Fair Election Act

[Bryan]

Asked and answered, just re-read this thread.

[cybercoma]

The majority of the public is just repeating what the MSM told them, most of which is patently false.

Right. So you know better. The MSM is just making crap up. Nevermind the electoral experts that have weighed in and Neufeld criticizing Poilievre's use of his report. Nevermind the recent poll that said the more people know about the act the less they support it.

If what they THOUGHT was in the bill was true, then they'd have a reason to be concerned. Since it isn't, they don't. The Senators proposed some very minor changes, most of those just clarifications of what the bill already says.

Are you kidding me? The Senate essentially gutted the entire bill. "Clarification," haha. That's hilarious.

Christ, Bryan. Conservatives themselves don't even support this act and you're still an unquestioning partisan about it. As the article says, it's not just that Rajotte sent the letter to Pierre, he made the letter public.

I'd ask if you would support any other party changing electoral law whilst they're under investigation for electoral fraud, but I doubt we would get an honest answer out of you. Imagine, Justin Trudeau muzzling the Chief Electoral Officer if the Liberals were being investigated for fraud. You would be going ballistic and rightfully so.

[cybercoma]

Asked and answered, just re-read this thread.

What's the answer. I don't remember seeing it and I'm not reading 25 pages of posts just to find something you could take a few seconds to type up.

[Smallc]

After reading what's in the act, I definitely don't support it, even if I support ID requirements and a few other provisions.

[eyeball]

Asked and answered, just re-read this thread.

This thread contains 20 links (not counting mine) and not a single one of them contains a single documented case of voter fraud. Let me repeat that, not a single one.

[Bryan]

Are you kidding me? The Senate essentially gutted the entire bill. "Clarification," haha. That's hilarious.

As usual, you're lying. The changes are VERY minor, and they're all being welcomed by the government.

[On Guard for Thee]

I heard an interview

As usual, you're lying. The changes are VERY minor, and they're all being welcomed by the government.

And who are you trying to kid? There is one man in government who is not welcoming changes at all, at least according to what he has been saying up to now, including in an interview just this am. You may have heard of him, Pierre Poilievre.

[Bryan]

I heard an interview

And who are you trying to kid? There is one man in government who is not welcoming changes at all, at least according to what he has been saying up to now, including in an interview just this am. You may have heard of him, Pierre Poilievre.

Pollievre is the one who ASKED for the Senate's input on the bill.

[On Guard for Thee]

Pollievre is the one who ASKED for the Senate's input on the bill.

I don't think he has much choice but to ASK for it as it has to go through the senate eventually in any case. Whether he adopts any of it or not is another thing. I for one hope he sticks to his guns, that way it will get held up at the "sober second thought' level and die on the order paper at the next election.

[On Guard for Thee]

I also heard an interview with Linda Frum today. She is obviously a partisan Conservative senator, which of course is her right to be. What I took exception to at one point was her statement that if you "ask the man in the street, they will tell you this is a good bill" Sounded to me like some kind of feeble minded attempt to convince feeble minded people that they have actually done a "man in the street" poll and her statement is somehow verifiable. I may be feeble minded myself but not quite enough to fall for that one.

[eyeball]

Pollievre is the one who ASKED for the Senate's input on the bill.

What will Pollievre do when the Senate asks for evidence of the voter fraud that's created the need for the Harper Government's election act reform, direct them to see you? That said, what will you do?

[cybercoma]

Pollievre is the one who ASKED for the Senate's input on the bill.

you do know how parliament works, right?

[cybercoma]

I also heard an interview with Linda Frum today. She is obviously a partisan Conservative senator, which of course is her right to be. What I took exception to at one point was her statement that if you "ask the man in the street, they will tell you this is a good bill" Sounded to me like some kind of feeble minded attempt to convince feeble minded people that they have actually done a "man in the street" poll and her statement is somehow verifiable. I may be feeble minded myself but not quite enough to fall for that one.

someone should let Frum know that nearly 7/10 "men" in the street think the bill is awful.

[cybercoma]

We should probably stop asking Bryan for proof of things that don't exist. It's getting embarrassing now.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well, the PQ ignored such polls and look where it got them!

[On Guard for Thee]

We should probably stop asking Bryan for proof of things that don't exist. It's getting embarrassing now.

Kind of a "one size fit's all" approach. But that's what Harper wants his people to adopt.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think Poilievre should start by getting a new haircut, and then getting a new approach to his bogus bill. (C23) Both are making him look, oh, laughable I guess. One in a serious way, the other less serious. Perhaps he could call on Mrs. Harper to set hgim straight. With her accessibility to the levers of power she has already distinguished between the need for compassion for dead women, and homeless cats. What more do we need to know?

[cybercoma]

I think Poilievre should start by getting a new haircut

Come on, man. His ideas are stupid enough. We don't have to insult politicians' appearances.

[Bryan]

We should probably stop asking Bryan for proof of things that don't exist. It's getting embarrassing now.

I agree. You continually asking the same questions that have already been answered is getting embarrassing.

[eyeball]

I'm looking for a very specific piece evidence Bryan, not an answer. If it doesn't exist just say so.

[cybercoma]

I agree. You continually asking the same questions that have already been answered is getting embarrassing.

Just post the evidence of voter fraud. It's pretty simple. People will stop asking for it when you post the proof.

[cybercoma]

It's funny because those in privileged positions often complain that racism would just go away if we stopped talking about it or ignored it. They're right. It goes away for them because they don't experience. That's the privileged part. You can just ignore it because you don't wear it on your skin and experience it in your day-to-day life. So if we just stopped talking about aboriginal women, as though they're "special," or if we just stop pointing out the racism faced by aboriginal peoples, then it'll just go away. The problem with insisting that their discrimination not be pointed out is that it doesn't go away for them, it only goes away for those who don't experience it. That's why people need to and will continue to point it out to those who don't experience it.

[On Guard for Thee]

Come on, man. His ideas are stupid enough. We don't have to insult politicians' appearances.

I obviously concur with your description of his ideas, and hey, if you can't be catty with a politician, who can you be catty with? ha ha ha

[On Guard for Thee]

I agree. You continually asking the same questions that have already been answered is getting embarrassing.

I have followed this thread closely. I have yet to see an answer, either from the thread or from the mouth of Poilievre.

[Bryan]

I have followed this thread closely. I have yet to see an answer, either from the thread or from the mouth of Poilievre.

Obviously not. I just did a really quick scan of this thread and within less than a minute I found four posts that answer the question.