Ontario Liberal Party Goes Full Sexist

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Jolly Penguin, Nov 27, 2021.

  1. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All that does is keep the scale OUT of balance. There's no way that any single political philosophy or party can hold an organic (as in people-led) scale in perfect balance. Any attempt to do so would result in eternal infringements and discrimination. Constant tit-for-tat adjustments - forced, inorganic, and horribly regressive.
     
  2. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And if done by gender or race, horribly bigoted, and encouraging of other bigotry. How are we going to stand against white supremacists if we agree with them that skin colour can tell us important things about individuals?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
    crank likes this.
  3. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) It cannot exclude the genuinely needy, for all the reasons given. This system ONLY excludes those who are not genuine, for the same reasons. Need is something that can only be determined by actions, never by words or bank balance. If you're favouring the recognition of words and bank balances over the genuine need clearly manifest in actions, then again .. you are working in the favour of the cheats and abusers, and against the insterests of those in need. Only you know why, but evidently there's a pay off for you personally.

    2) Wealth isn't a function of how much we earn, it's a function of what we do with it. I've used this story several times here, but it's worth repeating. An old friend has worked minimum wage all her life, and now at close to retirement age (late 50's), she owns about 30 investment properties. She stayed at home while working to save for her first property, then used the rent from that property to pay down the mortgage, while continuing to live at home and save for the next property, and so on and so on. She's stuck to this plan from day one at age 18, and has never done anything to compromise her goals. Her tenants paid off all her properties, and she is now worth many millions. A working class girl, not educated, minimum wage, and born to a working class family. On the other hand, I know a couple of middle class educated people on MUCH higher salaries, who own nothing and have no money in the bank.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
    roorooroo likes this.
  4. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We can't. They win.
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you're totally missing the boat on ALL of those.

    Democracy DEPENDS on people believing, including believing in democracy. On top of that, candidates HAVE TO get votes. When a constituency gets excluded, they are less likely to believe that the government has anything to offer. The result is that the trust that democracy depends on is eroded.

    This is a reason why it's hard to get Afghanistan or Iraq to trust democracy. When the culture is built on trust for the more local strong man than it is for anyone on a ballot, democracy just doesn't work.

    In the US, democracy is coasting toward losing. The Jan 6 insurrection occured because a major constituency decided that democracy can not be trusted.

    What's going on at our southern board has been turned into a total disaster. To suggest that Biden or Harris could fix that in a few months is partisan political nonsense. Republicans have had zero solution for our southern border going back decades.
     
    LangleyMan likes this.
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you don't know the issues or the people.
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have NO idea what system you are talking about. You used the SS term, and I pointed out that Social Security already has a definition that has nothing at all to do with measuring need or providing welfare.
    This is nonsense, because if you are earning at the level of the cost of living, you can't even save enough to cover the calamities that regularly occur - need for medical help, broken down work transportation, change in rent that require moving, children/relatives that are in trouble, etc.

    So, don't give me the "investments" garbage.

    And, don't hand me one off success stories or failure stories. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with whether you can find a handful of successes or a handful of failures.
     
  8. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Explain exactly how a 'constituency' is excluded.
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They can be excluded by the direct actions of the political parties in who they choose to support as candidates.

    They can be excluded by changes in voting law designed to exclude specific populations.

    They can be excluded by gerrymandering that ensures that specific populations have far less representation.

    In the US, we use the Electoral College to give those who live in certain states FAR more representation that those who live in other states.

    In the US, we refuse to give representation to those living in Washington, DC even though there are two different states that have lower population than does Washington, DC. This is done PURELY due to the Republican party refusing to allow that representation.

    And, as we saw after that last presidential election, one party worked hard to kill democracy and take over America against the will of voters. They used state specific assaults both legal and targeting individuals, national level assaults, and direct insurgency on our elected officials who were making the final decision on the election. They killed people IN OUR HALLS OF GOVERNMENT. They claimed they were there to kill our vice president. They claimed our Speaker of the House would be killed if located. And, this assault INCLUDED officials that the Republican party put on the ballots and supported to the point of victory.

    The political parties have serious influence on who gets represented.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
  10. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know more about US politics than you know about Canadian I bet.

    And I know that being a particular gender or race doesn't mean the politicians will champion or understand particular issues, like you kept pretending.

    Bernie is better on "women's issues" than Liz Cheney, or even Hillary Clinton. Yang's UBI would have benefited more brown people than Obama's increased drone strikes did. Trump did nothing at all for Orange Americans.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
    crank likes this.
  11. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) What direct actions? Give me an example. Give the evidence that any decisions made where racist or sexist.

    2) How can a law which impacts everyone equally, 'exclude' certain people? Tell me which element in that law specifically excludes people of a certain race or gender.
     
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of the facts I gave you have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with impacting "everyone equally".
     
  13. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Denying some citizens the vote is excluding them. The USA does deny some citizens the vote based on where they live. Whether or not that is motivated to exclude people for being non-white takes some mind reading, but I would not be surprised if it was a big part of the calculation. I likewise wouldn't be surprised if some Democrats push for more non-white immigration because they presume it means more votes for them. But that won't be universally true, and arguments for and against all of the above should be heard and not dismissed as necessarily about race.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I pointed out significant issues of representation that plague our democracy.

    Then you come back with THIS???

    You are PURPOSEFULLY ignoring the serious issues of democracy.

    And, these issues are CENTRAL to this thread, obviously.
     
  15. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your dodge is noted. You claimed that "old white man" will not understand and will not champion against and will not push to change racism and sexism against people who are not white males. I noted some obvious cases of the opposite. Your support for banning males from nomination would have excluded Bernie Sanders.

    Yes, and you think people should identify foremost by race and gender rather than by their values and ideas? American female individuals with brown skin should feel more excluded because Biden isn't brown or female, than they should feel excluded because the "Democratic Party" screwed over Bernie, Yang, and other progressive candidate who share their values?

    And picking a hack opportunist like Kamala Harris is supposed to make these progressive brown women feel represented? Really?

    You kept claiming above that old white men can't understand issues facing women or non-white people. So I asked you if you thought Kamala's brilliant strategy of saying "do not come" at the border did more for brown people than Bernie Sanders' policies would. I wasn't saying she should be able to fix the border. I was pointing at her stupid statement and lack of doing anything for brown women other than happening to look kind of sort of like them. Old white Bernie of does better in the eyes of plenty of brown women to benefit them instead of Kamal's wealthy donors.

    This is completely off topic.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
    roorooroo likes this.
  16. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly my point. Since any 'voting laws' impact everyone equally, you cannot claim them as some kind of discrimination.
     
  17. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Could you explain what part of the relevant laws single out specific races? What is the wording of the law which denies a certain race or races?
     
  18. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Issues of democracy are only relevant to this thread insofar as they are about gender bans on people being nominated to run for office and why you think they are justified, especially in Ontario.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
  19. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They don't exclude races. They exclude regions. The question is then if they excluded and continue to exclude those regions because of the race demographics in those regions. They may. If they do that is racist regardless of if they write explicit race exclusion into law.

    A common mistake made by the "woke" is that race disparity must always be because of racism. A common mistake of the right is that it can never be because of racism.

    Racial disparity can be used as a red flag and can help us spot where racism may be, and then investigate if it is actually racism or something else going on, such as wealth disparity, which is often the main factor, and can be addressed directly, without any race hustling.

    I don't know why the USA doesn't allow people living in Washington to vote. Maybe it is racism. Maybe there is a legitimate reason and it isn't racism. Even if it isn't racism, if there is no good reason, then it should be changed for the sake of democracy, which the USA claims to support.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
  20. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) If it's by region, then it applies to everyone in that region equally. White, black, brown, or otherwise. Further, since residents are not kept in those regions against their will, any such law looses its capacity to 'control'.

    2) I agree.

    3) Wealth disparity is a natural consequence of capitalist democracy - and there is as much disparity in a single suburb, as there is at the larger scale. IOW it doesn't require 'addressing'.

    4) I don't know anything about that Washington thing, sorry. It's the first time I've heard about it. I can't imagine how it could be perceived as racism though, unless there is only one race impacted. To predicate one's perception of this situation purely upon racial preponderance (IOW the happenstance of numbers), is counter-productive. It makes any kind of progress impossible, because it presupposes malice in all things. Religious fundamentalists do this .. seeing evil in pragmatics, because their worldview is completely binary.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That just could not possibly be more false. The failure of government to address sexism and racism does NOT affect everyone equally. How could you POSSIBLY think that???
    The issues are equality of opportunity (not wealth) and how we take care of those who have serious problems of acquiring basic needs.
    This is misconstruing the issue. First of all, remember that Washington DC is 45% black, the largest single division.

    I used this example as demonstrating one of the ways in which democracy as WE implement it is absolutely NOT equal.

    And, that exists because of ONE of our political parties.
     
  22. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the legislators notice the vast majority of people in a region are a particular race, and want to impact people of that race, then doing something to the region is one way of doing that, while claiming not to be. Yes, it will impact everyone there, but it will impact more who are that race, and if done for that reason, that's racism in action.

    Thing is, it isn't necessarily done for that reason, and liberals should not be so quick to presume it is.

    It isn't just Washington. Puerto Rico and Guam are other examples. All of them places that aren't majority white. It's a fair observation, and leads many to conclude they are denied voting rights in federal elections motivated by racial demographic. That may very well be true, especially given the history of the country, etc. If it is true, then that would be racism. If some other good reason exists, then maybe it isn't racism. I don't know enough about any of the 3 places to have a strong opinion.

    I can. If the motivation is race based and there is no other good legitimate reason, it is both anti-democratic and racist.

    Yes, that's what I was saying above. Malice should not be presumed.
     
  23. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am going to again ask you to stop doing the above in this thread, especially since you yourself whined when it was done to you. Crank did not write what you are attributing above.

    The gender ban that is the topic of this thread is not equal either. It explicitly excludes individuals who happen to be born a particular gender. And no mind reading is required. It is explicit.

    Can we please not turn this into yet another thread of American partisan bickering? This thread is about gender discrimination in Canada.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then point that out. Point out what is gained for the better treatment of racial minorities by the gerrymandering of North Carolina, the refusal to give Washington DC legislative representation AT ALL, etc.

    Believe me, if there are justifications, they can be advertised. And, the fact that they are NOT is a clear indication that they simply don't exist.
    I agree with this assessment. In fact, the population of Puerto Rico are ALL Americans and pay American taxes. If they move to the US, there are no immigration steps they need to take in order to vote.

    BUT, if they stay in Puerto Rico, that are totally disenfranchised, yet pay taxes to us and are required to follow other of our laws.
    OK, but recognizing that problem is NOT good enough. Something actually has to be done, as the mere recognition really means nothing at all.

    The idea discussed on this thread has more to do with steps a political party can take to create an environment in government that is informed of the issues and motivated to work with others toward solutions that are implementable.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
  25. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That only follows if you hold the sexist belief that men can't care about or fight against sexism and misogyny.

    Again, I refer you to Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders. The former is a a corrupt career politician who happens to the brown and female, and the later is an ideologue who is constantly beating the drum for better treatment of those on the bottom of society. Which do you really think would do more to fight sexism and racism? Kamala, because she has the right skin tone and genitals? Really?
     
    roorooroo and crank like this.

Share This Page