2014 Municipal Election: Toronto Mayoral Race

[kEiThZ]

Yes, I have. Anyone who knowingly supports a racist, is a racist.

Except when they're not right?

Though I have to think that some of that 30% is just grossly ignorant....
No ... anytime I point out to people in person that John Tory supported Rob Ford, they are shocked to hear this. Ergo

So because they are shocked to hear that John Tory supported Rob Ford, they get a special nfitz exception on the general nfitz rule that all who support racists are racist.

Consider yourself corrected.

You haven't corrected a thing. Only laid bare how bizarre your thoughts are.

Let's chase this down the rabbit hole further. Let's get some clear answers from you:

1) In your opinion, what proportion of Rob Ford's supporters are racist vs. just plain ignorant?
2) In your opinion, what proportion of John Tory's supporters would be shocked that John Tory supported Rob Ford in the last election?
3) In your opinion, are supporters of John Tory who aren't surprised at his support of Ford, considered racist?

Let's work on nailing down the proportion of Toronto that you think is bigoted.

No, of course it isn't. It is however bullying to accuse people of slander, who have never slandered anyone here in this forum. It is bullying to call people names, which you have done.

You really think you haven't slandered anyone? You honestly believe that? With all that you've written about John Tory being racist? Honestly? Wow.

Calling a bully a bully is not slander. Truth is after all the best defence against slander. You attempt to shut down or redirect any discussion on candidates you don't prefer by labelling them racists. You then, routinely imply, that anyone on this forum who supports them is either a bigot themselves or is tolerant of bigots. That is bullying behaviour. Plain and simple. Just because you don't consider it bullying doesn't make it any less so.

I'm sure it's surprising to you. Most bullies after all, are shocked to learn that people actually think they're bullies. It's actually typical bully behaviour to claim that they are the "real victims". Look at RoFo's constant claims of victimhood. Your behaviors is not different in the slightest.

It is bullying to try and out someone's identity (though somewhat amusing), and then encourage them to leave town.

My name's on here too. Feel free to retort. I don't dish what I can't take. But if you are going to start implying that people are bigots or support bigots, expect direct challenges. What you accuse and imply on here goes well beyond this forum. You've also chosen a username quite close to your own real name. Are you really that concerned about privacy?

And I've never encouraged you to leave town. But I do question why you live in a city where you have such clear disdain for the majority of its citizens.

When I refer to your bullying, I don't mean your debate. I mean your false claims about what I have done, your name-calling, and your attempted intimidation. When was name-calling, bullying, and intimidation of other posters allowed here?

Again. Calling a bully out is not bullying. You want this line of discussion to stop? Stick to the relevant discussions of the forum. Nobody needs to hear your nonsense about who is or is not racist or a homophobe. We're all old enough to make our own judgements on that matter. Were it an article or two, nobody would care. But at this point, it's annoying beyond the pale that every time a candidate you dislike is discussed, you will blather on about how racist they are on the thinnest of substance. And should somebody challenge you on your nonsense? Well, they are racists or bigots. Or you know there are exceptions to what you say and exceptions to those exceptions. And wouldn't you know it, the challenger should've known your exceptions. And of course, the challenger is the real bully, not you. You're always innocent and ever so wise and we should all appreciate nfitz for really setting us straight on who is and isn't bigoted.

 

[kEiThZ]

den:

It's part and parcel of our political system, which is a no-holds-barred, zero-sum, winner takes all process that is coloured by sex norms of the general public. I hesitate to label that as a male/female thing given the inherit stereotypes, but just think about the successful female politicians and their characteristics.

AoD

Isnt' this like the argument that there should be more female CEOs?

Unfortunately (for women), many of the qualities that most people associate with leadership are rather masculine traits.

Heck, I'm always surprised to hear women around me comment on women candidates. And their answers reduce down to exactly that point: many of the traits associated with leaderships are traits we consider masculine.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Isnt' this like the argument that there should be more female CEOs?

Unfortunately (for women), many of the qualities that most people associate with leadership are rather masculine traits.

Heck, I'm always surprised to hear women around me comment on women candidates. And their answers reduce down to exactly that point: many of the traits associated with leaderships are traits we consider masculine.

I don't think (for me at least) it is about having more female ______ for its' own sake (that's an equity argument), but whether we are actually worse off for subscribing the supposed superiority of masculine traits without asking the tough question - is that really beneficial? At the end of the day, good governance isn't about who can mime these traits the best, but whether the governance is actually "good". That requires a change in political culture.

Like for example, are Canadians being well-served by a Parliament that has degenerated into a bunch of imbeciles talking BS and behaving like "schoolyard leaders"? We have an excess of individuals with these masculine, leadership traits and precious little to show for it (least of all, ironically, is leadership).

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Enough already nfitz.

MoD

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Not really, I think Olivia came with a lot of baggage - be it political (leftwing NDPer label) and personal (assumed coatailing on Layton, etc.). Niceness is helpful for the image, but ultimately it doesn't get you elected.

AoD

That's it. She's too nice, and she does not have the killer instinct. John does not either, but you see he is saying anything he can to win, and it looks like it will work. Chow, to her credit, is not that person.

I don't think (for me at least) it is about having more female ______ for its' own sake (that's an equity argument), but whether we are actually worse off for subscribing the supposed superiority of masculine traits without asking the tough question - is that really beneficial? At the end of the day, good governance isn't about who can mime these traits the best, but whether the governance is actually "good". That requires a change in political culture.

Like for example, are Canadians being well-served by a Parliament that has degenerated into a bunch of imbeciles talking BS and behaving like "schoolyard leaders"? We have an excess of individuals with these masculine, leadership traits and precious little to show for it (least of all, ironically, is leadership).

AoD

People talk about the Liberal corruption, but this is the Alberta way that was brought to parliament. This is the type of nonsense that files out west and Harper brought it here.

 

[nfitz]

That's it. She's too nice, and she does not have the killer instinct. John does not either, but you see he is saying anything he can to win, and it looks like it will work. Chow, to her credit, is not that person.

Chow's BS earlier this week about TTC taking money from elevators and using them on the Scarborough subway suggests otherwise.

 

[kEiThZ]

Not really, I think Olivia came with a lot of baggage - be it political (leftwing NDPer label) and personal (assumed coatailing on Layton, etc.). Niceness is helpful for the image, but ultimately it doesn't get you elected.

AoD

Absolutely right that niceness doesn't get people elected. Because what's niceness got to do with anything? Electorally speaking.... And I don't think Chow's more or less nice than John Tory.

I've even seen Rob Ford at certain public events. And I don't think he's that bad outside of council chambers. He's a pitbull at Council though. No doubts about that. But I actually think part of Rob Ford's charm (to those who vote for him) is exactly that he's always quite happy to partake with the public and he get mad (or feigns anger) when the public would be offended. So if anything, not being nice sometimes, when in sync with public sentiments, actually pays off.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Absolutely right that niceness doesn't get people elected. Because what's niceness got to do with anything? Electorally speaking.... And I don't think Chow's more or less nice than John Tory.

Being a women and not nice (or not empathic) will get you branded as a b*tch to a significant portion of the electorate - and being that most certainly wouldn't get you elected most of the time.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

That's it. She's too nice, and she does not have the killer instinct. John does not either, but you see he is saying anything he can to win, and it looks like it will work. Chow, to her credit, is not that person.

Really? She talked about banning guns in Toronto, despite knowing full well (as a former Member of Parliament no less) that municipal politicians have absolutely zero jursidiction over the issue.

In general, I don't think any politician is so trust-worthy that they won't occassionally bend the truth to win a vote.

 

[nfitz]

Really? She talked about banning guns in Toronto, despite knowing full well (as a former Member of Parliament no less) that municipal politicians have absolutely zero jursidiction over the issue.

I don't think that's a nuance that most people would care about. Toronto council has voted on such things previously, without any kickback to the councillors behind it.

It's simply sending a message to those that do have power to change it. And as an added bonus outs those that think it's okay to wander around with guns.

 

[kEiThZ]

Being a women and not nice (or not empathic) will get you branded as a b*tch to a significant portion of the electorate - and being that most certainly wouldn't get you elected most of the time.

AoD

I've heard this before. For elections, promotions, etc. Not sure how true it is (in application exclusively to women). A woman who isn't nice, gets the b*tch label. Guy who isn't nice gets the assh*le label. I don't think there's a circumstance where not being nice helps. In general, people just like others who are happy and smiling. Doubly so for politicians. This is why RoFo did well. Despite all his other failings.

Chow is nice. But she doesn't come off as relaxed and happy. Even less so than John Tory, who actually seemed to be having fun....for example at the Board of Trade mayoral debate.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Rob's problems are an ongoing thing to today, if we go by the news this morning. Doug did something many kids did 30 years ago. No comparison.

Actually, Doug is worse than Rob. Rob's a user. Doug was a dealer. The comparison is worse for Doug.

But, personally, I'd be attacking Doug through council and Deco. It's pretty obvious he was on council to siphon funds into Deco, isn't it? Never showed up for a meeting or vote, unless a client of Deco needed a favour.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I've heard this before. For elections, promotions, etc. Not sure how true it is (in application exclusively to women). A woman who isn't nice, gets the b*tch label. Guy who isn't nice gets the assh*le label. I don't think there's a circumstance where not being nice helps. In general, people just like others who are happy and smiling. Doubly so for politicians. This is why RoFo did well. Despite all his other failings.

Chow is nice. But she doesn't come off as relaxed and happy. Even less so than John Tory, who actually seemed to be having fun....for example at the Board of Trade mayoral debate.

Don't forget there is also a differential between the candidates/parties men vote for, versus women. Chow is more sensitive to the negative impact of being nasty I think.

I think Chow is at a disadvantage in these free for alls - she is not a good speaker and not quick on her feet - and a televised debate it's a deadly combination. Nobody is going to factcheck - but everyone will notice responses that are too nuanced and too non-committal (even if that's the right thing to do).

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

But, personally, I'd be attacking Doug through council and Deco. It's pretty obvious he was on council to siphon funds into Deco, isn't it? Never showed up for a meeting or vote, unless a client of Deco needed a favour.

Well, I'd nail him on lack of experience, lack of work in the community, uncommitted to the city, using city for personal benefits and finish him off with the treatment of the dad with the autistic kid. Wouldn't have done anything to sway the FN vote, but who gives a damn about the FN vote at this stage?

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

Stop the crazy train.

Stop the Ford train.