How Trudeau is winning my vote

[waldo]

Is that supposed to be evidence?

... "we found nuthin... cause we weren't allowed to find sumthin!" ... the investigative abilities of Elections Canada are/were quite limited, its investigation was quite compromised and it is/was under significant constraint.

[Boges]

bingo! Who determined who was on the CIMS database and who wasn't?

Canvasing?

[waldo]

Canvasing?

you've missed your calling... somehow... that "fabricated excuse" never surfaced before!

[Boges]

you've missed your calling... somehow... that "fabricated excuse" never surfaced before!

Just answering your question. A database isn't something new. Apparently the database sucked because it's since been scrapped. Or is that evidence tampering?

[Boges]

... "we found nuthin... cause we weren't allowed to find sumthin!" ... the investigative abilities of Elections Canada are/were quite limited, its investigation was quite compromised and it is/was under significant constraint.

Weren't most of the complaints just dead-ends or people expressing concern without any actual example of fraud?

[Boges]

Another thing about RoboCall is if it was a grand conspiracy it was a really crappy one. People get their voter card mailed out. It would take a really stupid voter to be convinced by a robocall that the EC card is wrong.

Telemarketing has never worked so well.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Boges

[waldo]

Apparently the database sucked because it's since been scrapped. Or is that evidence tampering?

revisionism to the max!

[waldo]

Weren't most of the complaints just dead-ends or people expressing concern without any actual example of fraud?

your laugh at the "lack of evidence" is quite telling... read the quotation within the link provided

[waldo]

Another thing about RoboCall is if it was a grand conspiracy it was a really crappy one. People get their voter card mailed out. It would take a really stupid voter to be convinced by a robocall that the EC card is wrong.

stupid voter? Classic response! So not only the moral failings in carrying out the affront to democracy... call/label those taken in by it... "stupid". Well done Boges, well done!

[Boges]

your laugh at the "lack of evidence" is quite telling... read the quotation within the link provided

So because EC investigators couldn't break the law, that's evidence the CPC are hiding something? Perhaps if JT is elected he'll re-instate the War Measures Act so the truth can be found.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Boges

[Boges]

stupid voter? Classic response! So not only the moral failings in carrying out the affront to democracy... call/label those taken in by it... "stupid". Well done Boges, well done!

Or that once you go to the wrong polling location they either A) Ask why you thought this was the correct location or B ) You say "Bleep It" the correct one is just down the street anyway.

How many votes do we think were stolen here?

Edited August 18, 2014 by Boges

[-1=e^ipi]

My understanding is that a participation in a democracy is taking the time to vote for somebody.

And that takes more time than to walk to the ballot station and spoil your ballot? How?

Respectfully, I ask what the goal is when you spoil a ballot?

To indicate that you do not like any of your choices to the extent that you would rather spoil your ballot than vote for the 'least bad' option.

What is the difference between a ballot spoiled on purpose and one spoiled by accident?

How stupid would one have to be to spoil their ballot by accident. Just put an X in the circle of the candidate you like. It isn't hard.

If many people spoil their ballot, that is an indication that a large section of the population is repulsed by their current choices.

As to evidence, if one form of government is not supported by the majority then it opens the doors for someone to force another kind of government into power. - Does it not?

That's sort of the point. If you don't like any of the options, you want to have more options.

Oh the horror of another kind of government! No, we must stick with liberal, ndp, conservative and green forever! *sarcasm*

[Big Guy]

And that takes more time than to walk to the ballot station and spoil your ballot? How?

...

Thank you for your response. I personally do not attempt to parse presentations nor do I respond to ones that have been parsed. I mean nothing negative by that. It is just my experience that the process is not very productive for me.

[-1=e^ipi]

Thank you for your response. I personally do not attempt to parse presentations nor do I respond to ones that have been parsed. I mean nothing negative by that. It is just my experience that the process is not very productive for me.

Look, I get it from your various posts. You just like to state your belief / position. Maybe it makes you feel good or something, I don't know. But you never actually want to evaluate that position critically or justify your belief position with evidence and reasoning.

Anyway, it is your choice.

[Mighty AC]

So no evidence then.

Boges, it seems that you treat politics like a team sport. If your team gets away with a tripping call then great, if not the damn officiating is biased. I understand that attitude when you are a die hard supporter of a party regardless of their platform, ideas, leadership or record. However, many of us don't see government that way. We can be swayed by good policy ideas and turned off by scandal and corruption.

Similar to Chretien and Mulroney managing to avoid conviction, the fact that Harper happens to claim ignorance time and time again doesn't make his administration appear clean to us non-die hards. That baggage piles up and we want change.

[Accountability Now]

His government was the first and only to be found in contempt of parliament. However, Steve-O believes Canadians don't care that he broke the law.

Based on the fact this "contempt" forced an election in 2011, an election that have the Conservatives a majority, I would say no.....Canadians don't care. They agreed that it was a parliamentary manouever and they roasted the parties responsible for it.

[Boges]

Boges, it seems that you treat politics like a team sport. If your team gets away with a tripping call then great, if not the damn officiating is biased. I understand that attitude when you are a die hard supporter of a party regardless of their platform, ideas, leadership or record. However, many of us don't see government that way. We can be swayed by good policy ideas and turned off by scandal and corruption.

Similar to Chretien and Mulroney managing to avoid conviction, the fact that Harper happens to claim ignorance time and time again doesn't make his administration appear clean to us non-die hards. That baggage piles up and we want change.

So that's why you supported the corrupt Ontario Liberals because you liked what they had to offer over the PCs anyway.

What good public policy, other than pot, has JT disclosed in his platform?

While we have the CPC who were able to balance the books and are talking about a tax cut. Sign me up!

[Big Guy]

Look, I get it from your various posts. You just like to state your belief / position. Maybe it makes you feel good or something, I don't know. But you never actually want to evaluate that position critically or justify your belief position with evidence and reasoning.

Anyway, it is your choice.

I like to respond to the total message that a post is trying to share. Parsing takes statements out of context and allows the critic to cherry pick and criticize unfairly. The parsing of a parsing makes a thread unintelligible. That is why I do not do it.

[waldo]

While we have the CPC who were able to balance the books and are talking about a tax cut. Sign me up!

your/Harper Conservative talk... is cheap! And you're already signed up - into perpetuity! But hey now, listen to Ralph... and attempt to dispute anything he says, hey:

7 Conservative Tricks To Faking A Balanced Budget

Before the Harper Conservatives inherited, in 2006, ten years of Liberal balanced budgets and robust surpluses, the last time a Conservative government actually balanced a budget for Canada was 101 years ago in 1912.

The Harper government behaved in a similar manner. Through excessive spending and reckless budgeting between 2006 and 2008, they put Canada back into the red again BEFORE, not because of, the recession which hit in late 2008. And they haven't balanced the books since.

Now in Budget 2013, the Conservatives claim they'll eliminate their deficit by 2015. Isn't that convenient -- just on the eve of the next federal election! A close look at their financial plans provides ample reason to be suspicious. Here are seven of their fiscal tricks:

1. Rosy growth estimates -- To puff up government revenues, the Conservatives have based their fiscal planning on optimistic projections of economic growth. They ignore the reality that in years just past their numbers have never been correct. Time and again their initial forecasts had to be downgraded, as both the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of Canada have just done once again in the past month.

2. Deficient reserves -- To create the illusion of more financial flexibility than they really have, the Conservatives have low-balled the "reserves" that should be in place to serve as fiscal shock-absorbers against future economic setbacks. The amounts set aside should grow in outer years because the risks are greater, but this government has foolishly flatlined them going forward.

3. Exaggerated lapses -- When a government department doesn't use all of its budget in any given year, the excess money naturally "lapses" back into the central treasury. The Conservatives are counting on very large lapses over the next several years. In other words, they'll make lots of big announcements, but never actually spend the money.

4. Excessive optimism about catching tax cheats -- While cracking down on those who don't pay their rightful taxes is an absolute necessity, the Conservative claim of a balanced budget depends heavily on quickly collecting billions in unpaid taxes. That seems highly improbable at a time when they're chopping the resources needed in the Revenue agency to go after the cheaters.

5. Big program cuts -- For big programs like Infrastructure, the government claims to be increasing its investment. But any hypothetical increases are actually years down the road, after 2015. It's a trick called "multi-year bundling" and "back-end loading". In reality, the Build Canada infrastructure budget has been cut by $1.5 billion in each of the next two years.

6. Big tax increases -- Despite false claims to the contrary, this government is increasing taxes in dozens of nefarious ways -- on everything from hospital parking fees to cosmetic wigs for cancer patients. The two biggest types of Conservative tax hikes are higher tariffs-taxes on imported goods (costing Canadians an extra $333-million every year) and higher Employment Insurance payroll taxes (costing employers and employees an extra $600-million every year).

7. Claiming before proving -- Using all these tricks to concoct the false illusion of a balanced budget by 2015, the Conservatives will claim to have met their fiscal objective just before they call an election and before proof to the contrary can become available. In the normal financial cycle, the audit report on the government's books won't get published until much later - i.e., well into 2016 -- long after any election has come and gone.

.

[Mighty AC]

Based on the fact this "contempt" forced an election in 2011, an election that have the Conservatives a majority, I would say no.....Canadians don't care. They agreed that it was a parliamentary manouever and they roasted the parties responsible for it.

I'm sure that's important to you as a die hard con. However, to the rest of us Harper's crew still broke the law to hide information from the public.

[Boges]

So Ralph Goodale couldn't go to the Globe or Star to get his economic theories published? He needed to go to HuffPo?

[Mighty AC]

So that's why you supported the corrupt Ontario Liberals because you liked what they had to offer over the PCs anyway.

I didn't want to support the Ontario Libs this time, but Hudak's plan was so bad I had no choice. He lost an election that a crash test dummy wearing a blue tie could have won. Now we have the best of some bad options. Anyway, that has been discussed to death in another thread so I suggest you add some sugar to your sour grapes and move on.

[waldo]

So Ralph Goodale couldn't go to the Globe or Star to get his economic theories published? He needed to go to HuffPo?

I appreciate he doesn't meet your Ezrant standard, but that's your comeback? Way to address the points! He's had a long-standing blog at HuffPo...

[Boges]

I appreciate he doesn't meet your Ezrant standard, but that's your comeback? Way to address the points! He's had a long-standing blog at HuffPo...

I'm unsure of his point. Is this budget not balanced? Or could they have done it earlier?

It's fresh coming from the likes of Ralph Goodale who was part of the government that balanced the budget by first lying about wanting to do away with the Conservative introduced GST and then cutting transfer payments and government budgets. They were doing similar things to what the Harris PCs were doing in Ontario but Harris was evil, the Martin/Chretien Liberals were smart.

[Accountability Now]

I'm sure that's important to you as a die hard con. However, to the rest of us Harper's crew still broke the law to hide information from the public.

It's true the die hard supporters will support for either side. My point is that enough fence sitters who were once Liberals/NDP were now choosing Conservative in light of this parliamentary maneuver.

PS...I have never voted for Harper or the Conservatives on the Federal level. So your assessment of me being die hard is not even close!