Mulcair's decision to not resign

[ReeferMadness]

I don't think we've had enough of a chance to make this assessment but what makes you so certain that he's not intelligent?

More to the point, very intelligent people often make poor leaders. It's more important for leaders to exhibit emotional intelligence and wisdom than what is commonly thought of as intelligence. Harper's style seemed to be about trying to make all the decisions himself and give orders. We've had enough of that style.

It's too early to judge what type of a leader Trudeau will be.

[H10]

Well Mulclair should resign for losing so bad after he was suppose to win. However, since Trudeau will ruin the country in one term, odds are Mulclair will look real good in the next election, while people still remember how bad Harper screwed up.

[-1=e^ipi]

It's a leadership debate that the Greens never had any business being it. They haven't even cracked 4% since 2008.

It's called strategic voting.

[-1=e^ipi]

they won in a landslide, a good sign that the majority of Canadians still believe in democracy.

39% of the vote = majority now?

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't think we've had enough of a chance to make this assessment but what makes you so certain that he's not intelligent?

I don't even know where to begin. From his decision to not have ANY policies when trying to get the liberal nomination, to calling Peter Kent a piece of sh*t in the house of commons, to his acceptance of nonsense statistics like women apparently being paid 75% for the same work as men across the country, to his obvious regurgitation and lack of understanding of economic talking points when trying to justify his infrastructure spending (he would repeat interest rates are low, growth is low, debt to GDP ratio is low but not understand that the latter two are only relevant because they affect the first).

[-1=e^ipi]

It's more important for leaders to exhibit emotional intelligence and wisdom than what is commonly thought of as intelligence.

No thanks. I'd rather the person making decisions have a good ability to reason, look at the evidence and make the best decision for the country. Not someone who 'connects' with people with vague empty promises and nice sounding words.

But I guess most of the voters are idiots and like someone that makes them less insecure about their lack of intelligence. Must be why George Bush was so popular.

[-1=e^ipi]

Let me add to the list of why I think Trudeau is an idiot.

What about his dislike of calculators? "I'm more focused on actually talking about what we're going to do right away for Canadians than sitting there with a calculator which, you know, you guys can do."

How about in response to Marc Garneau asking him why he should be chosen as Prime Minister he responded because he won his riding. Well congrats Trudeau, 307 other MPs did as well including some people you are running against.

How about his frequent mentions of the middle class and then not defining it? Well later he defined it as people who are working and not living off their savings, which means a CEO earning millions of dollars is 'middle class' but a retired couple with a modest income are not.

How about the fact that he goes on about 'how he feels it in his bones' and other such nonsense when trying to justify why he should be Prime Minister in the leaders' debate?

[Smeelious]

I don't even know where to begin. From his decision to not have ANY policies when trying to get the liberal nomination, to calling Peter Kent a piece of sh*t in the house of commons, to his acceptance of nonsense statistics like women apparently being paid 75% for the same work as men across the country, to his obvious regurgitation and lack of understanding of economic talking points when trying to justify his infrastructure spending (he would repeat interest rates are low, growth is low, debt to GDP ratio is low but not understand that the latter two are only relevant because they affect the first).

Well, Kent kinda deserved it.

As to the gender wage gap...that's a whole other thread.

Actually this whole post should be another thread "Why I think JT is a complete idiot." That could be a fun thread in and of itself.

While Harper wasn't the most emotional person, I doubt anyone would claim that he was an idiot. We'll see how the next few years treats Trudeau.

[ReeferMadness]

No thanks. I'd rather the person making decisions have a good ability to reason, look at the evidence and make the best decision for the country. Not someone who 'connects' with people with vague empty promises and nice sounding words.

So. we just had a guy who thought he was smarter than everyone around him. The result was that he was a micro-manager, overriding the advice of his lawyer in the Duffy affair. He treated everyone who disagreed with him as an enemy. Is that what you want?

I don't think you understand the basic concepts of leadership. It's not about being the smartest person in the room. It's about recognizing and leveraging the smart people that work for you.

But I guess most of the voters are idiots and like someone that makes them less insecure about their lack of intelligence. Must be why George Bush was so popular.

You seem a little bitter about the results of the election. I'm willing to wait for Trudeau to do something and judge him on results.

[Smeelious]

I don't think you understand the basic concepts of leadership. It's not about being the smartest person in the room. It's about recognizing and leveraging the smart people that work for you.

Actually that's kinda what he said, In his own way.

[ReeferMadness]

Actually that's kinda what he said, In his own way.

I don't think he did - though with all his bitterness on the issue, it's kind of hard to tell.

I don't want one person making all the decisions - that's what we just had and that's not leadership.

[-1=e^ipi]

While Harper wasn't the most emotional person, I doubt anyone would claim that he was an idiot.

Well I don't think Harper is the brightest of individuals given the fact that he somehow has an economics masters while simultaneously thinking that dropping the GST was a good idea. But I would describe him as having average intelligence.

It's not about being the smartest person in the room.

That worked great for the USA under bush, didn't it?

Look, I get it. You are insecure over your intelligence. I've been insecure about my intelligence ever since I've suffered brain damage. But I don't think such insecurities justify electing people of low intelligence to office.

You seem a little bitter about the results of the election.

I spoiled my ballot. I'm bitter about the lack of decent options. But certainly liberal majority was the worst realistic outcome.

[ReeferMadness]

Look, I get it. You are insecure over your intelligence. I've been insecure about my intelligence ever since I've suffered brain damage. But I don't think such insecurities justify electing people of low intelligence to office.

Look, buddy. You don't know me or anything about my intelligence. I'm smart enough not enough to jump to conclusions about people before they've had a chance to prove themselves - you should give it a try.

[-1=e^ipi]

you should give it a try.

Yes, why choose someone to be prime minister based on merit, policy or accomplishments? Instead we should let some random person with a fancy last name be prime minister for a while before justifying electing them! *sarcasm*

[ReeferMadness]

Yes, why choose someone to be prime minister based on merit, policy or accomplishments? Instead we should let some random person with a fancy last name be prime minister for a while before justifying electing them! *sarcasm*

In our system of government, we don't choose a PM, we choose representatives. The party chose him as a leader.

A government can't be just one person, as we should have learned by now from our bitter experience with Harper and the clones (that would be a good name for his band). I'm more concerned with how he's going to lead than how big his IQ is.

If that's not good enough for you, you'll need to wallow in you bitterness, at least until he does something wrong that you can use to justify them.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, why choose someone to be prime minister based on merit, policy or accomplishments? Instead we should let some random person with a fancy last name be prime minister for a while before justifying electing them! *sarcasm*

Frankly, I don't think you actually know, or even want to know why the Liberals won. It's much easier to belittle the man before he's even formally been sworn in.

You clearly dislike the voters, because they don't share your supposed wisdom. Again, as with your attacks on Trudeau, that says more about you than about anyone else.