tenuous and just pretty cynical.

Cutting funding to women's advocacy groups? Were they the only ones whose funding was reduced or did Harper cut funding from a whole variety of groups in order to balance a budget? Or was it just them and all of their funding?

[peter12]

Wynn took as many shots at Harper as she pleased throughout the election. She went far and above any acceptable level of partisanship she had as a Liberal premier.

[peter12]

Two points. Women leaving the workforce, especially in lower-skill jobs, is a good thing as they probably went back home to be full-time mothers and wives. Something that they obviously wanted to do. This also meant that the CPC family tax credits worked as it allowed more families to rely on a single-income earner.

The other, what the heck is a government appropriately able to do to standardize private sector salaries. Indeed, the unintended outcome of such policies often has the effect of increasing inequality even further!

Awful article.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

That 'article' was the definition of Cherry-picking.

'No showing' at a debate on women's issues? He failed to attend a debate, it happens, he doesnt go to all of them. You know who else misses debates from time to time? Everyone.

Deriving that he didnt care about women's issues from that is at best tenuous and just pretty cynical.

Okay, so what would be a good reason for him to skip that particular debate when all of the other leaders said they would attend, except Mulcair, who only skipped it because Harper did, but still agreed to do the sit down interview that the other candidates did?

Cutting funding to women's advocacy groups? Were they the only ones whose funding was reduced or did Harper cut funding from a whole variety of groups in order to balance a budget? Or was it just them and all of their funding?

Generally he made a habit of cutting funding to groups that went against his various ideologies, so derive from that what you will.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Two points. Women leaving the workforce, especially in lower-skill jobs, is a good thing as they probably went back home to be full-time mothers and wives. Something that they obviously wanted to do. This also meant that the CPC family tax credits worked as it allowed more families to rely on a single-income earner.

Well except that re-entry into the work force and advancement becomes that much harder for parents who leave it. With the divorce rate at where it is, it's not like this is a small problem. I'm also not particularly sure how the CPC's tax credits assist single-parents, which is an issue that affects women far more than men (13% of families are single-mothers, 3% are single fathers).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well except that re-entry into the work force and advancement becomes that much harder for parents who leave it. With the divorce rate at where it is, it's not like this is a small problem. I'm also not particularly sure how the CPC's tax credits assist single-parents, which is an issue that affects women far more than men (13% of families are single-mothers, 3% are single fathers).

Divorce doesn't affect the rate of children born to single parents. That is another phenomenon altogether.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, so what would be a good reason for him to skip that particular debate when all of the other leaders said they would attend, except Mulcair, who only skipped it because Harper did, but still agreed to do the sit down interview that the other candidates did?



Generally he made a habit of cutting funding to groups that went against his various ideologies, so derive from that what you will.

Since when did it become a novel thing for governments to fund/defund groups that had agendas that challenged their own.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by _Q_

They won't be invading... Trudeau is brining in 25,000 jihadists.... I mean refugees as we speak.

As my close friend in the military is convinced (and I imagine this is pretty wide spread in the military) that the majority of people coming in are "fighting age males". So they are taking a politically correct term in describing it atleast.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You kind of cherry-picked there, eh? You don't think no-showing a debate on women's issues and cutting funding to women's advocacy groups that included rape crisis centres is problematic?

There has been one televised debate among party leaders on 'women's issues' during a campaign. That was in 1984, an age where a title like 'women's issues' was unfortunately appropriate.
That anyone still refers to something as a 'women's issue' in 2015 is incredibly sexist, in my opinion.