Kathleen Wynne WINS 2018 ELECTION. Patrick Brown Accused of Sexually Assaulting Women

[Rue]

16 hours ago, H10 said:

Brown was accused of sexually assaulting 2 women, and his entire senior campaign staff resigned.  His Party seems to have abandoned him.  He was probably the strongest candidate that the conservatives has ran in a good decade.  The real question is who will replace Brown in the conservative party once his caucaus gives him the boot. Its quiet sad really because he signed up tens of thousands of new members in what was a party becoming very unpopular.  Now they are talking about throwing in some unknown person to challenge Wynne, the Conservative party is finished in 2018.

Hang on. He was not the strongest candidate he was in fact a compromise candidate.

Secondly it may be having a new leader come in gets the PC's elected now not the opposite.

Will Kathleen Wynne be given a different standard of treatment by the public? You might be right the public is awful stupid but a good Tory leader could clearly dettach the PC's from Pat Brown's transgressions far better than Kathleen Wynne can from the Liberals filthy dealings and cover-ups.

 Some in the PC party is asleep at the wheel. This kind of crap should have been vetted long before he ran for the leadership. The rumousr of Pat Brown being a pervert were not new. They were known to the press for many years so the question is, why did they only get released now? Look at the timing. It was done in direct response to detract from the criminal conviction of a Liberal hack who erased info that would have made the Liberals look bad and the person in charge of the election -Kathleen Wynne. Amazing turn around in less than 48 hours from that Liberal hack's conviction. Coincidence? I think not. Now whether the Liberals led the story or someone in the PC's did it, back stabbing Pat  Brown is not known but I suspect it was someone in the PC's explaining the immediate dumping of him. However whoever in the PC's is trying to replace him might get exposed and caught. The timing is blatant and clumsy.

The Tories have to choose a leader asap and focus back to the Liberal failures and say the personal failures of Brown have nothing to do with the policies of the PC Party, but on the other hand the failures of Kathleen Wynne directly deal with how she runs the party. In fact the PC's could say look when our leader did wrong out he went-the Liberal leader does wrong- she refuses to take responsibility. In fact it could come back to haunt the Liberals in giving the PC's a higher moral ground.

To exploit the PC higher moral ground the Tory's need to appoint a dynamic person asap. t Other than maybe Vic Fedeli they are a party of very bland speakers.

I think someone in the Tory party knifed Brown in the back. Why? He had months if not years to have headed off this scandal. He could have if it was a Liberal and not Tory leak to the press, gotten ahead of it and pulled a David Letterman, stated he acted stupid when he was young and regrets what he did but the personal attacks at this time were a Liberal smear to dertact from their  own behaviour. He could have pulled that position and said they were trying to make it about him and he would step aside for that reason. Interestingly he did not. He appeared at a press conference in a state of panic with no support at all which was career suicide. Politicians have handled scandals of sex far worse than this one. The immediate abandonment of him that quickly within minutes of the announcement was orchestrated not spontaneous. People do not resign that quickly en masse without first planning for it.

 

 

[Rue]

4 hours ago, scribblet said:

Funny thing is, Brown is a teetotaler.    I wonder why the accusers didn't go to the police, why go to the media first unless it was strictly for political reasons.  

What you smell of course is a political back stab. My bet is its a PC insider not the Liberals. But hey I do not really know but it smells precisely because of what you say.

[PIK]

Lisa, john baird ,there are some good ones. I think this will be a blessing in disguise. A new leader and a leadership bump in the polls right before the election. A smug wynne and the fact many people will vote for a fire hydrant before they vote wynne. And the NDP plan will wipe out whatever small business is left after wynne's great minimum wage hike. But the sad part is he is gone over anonymous allegations. And one woman said he got her drunk(did he force her) and went to his room (did he force her) and started to kiss her and she said If I did not say anything he would have went the whole way. Sounds like she said no and he backed off. 

Edited January 25, 2018 by PIK

[Rue]

4 hours ago, Boges said:

These allegations are unsubstantiated and the accusers are anonymous. 

It all could be fake for all we know. But now a man's political career is ruined because his associates jumped ship before he could even publicly deny the allegations. 

This is the climate we live in now. It's shocking how anyone would want to get involved in public life.

What's funny is that at the same time any sexual discretion can come back to ruin your life years later, young people seem very open about sexuality and sending pornographic images of themselves to strangers. 

 

Absolutely. Even if  he did what he did the method it was done in is very disturbing. I think the timing shows a set up, and a strategic well planned move to take him out barely hours after Wynne's lackie was convicted. So its either a Liberal leak or a PC back stab with Liberal blessings.

The fact that no one ran with this story but CTV smells. The fact that Broewn's entire  network resigned within minutes smells. The fact Brown let himself appear in front of cameras with no script smells like a classic career take down.

There have been far more serious scandals than Brown's including Wynne's. Please don't tell me what Brown did was different in moral failure if he did it then what Wynne and her party are responsible for. I smell set up.

[Rue]

5 hours ago, ?Impact said:

They didn't go to the media, the media went to them based on rumors circulating. As to why not going to the police, that has been discussed in detail many times before.

Actually it has not. These are 10 year old allegations. There has never been any light  brought on who the accusers are and why it took so long and how the Tory's, NDP and Liberals never knew about something that old.

You mix up the facts and issues of this specific case with sex allegations in general.

Having investigated and dealt with sex crimes for years I can tell you there is no uniform explanation or pattern for the time lines of when such things are reported. There is no evidence to prove or establish most victims wait years to talk. That is just not true. Each case is different. Some they talk immediately others they do not. Any generalizations as to time patterns and saying people in authority cause victims to be frightened and quiet could be true but it does not explain the actual timing of when such victims decide if they do to talk.

In fact some bodies of evidence indicate the longer someone takes time to talk the less reliable and full of false memories their testimony becomes.

Its a complicated issue but there is no trendy leftist stereotype that all sex victims sit on their trauma.  Each case has its own distinct parameters of actions that then may have led to crime or injury or both.

I do agree with you that the delay in timing does not necessarily make it less valid I am just saying it doesn't automatically make it valid either. I also agree Horvath could slip up the middle. If the electors think they have two suspect parties they may elect her based on her personal appearance of honesty.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

No, again you are confusing legal with proper. 10 years means very little between 50 & 60, but when you are much younger it is far more significant. We don't know what the exact ages were so lets not try to color it by guessing.

Proper by whos reckoning? Is it proper by a man's reckoning or by a progressive, feminized media's reckoning?

While the age of men that a woman finds sexually attractive, broadly speaking, increases with her own - a 20-year-old woman is attracted to a 23-year-old man; 30-year-old women are interested in 30-year-old men; and 50-year-old women are attracted to 46-year-old men - there's a change when the genders are flipped. When it comes to women that men find sexually attractive, Ruddr's data shows that, while men at 20 go for women of the same age, men at 30 are also interested in women at 20. And at 40, men are interested in women at 21. At 50, the data reveals, men are interested in women of 22.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dating-website-reveals-age-women-6490993

 

Quote

As I stated earlier, the story as described is not attempted seduction.

What then?

Quote

Are you trying to imply something with ideology? Why is it even a question here? We know that one worked in his office so we can make some assumptions there, but again why is it even considered, it is irrelevant.

Neither worked in his office. One met him on a plane, and he looked her up on Facebook and sent a message  saying he found her attractive, then the next year she contacted him asking for a summer job, which he gave her, working in his constituency office. That doesn't necessarily mean she was a conservative then, and even if it does it doesn't mean she's one now. I just found the way she worded the sentence to be unnatural, and the kind of thing we see from people with a pronounced leftward slant.

“That scenario, like of a very inebriated young employee in the bedroom of her boss, alone with him, who hasn’t had a drop of alcohol all night, just that’s an intimidating situation and I was not sure what to do about it,” she told CTV.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

1 hour ago, AngusThermopyle said:

I was just listening to 640AM on the way home and they were talking to Lisa Raitt. They asked if she would take the position of party leader and although she didn't come right out and say she would, she did indicate that she was open to the proposition (oops, maybe I should have worded that differently). Her main point was that it was a decision to be made by the party leaders. However she did indicate that if asked she would do it. After watching her regularly crush Trudeau in QP I think she would be a very strong choice, certainly more than a match for Wynne. We'll just have to wait and see.

That would give us three left wing parties in Ontario. Just what we need.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Didn't the current incumbent lose the provincial election then come back to win the mayoral election?

Right-O.  God, if Tory ran for the province we'd end up with Doug Ford as Mayor and Kathleen Wynne as our premier !

[Boges]

John Tory's made a hard move to the Left as mayor of Toronto. 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

John Tory's made a hard move to the Left as mayor of Toronto. 

He was always John "Red" Tory, and look at his constituents anyway.  Also, off topic

[Boges]

Not if you think him or Dougie Ford will try to run for the Ontario PCs. 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

The first accusation is damning, if true. His press conference was also minimalist and had the air of guilt about it. 

Lisa Raitt would be a strong candidate. 

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

At 50, the data reveals, men are interested in women of 22.

Hey, I`m a dirty old man in his late 50`s and find women in their early 20`s attractive. That doesn't mean I would take advantage of one that worked for me by plying her with alcohol and coming onto her.

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I just found the way she worded the sentence to be unnatural, and the kind of thing we see from people with a pronounced leftward slant.

Too bad you didn't see her walk, because the way she shakes her booty would be conclusive.

3 hours ago, Rue said:

There has never been any light  brought on who the accusers are and why it took so long and how the Tory's, NDP and Liberals never knew about something that old.

That is the whole other side of these stories, it always seems that after they break we hear about how it was well known long ago. People need to start speaking up for decency and nipping these things in the bud. Since it appears this happened while he was in Ottawa, it is there I would look instead of Queens Park. The other complicating factor is that they occurred in his riding (Barrie) so did the stories make it back to Ottawa. Again, I know nothing about the veracity of the claims, just using this as an example for the common scenario.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

That is the whole other side of these stories, it always seems that after they break we hear about how it was well known long ago. People need to start speaking up for decency and nipping these things in the bud.

Careful, you can get into trouble for saying things like that.  I tried it when the Harvey Weinstein thing blew up and there were hysterics!

Of course, that was on the "other site".

Edited January 26, 2018 by bcsapper

[Argus]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The first accusation is damning, if true. His press conference was also minimalist and had the air of guilt about it. 

Lisa Raitt would be a strong candidate. 

For the Liberal party, you mean?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Hey, I`m a dirty old man in his late 50`s and find women in their early 20`s attractive. That doesn't mean I would take advantage of one that worked for me by plying her with alcohol and coming onto her.

Neither of them really worked for him. One was a summer student. I don't think that's such a huge deal. And he wasn't in his 50s. He's not even in his 40s now. What was he, 28?
And I continue to believe the term 'plying her with alcohol' infantilizes her and puts all the responsibility for her drinking on someone else. I don't accept that. Women are either equal or they're not.

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

That is the whole other side of these stories, it always seems that after they break we hear about how it was well known long ago. People need to start speaking up for decency

Did you just say that, granny? People need to speak up for decency!? 

[SpankyMcFarland]

The episode is troubling, though. We can only hope the journalists have done their homework and these claims have a strong basis in fact. In future, clearer criteria will be needed to protect public figures from false accusations. 

[OftenWrong]

The timing of this is highly suspicious, especially given that the alleged incidents happened many years ago. Not that I necessarily doubt the story, but for now that is just what it is... a story.

What I find concerning is how the media takes hold of stories like these and makes them go "viral". At that point it doesn't matter if you're actually guilty of something- your life is over as you know it. You are a dead man walking. In the past there was always some effort to show restraint when someone was accused in the name of responsible journalism. Today the emphasis is on making lots of money by running a profitable media company, and the more sensational a story is, the more viewership and associated sponsor money comes in. It is now to the point that anyone can be destroyed just by mere accusation.

Edited January 26, 2018 by OftenWrong

[?Impact]

It would be interesting to compile a list of false accusations (confirmed false) of sexual misconduct of public figures.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

It would be interesting to compile a list of false accusations (confirmed false) of sexual misconduct of public figures.

Most of them are without witnesses.  How would one confirm it?

[OftenWrong]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

It would be interesting to compile a list of false accusations (confirmed false) of sexual misconduct of public figures.

Regardless of numbers, the principle is there- the media is a potentially dangerous weapon. One should also consider that these trends eventually come down to the level of common everyday people. Our young folks are being raised in this hysterical environment. 

Edited January 26, 2018 by OftenWrong

[H10]

9 hours ago, Rue said:

Hang on. He was not the strongest candidate he was in fact a compromise candidate.

Secondly it may be having a new leader come in gets the PC's elected now not the opposite.

Will Kathleen Wynne be given a different standard of treatment by the public? You might be right the public is awful stupid but a good Tory leader could clearly dettach the PC's from Pat Brown's transgressions far better than Kathleen Wynne can from the Liberals filthy dealings and cover-ups.

Compromise candidate?  If there was a stronger candidate, they would have won.

Please do explain, prior to the scandal, Brown was polling at 40% to Wynne's 18%, and he worked very hard for 3 years to get there.  The problem with the Tory's has nothing to do with Brown, at this point, they may not even get name recoginition.  How do you assemble a campaign this late.

 

9 hours ago, Rue said:

 Some in the PC party is asleep at the wheel. This kind of crap should have been vetted long before he ran for the leadership. The rumousr of Pat Brown being a pervert were not new. They were known to the press for many years so the question is, why did they only get released now? Look at the timing. It was done in direct response to detract from the criminal conviction of a Liberal hack who erased info that would have made the Liberals look bad and the person in charge of the election -Kathleen Wynne. Amazing turn around in less than 48 hours from that Liberal hack's conviction. Coincidence? I think not. Now whether the Liberals led the story or someone in the PC's did it, back stabbing Pat  Brown is not known but I suspect it was someone in the PC's explaining the immediate dumping of him. However whoever in the PC's is trying to replace him might get exposed and caught. The timing is blatant and clumsy.

If the "liberal media" wanted to really derail brown, they'd have released this a few days before the election and watch as his campaign collapsed when it was too late for them to find a replacement.  I do agree this was done with unusual haste, and I believe it was an inside job because his entire staff ran away before the details of the allegations were even fully out.  Brown has lots of enemies in the conservative party who don't like his socially liberal views.

 

9 hours ago, Rue said:

The Tories have to choose a leader asap and focus back to the Liberal failures and say the personal failures of Brown have nothing to do with the policies of the PC Party, but on the other hand the failures of Kathleen Wynne directly deal with how she runs the party. In fact the PC's could say look when our leader did wrong out he went-the Liberal leader does wrong- she refuses to take responsibility. In fact it could come back to haunt the Liberals in giving the PC's a higher moral ground.

To exploit the PC higher moral ground the Tory's need to appoint a dynamic person asap. t Other than maybe Vic Fedeli they are a party of very bland speakers.

Focusing on liberal failures won't get the Tories elected.  The obvious retort will be if they cannot vet their own leader and candidates how are they going to stop any failure?  How can you stop corrupt government when your leader is corrupt and sexually abusing people?  The PCs could never have a higher moral ground because as bad as liberal corruption is, they never killed people with tainted water or through lack of hospital beds.  Plus isn't this the party accused of rigging nominations in ridings to get in the right conservatives.  I don't believe Brown is corrupt, but I do believe his party is.

 

9 hours ago, Rue said:

I think someone in the Tory party knifed Brown in the back. Why? He had months if not years to have headed off this scandal. He could have if it was a Liberal and not Tory leak to the press, gotten ahead of it and pulled a David Letterman, stated he acted stupid when he was young and regrets what he did but the personal attacks at this time were a Liberal smear to dertact from their  own behaviour. He could have pulled that position and said they were trying to make it about him and he would step aside for that reason. Interestingly he did not. He appeared at a press conference in a state of panic with no support at all which was career suicide. Politicians have handled scandals of sex far worse than this one. The immediate abandonment of him that quickly within minutes of the announcement was orchestrated not spontaneous. People do not resign that quickly en masse without first planning for it.

I agree.  He had a great deal of haters in his party.  I don't think what he said would have mattered, his own caucus has decided to vote him out immediately after the allegations came out.  The MPs were not willing to go down with him.  Now as to why he was abandoned even by his own handpicked staffers that is certainly a good question, I don't have the answer to. He couldn't pull a Trump because Trump's people stuck with him when he was accused, his caucus didn't expel him when the accusations and confessions came out.

I agree that this resignations have the smell of being planned, this is not just spontaneous.

[H10]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

The timing of this is highly suspicious, especially given that the alleged incidents happened many years ago. Not that I necessarily doubt the story, but for now that is just what it is... a story.

What I find concerning is how the media takes hold of stories like these and makes them go "viral". At that point it doesn't matter if you're actually guilty of something- your life is over as you know it. You are a dead man walking. In the past there was always some effort to show restraint when someone was accused in the name of responsible journalism. Today the emphasis is on making lots of money by running a profitable media company, and the more sensational a story is, the more viewership and associated sponsor money comes in. It is now to the point that anyone can be destroyed just by mere accusation.

I agree, what if the accusations are false.  The media seems to not care if some of these accusations are false.

[?Impact]

19 minutes ago, H10 said:

I agree, what if the accusations are false.  The media seems to not care if some of these accusations are false.

They may seem to you that way, but I expect that CTV did a lot to vet the story. Not only the two reporters with the byline, but there was no doubt several editors, members of senior management, and legal council involved before they would print a story of this high profile. They would have interviewed the women involved and at least in one case others that support her story. I can only speculate that others might have been interviewed with other stories, but deemed not credible enough at the time to be included. The last thing the media wants is a story like this to be printed and then have to be retracted at a later date.

[August1991]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

The allegations on the surface don't seem all that shocking to me.

The allegations are shocking, and believable.