Ontario Liberal Party Goes Full Sexist

Tell that to the Indian Americans running your Tech giants. In fact tell that to any of the non-white Amerians who top your wealth/professional/educational/health statistics - half of whom are female.

 

"Some idiot thought deserved a turn" is what we have TODAY. That is how a party system works.

Parties choose the candidates. They are major sources of funding. They get to decide which applicants can claim to be a party member. They have significant control of the press and events that constitute campaigning.

If you think the party choice is based on "best for the job" you really need to rethink that.

>> To attack discrimination, we need candidates who are fully informed on discrimination. And for the most part, that is absolutely NOT what we're seeing on our ballots.

In fact, we in the US have congressmen who are absolute and total bigots whose political lives have been built on race hatred.

THAT is who our parties pick. And, that has to change.

 

Story Time!

I've never met Michael. He lives in a trailer park with his mom. She immigrated from Poland 2 years ago when she was pregnant with him, and had a mental break when her husband died in a car accident. She then became a crack prostitute, and gave birth to him premature. His growth was stunted. His mother loves him but hits Michael when she's angry and child services has considered taking Michael away from her, which Michael fears. She is the only adult he has bonded with. Michael has a crush on Sally, a cute girl who lives two trailers down, but he is crippled with anxiety and too shy to talk to her. Maybe someday he will. I hope so.

I grew up in an upper class family in the Philippines, with 2 very supportive parents who are still alive and in love today. I immigrated to Canada a decade ago because I was privileged as compared to others from the Philippines and I learned a trade that was in need here.

The most important difference between myself and Michael of course, is that Michael has white skin. He's also heterosexual. I'm very dark skinned and I'm bisexual. That means Michael is overprivileged and I am underprivileged. He should be banned from competing for things that I want, and the bar should be lowered for me. It's only fair, right?

People who look like him did unspeakable horrible things in this country to people who look like me, before either of us got here, and it went on for centuries around the world too, before we were born. Many people who are white like him are rich and they are powerful, much moreso than many people who look like me, who are more often poor. And there are people with white skin who discriminate and exclude people with brown skin even today, and they often get away with it.

So please dear sir ban the overprivileged Michael and all other white people from competing for what I want. White people have held us brown people down long enough. #BanMichael

 

What I find hilarious, is that I have very dark skin but also very narrow eyes, so my position on the progressive stack reverses when I take my sunglasses on or off. I sometimes confuse the hell out of "woke" faux liberals. I get to see racism from multiple angles. And yes it is real.

 

That they even have a reaction (whether confused or ingratiating) to your racial appearance says everything.

 

Driven more by lust for power than by lust for money. Progressives have always tended to be power hungry twits whose belief in their own morale superiority and intellectual superiority seems to give them carte blanche to commit the worst sort of moral atrocities.

 

I never thought "progressives" could get too out of hand here, and that small L liberals would keep them from becoming a bigger ideological threat to me than the Conservatives here. I am starting to rethink that now.

I actually see myself as progressive, or what progressive liberalism should mean.

 

Only if michael also grew up in an upper class family in the Philippines, with 2 very supportive parents who are still alive and in love today. I immigrated to Canada a decade ago because I was privileged as compared to others from the Philippines and I learned a trade that was in need here.

 

My family are also non-white, and we've seen the role reversal grow more and more complete in the past five years. It's at a point now where it's actually painful to be around white Wokists - and that hasn't happened around Conservatives for a long time.

I think people like us feel it far more accutely because we trigger Wokists into feeling a certain way around us, and it causes their innate racism/supremacy to spill out unbidden - they can't help it. Their white fellows aren't seeing it because they're not subjected to it.

 

So let them be starved and homeless. Got it.

 

I rest my case!

 

My point proven.

 

You proved my point, and I fully expected you to do just that.

 

Further proving my point.

 

If you actually believe that welfare helps people escape poverty, it demonstrates an intransigent fixation on some ideologically-driven theory long since proven (at the cost of the many harmed by it) terrible. That can only happen when you are actively 'conservative'.

 

Since I've seen it happen with some friends of mine, I absolutely believe it.

 

I'm pretty socialist. I believe that nobody should be left to starve to death if others have plenty. So that puts me at odds with crank ideologically.

But both crank and I seem to be able to see that racial and gender discrimination is bad, regardless of who it is targeted at.

 

I've seen 'conservative' ideologies improve the lives of some friends of mine.

Two can play at the anecdotal game - it doesn't change the fact that welfare is a disaster. RARELY does it do what's claimed on the box.

 

And what do you think should be substituted for it?

 

Yet you promote the status quo?

What action do you propose instead of what one political party in Ontario is attempting to accomplish?

 

Where did you get the idea that I think people in need should starve? I'm sorry you reached that conclusion, but I can assure you it's way off. I'm a lifelong socialist - and thus am probably more dedicated to ensuring that those in need are covered, than most.

The difference between myself and these woke Progressives, is that I'm for equality-based collectivism, while they're for some sort of medievalist capitalism. They want the working stiff to fund their 'annointed', and none of it is predicated upon actual need. They're basically anti-socialists.

 

Socialism. Work to eat.

Remember, the Welfare State is a product of Capitalism.

 

So, then what IS your solution to what you call the "welfare disaster"?

In the US, most who use that terminology are absolutely in favor of NOT helping those who are starving or who have no place to live indoors.

 

That's just ridiculous.

You know full well that socialism does not work.

And, there is no chance in hell that America is going to sign on to your suicide pact.

 

1) Work to eat.

2) On the contrary, it's those who favour the Welfare State who have the least regard for those in need. They're the ones who'll throw money at anyone who asks, and damn the consequences to those who need it most.