Fair Election Act

[TimG]

Im guessing you will change your tune the minute someone says.....Environmental Group....right?

Environment groups have effect on policy because they spread misinformation which creates a public response. It has nothing to do with lobbying politicians.

And you have been adamant to shut down environmental groups since you think they only want to stop progress and make us poor.

I want the environmental reviews processes set up so they cannot be abused by obstructionist groups. I want people to be aware of the fact that environmental groups are businesses with an agenda like any other business and the agenda of environmental groups is not in the best interests of Canada (especially when they are funded by US interests). I don't want them shut down. Edited March 26, 2014 by TimG

[guyser]

Environment groups have effect on policy because they spread misinformation which creates a public response. It has nothing to do with lobbying politicians.

From your previous post 1 page back

I don't see any real evidence that lobby groups have a huge impact on the policy process in Canada

I want the environmental reviews processes set up so they cannot be abused by obstructionist groups. I want people to be aware of the fact that environmental groups are businesses with an agenda like any other business and the agenda of environmental groups is not in the best interests of Canada (especially when they are funded by US interests). I don't want them shut down.

Theres no huge impact on the policy process so why do you take a different stand now? Or is it now just enviro groups that have influence?

Do all the other groups have the best interests of Canada at heart?

[TimG]

Theres no huge impact on the policy process so why do you take a different stand now? Or is it now just enviro groups that have influence?

Wrong words in my previous statement. I was referring to the idea that groups get their pet policies adopted by simply lobbying politicians. Those effects are limited in Canada. Groups with money can still influence policy by creating public support for it via misinformation campaigns. This is what is done in California ballot measures and this is what environmental groups are very good at. Edited March 26, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

I want the environmental reviews processes set up so they cannot be abused by obstructionist groups.

Would that be an in-camera review?

[guyser]

Wrong words in my previous statement. I was referring to the idea that groups get their pet policies adopted by simply lobbying politicians. Those effects are limited in Canada.

Including but not limited to enviro groups, agreed.

Groups with money can still influence policy by creating public support for it via misinformation campaigns. This is what is done in California ballot measures and this is what environmental groups are very good at.

Groups like the largest lobbyists in Canada?

Or... are business groups merely altruistic?

[TimG]

are business groups merely altruistic?

The problem with environmental lobby groups is many people are under the illusion that they are altruistic when they are really simply businesses which a desire to spread misinformation if it supports their objectives. People don't have this illusion when it comes to business advertising. Edited March 26, 2014 by TimG

[guyser]

The problem with environmental lobby groups is many people are under the illusion that they are altruistic when they are really simply businesses which a desire to spread misinformation if it supports their objectives. People don't have this illusion when it comes to business advertising.

But heres the problem...the problem with business lobby groups is many people are under the illusion that they are altruistic when they are really simply businesses which desire to spread misinformation if it supports their objectives.

We can stop now, you think all enviros should shut up because they cheat and lie, and all business lobby groups are good fellars.

You have posted the same so many times before I am surprised you just didnt ignore these posts. Your owrds are documented but you have slipped up in your own zealotry.

[TimG]

the problem with business lobby groups is many people are under the illusion that they are altruistic...

But this statement is false. Many people are not under the illusion that business groups are altruistic. Most people who see any claim made by a business will assume that it is driven by self interest. They do not make that same assumption with environmental groups which makes enviro propaganda much more dangerous. Edited March 26, 2014 by TimG

[WWWTT]

Hey, this cartoon shows only a white guy voting. You must be racist.

LOL!

Actually the character is a cartoon with the same completion as the background, and how do you know it's a guy?

Also, I didn't make this, only posting.

WWWTT

[Keepitsimple]

But this statement is false. Many people are not under the illusion that business groups are altruistic. Most people who see any claim made by a business will assume that it is driven by self interest. They do not make that same assumption with environmental groups which makes enviro propaganda much more dangerous.

That is so very true.

[guyser]

That is so very true.

Except , and in most cases,When it isnt.

[Bob Macadoo]

That is so very true.

You know whats not true? Mr. Kingsley's endorsement of this Act. Seems Mr. Poilievre's A- was graded on a huge curve. More factually it was implanted by the interviewer, damn context getting in the way of talking points.

[Keepitsimple]

You know whats not true? Mr. Kingsley's endorsement of this Act. Seems Mr. Poilievre's A- was graded on a huge curve. More factually it was implanted by the interviewer, damn context getting in the way of talking points.

Uh....no - that's wrong. On the original Power & Politics, Evan Solomon asked Kingsley how he would rate the Act and it was Kingsley who responded that it was a good Act and on balance, rated it an A-. Last night on a follow-up interview with Solomon, Kinsley refused to give it another rating and repeatedly said - lets wait until we see the final version. Solomon got him to agree that Mayrand's criticisms were valid and that two of them were very important to change or scrap......but Kingsley reminded Solomon more than once that he omitted to comment on the 8 (eight) other parts of the Act that he thought were very good. So again - he said lets see the results of the committee's work.

[Bob Macadoo]

Uh....no - that's wrong. On the original Power & Politics, Evan Solomon asked Kingsley how he would rate the Act and it was Kingsley who responded that it was a good Act and on balance, rated it an A-. Last night on a follow-up interview with Solomon, Kinsley refused to give it another rating and repeatedly said - lets wait until we see the final version. Solomon got him to agree that Mayrand's criticisms were valid and that two of them were very important to change or scrap......but Kingsley reminded Solomon more than once that he omitted to comment on the 8 (eight) other parts of the Act that he thought were very good. So again - he said lets see the results of the committee's work.

Uh no thats wrong. Solomon was the one grasping for a grade. Kingsley to continue the jovial banter gave a glib response. I find Solomon trying too hard to be cutesy all the time. The comments were on the very day the bill was tabled, a proper journalist should've asked first "Have you had a chance to read the bill or are you just aware of the Conservative press release?" That probably would've produced a separate talking point that the Conservatives wouldn't be toting.

[Topaz]

It seems anyone who has read the Act has problems with it except the Tories because they gain from it. They didn't like the first draft that their own member wrote and so they wrote up another one that has 120,000 less voters and all the advantages to one party.....them.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think the two items Kingsley complained most about are the ones a lot of us are concerned about: The gutting of the CEO, and vouching. Basically it's quite easy to understand, they don't want anybody looking over their shoulder, and people who get vouched for don't vote CPC.

[Vancouver King]

What irony, Harper's rhetoric against the tyrant Putin while pushing at home electoral changes appropriate to a despot.

[Keepitsimple]

I think the two items Kingsley complained most about are the ones a lot of us are concerned about: The gutting of the CEO, and vouching. Basically it's quite easy to understand, they don't want anybody looking over their shoulder, and people who get vouched for don't vote CPC.

How do you know they don't vote for CPC - what large demographic would not vote Conservative? If you think the majority of the 120,000 "dis-enfranchised" voters are either Aboriginal or Seniors - lets look at both. First Nations chiefs will squabble with governments of all stripe but for the regular on-reserve citizens - no government has done more to look out for them. Whether it's the residential school apology, property ownership, band accountability, or education - the conservatives should be reasonably popular. Seniors are always a Tory strength.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

As it turns out now, Polievre is saying his version of the Neufeld report is more accurate than, (wait for it) Neufeld's. Still no evidence of fraud. If it ain't broke, don't fix it I think is how the saying goes. Well unless you need to rig an election.

[scribblet]

they don't want anybody looking over their shoulder, and people who get vouched for don't vote CPC.

and you know that - how ?

[Bob Macadoo]

I think the two items Kingsley complained most about are the ones a lot of us are concerned about: The gutting of the CEO, and vouching. Basically it's quite easy to understand, they don't want anybody looking over their shoulder, and people who get vouched for don't vote CPC.

I'm still convinced this is a smokescreen. We're so focussed on vouching I'm convinced that will be amended out and the more critical items (IMO) of removing CEO powers and donation limit loopholes will be completely overlooked. We're being led by our nose and the Conservatives are laughing all the way to the bank.

Vouching is a sexy topic for the media and we are letting it lead us.

[cybercoma]

Not just removing CEO powers and donation limit loopholes, but the incumbent choosing the polling officers is the biggest threat to democracy in the bill.

[Bob Macadoo]

Not just removing CEO powers and donation limit loopholes, but the incumbent choosing the polling officers is the biggest threat to democracy in the bill.

Thats not quite much different than now unfortunately. Scribblet made me read deeper. They sure didn't help things which is one thing this bill should've done.

I'm probably going to catch flak for this but I find from my personal dealings how we appoint election officers some of the most dubious /corrupt aspects of our democracy. It is a collection of cronies, relatives, and otherwise weasly (ie political) individuals, and we're stuck with it as we won't fund/control it as needed.

[On Guard for Thee]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised about the vouching smokescreen concept. On PnP today Soloman pretty much tore up Polievre on that very issue, especially after having interviewed Neufeld just prior. Polievre held to his point but you almost wanted to throw him a life jacket. As you say all that stuff diverts our eyes while other subterfuge carries on unseen.

[Keepitsimple]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised about the vouching smokescreen concept. On PnP today Soloman pretty much tore up Polievre on that very issue, especially after having interviewed Neufeld just prior. Polievre held to his point but you almost wanted to throw him a life jacket. As you say all that stuff diverts our eyes while other subterfuge carries on unseen.

You still haven't answered the question as to how you know these "dis-enfranchised" voters would not be voting Conservative. As I explained in a previous post - it seems that people think these voters are largely made up of Seniors and Aboriginals - which with the exception of Band Chiefs and their cohorts - are at worst neutral towards the Conservatives and at best, they actual favour Conservatives more than other parties. What's your logic or source to the contrary?

Edited March 28, 2014 by Keepitsimple