[Newsbot]

Title: Clinton emails reveal deep rift between Harper, Canada�s foreign service
Category: Political
Posted By: BeaverFever
Date: 2015-12-01 08:50:32
Canadian

[BeaverFever]

Definitely not going to go down in history as 'popular'.

I know someone who's not getting an Icebreaker named after them!

[uwish]

It isn't the place of the bureaucrats to decide what they will do or not do because they think their opinion is more valid than the sitting governments. This is one of the reasons for the rift, Harper for all his faults, didn't like the way some things were being run and changed them. Much to the horror of the pigs at the trough. Well, tough shit.

[BeaverFever]

I don't know that you can call them pigs at the trough - they're salaried employees whose bread gets buttered by obeying the political leader, not undermining him - what greed incentive would they have?

[BRAH]

[andyt]

Yeah, Harper was pretty deranged. Probably still is, but at least he can't do any more harm.

[DanSC]

This is my favorite of the emails

[BeaverFever]

DanSC DanSC:

This is my favorite of the emails

LMAO that is hilarious! Definitely Proof that she has "executive experience"!

[BeaverFever]

uwish uwish:

It isn't the place of the bureaucrats to decide what they will do or not do because they think their opinion is more valid than the sitting governments. This is one of the reasons for the rift, Harper for all his faults, didn't like the way some things were being run and changed them. Much to the horror of the pigs at the trough. Well, tough shit.

Well it shows what an unpopular leader he was, and while it's his prerogative to implement whatever ideology he wants, it shows how divorced that ideology was from the professional experts.

[OnTheIce]

Yes, because it's all about being popular.

Being a leader isn't a fuckin' popularity contest.

[peck420]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Yes, because it's all about being popular.

Being a leader isn't a fuckin' popularity contest.

You're right, it isn't.

But, being a politician is.

Which is, in my humble opinion, why our 'leaders' routinely fail us.

[BeaverFever]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Yes, because it's all about being popular.

Being a leader isn't a fuckin' popularity contest.

It is and it isn't. You can't be popular all the time, but if you're actively disliked by the people you're supposed to be leading to the point where they feel they have to undermine you despite their own risk, then you're not much of a leader.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It is and it isn't. You can't be popular all the time, but if you're actively disliked by the people you're supposed to be leading to the point where they feel they have to undermine you despite their own risk, then you're not much of a leader.

Perhaps those that undermine their leaders are the problem, not the leaders themselves.

You cannot always assume that when subordinates turn on their leaders is due to a lack of leadership.

[BeaverFever]

One insubordinate is a discipline problem. Large numbers of insubordinates is a leadership problem.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

One insubordinate is a discipline problem. Large numbers of insubordinates is a leadership problem.

If that's the case, Ontario has a serious leadership problem.

I'm surprised you don't speak more about that considering your level of concern for leadership that you've demonstrated in this post.