The "LOLCANADA" thread...again

Yeah that’s crazy if anything your anti women and women’s rights

you can make a anti men point and still be anti pro men....

Its just politics are above your non political vibes

I wonder if the two of you think you are making actual points and not just the bizarre pseudo-speaks that only people deeply ingrained in your respective internet tribes actually understand.

Conservatives really struggle to elect female MPs. It's just a fact. It isn't anti-men, anti-pro-men, anti-women or whatever else you guys are imagining.

Yes and we know the Liberals have elected so many female PM's . At least the Conservatives had a female PM

You know women generally do not get into politics and I am not sure why. Some trades or industries or careers are more woman than men and some the opposite. I do believe more women are graduating than men from college

Im all for more woman in politics though Ill never be for mandating that 50% of cabinet people should be women . Select the best person

Well, women don't generally get into conservative politics. The liberals hit 40% last election, which is pretty close to the 50%.

I always find this rather amusing, because every cabinet ever is selected for many political reasons beyond being "the best". Like does lozen ever complain if the always political decisions include things like say regional representation? Or what if someone does a good job of outreach to say the indigenous community or the Sikh community? Or someone who is good at getting donations? Or just someone who is a steadfast loyalist? Like the idea that politics is some sort of meritocracy that perfectly goes out and select "the best" person for the job is so outrageous far from the truth it's not even funny. Of all the many bad ways politicians play politics, trying to strive for at least basic gender parity seems among the least bad ways to do it, at worst.

is there a scientific evidence that in every field the amount of best candidates in anything, regardless being politics, economics or w.e, always end up being 50/50 between male and female ?
we dont have 50/50 because some portion of a certain group would be less interested to participate but magically, nature always find a way to divide precisely to 50/50 parity in efficiency for both groups ?

ps: i should probably not say both groups because their is more then male and female now...
so i guess that 50/50 concept actually became obsolete, it should something like 33/33/33 or 25/25/25/25...

No, montreal, nobody is suggesting that trans people should be 33% of positions. Amazing how much the existence of trans people triggers you.

Doesnt trigger me at all.
I was speaking about people not being gendre -> they …

Maybe it’s you that being easily trigger and try see trans discrimination everywhere .

But the point remains.
50/50 is an ideological goal and I find every ideology very dubious when its been pushing to the extreme.
if there is far more male politicien ( no idea if u include gendre in there ) I don’t see any reason that a 50/50 target being a needed ratio shrug.
40% could be sufficient ?

Anyway I rather have the best candidate then a bad « sex ratio » candidate shrug.

I hate to break it to you bros, but the male politicians you idealize aren’t exactly the “best candidates”. Politics is terrible at selecting genuinely good people for their roles, which makes all this talk of “best” pretty hilarious.

This is were I agree with you 100% A large % of people in politics just do not have the experience to be in their positions . Folks like Trudeau, Guilbeault, Freeland and you could argue Pierre as well
I do think both Carney and Harper have or had the qualifications to be leaders .

You got me there !

Ps: hint, u wouldn’t believe how much I am pro egalitarian between make/Female or any other values like religion etc but yeah, I’m not an hardcore ideologue like you.
Im just a pragmatic .

I suggest you revisit the last couple pages on how you love to affirm things on people that are just moderate and yet you make them pass like intolerant or almost extremist .

lay off the woke stuff bro….

This is exactly backwards of what is happening. The person accused of being extremist was me. *I* was accused of being "anti men" and "anti pro men" and "anti women" in quick succession. *I* was accused of succumbing to tribalism before turning the quote around.

In contrast, I didn't suggest people against the view were extremists or intolerant, I just think you guys gave pretty bad arguments about meritocracy and the "best" when OF COURSE political appointments aren't selecting for the "best" and instead use all sorts of symbolic and political considerations of which I think gender parity is a reasonable enough position to take among the highly non-meritocratic process. You can disagree with me, of course, but only one side is accusing the other of being extremist.

Fair enough.
But review how Quick u were in some replay u made about me and you will see you aren’t much better …

« trans trigger me »
« male politicien I idealize »

…out of the blue just like that …

If Carney isn't qualified then no one in politics ever was qualified. Carney is one of the most qualified people ever in politics (Draghi becoming prime minister in Italy is maybe the only other one that comes to mind similar to him).

Now , how those qualifications will work for Canadians, is still to be determined.

That is what I said Him and Harper were very qualified .

Maybe try not saying stupid stuff like this:

Uh, Harper was a lifelong politico just like Poilievre. Like he founded the reform party 2 years after finishing school. I guess he has working in the mailroom at imperial oil in the late 80s to make him "very qualified". I guess the best you could say is he has a somewhat relevant economics degree, but to think Harper is remotely in the same bucket as Carney is hilarious. Carney is in a class all to himself and Trudeau/Poilievre/Harper are all three of them politicians with effectively zero work experience outside of politics that anyone would think qualified them at all.

are we april fools today ?

Harper had studied economics and though I do agree he lacks the work experience he exceeds many of the past liberal flunkies

Lay off the woke stuff

Uke will never and will keep pushing the trans crap agenda that
Men can get pregnant
Men can compete against women
Men can access woman locker and change rooms
Mutilation and castration of children

Lol. I’ve taught hundreds of Econ majors their math over the years, maybe thousands. With zero work experience, you wouldn’t think a single one of them was very qualified to run a country. Harper was a politician with a politicians background. Like Trudeau. Like poilievre.

Carney is so unbelievably far beyond that.

No fng kidding the man is 60 I hope he has more experience than Harper but we do agree he is qualified for the job

acually we do know why. its competition. women do not generally like it and politics is a strategy game. not alot of women playing starcraft or eu4 with visions of grandure. uke calling me tribal very original I wonder where he got that term from.

The liberals hit high numbers because they seek out the few women interested to hit arbitrary numbers

at no point did i accuse you of that....

I actually accused you of taking the female side because your on a team and that's what you have to do to win the baseball game. I even specified later you made an antimen statement as supposed to being an anti men person. huge difference im sure.

That being said everyone knows your far left views we read it everyday. I mean your a university professor the most left leaning job in the world. Tim pools also a centrist. If your a lifetime liberal party voter your probably not center like you have claimed because generally people in the center switch party's every few elections and you would have been the 10% that voted Trudeau. so that mathematically makes you top 10% left which is pretty far left my dude.

Anyway go carney! I'm on board at least for 9 more months!