Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 16, 17, 18  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 12 of 18
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 955
Reputation: 110.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And again, why so fast Patrick?

If you ever wonder why some would label you a purveyor of mysoginy , please look no further than ....
Quote:
If you believe the women, you'll support Caroline, just because she's all organized and ready for when the opportunity arrives. At a minimum, you'll see the campaign being between Caroline Whoever and Christine Elliott ... who goofily never took her husband's name!

Goofily? A woman standing up with her own name? Grow up and learn its a new world.

I would never expect a woman to take my name. I just dont care !

Anyhow, moving on. It is my observation that you just dont seem toi get6 the picture of what is going on.


Nobody is talking this way , except you. So to be honest, you are not on the right page in any of this.
Quote:
But most people don't believe Brown because, you know, it's kind of creepy that a single successful fit young guy with prospects has a young adult woman for a girlfriend.

Tell me, gentlemen, if you were 39, and had 20-something young women, some of them with something on the ball as well as a push-up bra, rubbing themselves on you ... well, put it this way: what is the argument for a 40 year old woman? Throw in her child from a previous marriage?

No one. ... 'cept you.

Quote:
Our culture has a horribly distorted picture of women. We think all of them share the essential character of Mother Teresa. They wail about being oppressed to get more, even though they are the most favoured gender of any in all of human history. In such a climate, it is hard to even imply that there is a dark side of feminity. But women know, believe me they know. They even feel justified.
Queenmandy should ask his wife about that! You, too. (You can ask her without it being insulting.)


The bold part above is a joke isnt it? I mean, I laughed but then went..."oh...maybe this guy doesnt know a lick of history prior to 1960. That must be it.
Most favoured? Oh my.

Quote:
The challenge to statesmanship is to stand up for what is right -- with grace. Patrick is the only one who can do that, and he may fail.

He 'may' fail ?

He has spectacularly failed already.

Heres the thing.

Again, going right back to the first day on this...

He quit in record time. I said there has to be more.

Nothing more came out ...... for awhile.

Then the issue of money came about, no one can afford a $2M house on $180G. The numbers just dont add up . Family can help for sure, but ....sketchy.

Then the nomination came up. Seems the smoke if hiding the fire. We hsall see.


But here is my kicker on all of this.

Patrick came back guns a blazing , Im back baby and ready to fight. Got my approval and everything.

So what does PB do? Signs over a cheque for $125,000 ...... then five days later drops out.

Bad juju there. Really bad juju.

No one doles out money like that and quits unless one thought (PB) he may be able to keep the horses hidden in the barn forever.

Patrick realized he had issues coming that would sink him and figured it better to get on shore than drown.

Course now he is drowing in debt. But that his fault .

Go away Patrick.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7898
Reputation: 314.7Reputation: 314.7
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:

Then the issue of money came about, no one can afford a $2M house on $180G. The numbers just dont add up . Family can help for sure, but ....sketchy.


Not to jump in the middle again,
But I have seen this several places and I wanted to better understand.

Why?

Sure he has made 180k from 2015 onward, but he had been an MP since 2006 making 160k as well as whatever he was drawing in from his secondary investments and had been a city councilor prior to that since 2000.

If he has been drawing in a low six figure salary for nearly two decades in conjunction with whatever he pulled in from his bar and other ventures, I am not quite sure why we are so shocked.

Especially when he is apparently carrying a mortgage of $1.72-million on that property according to the same articles citing the value of the house.

If he had paid cash;
Sure,

But he had go through the due process of securing a mortgage from TD with a few hundred grand down and the fiscal scrutiny that comes with it which would also factor in how much was a gift from family, his money and his income, etc. I tend to not see this situation as outrageous as some do.

I don't see any issue with the house;
Where the potential issue lays is if he was using it as a rental property and not declaring the income.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 955
Reputation: 110.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:



Especially when he is apparently carrying a mortgage of $1.72-million on that property according to the same articles citing the value of the house.

If he had paid cash;
Sure,

But he had go through the due process of securing a mortgage from TD with a few hundred grand down and the fiscal scrutiny that comes with it which would also factor in how much was a gift from family, his money and his income, etc. I tend to not see this situation as outrageous as some do.

I don't see any issue with the house;
Where the potential issue lays is if he was using it as a rental property and not declaring the income.


It is the most minor of points in all this so, yea, no need to put to much on this.

That said, the math makes it really hard for someone to be able to cover all this and his other commitments .

Rough numbers.... $1.72M is about $8500 a month mortgage. His take home is around what.. $10,000 ?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7898
Reputation: 314.7Reputation: 314.7
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
cosmostein wrote:



Especially when he is apparently carrying a mortgage of $1.72-million on that property according to the same articles citing the value of the house.

If he had paid cash;
Sure,

But he had go through the due process of securing a mortgage from TD with a few hundred grand down and the fiscal scrutiny that comes with it which would also factor in how much was a gift from family, his money and his income, etc. I tend to not see this situation as outrageous as some do.

I don't see any issue with the house;
Where the potential issue lays is if he was using it as a rental property and not declaring the income.


It is the most minor of points in all this so, yea, no need to put to much on this.

That said, the math makes it really hard for someone to be able to cover all this and his other commitments .

Rough numbers.... $1.72M is about $8500 a month mortgage. His take home is around what.. $10,000 ?


You are pretty well bang on, but depending on the term, rate, and amortization period it will be somewhere between 7200 (Closed Variable, 2.95, 30 years) to around 8200 (Closed, 3.89, 30 years) to well over 10 if you go for a longer fixed rate.

His take home should be around 10k or so a month assuming no deductions and also assuming no secondary income which we know he does have (how much? No idea)

I am not saying its a great financial idea; but its certainly not impossible or at least not to the extend that Hilliers compliant implies. The only take away I have from this is that if he was renting it as a source of revenue it should have been disclosed.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 955
Reputation: 110.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I am not saying its a great financial idea; but its certainly not impossible or at least not to the extend that Hilliers compliant implies. The only take away I have from this is that if he was renting it as a source of revenue it should have been disclosed.

Lets not get too far into this..... add in taxes , insurance, heat hydro and maintenance and it look really bad
$16,000 Taxes
$ 4,000 Insurance
$ 9,000 heat hydro

...adds up to another $2,000 per month.

And let me add .... If...If he was renting it out without disclosure to his insurer then he will find himself in hot water there too. (not to mention zero payout if it burnt down)

If he disclosed to insurer he rents it out, that policy just becaome $6-7000 .


All I know is the numbers dont add up . Thats all .
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7898
Reputation: 314.7Reputation: 314.7
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
Quote:
I am not saying its a great financial idea; but its certainly not impossible or at least not to the extend that Hilliers compliant implies. The only take away I have from this is that if he was renting it as a source of revenue it should have been disclosed.

Lets not get too far into this..... add in taxes , insurance, heat hydro and maintenance and it look really bad
$16,000 Taxes
$ 4,000 Insurance
$ 9,000 heat hydro

...adds up to another $2,000 per month.

And let me add .... If...If he was renting it out without disclosure to his insurer then he will find himself in hot water there too. (not to mention zero payout if it burnt down)

If he disclosed to insurer he rents it out, that policy just became $6-7000 .

All I know is the numbers dont add up . Thats all .


Of course, in the overall picture its a minor thing.
Its just that I never viewed it as impossible as was being implied in the complaint for a variety of reasons and I figured it was a good exercise to just talk through the process.

We know he had secondary income;
The issue is we don't know the number as that was seemingly never released, however he likely wouldn't have passed the banks acid test.

Your numbers are pretty spot on and based on those numbers alone he never would have been granted the mortgage from TD, which is why I tend to believe the secondary income was at least somewhat significant.

The involvement of the bank to have him qualify for the mortgage at least from my perspective removes the question of income from my list of concerns.

The renting aspect is really the only major issue I see coming from the complaint;
If he wasn't declaring the income or he did and didn't disclose , its an issue.

The insurance aspect is one I didn't even consider but also seemingly a potential problem.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5280
Reputation: 270.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If, if. if ... typical of a guy who traffics in charges of misogyny and can't even spell it! Why is this a question? How do politicians get their money. We know spmething about how the Mulroney family uses politics for personal gain ... a family train, perhaps? But no questions of where the Mulroney's got their money ... or Ms Elliott, who didn't want to change her name when she got married presumably so as not to discourage other offers.

Is there a crime here? Is there something suspicious here? If so. shouldn't an investigation start from there? Here we are throwing around stuff that isn't even allegations, it only demands for explanations.

How do you make your money, TC? Where did the money come for your conspicuous consumption? The very question is offensive, but in this case, a very selective way. Nobody is asking where Wynne's money comes from, or McGoof's either ... No, Brown's the only one we're worried about.

None of this is germane to anything. It's gossip used to confuse the issue.

And for TC's benefit, the insistence that anyone who looks with suspicion upon the motives and behaviour of women is ... well, one of those deplorables. To pretend that women don't routinely use deception to advance themselves is absurd to anyone who knows the size and scale of the fashion industry. Makeup and cosmetics alone are a multi $billion market. (It's £17 billion in the UK alone!)

What is that if not hiding the truth? And why?

TC won't answer that. He only pretends to get huffy. If he could take issue with my actual points, he'd do so. If he accepts Caroline's absolute cynical use of family names, then why should he object to Ms Elliott being chastised for her lack of foresight? Was it not silly of her not to not exploit the men around her in the same fashion? It's what women do, it's how women get ahead -- in the main -- isn't it? How did Belinda Stronach do it?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 955
Reputation: 110.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="cosmostein"]

Of course, in the overall picture its a minor thing. [/quote ]
It would appear so , but I am not sure as why are they ramping this up?
Quote:


We know he had secondary income;
The issue is we don't know the number as that was seemingly never released, however he likely wouldn't have passed the banks acid test.

Your numbers are pretty spot on and based on those numbers alone he never would have been granted the mortgage from TD, which is why I tend to believe the secondary income was at least somewhat significant.

The involvement of the bank to have him qualify for the mortgage at least from my perspective removes the question of income from my list of concerns.


...or a co-signer. Guarantor perhaps?
Quote:

The renting aspect is really the only major issue I see coming from the complaint;
If he wasn't declaring the income or he did and didn't disclose , its an issue.

The insurance aspect is one I didn't even consider but also seemingly a potential problem.
Hell, I am sure the ins co that insures that place is asking questions.

And it gets worse if he has renters and didnt say anything. That will be a material risk violation and well could boot him out the primary market into the secondary market where the rates are abhorrent. ( Like double ! )

But, I am with you, this alone seems innocuous for the most part pending more info.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 272
Reputation: 102
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And here I thought women got ahead because they were smarter than men.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 272
Reputation: 102
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote,"Ms Elliott, who didn't want to change her name when she got married..."
Ahh, Bugs, you do have the gift of entertainment. Sometimes, I think you live in the 1950's. But then they were good times with great comic books and my hero, Roy Rogers.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 955
Reputation: 110.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
If, if. if ... typical of a guy who traffics in charges of misogyny and can't even spell it! Why is this a question?


What are you talking about ?

The 'if' is about whether he admitted all to poobahs like he should. Not hard to follow along, really.

But if you want a refresher , just ask.

Quote:
How do politicians get their money.

They get a job and cash a paycheque.

Quote:

We know spmething about how the Mulroney family uses politics for personal gain ... a family train, perhaps? But no questions of where the Mulroney's got their money ... or Ms Elliott, who didn't want to change her name when she got married presumably so as not to discourage other offers.

Is there any concern about the Mulroney's or Elliot and where there money came from ? I doubt it, not the least of which Elliots husband was a very smart and astute man who loved many long years making bank.
Mulroney was a lawyer and then PM and then a Lawyer again, paid handsomely since he had contacts that few would ever have.
My dad was much the same, made huge bucks in the latter years since he knew who wanted what built and the people in charge. He was less an Engineer than marketing guy . It is normal for people in professions to do.

That you dont have that luxury or knowledge about how these things work is ok. Dont sweat it.
But thats where the money comes from.
Quote:

Is there a crime here? Is there something suspicious here? If so. shouldn't an investigation start from there? Here we are throwing around stuff that isn't even allegations, it only demands for explanations.


<facepalm> you dont follow along very well.

Did anyone suggest a crime had been committed?

No?

Then just you ? Well... ok then.

But Patrick Brown quit , twice . Dont need any investigation. He admits wrongdoing without admitting what he did wrong.
Paid the bill , $125,000 and then 5 days later says...oh wait a sec...nah, gonna quit again.

Is that ^ a sign of a guy with ghosts in the closet?

See, you get all snippy and jealous of people who do well. Malign Caroline for being a rich mans daughter, who by the way has done quite well for herself.

Yet you dont touch on Doug Ford, probably the one with the most money, and the least brains.
So, if nothing else, you are a hypocrit who blows only when its a woman or some other rich guy. You backed the disaster that was Rob Ford , objectively the worst thing to hit Toronto , yet nothing against Doug Ford.

Hmm....
Quote:

How do you make your money, TC? Where did the money come for your conspicuous consumption? The very question is offensive, but in this case, a very selective way.

I am used to offensiveness from you, so lets move past that.

I work . I get a paycheque and I try to save my money. So much so that I drive my GF cr....er Ex GF crazy.
The very nice and expensive cottage ? (Nothing to brag about, they are all expensive) That was and is a family cottage . My parents bought it in 1982 for $40,000. (its at least doubled in price since :) )
Quote:

Nobody is asking where Wynne's money comes from, or McGoof's either ... No, Brown's the only one we're worried about.

Why are you jealous about this? Do you not like having your boy screw up soooo bad and get caught ?
No , you malign others when there was/is nothing to malign them about (at least on personal finances)

What do you know about Wynne? I have to surmise pretty much nothing.

She comes from a long line of Dr's., she was married to a PWC Acct , so....ya know, money was probably there in some form or another.
Inheritence from parents, buying homes many years earlier , like in the 70s and 80's and then selling in the 00's will tend to pad your accounts.
Her partner worked.

So?

Patrick Brown is not old enough to have profitted in the housing boom like older folks have done. So there is a question but its not for me to ask, the integrity dude will do that.
So PB, no spouse contributing , pay stubs known and his house suggests perhaps there is something there. I dont care really, but it is funny to watch.

If he got inheritance or trust then that would be open knowledge to the PC party but they claim nothing of the sort.
Quote:

None of this is germane to anything. It's gossip used to confuse the issue.

Oh no it isnt.

PB quit remember? He has some 'splainin to do Lucy !

The issue is one of choices. Do we want a Premier who makes lousy choices? Put aside they all do when in power, but not when out on the hustings and campaigning. ( Hudak aside)
Quote:

And for TC's benefit, the insistence that anyone who looks with suspicion upon the motives and behaviour of women is ... well, one of those deplorables. To pretend that women don't routinely use deception to advance themselves is absurd to anyone who knows the size and scale of the fashion industry. Makeup and cosmetics alone are a multi $billion market. (It's £17 billion in the UK alone!)

Oi vey, you are surely off your rocker now.

Makeup? Cosmetics? Men have used makeup since makeup was invented ! Men and women use subtle art of deception to make things look better, so do architects, painters , landscapers....shall I go on?

Men and women use deception in business all the time. Those of us working know this. I have to presume then that you did outside labour work or the like?
Cuz if you worked in an office you would know this.

But this is just a tangent to rant about misogyny (<--huh huh? ) and send vectives since your boy has been trounced and defamed for his stupidity.
Quote:

What is that if not hiding the truth? And why?
Looking presentable, putting your best foot forward , making an effort in appearance. Do you not get that?

So, lets assume you got a woman to marry you. (youve mentioned kids)

You went to her house on first date , you wore your tighty whities w the long skid mark on the back. Your freshest wifebeater T , wrinkles and all, and scruffy shoes.

Oh? YOu didnt? You didnt ? You wore respectable clothes and shined your shoes?

Let me pose this here... "What is that if not hiding the truth? And why? "
Quote:

TC won't answer that. He only pretends to get huffy.

Just did. So much for that. I dont get huffy, I just have a hard time dealing with intellect that is sub par when the sub par guy tries to be smart.
Quote:
If he could take issue with my actual points, he'd do so.

Just did...again.
Quote:
If he accepts Caroline's absolute cynical use of family names, then why should he object to Ms Elliott being chastised for her lack of foresight? Was it not silly of her not to not exploit the men around her in the same fashion?

Again, you . Just. Dont. Get. It.
The woman can choose any name she likes. Hers mine or ours. Dont care , doesnt matter.
Quote:

It's what women do, it's how women get ahead -- in the main -- isn't it? How did Belinda Stronach do it?

Its what people do , not just women.

Belinda did by doing due diligence on the volunteer circuit. By learning , and fast.

No one will ever say that having the Stronach name didnt help. Of course it did. So ?

So?

Man, step back and re-focus. You are all over the place with jealousy, pettiness and some seriously lacking knowledge on how things work.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 955
Reputation: 110.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
And here I thought women got ahead because they were smarter than men.


Nope, conniving beotches the lot.

It is the only way women get ahead. Not brains, not effort.


1930s methinks.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5280
Reputation: 270.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TC, you would do a lot better than eye-rolls if you went to facts.

These are facts:

In 1968-69, as government medicine was being established, approximately 15% of medical students were female. In 2016-17, the gender split in education was 56% female.
https://afmc.ca/sites/default/files/CMES2017-Section2-EnrolmentAttrition.pdf

There were 4600 people being trained as doctors in 1968, and 11,700 in 2017. In terms of women, the number of doctors being trained went from 669 to 6,559 -- basically a 980% increase in less than 50 years. In that same time, the total number of doctors being trained increased by 250%, and the number of males in training for as doctors increased by only 128%

Put differently, almost all of the growth in medicine has been assigned by quotas to women. The training positons for doctors increased by 7100 places between 1968 and 20016. Of the growth in the field, women got 5890 places, and men got 1937. It looks to me as if the recruits into medicine are only about a third male.

Factor in racial preferences, and you can see that those who aren't covered by an "equity-eligible identity" -- that is, white males -- probably only have half of that third, about 16% of medical school training positions open to them.

To put it all together, in a period when the population increased by 177%, the medical profession increased by 250% (hooray!) but if you look at the way the growth was split between genders, the male enrollments increased by only 28%, the female enrollment increased by more than 800%. As a matter of policy, not as a matter of merit.

This is how young men experience it on the ground. Since 1968, while the population has almost doubled,

Nor is it a matter of sexual barriers being removed. If there were 669 women in medical schools in 1968, there were no sexual barriers. The differences are accountable by differences in ability and/or interest areas -- and social class. Because, before 1968, the main bias in academia was a class bias. Women of the middle classes had other things on their minds that going out in the middle of the night to supervise a childbirth. And before 1968, doctors made house calls.

Medical school is a high hurdle, and the idea is you want your best people taking care of our health. Gender should have nothing to do with it. Ability and interest ought to be the determining factors. Merit. This is social engineering at work.

It's a similar story in law and all the professions. They may blab on about how smart women are -- and I am not questioning their competence -- but they aren't smarter than the men that are rejected for reasons of social engineering.

The problem is that the social engineering is going on at an ever-increasing rate. It will not stop when it achieves the mystical 50% ... it will keep chugging along.

There are three ideas of equaity at work here. In the old days, equality meant everybody got a shot -- if they qualified, they were in. Then there is the idea of numerical equality -- that there are two sexes and each sex should get half of the beneifts. And there's the third, the idea that equality is not achieved until the magic 50% is achieved.

Just for the record, I am in the first camp. But that is what is now deemed outmoded b flakes -- I think of TC 'here, and those who repeat the mantra without evidence. It was not because the old way didn't work, but because it did. Obviously, if there were 600+ women in med school in 1968 -- before the craziness started -- it wasn't because women were being denied access to medical education.

In those days women were still having children, and "the pill" was just coming in. Their focus wasn't on career. They had one.

What I object to is that we are tinkering in the gender balance in the workforce through the publicly funded educational system. It seems to set aside merit, and to filter out those who are undesirable in the medical profession on the basis of sex. That simple!

Medicine is just an example. Law is worse, actually. But it is true in all the professional schools. Engineering schools are under constant pressure to get the number of female graduates up. You know what? In Sweden, where they have gone furthest in de-gendering the workforce, the sexual rations in engineering and nursing acutally went up! That is, the natural preferences of the practitioners makes it as gendered and more than we have!
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/do-women-really-have-it-better-in-sweden/article15552596/

As it is now, this sexual tyranny is creating an atmosphere on campuses which expresses itself in intolerance and physical attacks. I am serious. The present professioriat is made up of people who have been in school ever since they were five, and were educated by people who spent their whole lives in schools as well. It is now a game where the victims of intellectual incest vie in finding new ways the world is unjust to its lamest members. It is now at a point where serious people in the field wonder if it is still legal to teach biological sex in biology classes. I am not kidding.

Our society is now in a panic about gender, to the point where a party leader can be deposed on the entirely unsubstantiated allegations of a girl!

I won't even get into the deception thing, it's so obvious. This thing has gone on too long, but you're wrong, queenmandy. All of the people applying are smart. But some groups have skin and genital advantages, not grey matter advantages.

As for who is smarter ... I refer you to the famous memo that got James Damore fired from google. He explains how normal curves work.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

The basic takeaway is that men and women, as a group, score almost identically on IQ tests but the shape of their normal curves are different. It means, at the extremes of these variables, including IQ, men outnumber women by a big margin. In other words, there are more male idiots and morons than female, by a huge margin, and the nuclear physicists are 95% male.

You may not like it, but it's just a fact.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8264
Reputation: 277.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( a mainstreet poll claims Doug Ford is leading , although I wonder how they found 17,000 pc members ? or were they pc supporters )



Doug Ford leads PC leadership race, poll suggests




Chris Herhalt, CTV News Toronto
Published Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:26PM EST



Former Toronto mayoral candidate Doug Ford holds a slight lead over Christine Elliott in the Progressive Conservative race, a new poll of party members suggests.

Mainstreet Research asked more than 17,000 PC Party members between Feb. 21 and Monday to rank their top three choices for party leader.


The survey found 36.7 per cent of respondents preferred Ford as their first choice, while 32.7 per cent picked Elliott.

Twenty per cent of respondents indicated Caroline Mulroney was their first choice and eleven per cent of respondents picked Tanya Granic Allen.

“The chances of Ford and Elliott winning are that of flipping a coin,” Mainstreet President Quito Maggi said in a news release. “There are so many intangibles that will impact the outcome of this race which makes it difficult to predict.”

The poll included former leader Patrick Brown as an option as he had not yet dropped out the race while it was conducted.

Respondents who picked Brown were transferred to their second choice.

PC Party members will vote from March 2 to 8, on a preferential ballot. The results will be weighted in electoral ridings with more than 100 members voting to maintain the impact of members in sparsely populated areas.

With Brown left in the race, he maintained a slight lead of 25.6 per cent of respondents, versus 25.4 per cent apiece for Ford and Elliott.

Looking at each respondent’s second ballot choice, which will prove valuable as the field is whittled down until one candidate has at least 50 per cent of the vote, 20 per cent respondents who picked Ford said Elliott was their second choice.

More than 39 per cent of respondents who picked Elliott said Mulroney was their second choice, while 37.4 per cent of Mulroney’s supporters said Elliott was their second choice.

Fifty-two per cent of Granic Allen’s supporters said Ford was their second choice.

The pollsters conducted 1000 simulations of the race using the data they collected.

In the simulations, Ford won 52 per cent of the time while Elliott won 48 per cent of the time.

But Maggi says the mystery factor in the race is how many party members take the time to formally register themselves for the online vote.

While there are likely more than 100,000 legitimate party members in the province, it is unlikely all or even a majority of them will take the time to register themselves for the vote.

“Each campaign is in a race to register as many members as they can before this Friday,” Maggi said. “The campaign that can register the most members and them to vote will win.”

The poll was conducted using smart interactive telephone response, targeting cell phone and landlines, with a margin of error of 0.7 per cent, 19 times out of 20.


https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/doug-ford-leads-pc-leadership-race-poll-suggests-1.3823239
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 955
Reputation: 110.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
TC, you would do a lot better than eye-rolls if you went to facts.

Doing just fine thank you . When facts are warranted to back things up they will be there.l
Quote:

These are facts:

In 1968-69, as government medicine was being established, approximately 15% of medical students were female. In 2016-17, the gender split in education was 56% female.
https://afmc.ca/sites/default/files/CMES2017-Section2-EnrolmentAttrition.pdf

Yes that page(s) is full of facts.

What isnt a fact is your screwy interpretation and ignorance of what is behind them.
Lets look at those non-facts and what is left is your feelings as it were

The following paragraph is factually correct.
Quote:

There were 4600 people being trained as doctors in 1968, and 11,700 in 2017. In terms of women, the number of doctors being trained went from 669 to 6,559 -- basically a 980% increase in less than 50 years. In that same time, the total number of doctors being trained increased by 250%, and the number of males in training for as doctors increased by only 128%

...but then goes completely off the rails (below) with your feelings and made up rants.
There is no denying that.
Quote:

Put differently,

Shouldnt there be a viewer warning that the ' Following is my made up reasons why poor old white boy has it so hard ' ?
Quote:

almost all of the growth in medicine has been assigned by quotas to women. The training positons for doctors increased by 7100 places between 1968 and 20016. Of the growth in the field, women got 5890 places, and men got 1937. It looks to me as if the recruits into medicine are only about a third male.

Where does it say that?
Whats the background on this ?

Pretty sure I know. It aint pretty.
Quote:

Factor in racial preferences, and you can see that those who aren't covered by an "equity-eligible identity" -- that is, white males -- probably only have half of that third, about 16% of medical school training positions open to them.

To put it all together, in a period when the population increased by 177%, the medical profession increased by 250% (hooray!) but if you look at the way the growth was split between genders, the male enrollments increased by only 28%, the female enrollment increased by more than 800%. As a matter of policy, not as a matter of merit.

No support , no background info, nothing to help your cause.....

I see...so feelings it is.
This is how young men experience it on the ground. Since 1968, while the population has almost doubled,
Quote:

Nor is it a matter of sexual barriers being removed. If there were 669 women in medical schools in 1968, there were no sexual barriers. The differences are accountable by differences in ability and/or interest areas -- and social class. Because, before 1968, the main bias in academia was a class bias. Women of the middle classes had other things on their minds that going out in the middle of the night to supervise a childbirth. And before 1968, doctors made house calls.

Giant load of claptrap .

Funny claptrap, but still a load of it.

If nothing else, know this. Acceptance into professional degrees was pretty much reserved for men. White men. That much is known. We were a predominately white country then so it makes sense.
Whitey controlled everything.

'Youre a woman, they dont become doctors, they are Nurses silly !'

'You a jew? Dont go near the Granite Club on Bayview. Dont bother trying to get into St Georges. '
'What youre black? Unless you work here dont even come onto the property.'

A womans place was at home. Thats what the deal was.

But as the decade turned near the later stages , women found some power and started to emerge and fight for the ability to get into professions that had been denied.
Quote:

Medical school is a high hurdle, and the idea is you want your best people taking care of our health. Gender should have nothing to do with it. Ability and interest ought to be the determining factors. Merit.

Well put. Hope the hospitals are doing just that.

Our Med schools arent. They like having all the foreigners paying the big bucks to get educated here. Makes them profitable.
Quote:

It's a similar story in law and all the professions. They may blab on about how smart women are -- and I am not questioning their competence -- but they aren't smarter than the men that are rejected for reasons of social engineering.

Contradiction alert. YOu are in fact questioning their competence , you say so right there .
"They arent smarter than the men rejected" ." They may blab on.."

How you cant see that to be pig headed male chauvinistic behaviour is astounding !

Do you not see that you just said " the women couldnt be any smarter than the men' Why not?

Where is the facts on this?

Oh...feelings, sorry, should have known.
Quote:

There are three ideas of equaity at work here. In the old days, equality meant everybody got a shot -- if they qualified, they were in.

Where the hell did you live ? Utopia ?

So...blacks jews, women, immigrants, chinese, all had equal access 'back in the old days ' did they?

And here is something you should remember.

Wanna know why you get such a hard f***ing time day in and day out?

Because the shit you write is so far off base , or plain lies that no one can take much of what you say serious.

Everybody got a shot.....pffft.



Quote:
It was not because the old way didn't work, but because it did. Obviously, if there were 600+ women in med school in 1968 -- before the craziness started -- it wasn't because women were being denied access to medical education.

Where are the facts on that?
Women were being denied access to so many things, stuff you lived thru but have either forgotten or plainly ignored.

Where were internships granted ? IN the 50 and 60's and onward , for medicine it was clubs. Private Golf clubs, private social clubs. Most of them exclusive to males. Oh....white males at that ! So even getting accepted to MEd school was one hurdle, then tryi9ng to get into a programme or interning at TGH was nigh impossible.
Quote:


What I object to is that we are tinkering in the gender balance in the workforce through the publicly funded educational system. It seems to set aside merit, and to filter out those who are undesirable in the medical profession on the basis of sex. That simple!

Sorry to say this but...you are not objectful in your opinion.

What it should say is the white guy is having it hard ( he really isnt since whitey still runs things in this country) and women need to get back in the kitchen.


Quote:

Our society is now in a panic about gender, to the point where a party leader can be deposed on the entirely unsubstantiated allegations of a girl!

Factually incorrect. That you wish this were true is cool, we get it.]

One who self deposes is just that. He saw the waters looked dark, went home and put his blankie on.
Quote:

I won't even get into the deception thing, it's so obvious.

Except yes, you did get into it and failed miserably. The $16B makeup market (or whatever amount you used) was proof that women lie. NO more no less. LOL !

Queenmandy had a good laugh at it , so did I !.

Quote:


You may not like it, but it's just a fact.


Yes .

A fact.

In the first paragraph.

And then?

Feelings . Morris Albert said it well.....

Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.
Teardrops rolling down on my face,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 12 of 18

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 16, 17, 18  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Ontario pc Leadership , whats next ?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB