Keepitsimple Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) Is that really the narrative thats to be parroted after Poilievre's bill amendment release today......just making perfect, "more perfect"? Brilliant. Not sure what you're talking about. You have to have ID - that was the intent of the legislation. If you have ID but it doesn't have an address, someone has to swear an oath that you live where you say you do. Reasonable compromise that maintains the intent of the legislation. Common sense again. Edited April 26, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 No more buses of people being bused around toronto to different polling station with no ID, voting for left wing parties. eureka! Finally, some actual voter fraud... member 'PIK', I trust you've contacted and provided full details to both Elections Canada and the CPC! Finally, Harper Conservatives will no longer have to fabricate instances of voter fraud or deal in vague anecdotal implications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 eureka! Finally, some actual voter fraud... member 'PIK', I trust you've contacted and provided full details to both Elections Canada and the CPC! Finally, Harper Conservatives will no longer have to fabricate instances of voter fraud or deal in vague anecdotal implications. It probably rained that day. Couldnt do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted April 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 The $20.00 donations scam had to be dropped because it came out in the senate hearing that if someone is going to give money, the paper work would have to have the party's name at the top and therefore it would go under advertising and so the Tories had to drop it. I'm sure Pierre and other Tory's had some feedback from their constituents and they had to soften some of the Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 Rhetorically of course.....................when did this happen? Which country? Which movie?....maybe a sitcom? Interesting that Bryan knows about these "busses" and Poilievre couldn't seem to find any evidence of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 I like watching Harper/Poilievre waving that white flag. Having said that, I would like to see a few reforms in the senate. Perhaps the easiest way would be for the senate itself to provide those reforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 I like watching Harper/Poilievre waving that white flag. Having said that, I would like to see a few reforms in the senate. Perhaps the easiest way would be for the senate itself to provide those reforms. You might see a white flag. Others see the committee and Senate providing some reasonable input.....Pollievre always maintained - wait for the committee to finish it's work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 I certainly see that Poilievre has had to do an about face on some significant changes to C23, and I don't think it's over yet. The issue of the commissioner's ability to report and also to compel testimony will linger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 I like watching Harper/Poilievre waving that white flag. Having said that, I would like to see a few reforms in the senate. Perhaps the easiest way would be for the senate itself to provide those reforms. definitely a white-flag moment... the most recent changes announced didn't come via the committee route. You know, the changes that made the "perfect bill"... even more perfectererer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 I certainly see that Poilievre has had to do an about face on some significant changes to C23, and I don't think it's over yet. The issue of the commissioner's ability to report and also to compel testimony will linger. You mean those very minor changes that he ASKED the Senate to suggest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 You mean those very minor changes that he ASKED the Senate to suggest? in this NP article speaking of the Harper Conservative/Poilievre climbdown... are all the latest announced amendments a part of that earlier grouping of committee level recommendations? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 You mean those very minor changes that he ASKED the Senate to suggest? You can characterize them how you like, I happen to think they are a lot more than he wanted and all you have to do is follow along some of his previous interviews and you can certainly notice the tenor of his discussion changing. In any case as long as they, and possibly some others get made we'll be better off. And I don't suppose you think the fact these amendments were announced on a Friday afternoon is coincidental? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 in this NP article speaking of the Harper Conservative/Poilievre climbdown... are all the latest announced amendments a part of that earlier grouping of committee level recommendations? . That's exactly what they are. I posted those earlier in this thread. NP is being very dishonest, there was no climbdown of any definition. Polievre got what he specifically requested, and implemented it. Polievre's problem was never content, it was presentation. He was so abrasive that people didn't want to listen to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 That's exactly what they are. I posted those earlier in this thread. NP is being very dishonest, there was no climbdown of any definition. Polievre got what he specifically requested, and implemented it. Polievre's problem was never content, it was presentation. He was so abrasive that people didn't want to listen to him. I certainly don't see a direct correlation between what I heard Poilievre say/what the NP article relates.... and the earlier posted reference you made: here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted April 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 I wouldn't be surprised if more voters turn out to vote in the next federal election and they will make sure everything is in order and vote against the Tories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 I wouldn't be surprised if more voters turn out to vote in the next federal election and they will make sure everything is in order and vote against the Tories. I will confess to having missed a few votes over the years by being sent overseas and not got organized with advance polling. You can damn sure bet I won't let that happen in 2015. Would you consider vouching for me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 I wouldn't be surprised if more voters turn out to vote in the next federal election and they will make sure everything is in order and vote against the Tories. Maybe you missed the Ipsos poll that was posted previously that showed that 87% of Canadians approved of having ID before you could vote. I think those extra voters you are hoping for may end up voting Conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 I think those extra voters you are hoping for may end up voting Conservative. can you grasp the possibility that perhaps persons wishing to keep 'a form of vouching' in play are focused on a concern over what they interpret is an attempt by Harper Conservatives to disenfranchise some number of potential voters... regardless of what party they may support? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 Maybe you missed the Ipsos poll that was posted previously that showed that 87% of Canadians approved of having ID before you could vote. I think those extra voters you are hoping for may end up voting Conservative. If they actually have all that support, why are the "climbing down"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 If they actually have all that support, why are the "climbing down"? They're not. Try to keep up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 They're not. Try to keep up. Poilievre looks and sounds like a whipped pup. Have you not been watching the news? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) I guess since the usual suspects think there has been a major "climb down", the legislation will now have support from those same people. If not, I guess there's no climb-down. Either way, all's well that ends well. Edited April 27, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) I guess since the usual suspects think there has been a major "climb down", the legislation will now have support from those same people. If not, I guess there's no climb-down. Either way, all's well that ends well. the Harper Conservative "Moving Towards Fair, But Not Quite There Yet" act still has some climbing down to go yet. Edited April 27, 2014 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 I guess since the usual suspects think there has been a major "climb down", the legislation will now have support from those same people. If not, I guess there's no climb-down. Either way, all's well that ends well. It depends what the intent was. At the start of this discussion the question was whether this legislation was needed and the opposition was to scrap all of it. Meanwhile, the government position remained firm with resolve for no amendments. Then the opposition wanted to make many amendments. The government remained firm - no amendments. Then the opposition wanted a few major amendments. The government remained firm - no amendments. Then the Senate wanted a few amendments. The government agreed to a few amendments - maybe. I suspect that the end result (with a few amendments) is exactly what the government wanted in the first place. When you get the opposition to agree with what you wanted in the first place is called smart politics and excellent negotiations. I do not think there is a need for any legislation at all but do not be fooled into thinking that this is going to be a defeat for this government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 Except I don't think the opposition is done pursueing amendments to this bill. Nor do I think the senate is done. Let's hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.