Harper says unaware of alleged vote suppression
Gunnair @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:51 am
jeff744 jeff744:
Gunnair Gunnair:
jeff744 jeff744:
Personally I am more interested in the reactions of our own right wing boys and see how they try to defend Harper from this one.
You have evidence that Harper was directly involved in this or was your plan to simply post a partisan missive?
Or perhaps, did you mean that some CPC staffers, maybe some of them senior, are about to be caught in some election bullshit that they will hopefully be held accountable for but it is simply too politically delicious for you to [insert stupid partisan post here so that you look like some dumbass hack]
NO, I just found it great that there is an opportunity to turn the standard statement on this forum about lefties back on the people that use it.
Good then. Please don't bitch in future when some right wing partisan hack does this lest you be called a left wing hypocritic hack.
jeff744 @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:59 am
Gunnair Gunnair:
Good then. Please don't bitch in future when some right wing partisan hack does this lest you be called a left wing hypocritic hack.
How is it hypocritical? I was trying to make a point about how often the entire left wing is grouped together by the exact same statement, every time there is a chance there is the statement about the left, I am tired of it. Though it is nice to see that you called a number of members here right wing partisan hacks by proxy.
Gunnair @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:04 pm
jeff744 jeff744:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Good then. Please don't bitch in future when some right wing partisan hack does this lest you be called a left wing hypocritic hack.
How is it hypocritical? I was trying to make a point about how often the entire left wing is grouped together by the exact same statement, every time there is a chance there is the statement about the left, I am tired of it. Though it is nice to see that you called a number of members here right wing partisan hacks by proxy.
It's hypocritical because you just did what you bitch about right wing members doing.
jeff744 @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:08 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
jeff744 jeff744:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Good then. Please don't bitch in future when some right wing partisan hack does this lest you be called a left wing hypocritic hack.
How is it hypocritical? I was trying to make a point about how often the entire left wing is grouped together by the exact same statement, every time there is a chance there is the statement about the left, I am tired of it. Though it is nice to see that you called a number of members here right wing partisan hacks by proxy.
It's hypocritical because you just did what you bitch about right wing members doing.
And? It's a different meaning to it and this is the first time I actually complained about it, usually I will respond to it with a post arguing the generalization. I just found the opportunity to display exactly what I have been seeing regularly since I came here too great to resist.
Curtman @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:17 pm
jeff744 jeff744:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Good then. Please don't bitch in future when some right wing partisan hack does this lest you be called a left wing hypocritic hack.
How is it hypocritical? I was trying to make a point about how often the entire left wing is grouped together by the exact same statement, every time there is a chance there is the statement about the left, I am tired of it. Though it is nice to see that you called a number of members here right wing partisan hacks by proxy.
Its also fun to see who gets defensive about mentioning right wing partisan hacks.
Tricks @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:42 pm
Well this certainly isn't good.
OnTheIce @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:14 pm
Curtman Curtman:
So the investigation into who "leaked" information (which was publicly available) about Vic Toews infidelity and the resulting divorce goes on... But the blame for this goes on a lone person "on a local campaign" who orchestrated thousands of calls across 27 swing ridings.
A stolen majority is what it is.
A stolen majority is what it is.
Get a grip.
I guess all these calls make the Liberals fall into the tank and lose all their seats.
Do you know that some of those ridings were Liberal and NDP victories?
Perhaps they'd like to re-do the election in those ridings?
Bob's just looking for some headlines to bring him and his party back into the media.
Gunnair @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:47 pm
Curtman Curtman:
jeff744 jeff744:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Good then. Please don't bitch in future when some right wing partisan hack does this lest you be called a left wing hypocritic hack.
How is it hypocritical? I was trying to make a point about how often the entire left wing is grouped together by the exact same statement, every time there is a chance there is the statement about the left, I am tired of it. Though it is nice to see that you called a number of members here right wing partisan hacks by proxy.
Its also fun to see who gets defensive about mentioning right wing partisan hacks.
Just like those pot headed drug peddling shitiots get all pissy when you mention their catering to the school yards.
Gunnair @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:49 pm
jeff744 jeff744:
Gunnair Gunnair:
jeff744 jeff744:
How is it hypocritical? I was trying to make a point about how often the entire left wing is grouped together by the exact same statement, every time there is a chance there is the statement about the left, I am tired of it. Though it is nice to see that you called a number of members here right wing partisan hacks by proxy.
It's hypocritical because you just did what you bitch about right wing members doing.
And? It's a different meaning to it and this is the first time I actually complained about it, usually I will respond to it with a post arguing the generalization. I just found the opportunity to display exactly what I have been seeing regularly since I came here too great to resist.
You joined the ranks of the partisan hacks. Good for you.
redhatmamma @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:05 pm
andyt andyt:
Time for Harper to take a page out of Trudeau's playbook and do the Gallic Shrug. "I do not know anything about dis, dis has nodding to do wit me, eh. Ow can I be responsible for what the people below me do?" Sorry, I guess that's Chretien.
Although I don't believe Harper and the top were involved in anyway, he should just pull a Chretien and let the opposition blather away and burn themselves out.
Unless they can find some real evidence, they have nothing but speculation.
jeff744 @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:12 pm
redhatmamma redhatmamma:
andyt andyt:
Time for Harper to take a page out of Trudeau's playbook and do the Gallic Shrug. "I do not know anything about dis, dis has nodding to do wit me, eh. Ow can I be responsible for what the people below me do?" Sorry, I guess that's Chretien.
Although I don't believe Harper and the top were involved in anyway, he should just pull a Chretien and let the opposition blather away and burn themselves out.
Unless they can find some real evidence, they have nothing but speculation.
What would you count as real evidence if the fact the company intentionally told people the wrong locations and was working for the conservative party is not enough? Do we really have to find a video of Harper sitting behind a computer directing the robocallers to non-conservative voters?
andyt @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:54 pm
Here's another left wing hack weighing in:
$1:
Conservatives fought hard for their majority ... perhaps too hard
Here is a list of some of the things we do not know about the Robo con scandal (the use of auto-mated "robocalls" to harass or deceive - con - voters in certain riding).
We do not know whether the calls were made by members of the Conservative party. We do not know whether any Conservative authorized them, or even knew about them. We do no know whether anyone was pre-vented from voting, or had their vote changed, as a result, nor do we know whether the results of any riding were affected.
But my God, what we know is disturbing enough.
There were not a few calls: there were thousands. They did not occur in one or two ridings: there were at least 18 of them, scattered across the country - a handful of which received the automated calls, while 14 received live harassing calls, targeting Liberal households. In all but one, the race was viewed as being between a Conservative and a Liberal, and in every one the calls were made to Liberal supporters.
In some cases voters were given false information on where to vote by some-one pretending to represent Elections Canada. In others, they were annoyed or insulted by calls purporting to come from the Liberal party.
There isn't any doubt that this was election fraud; whoever did it, if caught, is facing jail time.
Elections Canada believes it knows the identity of the caller. One agency email obtained by Postmedia refers to "Conservative campaign office communications with electors." Another warns: "They have actually disrupted the voting process."
So, no, we do not know for a fact that the calls came from anyone acting on the authority of the Conservative party.
But, well, let's say it fits a pattern - if not of outright law-breaking then certainly of close-to-the-wind tactics and ends-justify-the-means ethics. The "in and out" affair may not have been the scandal many thought it was, but it hardly spoke of a robust commitment to honesty and fair play. The deceptive calls to voters in Irwin Cot-ler's riding of Mount Royal are a still closer precedent.
It is not implausible that somebody connected with the party would have taken their cues as to what was considered appropriate behaviour.
But who? It beggars belief that local campaign workers in 18 different ridings could have separately hit upon the same scam, or carried it out with-out the knowledge of anyone outside the riding. The notion the whole thing could be put down to one overzealous young campaign worker, as some are putting about, is even less credible.
It is hard to overstate how serious this is. It doesn't matter whether the calls had their intended effect. It is sufficient that someone made them.
If it were just the circumstances, or just their track record, the Conservatives might be given the benefit of the doubt. But the two together, while they do not prove anyone in the party was involved, make it all too plausible to believe they were. Indeed, it would be more surprising to find they weren't.
Ethical standards are fragile enough in politics. Too many partisans view it as war by other means, exaggerating the stakes in order to justify their behaviour to themselves.
In the case of the federal Conservatives, that predisposition to expediency is overlaid with a swaggering, bullying style, yet one that betrays a deep insecurity: the insecurity of a party that, for good reasons and bad, believes the system - the media, the bureaucracy, the judiciary - is stacked against it, and that it is there-fore obliged, if not entitled, to take a few shortcuts to even the odds.
It is a party that believes it has had to fight twice as hard to get where it is, a belief that has only hardened through each of the many compromises it has made on the way.
The progression is sadly familiar. Having first compromised its beliefs, a party finds it is easier to compromise its principles; having compromised its principles, it learns to com-promise its ethics; and compromises of ethics, as we have seen in other parties, lead sooner or later to com-promises with the law.
Here is a list of some of the things we do not know about the Robo con scandal (the use of auto-mated "robocalls" to harass or deceive - con - voters in certain riding).
We do not know whether the calls were made by members of the Conservative party. We do not know whether any Conservative authorized them, or even knew about them. We do no know whether anyone was pre-vented from voting, or had their vote changed, as a result, nor do we know whether the results of any riding were affected.
But my God, what we know is disturbing enough.
There were not a few calls: there were thousands. They did not occur in one or two ridings: there were at least 18 of them, scattered across the country - a handful of which received the automated calls, while 14 received live harassing calls, targeting Liberal households. In all but one, the race was viewed as being between a Conservative and a Liberal, and in every one the calls were made to Liberal supporters.
In some cases voters were given false information on where to vote by some-one pretending to represent Elections Canada. In others, they were annoyed or insulted by calls purporting to come from the Liberal party.
There isn't any doubt that this was election fraud; whoever did it, if caught, is facing jail time.
Elections Canada believes it knows the identity of the caller. One agency email obtained by Postmedia refers to "Conservative campaign office communications with electors." Another warns: "They have actually disrupted the voting process."
So, no, we do not know for a fact that the calls came from anyone acting on the authority of the Conservative party.
But, well, let's say it fits a pattern - if not of outright law-breaking then certainly of close-to-the-wind tactics and ends-justify-the-means ethics. The "in and out" affair may not have been the scandal many thought it was, but it hardly spoke of a robust commitment to honesty and fair play. The deceptive calls to voters in Irwin Cot-ler's riding of Mount Royal are a still closer precedent.
It is not implausible that somebody connected with the party would have taken their cues as to what was considered appropriate behaviour.
But who? It beggars belief that local campaign workers in 18 different ridings could have separately hit upon the same scam, or carried it out with-out the knowledge of anyone outside the riding. The notion the whole thing could be put down to one overzealous young campaign worker, as some are putting about, is even less credible.
It is hard to overstate how serious this is. It doesn't matter whether the calls had their intended effect. It is sufficient that someone made them.
If it were just the circumstances, or just their track record, the Conservatives might be given the benefit of the doubt. But the two together, while they do not prove anyone in the party was involved, make it all too plausible to believe they were. Indeed, it would be more surprising to find they weren't.
Ethical standards are fragile enough in politics. Too many partisans view it as war by other means, exaggerating the stakes in order to justify their behaviour to themselves.
In the case of the federal Conservatives, that predisposition to expediency is overlaid with a swaggering, bullying style, yet one that betrays a deep insecurity: the insecurity of a party that, for good reasons and bad, believes the system - the media, the bureaucracy, the judiciary - is stacked against it, and that it is there-fore obliged, if not entitled, to take a few shortcuts to even the odds.
It is a party that believes it has had to fight twice as hard to get where it is, a belief that has only hardened through each of the many compromises it has made on the way.
The progression is sadly familiar. Having first compromised its beliefs, a party finds it is easier to compromise its principles; having compromised its principles, it learns to com-promise its ethics; and compromises of ethics, as we have seen in other parties, lead sooner or later to com-promises with the law.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Conser ... z1nX0Dcurs
PluggyRug @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:02 pm
Any misdeeds by Conservative staffers should be brought to light and the miscreants punished. However if Bob Rae thinks it would have caused the liberals to lose seats and deny them a majority, he's in cloud cuckoo land. .
andyt @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:04 pm
Any ridings where this happened the election should be voided and hold a by election. Winning by breaking the law should not be tolerated.
PluggyRug @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:15 pm
Here's the list.
. Sydney-Victoria (N.S.): Winner: Liberals; Margin of victory: 765 votes
2. Egmont (P.E.I.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 4,470 votes
3. Eglinton-Lawrence (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 4,062 votes
4. Etobicoke Centre (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 26 votes
5. Guelph (Ont.): Winner: Liberals; Margin of victory: 6,236 votes
6. Cambridge (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 14,156 votes
7. Hamilton East-Stoney Creek (Ont.): Winner: NDP; Margin of victory: 4,364 votes
8. Haldimand-Norfolk (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 13,106 votes
9. Kitchener-Conestoga (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 17,237 votes
10. Kitchener-Waterloo (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 2,144 votes
11. London North Centre (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 1,665 votes
12. London West (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 11,023 votes
13. Mississauga East-Cooksville (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 676 votes
14. Niagara Falls (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 16,067 votes
15. Oakville (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 12,178 votes
16. Ottawa Orleans (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 3,935 votes
17. Ottawa West-Nepean (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 7,436 votes
18. Parkdale-High Park (Ont.): Winner: NDP; Margin of victory: 7,289 votes
19. Perth-Wellington (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 15,420 votes
20. Simcoe-Grey (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 20,599 votes
21. St. Catharines (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 13,598 votes
22. St. Paul's (Ont.): Winner: Liberals; Margin of victory: 4,545 votes
23. Sudbury (Ont.): Winner: NDP; Margin of victory: 9,803 votes
24. Wellington-Halton Hills (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 26,098 votes
25. Willowdale (Ont.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 932 votes
26. Saint Boniface (Man.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 8,423 votes
27. Winnipeg South Centre (Man.): Winner: Conservatives; Margin of victory: 8,544 votes