Alberta Politics Thread v2

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Except we do.

https://www.albertaparty.ca/
The Alberta Party is running candidates in all 87 ridings this election.

Take a look at the voter compass thread.
It's not surprising how many people are aligning with the Alberta Party.
Do they have the support to form government? Nope. But they could form a strong opposition, or even better, be the swing votes in a minority government.

It may not be a full 3 way race to form government, but to say we don't have a center party to choose from isn't accurate.

Talking to friends, I am far from the only one who had any interest in the Alberta party killed when they elected Mandel as leader. They had some momentum with Greg Clark, I thought him or Levis would have shown some youthful enthusiasm and a better face for the party than the nearly fossilized Mandel. It just suggests to me that behind the curtain, the Alberta party still wears a lot of backroom PC stink.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by J epworth

Only one seat projected for Alberta Party? Is that Mandel or Fraser? Feel like Rick Fraser would still be the favourite in Calgary SE just from longevity in that community. Then there is Clark who always has a chance.

I think Clarke is in tough against Schweitzer. DS has a solid campaign already to roll with his most recent leadership bid and (purely guessing) better financed.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Shouldn't they report the full scope of emails and texts they report on if they want to be accurate? Instead of small sections?

But really Press Progress is just a left slanted "news" source with only one goal in mind.

None of which discounts the fact that their reporting is very factual, it’s just important to note their bias and ignore “loaded” words.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/press-progress/

They’re great at breaking stories and bringing conservative foul play to light. Would you read Press Progress to get a balanced, unbiased look at everything going on in the world? No. But they definitely take joy in reporting on the scummy #### conservative politicians get up to.

If they were spreading lies or misinformation, sure, dismiss them. But they don’t. Can’t say the same about the Rebel.

Not everything with a bias means you can’t trust it. You just have to be aware of these things and fact check.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

None of which discounts the fact that their reporting is very factual, it’s just important to note their bias and ignore “loaded” words.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/press-progress/

They’re great at breaking stories and bringing conservative foul play to light. Would you read Press Progress to get a balanced, unbiased look at everything going on in the world? No. But they definitely take joy in reporting on the scummy #### conservative politicians get up to.

If they were spreading lies or misinformation, sure, dismiss them. But they don’t. Can’t say the same about the Rebel.

Not everything with a bias means you can’t trust it. You just have to be aware of these things and fact check.

Except context is extremely important and without reporting context how can you take them seriously? Goes for all media but they seem to specialize is this.

But really Psychnet “vouching” for them is about all you need to know.

The rebel is garbage. But just because it’s the worst garbage doesn’t mean other mediums aren’t garbage too.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Except context is extremely important and without reporting context how can you take them seriously? Goes for all media but they seem to specialize is this.

But really Psychnet “vouching” for them is about all you need to know.

The rebel is garbage. But just because it’s the worst garbage doesn’t mean other mediums aren’t garbage too.

Wait does this mean we should discount your opinions because you're an Oilers fan?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Except context is extremely important and without reporting context how can you take them seriously? Goes for all media but they seem to specialize is this.

But really Psychnet “vouching” for them is about all you need to know.

The rebel is garbage. But just because it’s the worst garbage doesn’t mean other mediums aren’t garbage too.

The context isn’t in question, unless you mean to use a different word.

Press Progress has a reputation for accurate, factual reporting, that includes context, which is fully linked to accurate reporting.

They also have a left-bias. In this situation, the main concerns with that are the heavy focus on one side of the isle. So, if you only looked at Press Progress, you would come out thinking the left rarely does anything wrong and the right does plenty. This is not true, BUT, it’s important not to discount the fact that what they report is accurate.

Where you need to be concerned is when media outlets are reporting lies and misinformation, including spinning one thing to mean something else entirely. Press Progress does not do this (if you think otherwise, be my guest and show the stuff, but they get pretty consistent good grades for fact checking).

Otherwise, if you discount factual information because you don’t like what it has to say or don’t like that the outlet seems to unfairly focus on one side, then you’re just entering “fake news!” territory.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The context isn’t in question, unless you mean to use a different word.

Press Progress has a reputation for accurate, factual reporting, that includes context, which is fully linked to accurate reporting.

They also have a left-bias. In this situation, the main concerns with that are the heavy focus on one side of the isle. So, if you only looked at Press Progress, you would come out thinking the left rarely does anything wrong and the right does plenty. This is not true, BUT, it’s important not to discount the fact that what they report is accurate.

Where you need to be concerned is when media outlets are reporting lies and misinformation, including spinning one thing to mean something else entirely. Press Progress does not do this (if you think otherwise, be my guest and show the stuff, but they get pretty consistent good grades for fact checking).

Otherwise, if you discount factual information because you don’t like what it has to say or don’t like that the outlet seems to unfairly focus on one side, then you’re just entering “fake news!” territory.

Has press progress published the whole conversations or just a part of it? Everything I’ve read indicates it’s just a part of it.

As for your last point: there lots to focus on the NDP about being anti oil and gas. But if I only reference those things it doesn’t tell the whole story (maybe bad example). But anything that doesn’t publish full unedited conversations needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Wait does this mean we should discount your opinions because you're an Oilers fan?

Sports

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Has press progress published the whole conversations or just a part of it? Everything I’ve read indicates it’s just a part of it.

As for your last point: there lots to focus on the NDP about being anti oil and gas. But if I only reference those things it doesn’t tell the whole story (maybe bad example). But anything that doesn’t publish full unedited conversations needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Yeah, that’s a pretty bad example. What I’m saying is that they do tell the full story, or at least they have a reputation of doing that, and they’re very good at verifying their sources and the information presented.

Again, what you’re suggesting is that the context we’re missing could change the story, and by leaving it out Press Progress is manipulating the story. This goes completely against their reputation for factual reporting, and we have no reason to believe that to be true based on their history of reporting.

The problems with bias are not all created equal. Press Progress carries a bias while remaining factual and doing their proper due diligence. That is not true of all bias outlets, but suggesting that bias = poor standard or untrustworthy information is also not true.

Regarding the information in hand. Have you read the messages? They are what they are. I didn’t see them as “awful” as some people, but I get it. And there’s enough context there to know and understand what she’s talking about. What I’ve also seen is Ford fail to deny writing them (and even accepting their existence as legitimate). So what are we missing?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, that’s a pretty bad example. What I’m saying is that they do tell the full story, or at least they have a reputation of doing that, and they’re very good at verifying their sources and the information presented.

Again, what you’re suggesting is that the context we’re missing could change the story, and by leaving it out Press Progress is manipulating the story. This goes completely against their reputation for factual reporting, and we have no reason to believe that to be true based on their history of reporting.

The problems with bias are not all created equal. Press Progress carries a bias while remaining factual and doing their proper due diligence. That is not true of all bias outlets, but suggesting that bias = poor standard or untrustworthy information is also not true.

Regarding the information in hand. Have you read the messages? They are what they are. I didn’t see them as “awful” as some people, but I get it. And there’s enough context there to know and understand what she’s talking about. What I’ve also seen is Ford fail to deny writing them (and even accepting their existence as legitimate). So what are we missing?

Let’s be honest here. If press progress didn’t have a huge axe to grind to a certain party they would have tackled it differently. IE posted everything.

Like I’ve said in every post. You can judge a media outlet by what they post. Press progress allegedly had all the convo and only shares some.

But I suspect they only bought the inflammatory parts (i agree with your last paragraph)

I’ll be a little open. I know the candidate but I also know another candidate that I supported that lost.

But I no longer live In that riding so don’t know what to think haha.

Second Edit: I’ve been drinking so maybe don’t take me full? Ha

[PepsiFree]

I’ll ask again: what do you think was missing that would’ve been news worthy?

“Only the inflammatory parts” are very likely the only thing that anyone gives a #### to hear about. You want to hear Ford say some non-inflammatory stuff? Great, I believe she has twitter, fill your boots!

I get the spirit of what you’re saying, I just really think in this instance it comes from a place of just not wanting to believe it. We have (some) context, we have a place known for factual reporting and due diligence putting it out there, and we have not had a denial despite multiple comments on it from Ford.

What more do you need? And where do you draw the line between “news worthy” and not?

All this of course being a little bit funny, considering what a FIELD DAY (four years?) conservatives have had milking every last drop out of the photo of Notley at an anti-pipeline rally haha. Some times things turn out funny I guess.

[PepsiFree]

Dp

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I think Clarke is in tough against Schweitzer. DS has a solid campaign already to roll with his most recent leadership bid and (purely guessing) better financed.

I live in Clark’s riding, and voted for him last time. I also quite like Doug Schweitzer, but am not a fan of Kenney or the UCP. I guess you could say I’m undecided though if I’m being honest I’ve never voted conservative before and am unlikely to do it with Kenney as the leader. I would have given VERY serious thought to a Schweitzer-led UCP.

It will be interesting to see. Based on lawn signs Schweitzer is looking pretty strong but the Tory candidate “won” the lawn sign war in our area last time by a lot. If I had to guess I’d say Clark wins in a squeaker but I think it could go either way. The only thing that would surprise me is a blowout either way.

I do feel like it is a bit of a bummer having to pick between those two gentlemen, both of whom I think are great. I guess I can look at it as I will have a pretty good MLA either way.

NDP is a non-factor in Elbow I believe.

[powderjunkie]

Ford is welcome to publish the full conversation if she'd like to.

There's more noise and more information available in the world than ever before. How many of you bitching about this read every word of a piece of legislation before you comment on it? How many of you watched every minute of SNC lavalin testimony? It's a soundbite world, and that's okay. It applies to every one.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Shouldn't they report the full scope of emails and texts they report on if they want to be accurate? Instead of small sections?

But really Press Progress is just a left slanted "news" source with only one goal in mind.

Yes they should set up a database with all the leaked correspondence that doesn’t have significant privacy issues with. Just like they should have released the full text of the Caylan Ford conversations as well. I think it’s fair to call them out on that.

It’s also fair to state that it is highly likely true that Kenny’s party was pulling the strings of Calloways campaign.

Understanding the agenda of press progress is important, looking for what parts of the story have been coroberated by other media rather than just rehashing that press progress reported is important however I don’t think they deserve to be discounted immediately based on their bias.

[GordonBlue]

liberals are hilarious.
they managed to update their website yesterday.

they now have 55 candidates. but while the other parties have a picture which links to a bio of the candidate, the liberals have managed to do that for only 13 people.

you want to learn about anyone else, hope you get lucky with a google search.

still nobody in my riding.

[Fuzz]

I honestly don't know why they bother. Either show up to the game, or don't sign up for it.

[GullFoss]

I'm a fan of Clark, but I sat in a few policy meetings for the Alberta party and it wasn't my cup of tea. It was basically a lot of policies that could come right out of the NDP handbook

I want a party that is NDP on costless social policies and intellectually honest when it comes to fiscal spending issues to fix the long term issues plaguing this province. I have no problem keeping corporate taxes low to encourage competitiveness, measures that incentivize new and existing businesses to grow, investing in R&D to build out good jobs in new industries and spending more on front line workers. I have no issues with a PST or higher income taxes if the beuarocracy and public sector wages is paired back, the healthcare system becomes streamlined through economy of scales, we stop wasting money on special interest initiatives and we use the higher tax base to stop the deficit spend.

The problem is that both parties are intellectually dishonest when it comes to fiscal issues. The NDP wastes tax dollars in a stupid way for progressive idiologies and the UCP just wants to give money back to the well to do. Neither want to discuss the huge lean on resource revenues or that the economy would fall apart if oil demand reversed.

It's seriously ####ing awful because this province has enough time to pivot away from oil and gas over the next 30 years, but it takes leadership and foresight, which is something neither party has.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I'm a fan of Clark, but I sat in a few policy meetings for the Alberta party and it wasn't my cup of tea. It was basically a lot of policies that could come right out of the NDP handbook

I want a party that is NDP on costless social policies and intellectually honest when it comes to fiscal spending issues to fix the long term issues plaguing this province. I have no problem keeping corporate taxes low to encourage competitiveness, measures that incentivize new and existing businesses to grow, investing in R&D to build out good jobs in new industries and spending more on front line workers. I have no issues with a PST or higher income taxes if the beuarocracy and public sector wages is paired back, the healthcare system becomes streamlined through economy of scales, we stop wasting money on special interest initiatives and we use the higher tax base to stop the deficit spend.

The problem is that both parties are intellectually dishonest when it comes to fiscal issues. The NDP wastes tax dollars in a stupid way for progressive idiologies and the UCP just wants to give money back to the well to do. Neither want to discuss the huge lean on resource revenues or that the economy would fall apart if oil demand reversed.

It's seriously ####ing awful because this province has enough time to pivot away from oil and gas over the next 30 years, but it takes leadership and foresight, which is something neither party has.

In 2013 Energy industries were 25% of Alberta's GDP. For an extremely resource rich province like Alberta what do you think is a good % of GDP?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I think Clarke is in tough against Schweitzer. DS has a solid campaign already to roll with his most recent leadership bid and (purely guessing) better financed.

Well this was kind of the case last time as well. Dirks was a high profile, well financed and well connected PC member, and Clark managed to win by enough to even beat out a PC/WR vote split



Now Clark has the incumbent advantage as well as being a guy people tend to like. If you have people still wanting to protest vote the UCP but not wanting to vote NDP, it's the perfect fit. Eremenko is pretty well connected in he riding but you might still have a bunch of NDP voters seeing the writing on the wall and vote Clark just to prevent a UCP win.



It will be a good riding to watch regardless.