# Say it ain't true Jack



## I'm Howard (Oct 13, 2010)

Mlle. Brosseau, who really is Ms. Brosseau listed her home adress as in the riding She was contesting, when it was revealed She lived no where near the riding, the error was blamed on an NDP Staffer.

Brosseau listed herself as having a diploma from Algonquin College, which it turns out She doesn't, that damn NDP Staffer did it again.

I am waiting to see whether She really has a child, whether She really is 27, and what else can be blamed on the staffer.

This is so great, Lying Layton keeps defending her, Stevie is smiling, the next four years should provide some good slapstick, and maybe now Jumping Jack will accept the fact that he will NEVER be P.M of Canada.

First order of business, French Language, all Federal Offices in Quebec to be French Only, gotta love it.

Oh Yeah, NDP must hire 300 Staff Members, but they must be Union Members, and hiring is on What you are, not what you can do.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

What's the difference, it's not as though Quebecers actually cared who they voted for, though to be fair, no one really knows what exactly took place on May 2nd to have helped the NDP go from 1 to 58 seats. 

The following comment posted on the National Post must have been written by a certain CMF member: 

"Personally, I am more than pleased to see the money and benefits that go along with the position go to a young single mom.....now her child (or children) will suddenly have a whole lot better life and a lot more opportunities."


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> What's the difference, it's not as though Quebecers actually cared who they voted for


But based on what you said in this other thread, isn't it fair to say that you didn't care who you voted for either? Vote for the party, not the person, right? 

http://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/showpost.php?p=62117&postcount=7

I think that's what happened on May 2nd: people in Québec voted for the party, or perhaps they voted for a person (Layton), without knowing or caring anything about who their local NDP candidate was.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I like her.....maybe all these new MPs will provide some grit in the House.

They might even have opinions of their own......wouldn't that be refreshing?


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

brad said:


> But based on what you said in this other thread, isn't it fair to say that you didn't care who you voted for either? Vote for the party, not the person, right?
> 
> http://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/showpost.php?p=62117&postcount=7
> 
> I think that's what happened on May 2nd: people in Québec voted for the party, or perhaps they voted for a person (Layton), without knowing or caring anything about who their local NDP candidate was.


LOL, I know exactly what I said given we discussed this only recently and stand by my comments, however, it is *not* the same as there is little doubt that 'most' Quebecers did not really vote for the NDP party either.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> there is little doubt that 'most' Quebecers did not really vote for the NDP party either.


Hah, but what exactly do you mean by that -- that they voted for Jack as opposed to the party's platform?

I think it's hard to tell how much of it was voting for Jack versus trying (unsuccessfully) to prevent the Conservatives from gaining a majority. Once it became clear that the NDP had some legs, I think the people who ordinarily would have voted for the Bloc shifted allegiance, figuring that if anyone could prevent a Conservative majority the NPD stood the best chance given Ignatieff's general unpopularity and the lingering distate/distrust of the Liberals after the sponsorship scandals. But maybe it was just the idea that Jack presented a more attractive option than Duceppe.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Of course we will never know the exact numbers, but IMHO, I don't think the majority of Quebecers voted for either Jack, the platform nor even to deny Harper a majority, I just think it was a vote against Duceppe. 

And even those [inside & outside Quebec] who voted for them just to prevent a Harper majority, did not vote for the NDP either. Hhhmmm, wonder how good it must have felt to have won 2nd place that way, but from the speech Layton gave, one would have thought that he had won a majority.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> I like her.....maybe all these new MPs will provide some grit in the House.
> 
> They might even have opinions of their own......wouldn't that be refreshing?


How can you like her? I think the only proof we have of her existence is a facebook photo.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

She finally came out of hiding, Andrew. I saw a short interview with her on CTV a couple of night ago. She said her trip to Las Vegas was planned last year, and that, even though she agreed to having her name on the ballot, it never crossed her mind that she had a chance of winning so she went ahead with the vacation. She admitted that it's true she has never set foot in her riding, but, contrary to media reports, she apparently has a slight knowledge of French - she was registered in a French immersion course for at least some of her school years. However, she admitted that her French is extremely limited and after the election she immediately registered for French language lessons. She seemed intelligent and rather likeable; whether that means she was a good choice for the voters in her constituency, only time will tell.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> I just think it was a vote against Duceppe.


That would make sense if the Bloc had been doing poorly in the polls all along, but they were well in front of everyone else (38% support in Quebec) before the French-language debate. I don't think Duceppe flunked the debate; it's more that Layton came out looking like such a strong alternative.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I saw the CTV interview, and found myself appreciating her humility, forthright attitude, and willingness to work hard to become a good MP.

The focus and kerfluffle over her successful candidacy is nothing but sour grapes, in my opinion.

Nothing has been discovered that she did anything to try to win the MP position by false pretenses. In fact, she didn't even run a campaign at all.

Besides, she isn't going to be removed so that one of the real "losers" will be appointed, so they should just move on along life's highway.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

sags said:


> The focus and kerfluffle over her successful candidacy is nothing but sour grapes, in my opinion.


Completely. The biggest problem that most people have is that absolutely anybody could be in her shoes right now. I'm kicking myself that I didn't run as an MP in that riding, because I'd be in her shoes right now pulling in an undeserved 160k a year.

In all honesty, I think we can all agree that she is unqualified and undeserving of the position. As much as her supporters say 'better to her, a single mother, than to a rich greedy lawyer/businessman/etc.' the fact is all she did was put her name on the ballot and that is most likely what is driving all this controversy.

An orange poodle could have won in her place, and that is the laughable bit in all this. There is no question that the votes were for the party and not for the candidate, but that's the way it is, and at this point people are just wishing it was them and not her.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

It seemed to me that, although nobody was more surprised than she was at her victory, she knows she has a lot to learn and intends to work hard at learning it. She seems sincere about wanting to do a good job of representing her constituents, which is more than can be said for many of our politicians, and I find myself wondering whether she might prove to be a breath of fresh air in Ottawa.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

> I just think it was a vote against Duceppe.


There was no place on the ballot for a vote against anyone. 



> I think we can all agree that she is unqualified and undeserving of the position.


 I don't agree with this. Her candidacy was certified by Elections Canada so she's qualified. She won so she's deserving.

She's demonstrated a surprising grace under fire.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> The following comment posted on the National Post must have been written by a certain CMF member:
> 
> "Personally, I am more than pleased *to see the money and benefits that go along with the position go to a young single mom.....*now her child (or children) will suddenly have a whole lot better life and a lot more opportunities."


Only in Canada..you say??..Pity!


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

nobody knows yet what exactly stood quebec on its historic ear on may 2nd, and theories will no doubt abound for many years.

but i for one think brad's argument upthread at 5:59 pm 10may/11 is a good working candidate for best explanation. It makes the most sense. To say quebec was "a vote against duceppe" leads straight on to brad's argument; because if voters were wanting to dump duceppe the question immediately becomes Dump Duceppe in Favour of What ... and there we go w brad's argument again.

there's always the possibility - not documented anywhere yet - that jacques & pauline reached an understanding that he'd attempt to reopen the constitution in ottawa; so the word went out especially to péquiste youth to vote ndp in the comtés ... 

(aside to royal mail) may i please have a gold star for no quotes (brad's argument) not even a bandwidth-wasting link ...


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> The focus and kerfluffle over her successful candidacy is nothing but sour grapes, in my opinion.


She was, as they call it in the business, a pylon. An empty suit. A placeholder. A warm body that had no chance of election, but was there so the party could claim to be fielding a full slate of candidates. All parties do it to some extent. More than a few of them were elected. I don't believe the NDP were expecting this breakthrough one bit, otherwise they wouldn't have appointed so many pylons in Quebec.

She's got the job, and good luck to her. It's a shame the NDP couldn't field a more suitable candidate. Let's be real here--she isn't a very good representative of the riding.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> may i please have a gold star for no quotes (brad's argument) not even a bandwidth-wasting link ...


1 attaboy -> humble_pie


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> She's got the job, and good luck to her. It's a shame the NDP couldn't field a more suitable candidate. Let's be real here--she isn't a very good representative of the riding.


Who cares? She's good looking like Belinda Stronach..and as back bencher,
someone will find her and "elevate" her position.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

This just reinforces Trudeau's point that MPs are nobodies.

When MPs are elected on the strength of their party and it's leader and not on their own merits. The MP stop representing the needs to their local riding and become their parties representative to the riding.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Let's wait and see.

I am not sure anyone is really qualified to be an expert on all the foreign affairs and domestic issues that MPs vote on. Farmers, lawyers, bankers, doctors, economists, teachers, police chiefs.........MPs come from all walks of life.

If she listens to her constituents, hires an able office and support staff, and works diligently to solve constituent problems with EI, Immigration, and other issues, she can leave the big policy decisions to Layton and the other "experts". 

Harper's MPs are exactly known for expressing their own opinions.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

It's funny that everyone says they get paid way too much and yet nobody else wanted her job or surely the NDP would have picked someone more suitable. Normally jobs with such ridiculous payouts have some competition. Look at what she's had to deal with? I'll stick with my stable salary vs hoping to be running for the party that happens to get elected based on factors completely out of my control. Then having to deal with the scrutiny of a peanut gallery the size of Canada.

So why didn't anyone challenge her for such a luxurious job? Maybe the possibility of doing a lot of work for nothing? Something I've learned is that people talk big but when it comes down to it, very few people have the balls or the time to actually do something or put their name forward for something big.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> So why didn't anyone challenge her for such a luxurious job? Maybe the possibility of doing a lot of work for nothing? Something I've learned is that people talk big but when it comes down to it, very few people have the balls or the time to actually do something or put their name forward for something big.


She said it herself: NDP candidates had no business expecting to win in the riding. For a party likely to win a riding, the candidacy is often quite a bit more hotly contested.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

If people vote for or against the party or its leader, then the local candidate means nothing!


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

mode3sour said:


> So why didn't anyone challenge her for such a luxurious job? Maybe the possibility of doing a lot of work for nothing? Something I've learned is that people talk big but when it comes down to it, very few people have the balls or the time to actually do something or put their name forward for something big.


I would gladly take her position. Had I known that to be elected an MP you need nothing more than 100 (questionable?) signatures I would have been first in line to take her spot. Hell, I couldn't be more against the NDP and their platform but I would still gladly switch spots with her.

I don't think it's about people talking a big game as much as a sense of shock that she literally did nothing to get voted in. I wouldn't run for election in my riding because I would have no chance at getting on the ballot for one of the major parties, and would have no chance as an independent, but I would have no problem getting 100 signatures in some remote riding in Quebec and just riding the orange wave to 160k a year.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Dmoney said:


> I would gladly take her position. I wouldn't run for election in my riding because I would have no chance at getting on the ballot for one of the major parties, and would have no chance as an independent, but I would have no problem getting 100 signatures in some remote riding in Quebec and just riding the orange wave to 160k a year.


Now..how did would a single mom..working in at a Carleton university pub..be fortunate enough to get 100 sigs and get that cushy gummint job???

Pure luck? 

Arrange it through her own contacts? 

Have a desire to exceed and better her lifestyle? 

Deserve it for pouring/mixing drinks for the bar patrons that come
to frequent the university pub?

or....

Going out with someone who has connections to
the Quebec scene and knows where there was a lack of "qualified" candidates to fill the "void" to upset the BQ.

hmmmmm???????


----------

