2011 Canadian Election Thread

[getbak]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Technically, what the law demands is that you have three hours during which time the polling stations are open to go and vote.

So, since I believe that most polling stations are open until 8:00pm, if you are off work at 5:00pm you are good. Similarly, since they mostly open at 9:00am, if you start work at 12:00 or later, you are also good.

This election should have minimal impact on anyone's work day, unless you are working a 12 hour shift that overlaps the election.

The polls in Alberta close at 7:30 and in BC at 7. So, if you live in Alberta and work a normal "9-5" schedule, you should either be able to go into work at 10:30 or leave at 4:30 (at your employer's convenience):

Originally Posted by Canada Elections Act

Consecutive hours for voting

132. (1) Every employee who is an elector is entitled, during voting hours on polling day, to have three consecutive hours for the purpose of casting his or her vote and, if his or her hours of work do not allow for those three consecutive hours, his or her employer shall allow the time for voting that is necessary to provide those three consecutive hours.

Time at convenience of employer

(2) The time that the employer shall allow for voting under subsection (1) is at the convenience of the employer.

Poll Hours:

• Newfoundland Time: 8:30 a.m. – 8:30 p.m.
• Atlantic Time: 8:30 a.m. – 8:30 p.m.
• Eastern Time: 9:30 a.m. – 9:30 p.m.
• Central Time: 8:30 a.m. – 8:30 p.m.
• Mountain Time: 7:30 a.m. – 7:30 p.m.
• Pacific Time: 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Really?

- It proves that the story has been around for a long time.
- It proves that the person(s) leaking it won't give up, since it didn't die and since it has come up again and again. Multiple concerted efforts to discredit Layton.
- It proves that the burden of proof for running a story at SunTV is really low.
- If it came from the Liberals (as claimed in the first story), it proves that they are anywhere close to as noble and upstanding as their supporters would have us believe.

Sun TV talked to the retired Police officer who still had his notes. I think they met the burden of proof. The fact that nothing the Sun said has been denied confirms this.

One does wonder why if this story was out there before why no reporter didn't follow up on it. I can't believe any Conservative would have got the same consideration. It wouldn't have had to be the leader of the party to be news.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Really?

- It proves that the story has been around for a long time.
- It proves that the person(s) leaking it won't give up, since it didn't die and since it has come up again and again. Multiple concerted efforts to discredit Layton.
- It proves that the burden of proof for running a story at SunTV is really low.
- If it came from the Liberals (as claimed in the first story), it proves that they are anywhere close to as noble and upstanding as their supporters would have us believe.

Well you're right. The Liberals aren't getting my vote this time, so I don't really care if it was them anyway I suppose.

I do agree that the level to get on Sun TV must be really low.

[CaptainCrunch]

So then you wouldn't have cared if it was the conservatvies then?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by zamler

Uhhhh...is that supposed to be an asian hooker sucking Layton off in a voting booth???

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So then you wouldn't have cared if it was the conservatvies then?

I don't really care which party it is. The point to me is that its not newsworthy in general. I'm not a member of the NDP or anything, but still think its disgraceful.

Why do the CPC supporters here somehow think that this is newsworthy event in the campaign and overlook things like the Carson affair entirely? I just find that plainly astounding.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't really care which party it is. The point to me is that its not newsworthy in general. I'm not a member of the NDP or anything, but still think its disgraceful.

Why do the CPC supporters here somehow think that this is newsworthy event in the campaign and overlook things like the Carson affair entirely? I just find that plainly astounding.

So you are saying the Carson affair is totally relevant, but this eJackuLayton thing isn't?

Hypocrite much?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't really care which party it is. The point to me is that its not newsworthy in general. I'm not a member of the NDP or anything, but still think its disgraceful.

Why do the CPC supporters here somehow think that this is newsworthy event in the campaign and overlook things like the Carson affair entirely? I just find that plainly astounding.

They're just saying the two are on completely different levels...which they are. Surely you can see that?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by old-fart

So you are saying the Carson affair is totally relevant, but this eJackuLayton thing isn't?

Hypocrite much?

Basically that is exactly what I'm saying. I don't care if you think thats hypocritical either:

-Carson was charged and convicted, working for the PMO directly and lobbying for another company to the federal government for funding

-Layton was "questioned" and nothing ever came of the incident. I'm not even sure that the notes should've become public property (and the OPP is apparently looking into that as well).

I fail to see how having a guy convicted of fie counts of fraud working for you directly (and lobbying, which is a whole other concern) isn't horrible judgment. The Layton case was literally open and closed 15 years ago.

Just for a split second take you partisan blinders off and tell me that the guy who was never charged and never convicted is somehow relevant as compared to the guy who was charged 5 times and lobbied as a close advisor to the PMO?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Basically that is exactly what I'm saying. I don't care if you think thats hypocritical either:

-Carson was charged and convicted, working for the PMO directly and lobbying for another company to the federal government for funding

-Layton was "questioned" and nothing ever came of the incident. I'm not even sure that the notes should've become public property (and the OPP is apparently looking into that as well).

I fail to see how having a guy convicted of fie counts of fraud working for you directly (and lobbying, which is a whole other concern) isn't horrible judgment. The Layton case was literally open and closed 15 years ago.

Just for a split second take you partisan blinders off and tell me that the guy who was never charged and never convicted is somehow relevant as compared to the guy who was charged 5 times and lobbied as a close advisor to the PMO?

Both situations are bad, one has been addressed with, where the PM reported the guy to the ethics committee, the other issue requires that everyone just look the other way and pretend that nothing happened. I'm not saying that this is something that should sway your vote, but this outcry about how Layton going to a prostitute for sex should be a complete non issue is a little silly. There's no way that all the people who are saying we should just move on and forget this would be singing the same tune if this story were about Stephen Harper.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Ark2

There's no way that all the people who are saying we should just move on and forget this would be singing the same tune if this story were about Stephen Harper.

Likewise, people like you who are saying this is a newsworthy event would be saying "It happened 15 years ago and no charges were laid, therefore, no story" if this was about Stephen Harper.

Frack, it makes me feel sick sticking up for Layton, but this is a non-event!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Both situations are bad, one has been addressed with, where the PM reported the guy to the ethics committee, the other issue requires that everyone just look the other way and pretend that nothing happened. I'm not saying that this is something that should sway your vote, but this outcry about how Layton going to a prostitute for sex should be a complete non issue is a little silly. There's no way that all the people who are saying we should just move on and forget this would be singing the same tune if this story were about Stephen Harper.

Link? Any proof of this other than pure conjecture?

Fact is that it was probably bad judgment, but if there was any evidence to this case then he'd have been charged and that would've been dealt with when it happened...15 years ago.

Harper said all kinds of crazy stuff 10-15 years ago, and that is even politcally relevant. If we let that stuff go and think that he has "matured" or whatever you want to say, then you have to do the same with a non-event that's totally unrelated.

My point is that there are a lot of reasons to attack Layton and the NDP (many of which are in this thread). Those are totally fair game; call him out on his stance on carbon/the oilsands, Afghanistan or whatever you like. But to consider this as newsworthy and relevant is absurd.

The mor I think about this, its such a dumb and pointless exercise it probably was pushed hard by the Liberals! I'm just surprised that so many CPC supporters are still trying to keep it going is all...you guys usually have better judgment than that!

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Slava

Basically that is exactly what I'm saying. I don't care if you think thats hypocritical either:

-Carson was charged and convicted, working for the PMO directly and lobbying for another company to the federal government for funding

-Layton was "questioned" and nothing ever came of the incident. I'm not even sure that the notes should've become public property (and the OPP is apparently looking into that as well).

I fail to see how having a guy convicted of fie counts of fraud working for you directly (and lobbying, which is a whole other concern) isn't horrible judgment. The Layton case was literally open and closed 15 years ago.

Just for a split second take you partisan blinders off and tell me that the guy who was never charged and never convicted is somehow relevant as compared to the guy who was charged 5 times and lobbied as a close advisor to the PMO?

Unless I'm mistaken, the PM fired Carson and called the cops to investigate him. Was it poor screening on the PMO to hire him - yes. Should the PM be held responsible for the screening practices of those in his office? Maybe. Did he react exactly correctly once he was aware of the background? It would appear so.

On the other hand, you have a politician (not one of his workers or advisors - but him directly) going to a rub-n-tug joint after 9:00pm at night. He was found naked. How many massages have you had that required you to be completely naked? The cops have said that it is common for those that own these places to video those in the rooms for use later. Can you confirm that this hasn't happened with Layton? Can you guarantee that a man that wants to be PM doesn't have a video somewhere of him in a comprimising position? Further, what does it say about his judgement - not his advisors judgement or someone in his office's judgement but his direct judgement - that he would be going to a rub-n-tug when he is supposedly the champion of women's issues? Does he seriously not have the ability to know the difference between a licenced theraputic massage place and a rub-n-tug? Does he not have the judgement to understand that being completely naked during a massage is probably not how things are generally done? Lastly, what are the odds that the police busted this place the only time Jackoff was there? Slim to none I'd say....

[transplant99]

Any and all incidents that point towards a lack of judgement or outright lieing to police/public are fair game no matter who is involved or when it happened.

Layton did one or the other, albeit 15 years ago. Why is it not fair to question him about it? He was, afterall, part of government at the time even if only at the local level. Does this mean he would be willing to do it again while sitting as the leader of the country? I doubt it, but that doesnt absolve him of being asked the question.

In the end though...I agree this is a non-story any longer just as Carson is no longer a story. Both have been dealt with and moved on...but if we change the rules for one, it is incumbent to apply it to all.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

Basically that is exactly what I'm saying. I don't care if you think thats hypocritical either:

-Carson was charged and convicted, working for the PMO directly and lobbying for another company to the federal government for funding

-Layton was "questioned" and nothing ever came of the incident. I'm not even sure that the notes should've become public property (and the OPP is apparently looking into that as well).

I fail to see how having a guy convicted of fie counts of fraud working for you directly (and lobbying, which is a whole other concern) isn't horrible judgment. The Layton case was literally open and closed 15 years ago.

Just for a split second take you partisan blinders off and tell me that the guy who was never charged and never convicted is somehow relevant as compared to the guy who was charged 5 times and lobbied as a close advisor to the PMO?

I agree that Carson is a criminal and should never be considered for public office. From what I've heard Harper helped with the investigation and was never part of Carson's criminal activities.

How does what Harper did compare to Layton chosing to go to a prostitute? If these weren't Asian immigrants you might argue that it was a victimless crime. But he chose to seek sexual services in a place where there would be a high possibility that his service provider had no choice.
That is disgusting.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I agree that Carson is a criminal and should never be considered for public office. From what I've heard Harper helped with the investigation and was never part of Carson's criminal activities.

How does what Harper did compare to Layton chosing to go to a prostitute? If these weren't Asian immigrants you might argue that it was a victimless crime. But he chose to seek sexual services in a place where there would be a high possibility that his service provider had no choice.
That is disgusting.

Well Harper selected Carson as a close advisor, so clearly its horrible judgment?

Any proof of the prostitution, or just conjecture?

[MarchHare]

How does what Harper did compare to Layton chosing to go to a prostitute? If these weren't Asian immigrants you might argue that it was a victimless crime. But he chose to seek sexual services in a place where there would be a high possibility that his service provider had no choice.
That is disgusting.

More accurately, he chose to receive a massage at a facility properly licensed by the City of Toronto. He may or may not have known that this parlour was also under investigation for offering sexual services, and he may or may not have received such services himself. There was not enough evidence at the time to charge him with a crime, so I contend Layton did nothing wrong other than perhaps exercise poor judgement when choosing a massage provider.

And seriously guys, stop making me defend Jack Layton and the NDP!

[Resolute 14]

I'm not quite sure yet, but I think there might be a pattern emerging as to what Slava considers a notable scandal, and what he doesn't...

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Likewise, people like you who are saying this is a newsworthy event would be saying "It happened 15 years ago and no charges were laid, therefore, no story" if this was about Stephen Harper.

Frack, it makes me feel sick sticking up for Layton, but this is a non-event!

Nope. Despite not living in Toronto, I was a supporter of Rob Ford when he ran for Mayor in 2010. During the campaign, it was leaked that Ford was actually arrested for a DUI in Miami back in 1999. I didn't pass it off as no big deal, or as something that no one should be paying any attention to then, so I can honestly say that if this were Stephen Harper, I would have acknowledged it as an issue.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

More accurately, he chose to receive a massage at a facility properly licensed by the City of Toronto. He may or may not have known that this parlour was also under investigation for offering sexual services, and he may or may not have received such services himself. There was not enough evidence at the time to charge him with a crime, so I contend Layton did nothing wrong other than perhaps exercise poor judgement when choosing a massage provider.

And seriously guys, stop making me defend Jack Layton and the NDP!

I'd almost agree with you if he wasn't found naked, and well past 9:00pm (there have been some reports it was at 1:30am).

He either has a surprising lack of intelligence (possible) or he's a liar (probable).