News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

PinkLucy said:
Is it a double standard, as has been suggested before, that those faced with sexual allegations are gone in a heartbeat (granted, this wasn’t always the case) while those faced with other types of allegations are not? That is really what I am asking. Why does one scandal get you turfed but another does not?
Click to expand...
I think media has framed it that way. It's also one of the flaws I see with the Me too (or Time's up) movement/position (if there even is one singular one), wanting men to suffer in jail and "pay" for what they did. It's a very right wing way of thinking about crime and punishment. The leftist (or progressive) ideology in regards to prison is one of rehabilitation, and wanting people to get better (and to want to get better). Look at Sweden's, and the Nordic countries' "prisons", they are vastly different than what we have in North America, and they work much better at reducing the amount of re-offenders.
 
Jimmi T said:
Ya, even I had a little stint selling weed in high school (though not a small enterprise like Doug ran).
Click to expand...
Weed? Yeah...weed. *shifty eyes* *backs away slowly*
Sadly, I can never be a politician if anyone from those days ever pips up.
I was a student, couldn't get a legit job. I also stand firmly against drugs laws so I can't hold that particular point against Ford. Not that there's a lack of ammunition without.

@PinkLucy, I guess there is a double standard. I mean, I have one for this particular "scandal" vs sexual assault. Though in my case it isn't a double standard as I only see one of the two offences as being morally reprehensible. I'm fully in support of people recreationally doing whatever they want and am fully against people assaulting others. Both are illegal but only one of those sets of law is sane and it ain't the drugs one. One involves adults making decisions that affect themselves while the other involves adults making decisions that affect others. That's where the difference is for me. Or at least a basic reduction of my reasoning anyway. Apparently I'm not the only one who sees one as a serious personal impropriety and one to be a serious impropriety on the part of the law, else it would be a bigger issue.
 
Well, in both cases the adults are making decisions that could absolutely impact others. But I'm not getting into the merits vs evils of drug use. There is plenty of fodder about Doug besides that. And regardless of one's opinion on drug use, do you really want your political leaders to be people who profit from an illegal activity (whether or not you agree with said activity) and who knowingly ignore the laws (whether or not you agree with said law) because all signs point to that person thinking the law in general is for suckers and not for him.
 
If it's something they did many years ago, I couldn't care (with exceptions). Especially for breaking laws I strongly oppose. People are allowed to mature and change as they age, I don't understand why digging up things from decades ago and turning them into some sort of moral panic is a thing people do.
That being said, some people don't mature and change as they age. Doug Ford probably being a good example.
Wasn't Smitherman at one point held hostage by having done amphetamines or whatnot back in the day? Pure rubbish that was. Having to apologise for it as if it somehow made him less fit for public office or less of a person which it did not. He was unfit for many other reasons.
If the person has recently or is currently breaking the law, then that's a completely different story.
I'm a law-abiding citizen and respect almost all laws. I just think the war on drugs is one of the biggest wastes of life, time, and money in the name of a spurious morality based in ignorance and is completely self-defeating, illogical, and shameful. If he was dealing drugs now I might have something to say against him on that count because elected officials obviously need to be seen to be upholding the laws of the land....even the destructive ones, I suppose.
 
C26A3D71-36AD-46D1-AE0F-E1E51A5C52BC.png
 

Attachments

  • C26A3D71-36AD-46D1-AE0F-E1E51A5C52BC.png
    C26A3D71-36AD-46D1-AE0F-E1E51A5C52BC.png
    443.5 KB · Views: 299
PinkLucy said:
Well, in both cases the adults are making decisions that could absolutely impact others. But I'm not getting into the merits vs evils of drug use. There is plenty of fodder about Doug besides that. And regardless of one's opinion on drug use, do you really want your political leaders to be people who profit from an illegal activity (whether or not you agree with said activity) and who knowingly ignore the laws (whether or not you agree with said law) because all signs point to that person thinking the law in general is for suckers and not for him.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with the character argument, and completely logical way to vote. But at the same time Politicians have their own set of laws and we need stronger Politicians who will start the conversation to change the culture behind the charade as we nearing a societal breaking point where far too many people are fed up with how the establishments conduct their business. Many say all the polite things people like to hear to get elected but the system behind them stinks of corruption, very large portions of citizens feel abandoned locally and globally and nothing ever is done to address these upper issues. Its now enough of a democratic problem that if you can engage these apathetic citizens to vote you can get elected. So in this sense I get why people are gravitating to these characters, and we do have a big problem. I'm not sold these Populists are really out to fix the issue yet, and more of a hybrid by capitalizing for their own gain while starting the conversation. But like any movement its great to start the conversation to force other parties to work to grow confidence back in the pubic which has been lost on many fronts, and until that happens I don't think enough people will care for character or personal flaws over politics.
 
Last edited:
He's running for MPP in Etobicoke North. So I guess this probably means he's out of the mayor's race for good:

I am proud to announce that I will be seeking the nomination for our Ontario Progressive Conservative Party in Etobicoke North. It would be an honour to represent the great residents and follow in the footsteps of my father, brother and nephew. | #onpoli #pcpo @OntarioPCParty
Click to expand...
 
Jimmi T said:
He's running for MPP in Etobicoke North. So I guess this probably means he's out of the mayor's race for good:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it past him to try and do both. He'll easily win the riding even if he loses the leadership bid. Being a sitting MPP would be a nice perch from which to run a Mayoralty campaign. (I have no idea what the rules are about this, but rules have never stopped him from doing anything.)
 
John_Dee said:
A thought occurs: If there's anything to all the speculation we've heard about Brown's downfall being an 'inside hit' from within the PC Party - a big "if," admittedly - then does anyone think the same people won't go after Dofo with the exact same tactics? We're all still assuming there's all sorts of scandal and dirty details we still haven't heard about in the Ford Family Closet 'O Skeletons, right? If Brown's enemies within the PCs played this kind of hardball against him, I don't see why they wouldn't do the same with Thug. He's not exactly popular with that crowd.
Click to expand...

What if those "same people" were actually Doug's people, I mean, look at the timing. And DoFo was certainly not a fan of Patrick Brown. Not saying I actually believe this, but I'm just putting it out there as another possibility. It's certainly within Thug's wheelhouse of dirty tactics.
 
Irishmonk said:
I wouldn't put it past him to try and do both. He'll easily win the riding even if he loses the leadership bid. Being a sitting MPP would be a nice perch from which to run a Mayoralty campaign. (I have no idea what the rules are about this, but rules have never stopped him from doing anything.)
Click to expand...
Federal and provincial cabinet ministers must resign from cabinet to file municipal paperwork. Regular MPs/MPPs can file but must resign by close of nominations.
 
JGHali said:
Some nice pot lights though. But not much headroom. Does Doug not have his own basement? Or does he lives with his mom like Kathy?
Click to expand...
You can't talk about getting rid of the elites, be one of the people, and be part of a "grassroots" movement in a room full of gold/gilt like a Trump.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top