Enough Political Sleaze Already

[Bryan]

Rogers now requires you to pay for it like a specialty channel.

As far as I know Bell and Cogeco both have it included with a basic cable package.

It's part of basic Cable for Shaw too.

I'm not opposed to them bundling all news channels together and making them one extra bill package. I do think it's ridiculous that CBC gets a guarantee to promote their extreme leftist propaganda, but you have to pay extra to get a news channel that bothers to check their facts though.

[cybercoma]

IOW, if it is shown that the Conservative Party hired a call centre to use a computer to phone people on election day, who the fu*k cares?

It's not about using the technology. Are you intentionally pretending to be obtuse? It's about breaking election laws and trying to mislead voters by sending them to the wrong polling stations or harass voters by calling late at night or on religious days. And your "what if it was the Liberal Party" line is a non-starter. It doesn't matter what party it was. The issue needs to be investigated and culprits brought to justice. A message needs to be sent that you do not fu*k with elections. Maybe you don't care about electoral fraud, but you damn well should.

[Shakeyhands]

I agree with you that this needs to be investigated, the allegations are serious and have repercussions. It's really too bad that right from the start this was used as a way to immediately attack the Conservatives, causing them to take a defensive stance. Perhaps if the opposition would have been a little less over zealous with their rhetoric, it may have been handled differently. I certainly don't think it helped the process.

I think you are being less than truthful here. All outward signs point to it logically being the CPC, having said that, with an exception or TWO people want whoever is behind this to be held accountable and punished... regardless of who s behind it.

Your response just sounds like a big whaaaa over the CPC being 'picked on'.

[Shakeyhands]

Thank you for your opinion. Consider it noted and filed.

Thank you.

[August1991]

It's not about using the technology. Are you intentionally pretending to be obtuse? It's about breaking election laws and trying to mislead voters by sending them to the wrong polling stations or harass voters by calling late at night or on religious days.

Political parties and many other people try "to mislead voters". Nothing new here.

The opposition is wrong to describe such robocalls as an "attack against democracy". They are irritating but nothing like Watergate, Putin's re-election or even Adscam.

Everyone in Canada receives stupid Robocalls every night asking us to buy new windows or change our roof. Many people now have caller ID to avoid such interruptions.

----

Here's my take: Some people (usually in urban centres) hate Harper and they want to bring him down. They will use any means possible to do it.

Most Canadians OTOH recognize what is happening and if anything, this "Robocall scandal" will only push more voters into the Harper camp.

My advice to the Harper-haters would be to wait for the Watergate moment, and then pounce - assuming that you'll have any credibility when Harper ever makes his mistake, and gives you a sword.

Edited March 13, 2012 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Pathetic.

All parties try to mislead voters and you're just accepting of that. Status quo. Shrug. Meh.

So what if they setup robocalls to tell voters to drive in some cases 45 minutes out of their way to a polling location that was not real. It's just another example of par for the course misdirection by political parties.

It's shameful that you couldn't possibly care less about these sorts of tactics from all of our political parties.

Andrew Coyne actually wrote an article recently that touches on a similar issue.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/12/andrew-coyne-robocalls-arent-the-problem-the-way-parties-treat-voters-as-prey-is/

"Robocalls aren't the problem--the way parties treat voters is"

What the mass media of the 20th century largely took away from the parties — the ability to say one thing to one group of voters and another, sometimes contradictory thing to another — the micro-media of the 21st century has restored.

As I say, we’ve all grown used to this, conditioned to think of it as part of the political game.

[read the rest at the link above]

[August1991]

Pathetic.

All parties try to mislead voters and you're just accepting of that. Status quo. Shrug. Meh.

I'm sorry cybercoma, but I get several phone calls every night asking me about credit cards or windows.

Welcome to life in the 21st century. Most people have caller ID. I don't.

So what if they setup robocalls to tell voters to drive in some cases 45 minutes out of their way to a polling location that was not real. It's just another example of par for the course misdirection by political parties.

Politicians lie?

I'm astonished! I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

Amongst all the noise, as in buying a used car or choosing a spouse, voters must separate the honest from the dishonest.

Such is life.

----

Chretien promised to cut the GST but he didn't. Harper promised to cut the GST, and he did.

Which political party is honest?

It's shameful that you couldn't possibly care less about these sorts of tactics from all of our political parties.

Adscam was arguably worse. But whatever.

Andrew Coyne actually wrote an article recently that touches on a similar issue.

"Robocalls aren't the problem--the way parties treat voters is"

"Treat voters?"

My response to Coyne would be to quote Milton Friedman (and I paraphrase): "Rather than wish for honest politicians, we should have incentives so that all politicians do good."

Edited March 13, 2012 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Thank you for reiterating the problem that even some of the most politically-minded Canadians will shrug their shoulders at the contempt our political parties (all of them) show to the electorate by lying, misleading, and generally being dishonest. You've given up and accepted it as status quo. That's your choice. However, I'm going to make a value judgment and say that we shouldn't settle for lies and dishonesty from our political parties. We shouldn't stand for parties that do whatever it takes to get elected with no concern for the electorate or actually running Canada the best way possible for Canadians. I don't expect this to change overnight. In fact, I'm cynical enough that I don't expect this to change at all. However, when someone as engaged in politics as you just shrugs his shoulders at this as par for the course, it leads me to wonder if this is a larger problem with the rest of the electorate. With less than 2/3s of eligible voters turning up at the polls, I suspect it is.

[eyeball]

What I don’t get is why the rest of us should: why we should consent to being treated in this condescending, manipulative way — still less why we should help the parties do it.

What Coyne and others don't admit is that many voters are not supporting this by staying away from the whole mess in droves.

[cybercoma]

What Coyne and others don't admit is that many voters are not supporting this by staying away from the whole mess in droves.

Oh, I agree that's what they think they're doing. However, I believe that's like saying you don't support something because you remain silent on it. Silence can be interpreted as tacit approval. Don't believe me? Look at the Conservatives that say those that didn't vote are "obviously" happy with a Conservative government.

[capricorn]

Go to http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

and play the video

Ezra RoboCalls Stephen Maher

Maher likes to ask questions for his stories but doesn't like to answer benign questions to clarify events regarding his personal behaviour.

[eyeball]

Oh, I agree that's what they think they're doing. However, I believe that's like saying you don't support something because you remain silent on it. Silence can be interpreted as tacit approval. Don't believe me? Look at the Conservatives that say those that didn't vote are "obviously" happy with a Conservative government.

I'll only vote on one condition, that the un-conservative parties form a coalition.

Extra points go to candidates that promise to make it criminal for a lobbyist to even try to arrange a private meeting with them.