Canadian Politics

[The Unknown Poster]

 

Considering their incredibly defensive posture on this Nanny thing, I'd say it doesnt feel very good.

 

Not to mention the whole Syrian refugee thing where there was no issue with timing and no issue with security...until there was on both counts.

 

Goes with the territory.  Im sure the Liberals will get used to it and be less silly in their responses.  I expect Trudeau will announce he will pay for nanny duties by late Friday.

 

When is JT back from his Paris climate party?  He's got to get the wife and kiddies home too, as they all went to Paris with him on our dime, along with the nanny.  He's far too concerned with the climate change fairy tale, and giving away control of Canada's economy to EU bureaucrats to be worried about nanny-gate right now.  I would expect that he will hope that this whole thing blows over, and if not, Plan B, start paying for the nannies, then back-door expensing them back to the taxpayer.

 

Interesting point.  Some people made it an issue when the Harper government flew secure vehicles at the RCMP's urging for state functions but what about the PM taking his family along on vacat...uh I mean Climate talks? 

 

Personally, I dont see that as a huge issue but the hypocrisy is interesting.

[kelownabomberfan]

The hypocrisy is more than interesting.  It is stunning.  But completely expected.  Also to be expected, all of the anti-Harper faction to remain silent and just lump it, even though if it had been the other way around, they would be screaming for blood.  Politics, in general, makes everyone into hypocrites, eventually.

[StevetheClub]

 

Something that isn't being said (as far as I know) that should be is how much Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau makes. My guess, and I could be wrong on this, is somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.

 

If she's not able to attend to her children full-time and not make an income because of her role I don't see why there shouldn't be some accommodations.  I don't see anything wrong with Chatelaine's response.

 

*edit I see this has already been brought up. Regardless of how it might "play", it's still valid.

Why should there be an accommodation if Mrs Trudeau chooses to work or engage in diplomatic functions rather than be a stay at home mom?  Im ofcourse making no argument that she should choose either.  But as far as I know, the PM's wife has no formal role and could certainly choose a schedule that allows her to be home.  And if she cant, well, they can pay for their own child care.  No one makes allowances for less wealthy parents to get taxpayer funded nannys.

The choice is not that simple and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say we both know it. The role of the PM's spouse, though not formal, has certainly evolved and comes with great expectations. It's essentially a more than full-time volunteer position. 

 

Lets also keep in mind, they had these two nanny's before taking office, before whatever informal role Mrs Trudeau was expected to take and they paid for it.  Its not like winning the election suddenly meant they needed more child care.

Actually, it does, I have no doubt that they now have much more on their plate.

 

And none of that changes the fact the PM campaigned on the idea that the Conservative's child benefit was not needed for people of their means.  "We dont need the $3000 we qualify for" was what he essentially said.  Well, certainly not when the whole thing is covered by taxpayers.

I'm on the fence about this. It does seem like it was more for optics than anything that he so publicly rejected the benefit, which I'm not a huge fan of. He was trying to make a point at the time and it has certainly come back to bite him in the butt.

 

Chatelaine is irresponsible and fully exposed when trying to frame this as an attack on Mrs Trudeau when it clearly is not.  And their reasoning that groundskeepers etc are all funded makes little sense when those people tend to assets owned by the taxpayer.  If the government saddled the Trudeau's with some kids, I could see it....

While I do think framing it as attack is extreme and I don't think her parenting ability, nor those of anyone else who rely on outside childcare, should be judged I think it's quite a narrow view that does not include her and her role in the discussion. As for how they are paid, it's my understanding that their salaries come out of the same budget that past PMs have used for the same expense. In my opinion, and apparently in those of previous PMs, childcare is just as necessary a household expense as all of the other professionals mentioned. 

 

 

[StevetheClub]

The hypocrisy is more than interesting.  It is stunning.  But completely expected.  Also to be expected, all of the anti-Harper faction to remain silent and just lump it, even though if it had been the other way around, they would be screaming for blood.  Politics, in general, makes everyone into hypocrites, eventually.

 

It doesn't have to.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

Something that isn't being said (as far as I know) that should be is how much Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau makes. My guess, and I could be wrong on this, is somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.

 

If she's not able to attend to her children full-time and not make an income because of her role I don't see why there shouldn't be some accommodations.  I don't see anything wrong with Chatelaine's response.

 

*edit I see this has already been brought up. Regardless of how it might "play", it's still valid.

Why should there be an accommodation if Mrs Trudeau chooses to work or engage in diplomatic functions rather than be a stay at home mom?  Im ofcourse making no argument that she should choose either.  But as far as I know, the PM's wife has no formal role and could certainly choose a schedule that allows her to be home.  And if she cant, well, they can pay for their own child care.  No one makes allowances for less wealthy parents to get taxpayer funded nannys.

The choice is not that simple and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say we both know it. The role of the PM's spouse, though not formal, has certainly evolved and comes with great expectations. It's essentially a more than full-time volunteer position. 

 

Lets also keep in mind, they had these two nanny's before taking office, before whatever informal role Mrs Trudeau was expected to take and they paid for it.  Its not like winning the election suddenly meant they needed more child care.

Actually, it does, I have no doubt that they now have much more on their plate.

 

And none of that changes the fact the PM campaigned on the idea that the Conservative's child benefit was not needed for people of their means.  "We dont need the $3000 we qualify for" was what he essentially said.  Well, certainly not when the whole thing is covered by taxpayers.

I'm on the fence about this. It does seem like it was more for optics than anything that he so publicly rejected the benefit, which I'm not a huge fan of. He was trying to make a point at the time and it has certainly come back to bite him in the butt.

 

Chatelaine is irresponsible and fully exposed when trying to frame this as an attack on Mrs Trudeau when it clearly is not.  And their reasoning that groundskeepers etc are all funded makes little sense when those people tend to assets owned by the taxpayer.  If the government saddled the Trudeau's with some kids, I could see it....

While I do think framing it as attack is extreme and I don't think her parenting ability, nor those of anyone else who rely on outside childcare, should be judged I think it's quite a narrow view that does not include her and her role in the discussion. As for how they are paid, it's my understanding that their salaries come out of the same budget that past PMs have used for the same expense. In my opinion, and apparently in those of previous PMs, childcare is just as necessary a household expense as all of the other professionals mentioned. 

 

 

 

You're wearing very Liberal-coloured shades my friend.  You're acting as though Mrs Trudeau had the role of Wife-of-PM thrust upon her.  It was a choice.

 

As a public figure, some spouses will, from time to time, participate in various ceremonial, diplomatic, or partisan activities, alongside the prime minister.  Most seem to engage in charitable causes and occasionally play host to functions involving dignitaries.  None of this, ofcourse, precludes the spouse from taking an active role in parenting.  But that's not the point.

 

The Trudeau's had two nannies before taking office as PM.  You say they have much more on their plate.  So why not hire more help?  Two is enough I guess.  The same two they paid before taking office.  So why cant they pay now?  Are you suggesting they had two nannies before taking office that they didnt need but now they do need them as a result of all the work we force them to do so we should pay?

 

Keep in mind, this was Trudeau's position during the campaign:

 

The Liberal leader maintains it’s wrong to give the benefit to wealthy families that don’t need help raising their kids. And to underscore that point, he’s going to give his own family’s windfall to charity. With three young children, one under the age of 6, Trudeau is entitled to collect annual UCCB payments of about $3,400.

In an interview Tuesday, he said he’ll give that money to La Maison Bleue, a charitable group in his Montreal riding devoted to helping vulnerable women during pregnancy and the early days of motherhood.

Child-care benefits should go to families who need the help, “not families like mine or Mr. (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper’s,” Trudeau told The Canadian Press.

 

Your argument that its the same as previous PM's is moot.  No PM should get taxpayer funded child care.  Also, it would seem (though cant say for sure with malicious intent) that this was hidden under the guise of "Special Assistant".  So if you're saying well previous PM's had special assistants, is this what your money should be paying for:

 

One of the women hired was with the Trudeaus this past week on the prime minister’s foreign trip that wrapped up Monday at the UN climate change conference in Paris. She posted photos online of the couple’s two children who came on the trip.

There were also shots of her with the Trudeaus’ youngest child on Facebook visiting museums and at the hotel where they stayed in Paris.

 

Your final point is child care is as neccesary a household expense as others mentioned.  The professions mentioned are:

 

cooks and cleaners and snow shovelers and gardeners and drivers and security guards.

 

You think child care is the same?  The difference is that those other professions are for upkeep and service of the asset (ie. grounds/buildings) owned by Canadians and have no bearing on the person in office (whether the PM is there, the grass still needs to be mowed) or are non-negotiable in the sense they are for the safety and security of the position (ie. PM). 

 

We dont own his kids.  They arent serving Canada.  Its fair to provide security for them.  Its not fair to pay for their nannies.

 

But dont worry, Chatelaine helpfully provides an alternative to taxpayer funded nannies:

 

There is another option, of course: When he’s working, the prime minister could bring his children to the House of Commons and let them run around during Question Period.

 

There you have it.  Either we pay for this rich family's nannies or they must run around the House of Commons.  Makes sense.  Every other two-career family in Canada has to take their kids to work.  They cant manage without free nannies.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

 

 

I'm sure it feels great to have their guy in charge. I  think the other side has it worse off with their label changing to "whiners and criers".

 

We will see.  I personally am loving it, watching all of the cry-babies now being forced into defensive mode.

 

 By that logic... does this make you and TUP the cry-babies now?

 

Serious question, because that seems to be where your logic is taking us- other shoe and all.

 

 

 

Edit: To be clear, I am not calling you two cry babies- you have valid concerns that you bring up- just your logic dictates that you might have inadvertently labeled yourself as such.

Edited December 2, 2015 by wanna-b-fanboy

[The Unknown Poster]

Well I think if you apply common sense (dreaded term, I know), you can easily tell the difference between reasonable discussion/complaining and obnoxious whining. 

 

"NannyGate" is clearly relevant.  And not just to the specifics of a wealthy family getting free child care but the entire discussion of child care and child care benefits.

[StevetheClub]

 

 

 

Something that isn't being said (as far as I know) that should be is how much Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau makes. My guess, and I could be wrong on this, is somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.

 

If she's not able to attend to her children full-time and not make an income because of her role I don't see why there shouldn't be some accommodations.  I don't see anything wrong with Chatelaine's response.

 

*edit I see this has already been brought up. Regardless of how it might "play", it's still valid.

Why should there be an accommodation if Mrs Trudeau chooses to work or engage in diplomatic functions rather than be a stay at home mom?  Im ofcourse making no argument that she should choose either.  But as far as I know, the PM's wife has no formal role and could certainly choose a schedule that allows her to be home.  And if she cant, well, they can pay for their own child care.  No one makes allowances for less wealthy parents to get taxpayer funded nannys.

The choice is not that simple and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say we both know it. The role of the PM's spouse, though not formal, has certainly evolved and comes with great expectations. It's essentially a more than full-time volunteer position. 

 

Lets also keep in mind, they had these two nanny's before taking office, before whatever informal role Mrs Trudeau was expected to take and they paid for it.  Its not like winning the election suddenly meant they needed more child care.

Actually, it does, I have no doubt that they now have much more on their plate.

 

And none of that changes the fact the PM campaigned on the idea that the Conservative's child benefit was not needed for people of their means.  "We dont need the $3000 we qualify for" was what he essentially said.  Well, certainly not when the whole thing is covered by taxpayers.

I'm on the fence about this. It does seem like it was more for optics than anything that he so publicly rejected the benefit, which I'm not a huge fan of. He was trying to make a point at the time and it has certainly come back to bite him in the butt.

 

Chatelaine is irresponsible and fully exposed when trying to frame this as an attack on Mrs Trudeau when it clearly is not.  And their reasoning that groundskeepers etc are all funded makes little sense when those people tend to assets owned by the taxpayer.  If the government saddled the Trudeau's with some kids, I could see it....

While I do think framing it as attack is extreme and I don't think her parenting ability, nor those of anyone else who rely on outside childcare, should be judged I think it's quite a narrow view that does not include her and her role in the discussion. As for how they are paid, it's my understanding that their salaries come out of the same budget that past PMs have used for the same expense. In my opinion, and apparently in those of previous PMs, childcare is just as necessary a household expense as all of the other professionals mentioned. 

 

 

 

You're wearing very Liberal-coloured shades my friend.  You're acting as though Mrs Trudeau had the role of Wife-of-PM thrust upon her.  It was a choice.

 

As a public figure, some spouses will, from time to time, participate in various ceremonial, diplomatic, or partisan activities, alongside the prime minister.  Most seem to engage in charitable causes and occasionally play host to functions involving dignitaries.  None of this, ofcourse, precludes the spouse from taking an active role in parenting.  But that's not the point.

 

The Trudeau's had two nannies before taking office as PM.  You say they have much more on their plate.  So why not hire more help?  Two is enough I guess.  The same two they paid before taking office.  So why cant they pay now?  Are you suggesting they had two nannies before taking office that they didnt need but now they do need them as a result of all the work we force them to do so we should pay?

 

Keep in mind, this was Trudeau's position during the campaign:

 

The Liberal leader maintains it’s wrong to give the benefit to wealthy families that don’t need help raising their kids. And to underscore that point, he’s going to give his own family’s windfall to charity. With three young children, one under the age of 6, Trudeau is entitled to collect annual UCCB payments of about $3,400.

In an interview Tuesday, he said he’ll give that money to La Maison Bleue, a charitable group in his Montreal riding devoted to helping vulnerable women during pregnancy and the early days of motherhood.

Child-care benefits should go to families who need the help, “not families like mine or Mr. (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper’s,” Trudeau told The Canadian Press.

 

Your argument that its the same as previous PM's is moot.  No PM should get taxpayer funded child care.  Also, it would seem (though cant say for sure with malicious intent) that this was hidden under the guise of "Special Assistant".  So if you're saying well previous PM's had special assistants, is this what your money should be paying for:

 

One of the women hired was with the Trudeaus this past week on the prime minister’s foreign trip that wrapped up Monday at the UN climate change conference in Paris. She posted photos online of the couple’s two children who came on the trip.

There were also shots of her with the Trudeaus’ youngest child on Facebook visiting museums and at the hotel where they stayed in Paris.

 

Your final point is child care is as neccesary a household expense as others mentioned.  The professions mentioned are:

 

cooks and cleaners and snow shovelers and gardeners and drivers and security guards.

 

You think child care is the same?  The difference is that those other professions are for upkeep and service of the asset (ie. grounds/buildings) owned by Canadians and have no bearing on the person in office (whether the PM is there, the grass still needs to be mowed) or are non-negotiable in the sense they are for the safety and security of the position (ie. PM). 

 

We dont own his kids.  They arent serving Canada.  Its fair to provide security for them.  Its not fair to pay for their nannies.

 

But dont worry, Chatelaine helpfully provides an alternative to taxpayer funded nannies:

 

There is another option, of course: When he’s working, the prime minister could bring his children to the House of Commons and let them run around during Question Period.

 

There you have it.  Either we pay for this rich family's nannies or they must run around the House of Commons.  Makes sense.  Every other two-career family in Canada has to take their kids to work.  They cant manage without free nannies.

 

 

Nowhere did I say or imply that the role was "thrust upon her" I said that "the choice is not that simple", thereby acknowledging that it was a choice.

 

It's my opinion that your statements on the role of the PM's spouse completely minimize it and the need for support in fulfilling it.

 

Yes, I think childcare is the same and based on how that budget has been reportedly been used in the past I'm not the only one. I also didn't say they were't able to pay for it now, and given Trudeau's ill-conceived past statements on the issue he might just end up paying for them, which I would be fine with. I would just also be fine with him not.

 

As for Chatelaine's final response, just like yours it's said for effect and not something I'm particularly interested in responding to other than to say I agree it's ridiculous.

[The Unknown Poster]

The choice might not be simple but it's pretty straight forward and the same choice many parents all across Canada make every day.  Do both parents return to work?  Does one stay home to raise kids?  Part time or full time?  Can they afford it?  Can they make the sacrifice if they deem it worthy?  etc etc.  The words I used to describe the role of First Spouse was taken from Wiki, for what its worth.  Im not minimizing it at all.  But the choice remains for the spouse to choose to decline if the need for child rearing is of personal importance.

 

Paying to take the kids to Paris and to Museum's and whatever else is pretty elitist behavior,  Its great that the family is of the means to provide those sorts of perks to their children.  But pay for them.

 

They had two nannies before becoming PM.  They have two nannies after.  The work load since winning the election is moot.  As a family, they made the decision to hire nannies to assist them.  Im unfamiliar with Mrs Trudeau's work and its really none of our business outside of the work she does on behalf of the government, party or her ceremonial role as PM's spouse.  But the point is, they paid for the nannies before, they can pay for them now.

 

I'd like to hear your explanation for why child care is the same as groundskeeper or driver or security.  Im legitimately intrigued by that point.  Those positions exist before and after Justin's job as PM.  If the government maintained an official National Nanny then I could see the justification although it would still be silly. 

 

These were personal employees of the Trudeau's who they slid over to taxpayer coffers under the guise of "special assistants".  It stinks.  And because of his campaign position, it makes him a hypocrite.  A stronger word might be liar.  But Ill stick with hypocrite for now.

 

For comparison, the US President foots the bill for many personal expenses, including vacations and groceries consumed in the White House (as well as personal items).  The President receives a government expense account for some items. 

[max power]

My question is why two nannies? And they've had both of them all along? How many kids do they have anyways?

[The Unknown Poster]

My question is why two nannies? And they've had both of them all along? How many kids do they have anyways?

They have 3 kids.  I guess their kids are a handful.  lol

[StevetheClub]

I think all of the questions in your (TUP) first paragraph are important and I think a greater priority needs to be placed on childcare for everyone, not just the PM. I think society is increasingly organized in a way that compromises one of our most basic needs - secure attachments - and that this needs to change (but that's a whole other topic). Anyway...I think that some of the positions that have been mentioned that are paid for out of that budget support the PMs well-being and we deem them acceptable in light of the demands of the job (cooks, for example). Simply put, this is how I think of child care.

 

Agreed, museum visits and whatever other fun family stuff should be out of pocket.

 

Given Trudeau's previous comments I'm leaning towards thinking he should pay for the nannies, but that's not the same as saying every PM should. It's just because of the stance he took. Hypocrite seems to fit but not liar in my opinion, not because of the strength of the word but because I don't think he planned to use the budget to pay for nannies and I think intention is important when talking about lying.

 

I also don't think their ability to pay for it matters and I also don't think having a "National Nanny" matters. Not every PM has young children that require extra care and if a budget for items is provided I don't see any reason why he shouldn't use it. 

[kelownabomberfan]

 

 

 

I'm sure it feels great to have their guy in charge. I  think the other side has it worse off with their label changing to "whiners and criers".

 

We will see.  I personally am loving it, watching all of the cry-babies now being forced into defensive mode.

 

 By that logic... does this make you and TUP the cry-babies now?

 

Serious question, because that seems to be where your logic is taking us- other shoe and all.

 

 

 

Edit: To be clear, I am not calling you two cry babies- you have valid concerns that you bring up- just your logic dictates that you might have inadvertently labeled yourself as such.

 

 

LOL - I guess it does, if that's where the logic takes you.  I am just surprised that all of the prior cry-babies that screamed constant blue murder about Harper are remaining "mum" on this subject. You honestly can't tell me that if this was Harper, getting elected on a platform where he scorned any rich people receiving benefits, and then accepting taxpayer cash to fund his child care, that you guys would just do this silent routine and shrug.  No way in hell would you guys be doing that.  So what gives?  Are your political convictions really more important then your actual convictions?

[kelownabomberfan]

My question is why two nannies? And they've had both of them all along? How many kids do they have anyways?

 

and why are they both female?  It's 2015 Justin.

[iso_55]

 

The hypocrisy is more than interesting.  It is stunning.  But completely expected.  Also to be expected, all of the anti-Harper faction to remain silent and just lump it, even though if it had been the other way around, they would be screaming for blood.  Politics, in general, makes everyone into hypocrites, eventually.

 

It doesn't have to.

 

Sure it does. When one go from criticizing to defending everything in a hateful rage which is what the lefties did. It has to because now one is trying to justify every decision made by the leader you support.. 

[iso_55]

 

My question is why two nannies? And they've had both of them all along? How many kids do they have anyways?

 

and why are they both female?  It's 2015 Justin.

 

They're also Philipino. Why isn't he employing Canadians?

[StevetheClub]

 

 

The hypocrisy is more than interesting.  It is stunning.  But completely expected.  Also to be expected, all of the anti-Harper faction to remain silent and just lump it, even though if it had been the other way around, they would be screaming for blood.  Politics, in general, makes everyone into hypocrites, eventually.

 

It doesn't have to.

 

Sure it does. When one go from criticizing to defending everything in a hateful rage which is what the lefties did. It has to because now one is trying to justify every decision made by the leader you support.. 

 

 

Again, it doesn't have to. I actually think politics could be about issues and not leaders and discussion can be civil and rational and not about spewing rage at each other.

[The Unknown Poster]

Well their ethnicity and immigration status might be relevant to the topic of their seemingly low pay. But that would require evidence not available (or revealed).

I think a chef is more akin to an asset expense in this scenario. Im curious if the PM pays for groceries as the President does. I won't eat his lunch over it. But the nanny thing is pretty obvious.

And Steve, you said you don't think he planned to use the budget to pay for nannies. But it was his decision to hire them on taxpayer pay roll. He knows they're nannies. So he clearly intended them to be paid by the taxpayer.

[iso_55]

 

 

 

The hypocrisy is more than interesting.  It is stunning.  But completely expected.  Also to be expected, all of the anti-Harper faction to remain silent and just lump it, even though if it had been the other way around, they would be screaming for blood.  Politics, in general, makes everyone into hypocrites, eventually.

 

It doesn't have to.

 

Sure it does. When one go from criticizing to defending everything in a hateful rage which is what the lefties did. It has to because now one is trying to justify every decision made by the leader you support.. 

 

 

Again, it doesn't have to. I actually think politics could be about issues and not leaders and discussion can be civil and rational and not about spewing rage at each other.

 

Well, it never is. That is like saying Fantasy Land at Disneyworld is real life. 

[StevetheClub]

Well their ethnicity and immigration status might be relevant to the topic of their seemingly low pay. But that would require evidence not available (or revealed).

I think a chef is more akin to an asset expense in this scenario. Im curious if the PM pays for groceries as the President does. I won't eat his lunch over it. But the nanny thing is pretty obvious.

And Steve, you said you don't think he planned to use the budget to pay for nannies. But it was his decision to hire them on taxpayer pay roll. He knows they're nannies. So he clearly intended them to be paid by the taxpayer.

 

First of all, their pay is not low according to the  president of the Association of Caregiver and Nanny Agencies Canada.

 

Second, we can disagree, fine by me.

 

Third, I meant he wasn't intending to use taxpayer money to pay them when he made the comment about the child tax credit last July, not when he re-hired them.

[StevetheClub]

 

 

 

 

The hypocrisy is more than interesting.  It is stunning.  But completely expected.  Also to be expected, all of the anti-Harper faction to remain silent and just lump it, even though if it had been the other way around, they would be screaming for blood.  Politics, in general, makes everyone into hypocrites, eventually.

 

It doesn't have to.

 

Sure it does. When one go from criticizing to defending everything in a hateful rage which is what the lefties did. It has to because now one is trying to justify every decision made by the leader you support.. 

 

 

Again, it doesn't have to. I actually think politics could be about issues and not leaders and discussion can be civil and rational and not about spewing rage at each other.

 

Well, it never is. That is like saying Fantasy Land at Disneyworld is real life. 

 

Your opinion, I disagree.

 

*edit: about politics, not Disneyworld.

[iso_55]

 

 

 

 

 

The hypocrisy is more than interesting.  It is stunning.  But completely expected.  Also to be expected, all of the anti-Harper faction to remain silent and just lump it, even though if it had been the other way around, they would be screaming for blood.  Politics, in general, makes everyone into hypocrites, eventually.

 

It doesn't have to.

 

Sure it does. When one go from criticizing to defending everything in a hateful rage which is what the lefties did. It has to because now one is trying to justify every decision made by the leader you support.. 

 

 

Again, it doesn't have to. I actually think politics could be about issues and not leaders and discussion can be civil and rational and not about spewing rage at each other.

 

Well, it never is. That is like saying Fantasy Land at Disneyworld is real life. 

 

Your opinion, I disagree.

 

Go run for office, win or lose & then come back. We'll talk. 

[StevetheClub]

I'd still disagree.

[iso_55]

You can disagree meaning your naïve.

[StevetheClub]

You can disagree meaning your naïve.

 

 

If you're actually interested in moving forward on a conversation about it then great, I'd just ask that you leave the name-calling behind.