General Election: Oct 21, 2019

[OldSolduer]

Why would anyone demand a leader march in any parade - gay, straight, anti abortion or pro choice?

Its so much garbage that a political leader "has" to march in any parade.

 

[mariomike]

Why would anyone demand a leader march in any parade - gay, straight, anti abortion or pro choice?

Its so much garbage that a political leader "has" to march in any parade.

Why march when you can ride? 

That's our Mayor Mel on a vintage fire truck. More water than you can carry!

 

[Remius]

Why would anyone demand a leader march in any parade - gay, straight, anti abortion or pro choice?

Its so much garbage that a political leader "has" to march in any parade.

No one has to. 

But they also have to deal with whatever comes from that. 

 

[OldSolduer]

No one has to. 

But they also have to deal with whatever comes from that.

I'd actually like to see or hear a politician refuse.

 

[Jarnhamar]

No one has to. 

But they also have to deal with whatever comes from that.

Let me guess what happens.

People say "we respect your views and right to attend this event or not and we won't view a decision not to attend as an attack against us, or become outraged and scream for you to lose your job".

 

[mariomike]

I'd actually like to see or hear a politician refuse.

Mayor Ford went to the flag raising ( not with much enthusiasm ), but not the parade.

Every other mayor since, and including, Lastman has marched or rode in the parade.

Politicians don't have to go. City police and paramedics are mandated to. Of course, we knew that when we hired on.

 

[Remius]

Let me guess what happens.

People say "we respect your views and right to attend this event or not and we won't view a decision not to attend as an attack against us, or become outraged and scream for you to lose your job".

You must be new... ;D

 

[Altair]

Why would anyone demand a leader march in any parade - gay, straight, anti abortion or pro choice?

Its so much garbage that a political leader "has" to march in any parade.

No politician has too.

By that same token,  nobody has to vote for the politician that doesn't.

 

[Jarnhamar]

No politician has too.

By that same token,  nobody has to vote for the politician that doesn't.

HS is right. Politicians are vilified if they don't. The same way celebrities were vilified if they didn't tweet disapproval for Trump.

 

[ballz]

and has a video of himself in the house of commons comparing gay marriage to dogs, and wont apologize for it

I think Scheer has enough things wrong about him that people can not play stupid on this one and pretend that they don't know that the relatively well-known dog's tail vignette has *nothing* to do with comparing the subject to a dog.

 

[Altair]

I think Scheer has enough things wrong about him that people can not play stupid on this one and pretend that they don't know that the relatively well-known dog's tail vignette has *nothing* to do with comparing the subject to a dog.

I can honestly say I don't get the reference.

And regardless,  it has aged very badly. Scheer could have offered a apology for it,  instead offering a response of the issue of gay marriage is settled in Canada, by the way,  Justin Trudeau bad.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I think Scheer has enough things wrong about him that people can not play stupid on this one and pretend that they don't know that the relatively well-known dog's tail vignette has *nothing* to do with comparing the subject to a dog.

This, for the record, from Scheer's statement (read from a piece of paper) the House of Commons in 2005:

... Abraham Lincoln has been credited with this quote, which goes something like this, “How many legs would a dog have if you counted the tail as a leg?” The answer is just four. Just because a tail is called a leg does not make it a leg. If Bill C-38 passes, governments and individual Canadians will be forced to call a tail a leg, nothing more, but that is not inconsequential, for its effect on marriage, such an integral building block of our society, would have far-reaching effects ...

More before & after context @ the link.

 

[Remius]

Except Abe Lincoln's actual quote was about a calf, not a dog.  Semantics but it wasn't even an accurate quote.  I don't believe that he was comparing gay marriage to dogs. 

The point of his quote was to argue that gay marriage was not in fact marriage because they can't have kids.  Which is his religious dogma that he brought into politics.

He was arguing that gay marriage was not valid from a religious stand point. 

That is all that we need to know about it.

 

[Altair]

Except Abe Lincoln's actual quote was about a calf, not a dog.  Semantics but it wasn't even an accurate quote.  I don't believe that he was comparing gay marriage to dogs.  Unlike CPC MP Cheryl Gallant who at around the same time said that it could lead to bestiality... :

The point of his quote was to argue that gay marriage was not in fact marriage because they can't have kids.  Which is his religious dogma that he brought into politics.

He was arguing that gay marriage was not valid from a religious stand point. 

That is all that we need to know about it.

Which,  I think one can say without much argument, is terribly out of place in 2019. Understanding full well he said this in 2005, but couple this with refusal to march in pride parades,  refusal to say what his current stance on gay marriage is beyond the law is settled in Canada,  or that his views have evolved but won't say how,  and how anti abortion groups are openly gloating about the amount of candidates they have running and you get why people,  especially in urban ridings,  get very uncomfortable with Scheer.

All he had to do was say I'm sorry for that speech,  my views in 2005 are not my views now,  and while my religion isn't supportive of gay marriage,  I personally am. I apologize to anyone I may have hurt with my words in 2005, and promise to do better going forward.

That would have defused the issue far better than what he did say.

*Unless of course that was not true,  in which case... Yikes. 64 percent of Canadians support same sex marriage,  its best to be in lockstep with the majority of Canadians when running for office. 

 

[Remius]

Altair:  PM sent to you.  thanks.

 

[Altair]

Altair:  PM sent to you.  thanks.

If you say so.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Maybe Scheer was worried about all those new insurance policies he was going to have to cut for the newly empowered gay community?

He was an insurance broker right? :dunno:

:stirpot:

 

[PuckChaser]

All he had to do was say I'm sorry for that speech,  my views in 2005 are not my views now,  and while my religion isn't supportive of gay marriage,  I personally am. I apologize to anyone I may have hurt with my words in 2005, and promise to do better going forward.

Are you Trudeau's publicist? That's a word for word copy of Trudeau's "apology" over wearing blackface on multiple occasions.

The problem with Scheer's speech is it got blown out of proportion as it fit the narrative the Liberals and Liberal-friendly media was pushing. In an era of cancel-culture where we destroy comedian's careers for jokes they told 20 years ago, we have people supporting someone to be the Prime Minister of our country who wore blackface on multiple occasions. Kind of puts his India debacle into context: Trudeau has little to no respect for minority cultures, he just wants their votes.

 

[QV]

Are you Trudeau's publicist? That's a word for word copy of Trudeau's "apology" over wearing blackface on multiple occasions.

The problem with Scheer's speech is it got blown out of proportion as it fit the narrative the Liberals and Liberal-friendly media was pushing. In an era of cancel-culture where we destroy comedian's careers for jokes they told 20 years ago, we have people supporting someone to be the Prime Minister of our country who wore blackface on multiple occasions. Kind of puts his India debacle into context: Trudeau has little to no respect for minority cultures, he just wants their votes.

And the media doesn't really care about racist behaviour unless it's to destroy the opposition to their preferred candidate.

 

[Remius]

And the media doesn't really care about racist behaviour unless it's to destroy the opposition to their preferred candidate.

It did.  At the beginning but when they saw the public at large didn't care they moved away from it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/trudeau-blackface-discussion-online-1.5306563

A big difference the LPC vs the CPC this past election was getting in front of issues.  Trudeau stepped up and apologised quickly.  Scheer went into hiding, avoided questions or didn't answer them and only after days did he ever address them.  If you want to keep something I n the media just avoid the questions and look like you are hiding something.