Ontario Liberal Party Goes Full Sexist

I wouldn't be an Ontario Conservative. They went off the deep end with Ford. He made too many mistakes with covid.

I'm telling you the Liberals are unifying their party and securing women's support. You seem to be banking on people caring if wannabe Liberal MPPs have to step aside for another candidate. It's done all the time for all sorts of reasons.

I haven't said I favor the practice.

 

I wouldn't be an Ontario Conservative either, but as an Ontario resident who lives in a formerly high covid area, I was actually far more upset with the federal government's handling of covid than the provincial. Ford did a surprisingly mediocre job, whereas Trudeau failed to close the airports and covid was brought in. I know of people here who left and returned via Pearson multiple times, including at the height of the pandemic, and the rule for them was "self quarantine at home" with absolutely no monitoring. They should have brought people home and then closed the airport as other countries did. Failing to do so resulted in a much bigger covid issue than we should have had.

 

You continue trying to turn Ontario Liberal party nominations into a personal rights issue. They aren't.

Canadian political parties are not like U.S. parties. You don't even have the right to be a party member because the party is a private organization.

 

Trudeau did a much better job than Ford. I think you start with a dislike for Trudeau and sympathy for Ford.

Closing foreign travel wasn't ever going to make much difference because Canada couldn't afford to close the U.S. border to commercial traffic.

There was some monitoring, but not enough given the traffic. Still, a faster travel ban wouldn't have made that much difference,

It's not born out by the science.

 

You can not just assume the reason for disproportionate representation.

And, you are ignoring the legislation that has come from that legislation.

And, I certainly do not accept that their response to you personally covers for a reasonable analysis of that law making body.

I suspect the party in question DOES have a legislative agenda and a justification for that agenda that goes beyond not liking the percent of women in office.[/QUOTE]

 

You don't have the right to party membership in the US, either.

The division between the state and the parties goes beyond membership, too.

For example, in Washington state one of the major parties didn't like the state method of presidential primaries, so they set up their own - using an entirely different method and ignoring the state presidential primary election and ignoring the outcome of the state primary election.

The parties are separate entities that have their own rules.

 

Cooperate with the discrimination? Nice.

 

1) BINGO!

2) BINGO!

 

NEITHER can you.

 

That's why I asked the question!!

Are you here just to try to find ways to butt heads?

 

It would have made a huge difference! Ford wouldn't have had to lock down Ontario's economy as much had Trudeau closed Pearson.

There was hardly any monitoring at all. People were told to "quarantine at home". Later, they did actually make people go to quarantine hotels, as they should have immediately. And the airports should have been close to everything but absolute emergency travel. Both the federal and provincial governments had a role in this failure.

I strongly disagree.

It is readily apparent when looking at what countries did around the planet and what their covid numbers were.

 

I'm not! You are if you support banning a gender.

Again, what does that even mean? Legislation that has come from legislation?

You just presume there is a good justification that makes the gender discrimination ok? Imagine if we told that to everyone who complained about gender or race discrimination. Sorry Rosa, you have to ride in the back of the bus, because, well we presume there is good reason for that, ya?

 

You presume there is a good justification that makes the gender discrimination ok. Imagine if we told that to everyone who complained about gender discrimination. Sorry Rosa, you have to ride in the back of the bus, because, well we presume there is good reason for that, ya?[/QUOTE]
Let me try again.

I think political parties do not do random. Otherwise, they would be eliminated by the public.

So, I think it does make sense to ask what the reasons are for their actions.

You may not think their reasons justify this aspect of their policy.

But, that just isn't what I'm asking.

I'm asking what THEIR justification is. Why do THEY see this as an important move?

I think the party in the OP has reasons for their policy decisions. And, I'll bet you don't agree with them, but I'm asking for an honest representation of what THEIR view is.

 

You were too lazy to click the link in the OP? Its the very first thing I posted here.

 

The U.S. primary system and the ability of individuals to choose candidates over party objections is a fundamental difference.

 

Well, the US parties still totally dominate here.

Individuals may be free to run, but the funding, event support, and state and federal election rules make it incredibly difficult for anyone not supported by one of our two major parties. Plus, the design of our legislature makes it essentially impossible for there to be a successful or lasting third party.

And, besides the above, instead of selecting a prime minister from among successful legislators we get presidential candidates who have had ZERO experience or track record in government and whose draw tends to be based on unchallenged or tested nonsense, personal wealth, and broad notoriety - NONE of which is a valid measure of what any country should want in the way of leadership.

I know there are positives and negatives for any system, but i like that parliamentary systems tend to make it more possible for smaller constituencies to have an actual voice. There can be a green party, for example - not that I would necessarily be a member.

And, the US government agrees with ME on that analysis of our system.

When we work to establish a more democratic system of government in another country, we do NOT suggest our own system. In fact, we strongly advise AGAINST our system.

Instead, we work to establish parliamentary systems!

 

I think you have the wrong idea about Canada. Before becoming Prime Minister, Trudeau was basically what you describe. He is the son of a popular former Prime Minister, a bit of an airhead, and had very little experience or qualification, to the point that the attack add against him was simply "he's not ready".

It isn't so different. We would both benefit from ranked choice voting. We both have first past the post systems that discourage smaller parties. The Green party you speak of rarely wins seats.

The biggest advantage we have over your system is the vote of non-confidence. It's much easier than your impeachment.

 

No, I'm absolutely fine with what I said.

Parliamentary systems choose their prime ministers from those who have had to win legislative seats and then proven themselves in some way.

You can hate Trudeau all you want, but he had to do that.

Every system can make mistakes. But, OUR system doesn't even require a basic understanding of democracy, let alone any clue about good governance of our country.

 

They don't actually have a win an election to take leadership of a party and then run in their first election knowing if they win they will become prime minister. That said, it would be rare. And Trudeau did take a seat in the house of Commons for 5 years before taking the leadership of his party (mostly via nepotism and name recognition).

I don't hate him. I voted for him. I just see him for who he is, including his flaws and his extreme privilege.

Neither does ours. We just tend to have better people run, likely because it's less fiery because we are a more laid back society. You also have a weird fixation on the personal lives and even families of your leaders. I think one benefit we have is the separation of ceremony from governance, with the figurehead Queen / Governor General.

Something Stephen Fry once said that stuck with me, is I think you would really benefit if a personification of Uncle Sam actually existed, not with any governing power, but as somebody the President had to occassionally "report to" and who took all the ceremonial and celebrity side of figurehead leadership so the President could govern without such drama.

 

Ford left too many bars open too long.

 

He also opened them again too early.

 

There was NO CHANCE IN HELL that Canada wasn't getting COVID. Jesus christ man. The entire planet has COVID and you think Canada would have been spared had they shut down the airports? DIVERSE Canada? Where everyone comes from somewhere else and frequently has family and friends visiting from everywhere? That Canada? The one who shares the larges border in the world with the United States?

I don't care much about Canadian politics because Canada's voice in the world is a whisper so who gives a **** about what they say and do...but if your reasoning behind you logic is "covid was handled poorly..." I mean...by now it should be painfully obvious that Covid is going to do what Covid does regardless if it's Trump or Biden or Trudeau or some diverse hire chick...

 

It's too bad you aren't interested in learning why it isn't a straightforward discrimination against men.

No, I'm not in favor of the policy even though I strongly support efforts to counter very real discrimination against women.

 

Correct. Canada would not have been spared.

You were doing well until you couldn't avoid the urge to insult.

What Canadians think could become extremely important to Americans in the near future. We're going to need their water.


The proposed North American Water and Power Alliance suggests how important Canadian politics is to Americans even you decided they don't matter.


NAWAPA plan

Canada has the second largest supply of raw materials in the world (after our Russian pals).

 

Trump would never have become a party leader in Canada. He couldn't have bought his way to the position.

Yes. Again, Trump.

Smaller parties have a harder time in countries with "first past the post" balloting like is the case in Canada.

Who better than Americans to warn against our system?