Trudeau sees the ordinary Canadian folk as his subjects, but he is not royal, he is not politically neutral, he is not a unifying figure.
It's funny about whether or not PMs are a unifying figure. Trudeau's detractors are very quick to wail that he "embarrassed ALL Canadians" whenever he says or does something they disapprove of, like singing a couple of days before the Queen's funeral.
Such detractors can speak for themselves. They do not speak for me. The singing in question happened two days before the funeral, was not at an official function, and was during the PM's downtime. And as singing Prime Ministers go, he's a hell of a lot better at it than Stephen Harper (don't get me started on Harper or the thread will be well and truly hijacked). So no, I was not embarrassed.
As for politically neutral... hello, the PM is the leader of a political party. Of course they favor that party. The good PMs don't let that get to the point where they pass laws that blatantly favor their own party/the general demographic that makes up their party. That's why my own province is in such a mess - the United Corruption Party is pretty open about how much contempt they have for people who are not like them.
No. Nobody gets into my house without my knowledge and permission.
Are you sure about that?
I have a rule in my home: Nobody with more than 4 legs is welcome. I spent most of the summer killing insects that sneaked in without my permission.
He's a dynastic political figure, either way. King Charles's mother was Queen, Comrade Trudeau's father was PM.
Political dynasties aren't the same as royal dynasties. Justin Trudeau's original profession was teaching math, science, and French in a school in British Columbia. His detractors dismiss him as a "part-time drama teacher" but my understanding is that drama at that school was an extracurricular activity, not a regular subject. I could be wrong about that - but even so, the arts are important to students having a well-rounded education.
Justin mentioned floating the idea of going into politics while Pierre was still alive, saying they discussed it. I don't recall the rest of the article, but the fact is that nobody really speculated about it until they witnessed Justin giving the eulogy at his father's funeral. As it turned out, he did go into politics - first running for a seat and winning it, spending time in the backbenches (never had a shadow cabinet position), then running for party leader and winning, and then winning the election of 2015 (it was refreshing to have a PM who didn't have to cheat to win, as Harper did). It's been a rocky time over the past 7 years, and it would be great if his detractors just stopped the childish nonsense. Criticize him on what he's done or failed to do, not on his hair, socks, or who his father was. Pierre Trudeau is dead and has been for close to 22 years. Just give it a rest already.
If European-origin minorities in Africa are treated poorly, I'm not sure why African-origin minorities in Europe should except the red carpet to be rolled out to welcome them.
Here's a hint in case you missed it: Who STARTED the racial violence when Europeans first encountered the people of the region of South Africa (I'm sure that part of the world originally had different borders and a different name)?
I have nothing against the Russian people, I despise the USSR (because it was communist, and it worked to undermine South Africa), loathe Putin (for invading Ukraine), but I have a lot of respect for the Romanoff tsars, and for Russians as an ethnic group.
Okay.
I'm guessing that TrekBBS has nothing to do with the Great Trek, but is instead about that strange television show called Star Trek. I have no interest in Star Trek, the Great Trek was far more impressive.
Yeah, I realize you wouldn't like a TV show that focuses partly on pointing out that people all over have the same basic wants and needs, both physical and social, and that respect for sentience is important no matter what a lifeform's exterior looks like. I'm reminded of trying to explain IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination), a Vulcan philosophy of tolerance and respect of all lifeforms, to my Mormon Ed. Psych instructor in college (he said it sounded "chaotic" and the actual point whooshed right over his head).
I never made any anti-LGB comment.
You made several cracks about "lifestyle" and you've consistently pretended that transgender people don't exist. So please don't deny what we all saw you post.
Yes, we have better medicine (mostly), but does that really make up for the social, cultural, and demographic decay of the West?
So you'd rather people die from diseases and conditions that could be cured or at least alleviated? I wonder how different history might have been if people had understood that prayer doesn't cure pandemics or plagues, or if certain monarchs' medical conditions had been recognized and treated. The Black Death changed everything for some regions of Europe as whole families were wiped out and inheritances, land, and influence that would have belonged to one family ended up going to another.
Henry VIII's quest for a legitimate male heir resulted in quite an upheaval in the social order of England, and history would have been very different if he'd just been grateful for the healthy daughter he did get from Catherine of Aragon and worked toward giving her the education and resources she would need to succeed him, once he realized that Catherine was past childbearing. Or I suppose he could have legitimized his bastard son, but then Henry Fitzroy died young as well. Hmm... that branch of the family didn't do very well, did it?
Without the Internet, there would likely be far fewer radicalized leftists.
And vice-versa.
I'd rather live under Gilead than live under Malema.
Do you even know what Gilead means in the context of my post? Try googling "The Handmaid's Tale". It's a novel by Margaret Atwood that's been adapted to a movie, ballet, and TV show.
I already said that I have nothing against LGB people. I vociferously disagree with gender and pronoun ideology, though.
The attitude displayed in your posts contradict this assertion.
The point is that women could be heads of state even in the 19th century...so much for the historical sexism theory you espouse.
As someone else pointed out, a woman was head of state centuries earlier. But of course there were still detractors who fretted that women would be too weak, too frail, too
delicate, and not intellectually capable of ruling a kingdom. I was actually thinking of still-earlier instances under the Plantagenets, when the default reaction to a woman being Queen regnant was to get rid of her. Mind you, there were those who thought the same of the Tudor queens, incessantly badgering Elizabeth to marry, and complaining about who Victoria chose.
I'm glad that the Queen did the stuff she did - I don't want women to all shut up and stay out of public life.
What I am opposed to is
1. Women prioritizing a career over having at least 2 children (falling below replacement fertility has all kinds of negative effects for society)
2. People of either gender promoting left-wing beliefs, including radical feminism
Even if only 5% of men reproduced, you could still have a stable population. The same is not true of women.
So only women who reproduce are worth anything and the rest of us don't count. Okay, gotcha. You realize that your antipathy toward the "left" is matched by others' antipathy toward the "right", right? The right-wing party that's currently running my province despises people like me, because people in my demographic (disabled) don't usually vote for right-wing parties - we know better than to expect any meaningful help or even compassion from them (mostly; I will admit that one right-wing premier of Alberta, Alison Redford, kept her promise to the disabled and boosted the benefit by a meaningful amount that made all the difference to us being able to keep a roof over our heads and being homeless).
I don't know what "radical" feminism means to you. I do know that people on this very forum have accused me of hating men because I identify as a feminist. My response is this: I've belonged to CFC for 17 years. My first few years here were mostly spent in the Civ forums because that's why I came here - to learn more about the game (it was a woman who taught me how to play it, btw). Then I meandered down to the Colosseum and joined in the OT discussions. I still love the game, but honestly... does it make sense for me to spend 17 YEARS on a discussion forum populated mostly by guys if I hate men (there was a period of several years when I was the only woman who was regularly posting in OT)?
All these long nested quotes are a real waste of postcount.
It prevents being infracted for spam.
If you move to Canada, you’re not a subject to the Prime Minister. He’s still held to accountability by his constituents and citizens. If he’s a member of parliament in your district, you have the freedom to vote his opponent.
...
If people from across the political spectrum are becoming more accepting of diversity, then it follows that racial animosity will subside over time. When you foster an environment of understanding and compassion.
You have lots to learn being on this section of the forum. As it stands, you eather keep the views to yourself or adapt and change. Otherwise you’d end up becoming a social pariah.
But you’re against a transgender teacher teaching physics? Even if they’re not leftist and aren’t pushing what you would call “transgenderism”? I recall a time when people were not fine with gay, lesbian, and bisexual teachers and it’s just a rehashing of the same talking points.
In a sociological frame, trans women are women.
Have you heard of Queen Elizabeth I?
I think he checks in the closet and the backyard to find any leftists hiding.
I don’t know much about the Westminster Parliamentary System. But Trudeau is still held accountable by the Canadian voters and can have a vote of no confidence be brought to him or voted out of office since he’s still a member of parliament and can be voted out of office (If anyone can chime in, I’d appreciate it since I’d like to learn more about the Westminster System and how it’s different from the US’s Presidential System).
Why should immigrants be accountable for the sins of their fathers?
Bolded is an example of a minor anti-LGBT comment. You are omitting transgender people by essentially dropping the T. I can comb through this thread and point out each time you mention “LGB”. I highly doubt that you’re a TERF since you’d be against all waves of feminism as well.
Society is not going through a state of degeneracy. Stop listening to Tucker Carlson.
“I’m not against lesbians, gays, and bis, but….”
Pronoun ideology? Dude, the majority of the Internet and the world isn't Tumblir! I don’t have strangers walking up to me demanding me to call the person xi/xir.
So you’re in favor of
Kinder, Küche, Kirche? Are you against a two income household? Because that’s relatively common to have both parents working. Is there a reason why you want household to have at least two children? Do you include interracial couples into the equation?
The only thing negative thing about feminism are sequestered to the radical misandrist faction. As I recall, feminism does want to bring forth equality to both sexes. That includes the freedom to choose to be either be a housewife or have a career and a family.
Exactly. Well said, all of it.
Briefly, Trudeau (or any party leader) can be ousted as leader via a non-confidence vote within the party, or he can step down if he wants to. He would still keep his seat in the riding he represents, since he would still be an MP even if he was no longer the party leader. He would only lose the seat by either resigning it or being defeated in an election. Or he could just walk away and not run in the next election.
One last thing: equality is part of many religions including Christianity and Islam, two of the largest religions in the world. To embrace equality is to be religious.
No. You do not have to be religious to embrace equality. I fully support people believing in any religion they want. I just draw the line at them imposing those beliefs on me or in the courts, hospitals, schools, my doorstep, etc.
