Why no women candidates for PM? Quite a few seem qualified.

[cybercoma]

There it is, right? If only Elizabeth May could be seen in the debates, then suddenly people will vote for her.

Meanwhile, back in reality, she has been in 2/3 debates, one in French and the other in English. Her party's support still sits around 5-6%.

[PIK]

Well justin says his cabinet will be 50% women ,even if they are incompetent, but are women they are in.

[Smallc]

There it is, right? If only Elizabeth May could be seen in the debates, then suddenly people will vote for her.

I feel the same way about Tim Moen. If only people could see him!

[Smallc]

Well justin says his cabinet will be 50% women ,even if they are incompetent,

Half of the men in Harper's cabinet are incompetent, so even if every one of the women is, it will be at least even.

[PIK]

Harpers biggest problem is a incompetent public service.

[ToadBrother]

Harpers biggest problem is a incompetent public service.

I love how nothing is ever the Tories' fault. Nearly a decade in power and they sti can't take responsibility for anything.

[cybercoma]

I feel the same way about Tim Moen. If only people could see him!

It's a stupid argument that gets it twisted. Elizabeth May is not in the debates because she has little support. Same with Tim Moen. Some of these Green supporters are living in a fantasy world if they think Elizabeth May is going to suddenly get more support because she's in all 4 debates instead of half the debates.

[G Huxley]

It is statistically shown that the more air time heavily effects vote numbers.

[On Guard for Thee]

Harpers biggest problem is a incompetent public service.

In terms of cop outs, that's gotta be one of the biggest I've heard in a really long time. And funniest to boot, I can't seem to stop giggling.

[angrypenguin]

Those are your examples of qualified women? I almost spit out my coffee when I saw Chow and Parrish.

+1

There it is, right? If only Elizabeth May could be seen in the debates, then suddenly people will vote for her.

Meanwhile, back in reality, she has been in 2/3 debates, one in French and the other in English. Her party's support still sits around 5-6%.

Elizabeth May is terrible.

Edited September 30, 2015 by angrypenguin

[GostHacked]

There it is, right? If only Elizabeth May could be seen in the debates, then suddenly people will vote for her.

Meanwhile, back in reality, she has been in 2/3 debates, one in French and the other in English. Her party's support still sits around 5-6%.

The solution is to include her in the debates.

[angrypenguin]

The solution is to include her in the debates.

She wastes, IMO, air time. I'd rather hear what the trio is debating rather than have a party which has 4-5%.

[GostHacked]

It's a stupid argument that gets it twisted. Elizabeth May is not in the debates because she has little support. Same with Tim Moen. Some of these Green supporters are living in a fantasy world if they think Elizabeth May is going to suddenly get more support because she's in all 4 debates instead of half the debates.

She is a candidate representing her party and she is running for the top position in the land. If she really poses no threat, then include her and let the people decide. Not including her or any other leader of a recognized party is counter to what I call a democracy.

[GostHacked]

She wastes, IMO, air time. I'd rather hear what the trio is debating rather than have a party which has 4-5%.

The trio does not debate. They are all blowhards that talk smack about each other instead of talking about their own track record. These are not leaders, these are children in power.

[angrypenguin]

The trio does not debate. They are all blowhards that talk smack about each other instead of talking about their own track record. These are not leaders, these are children in power.

Ok, I give you that. The election is about playing the "pick the least smelling turd" game :-)

[GostHacked]

Ok, I give you that. The election is about playing the "pick the least smelling turd" game :-)

That's been my stance for a long time. My vote won't make a bit if difference, but I don't look it as putting my vote behind the Green Party would be a waste of a vote or a throw away vote. You are going to get more of the same with either Harper, Trudeau or Mulcair. So if you want real change, then I suggest changing your vote to something you would not normally chose.

To add, I have no idea what a Green Party government would really look like and it would take years to undo the damage done by the usual suspects (Lib, NDP, Cons), but I am willing to at least give them a shot.

Edited September 30, 2015 by GostHacked

[angrypenguin]

That's been my stance for a long time. My vote won't make a bit if difference, but I don't look it as putting my vote behind the Green Party would be a waste of a vote or a throw away vote. You are going to get more of the same with either Harper, Trudeau or Mulcair. So if you want real change, then I suggest changing your vote to something you would not normally chose.

I definitely do not want change. I disagree with you about Trudeau/Mulcair/Harper. I don't know what I'm getting with Mulcair. I do know what I'm going to get with Trudeau and Harper. Either way, I'm in the "stay the course" camp. Harper is FAR from perfect, but to me, his poop smells the most pleasant. (is that even possible? - basking in the ambiance - a quote from the movie White Chicks)