Jump to content

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


Go.Leafs

Recommended Posts

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%.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by angrypenguin

My views are my own and not those of my employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser

ohm on soundcloud.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser

ohm on soundcloud.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser

ohm on soundcloud.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :-)

My views are my own and not those of my employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by GostHacked

Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser

ohm on soundcloud.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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) :)

My views are my own and not those of my employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...