Ontario Liberal Party Goes Full Sexist

I wouldn't be so confident about that if I was you. It was unthinkable here just 5 or 6 years ago. Even Kathleen Wynne, the previous leader of the party, known for some radical ideas, never pushed this far.

And you recently got a vice president selected explicitly because Biden had promised to pick a woman. I don't know if he ever announced it must be a brown woman, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did. Yang, Tulsi, Bernie, Klobuchar, Warren, Cory Booker, all would have been better picks and all would have wound up with better performance and approval ratings than Kamal, but she was the only one who ticked both the race and gender boxes.

 

Yes I can. People whose primary raisin d'etre since the great depression, has been to increase the size of government and it's interference in your daily lives since the early thirties must be lying about their loudly proclaimed support for human freedom.

 

Politicians lie. Now, can you both try to keep in topic to this thread about systemic discrimination? I don't mind it being looked at in USA context, but please let's not turn this into yet another thread about US partisanship.

Thanks!

 

The statement is true for any and all leftist governments they lie about who they are and what they wish to do. It is almost required for they are at heart dictators and if they told the truth, which is that they want to control every aspect if your life, which by the way is the entire point of the covid panic porn now infesting almost every Western country.

 

In that case, yes of course. That's institutional racism, writ large. I'm talking about ordinary recruitment, which is usually in line with anti-discrimination policy.

 

Why don't you address the fact that your assertion that Conservatives don't like change is completely unfounded?

 

So you're against changes?

 

Tulsi is a POC.

 

You may notice that there have been a LOT of changes since the great depression.

As population density increases, the need for shared solutions increases.

So, if you want to complain, you really need to identify what you are complaining about.

Today you can still move to places where shared solutions are less necessary and thus are far more minimal.

 

LOL!!

You really need to figure out why you post here.

 

This is like demanding that I prove a negative.

What conservatives tend to demand is an end to solutions that were established, including those established for sound reasons.

I know the '40's and '50's were the greatest, but the idea of going back would be a removal of change, not change.

 

You've just corrupted the definition of 'change' to deny your own mistake in declaring Conservatives afraid of it.

Change means altering to something else. It doesn't matter what you started with, or what you end up with ... the action of going from one to the other is what we refer to as change. It has NOTHING to do with the flavours or directions.

 

To needle you when you drop the ball

 

Nonsense, throwing more federal red tape into the works has done almost nothing to fix anything and much to make individual success far more difficult.

 

She wasn't treated as one in the election. Neither was Yang.

 

Well Yang ain't female. I was pointing out that Tulsi met the same 'diversity hire' criteria as the Indian-American Harris.

She wasn't treated as such because they didn't like her centrism. They basically race-denied her for political reasons, in the same way Joe Biden race-denied when he said "if you don't vote for me, you ain't black".

 

It seems you're the one who needs civics lessons, because that is mostly false. The only people in PR paying federal income taxes are those who work for the Federal Government or are members of the US Military. For those who have regular old civilian jobs there are no income taxes. Of course taxes from Puerto Rico itself more than make up for that, so it's not quite the bargain you might think.

But PR is not a State. Throughout the years, they have had numerous opportunities to become one, but have consistently turned down the opportunity. It seems the only time there's any significant support for the idea is after a hurricane or other natural disaster when they think it would get them more money from Uncle Sam, but as the days and weeks go by, and those storms get largely forgotten, so does the support for Statehood. Seems to me if the only time they're interested is when money is on the line, we should probably not allow them in.

 

Not in the the context of comparing conservatives and progressives.

 

CHANGE is a freaking VERB, Dude.

I can change a nice pair of shoes to a crap pair of shoes. I can change from a small house to a big house. I can change my breakfast toast to cereal.

There is no 'comparing'. Change is ACTION. Conservatives want that action just as much as Liberals, because PEOPLE want action.

 

LOL.

So, yes - I didn't explain the full situation. But, since you are confused:

You forgot about import/export taxes, commodity taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes.

Puerto Ricans are American citizens by birth. Yet, they are not covered by the Bill of Rights and they may have their citizenship taken away by the USA unilaterally - unlike American citizens living in any of the 50 states.

They are not covered by the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment even though they ARE citizens.

They are fully required to serve in the event that conscription is used by the USA.

Puerto Rico is not allowed to manage its own relations with other nations.

Other than some exceptions, US federal law applies to Puerto Rico even though they have no representation.

As for a general description of its status, a state derives its power from the people. But, Puerto Rico
owes its very existence to the federal government of the US - NOT the people, who are American citizens who just don't count. The US does not have to even bother to consult Puerto Rico or its people when passing law that applies to Puerto Rico, its local government, or its people.

 

It's also a noun, "Dude".

The change Conservatives ask for tend to be oriented to eliminating solutions that have been established by congresses (state or local) in order to solve specific problems or improve the lives of citizens.

 

Again nonsense there was never any reason to grow the government more or less Helter skelter to some where between 46 to 53 federal agencies. Almost all the stuff we have those federal agencies for could be, and should be done at state and local levels.

 

It isn't a struggle to figure out why it's more possible to pass solutions on single problems rather than to attempt to design a single solution to all poverty and disability.

States are not allowed to run a deficit. And, aid programs have the characteristic that they are most needed when revenue is at its lowest.

So, we can get into the debt problem as a whole, but the bottom line is that states are not designed to weather the storm.

 

For ****'s sake, how many times do I have to ask you people to NOT turn this thread into USA partisanship? This thread is about gender discrimination. You have taken the position of explicitly supporting gender discrimination so long as it is against men. Others here see that as sexist. That's what this thread is about. Not your US states, senators, or political parties. It is astounding how so many Americans can't take their attention off of their partisan political bickering, even for a moment, and realize the world outside your borders exists and not all issues fit in your 2 party framework.

 

The trouble is we aren't for the most part dealing with singular problems problems anymore and haven't been for some time now. Right now the federal government is doing the moral equivalent of burning down the barn to get rid of rats.