[John_Dee]

The problem with a Liberal victory is it further emboldens Wynne to carry on as is, with extreme spending, insider deals such as we saw on windpower, and all the other stuff she deserves to lose over. Sure, Wynne may be the least-worst hold your nose choice of many Ontarians, but Wynne will be licking her chops come victory. That’s what’s so annoying about DoFo being the candidate, since Elliot or Mulroney would have wiped Wynne off the map.

Agreed. By electing Dofo as their leader,* the cons have given Wynne a fighting chance. As little as she deserves one. But there is still such a thing as a lesser-of-two-evils vote, and Ford is a such repugnant figure, she looks...well, not good by comparison, certainly, but less bad at least. The Mike Harris government was a horribly destructive force, and Ford has the potential to make Harris look like a choir boy.

*To whatever extent he was legitimately elected, of course.

 

[SunriseChampion]

This is why I want to see a minority

Amen!

The horror would be if some of those polls end up reflecting reality. Specifically the ones showing ~50% PC voting intention. I mean, if they get over 50% of votes I won't even be able to dismiss their government as a sham false majority. I'll actually have to accept that they are a reflection of people's values and not a reflection of our idiotic electoral system.

That's when it would become (too) real.

 

[Northern Light]

Amen!

The horror would be if some of those polls end up reflecting reality. Specifically the ones showing ~50% PC voting intention. I mean, if they get over 50% of votes I won't even be able to dismiss their government as a sham false majority. I'll actually have to accept that they are a reflection of people's values and not a reflection of our idiotic electoral system.

That's when it would become (too) real.

FWIW (which isn't much at this point) in reviewing the polls over at Ontario Poll Tracker. https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/onvotes/poll-tracker/

I note that only 2 polls out of the last 10 published show the PCs above 43, both of those are by Mainstreet, which let's just say has a less than sterling reputation.

Marginally more interesting is that the latest poll, Global/Ipsos shows the NDP leading the Liberals by a point. PC 40, NDP 28, Lib 27, though between the margin of error, and replacing the Green Party with Other....do take with a material sized grain of salt.

 

[SunriseChampion]

FWIW (which isn't much at this point) in reviewing the polls over at Ontario Poll Tracker. https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/onvotes/poll-tracker/

I note that only 2 polls out of the last 10 published show the PCs above 43, both of those are by Mainstreet, which let's just say has a less than sterling reputation.

I was just projecting my dreams of a better electoral system future by saying that I would prefer a real majority government to a sham false majority government--even though I would prefer a minority government above all else--even though that government would be headed by Ford.

In order of preference:

1. Minority
2. Coalition
3. REAL majority
4. False majority (The FPTP gift that keeps on giving! also, the gift I never ever wanted....ok, it's a shitty gift, take it back)
5. Anarchy/Martial Law/State of War

Look at those numbers in the polltracker! No mathematical correlation between the percentage of support and the seat total probability. *shakes head in dismay* Keep Calm and FPTP On!

Would it be illegal for me to burn a hole in my ballot as a form of protest against our electoral system?

 

[Northern Light]

I was just projecting my dreams of a better electoral system future by saying that I would prefer a real majority government to a sham false majority government--even though I would prefer a minority government above all else--even though that government would be headed by Ford.

In order of preference:

1. Minority
2. Coalition
3. REAL majority
4. False majority (The FPTP gift that keeps on giving! also, the gift I never ever wanted....ok, it's a shitty gift, take it back)
5. Anarchy/Martial Law/State of War

I'm still waiting on platforms to see how I might favour a division of power.

In general, my instinct is I'd prefer an NDP led minority government that is dependent on both Liberal and Green Support.

But I reserve the right to change my mind as platforms emerge.

I'd be happy to have the PCs have input under normal circumstances (the recent backstabbing and incompetence notwithstanding).... but please let's keep Mr. Ford away from the reigns of power.

Look at those numbers in the polltracker! No mathematical correlation between the percentage of support and the seat total probability.

No disagreement here. I favour Mixed Member Proportional Representation with a 5% minimum threshold for seats.

I do so because I believe in a diversity of views; and in the sharing of power between competing and co-operative constituencies.

Would it be illegal for me to burn a hole in my ballot as a form of protest against our electoral system?

You can legally protest by formally declining to vote, as per this article. Though they don't record a reason.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/i-decline-a-guide-to-refusing-your-ontario-ballot

However, I'm pretty sure igniting your ballot would not go over well, and might just get you in a wee bit of trouble, LOL.

 

[SunriseChampion]

In general, my instinct is I'd prefer an NDP led minority government that is dependent on both Liberal and Green Support.

But I reserve the right to change my mind as platforms emerge.

I'd be happy to have the PCs have input under normal circumstances (the recent backstabbing and incompetence notwithstanding).... but please let's keep Mr. Ford away from the reigns of power.

Yeah, this sounds agreeable to me.

No disagreement here. I favour Mixed Member Proportional Representation with a 5% minimum threshold for seats.

I do so because I believe in a diversity of views; and in the sharing of power between competing and co-operative constituencies.

Same, with the addition of not being able to stand the absurdity of false majorities. Honestly, it's like someone pissed in my tea with those things....my tea!

You can legally protest by formally declining to vote, as per this article. Though they don't record a reason.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/i-decline-a-guide-to-refusing-your-ontario-ballot

However, I'm pretty sure igniting your ballot would not go over well, and might just get you in a wee bit of trouble, LOL.

How much trouble? Might be worth it. I love fires and have nothing but disdain for our electoral system, it could be worth the trouble. Besides, if my polling station is in my building's lobby then there's no worry, this whole building is a mass of sprinklers.

See, I'm not even necessarily of the mind to be able to vote "None of the Above" (though think that should be included on the ballot). I know who I want to vote for it's just that I think I've had it with my vote not counting after voting in every provincial and federal election since 2003.
I mean, for me, it would be ideal if "Stuff Your Bullshit Electoral System" was on the ballot, if anything.
My protest is against how we choose our representatives, not against the potential representatives on offer. Though, to be honest......a lot of riff raff in there.

So, do I vote for who I want to vote for as a show of support and as show of my values or do I give up because there is no point?
It's very disheartening. I may as well be voting in a Russian or Egyptian pseudoelection, to be honest. I have the same amount of power in choosing my representative as people over there do. And that's just a sad joke.

What's the difference between Putin's shady election win, for example, and one of our false majorities where ~35% of votes cast by ~65% of electors chooses a government that has all the power?

How the hell is 20% of the age of majority's support a mandate for anything? I can answer that: it's not.
It's a mandate for working with others in the interests of all and not a mandate to impose your will on all of us if anything.

Burn my ballot? Vote for naught? Decline? Abstain? Ignore? Explain to the volunteers why I'm not voting (like they give a funk)?

 

[syn]

What exactly did she say? All I've gotten so far from this is that she doesn't support gay marriage, thinks people wearing burkas look like ninjas and bank robbers, and that she doesn't think it's a good idea to travel to Muslim-majority countries.

What's the big deal? I think people who go out in public wearing sweat pants look like lazy chavs. Opinion of someone's dress is not illegal and making light of it sure as hell shouldn't be either. Religious dress isn't beyond criticism and ridicule. Wear what you want. I'll think what I want.

I myself would probably avoid most Muslim-majority countries and I'd tell all my friends to do so as well (knowing who my friends are) and it doesn't have anything to do with them being Muslim-majority but more to do with who I am and how I live (I'd go to Turkey, Lebanon and Morrocco any day of the week, for example).

As for gay marriage, we're not allowed dissenting thought on the subject? Do we expect all our politicians to follow a certain thought orthodoxy?

It's the disturbing arrogance of those who choose to police thought in this way that has lead to the massive political backlash we've seen in liberal democracies, the world over.
I don't want everyone thinking the same way as me. That would be beyond soul-destroying and disturbing.

I am usually in agreement with most of what the PC thought police (that's politically correct, not Progressive Conservative, whose thought police I also despise) are defending but this shit is getting out of hand.

So, yeah, what exactly did she say that was so horrible?

PS: I can't believe I'm standing up for a sex-ed troglodyte.

If Homophobia and Islamophobia are no big deal to you, then I'm not having hard time believing it.

 

[SunriseChampion]

If Homophobia and Islamophobia are no big deal to you, then I'm not having hard time believing it.

Thanks for coming out. Bonus for assigning attributes to my values that I didn't know I had. You win. Oppression obviously doesn't bother me because I'm only complaining about it.
Not only did you not answer my question about what exactly she said, but you didn't even answer the question about why what she said was so horrible. You did a good job dismissing my curiosity though, I'll give you that.

So, you didn't answer my question, but from what I can discern you're saying that her comments were homophobic and islamophobic. Why are they thus? Is it because her purpose in making said remarks was to instill misunderstanding, ignorance, or hate in those she was making them to? Was that her purpose?

So, commenting on someone's dress is islamophobic and opposing gay marriage is homophobic? End of, next question?

Is any sort of comment or opinion on any matter pertaining to an identifiable group of any sort when said comments or opinions are identifiable as pertaining to that specific group phobic?

Wait, I just asked more questions that won't be answered because (insert term here)phobia.

 

[syn]

Thanks for coming out. Bonus for assigning attributes to my values that I didn't know I had. You win. Oppression obviously doesn't bother me because I'm only complaining about it.
Not only did you not answer my question about what exactly she said, but you didn't even answer the question about why what she said was so horrible. You did a good job dismissing my curiosity though, I'll give you that.

So, you didn't answer my question, but from what I can discern you're saying that her comments were homophobic and islamophobic. Why are they thus? Is it because her purpose in making said remarks was to instill misunderstanding, ignorance, or hate in those she was making them to? Was that her purpose?

So, commenting on someone's dress is islamophobic and opposing gay marriage is homophobic? End of, next question?

Is any sort of comment or opinion on any matter pertaining to an identifiable group of any sort when said comments or opinions are identifiable as pertaining to that specific group phobic?

Wait, I just asked more questions that won't be answered because (insert term here)phobia.

What she said is in the article I posted, as is a link to her blog.

Mocking a specific culture for how they dress - yes it's Islamaphobic. Suggesting that vacationing in a Muslim country is a bad idea because of one incident involving Muslims? Yeah, I'd say that's Islamophobic too.

You seem to be confusing freedom of speech with freedom from criticism. She has the right to say whatever she wants. We have the right to evaluate her based on her comments and behaviour.

 

[SunriseChampion]

What she said is in the article I posted, as is a link to her blog.

Mocking a specific culture for how they dress - yes it's Islamaphobic. Suggesting that vacationing in a Muslim country is a bad idea because of one incident involving Muslims? Yeah, I'd say that's Islamophobic too.

Shit, then me mocking sweatpant-wearing chavs is also phobic. I best cut it out. Mocking what anyone wears for whatever reason is not phobic.
I missed the bit about the incident leading to the travel opinion. That would be a silly generalisation, yeah. Like I said though, I also wouldn't travel to most Muslim-majority countries and would advise people I know against it....except it has nothing to do with the prevailing religion there specifically (though it may have a lot to do with the prevailing religiosity there).

You seem to be confusing freedom of speech with freedom from criticism. She has the right to say whatever she wants. We have the right to evaluate her based on her comments and behaviour.

Of course!
I was only asking what the big deal with her comments was. Your response to that has proven my point about thought orthodoxy nicely, which to be honest, I'm not sure why I went on about. I think I took the attack on her attempt at absurdist comedy personally. I might be confusing freedom of speech with freedom from criticism in the same way that you're confusing freedom of religion with freedom from criticism.

Though, I do say, you still haven't defined what sort of behaviour or remarks constitute -phobic behaviour and why. It still seems arbitrary and emotive.


.....and it all has nothing to do with the thread topic so before I get yelled at again: forget it. I'm not sure I could expect a well-reasoned response to that question anyway.

 

[syn]

Shit, then me mocking sweatpant-wearing chavs is also phobic. I best cut it out. Mocking what anyone wears for whatever reason is not phobic.
I missed the bit about the incident leading to the travel opinion. That would be a silly generalisation, yeah.

But she wasn't mocking one person, was she? She was passing judgement on an entire culture. Again, she certainly has the right to say whatever she likes - but that doesn't mean that whatever she says must be acceptable.

Would it be cool if she voiced the opinion that blacks are predisposed to crime because they form a disproportionately high percentage of the North American prison population?

Of course!
I was only asking what the big deal with her comments was. Your response to that has proven my point about thought orthodoxy nicely, which to be honest, I'm not sure why I went on about. I think I took the attack on her attempt at absurdist comedy personally.

What exactly led you to conclude it was comedy?

 

[SunriseChampion]

But she wasn't mocking one person, was she? She was passing judgement on an entire culture. Again, she certainly has the right to say whatever she likes - but that doesn't mean that whatever she says must be acceptable.

Yeah, and me moaning about chavs and sweat pants is also passing judgment on an entire culture in the same way, yet you have yet to denounce me for it. Chavs have feelings too, mate.

Would it be cool if she voiced the opinion that blacks are predisposed to crime because they form a disproportionately high percentage of the North American prison population?

Why would that be cool? It doesn't stand to reason therefore it cannot be cool. Saying someone looks like a ninja because they're wearing a full-body covering is a matter of subjective opinion. As is my hate of sweatpants-wearing in public. Saying blacks are predisposed to crime because of their prison population is mistaking incidence for causality.

Mocking clothing: fine.
Mocking logic: no go.

What exactly led you to conclude it was comedy?

I mean, saying someone looks like a ninja because they're wearing a full-body covering must be a joke, no?


Kids used to make fun of some of the lunches I brought to school. They were culturally-specific. Should I have been offended or just laughed at what they were missing? I guess I did I had the wrong approach in simply carrying on eating them without offense.
People still make fun of my surname because it can be mispronounced as a certain English word. Should I be offended? The phobia is killing me.

 

[syn]

Why would that be cool? It doesn't stand to reason therefore it cannot be cool. Saying someone looks like a ninja because they're wearing a full-body covering is a matter of subjective opinion. As is my hate of sweatpants-wearing in public. Saying blacks are predisposed to crime because of their prison population is mistaking incidence for causality.

Mocking clothing: fine.
Mocking logic: no go.

She didn't just say they look like ninjas. She said they shouldn't be allowed to dress that way. Comparing them to her child dressed up like Spider -Man is a bit much too.

If you consider it acceptable for an elected official to discriminate against an entire culture based on how they dress, then I guess she's the candidate for you.

 

[Northern Light]

She didn't just say they look like ninjas. She said they shouldn't be allowed to dress that way. Comparing them to her child dressed up like Spider -Man is a bit much too.

If you consider it acceptable for an elected official to discriminate against an entire culture based on how they dress, then I guess she's the candidate for you.

I've been waffling over whether to butt in to this particular sub-thread.

I'm still iffy. LOL

However, I do feel the need to say, in fairness, that @MTown made quite clear his disdain for the candidate in question.

His query, I think ( though I should leave him to speak for himself ) was whether her off-colour, odd-ball, even stupefying remarks, as quoted in the article in question merited the degree of offense and alarmism indicated.

Its possible to be dismissive of someone as an intellectual light weight who has little if anything to contribute in a positive way without resorting to demonization.

I happen to think some of her views merit a very strong response, but those quoted in the article were mostly of the less obnoxious and more broadly ignorant variety.

Now don't get me started on her (past?) views on Conversion Therapy.........but that's a whole different............

 

[Jasmine18]

I am sure the polls will tighten but my issue is I see a Trump vs Hillary situation.

Wynne will galvanize support in traditional liberal ridings but turnout elsewhere in the province will be way down for her as she is so unliked outside of Toronto and Fords populism will turn out the angry male vote. I am thinking about it and I don't think I know a single guy who supports Wynne personally ranging from friends to my uncles.

As a result, you could have a situation where Wynne gets a lot of support in areas that are rather useless to her to secure victory like Hillary did.

The issue is in places in the 905 where poll after poll after poll has shown the Liberals in massive trouble.

The issue is turnout and I think many of you see a massive anti ford backlash but I see a strong pro-Ford turnout as well.