Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Caylan Ford on with Danielle Smith the last 20 minutes or so....making a very good case for "their are 2 sides to this story"....though (and i may have missed it) no admission or contextualizing of what she said in those tweets or whatever they were.(facebook?)

I would expect this be up on podcast if anyone wants to listen. Pretty interesting stuff.

https://globalnews.ca/pages/on-deman...lk770-calgary/


select today, 10 am, and skip to 34 minutes, for anyone who wants to listen.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Can you give a Coles Notes version?

(All paraphrasing)

She is a long way from being racist or in any way supportive of white nationalism.

The quotes we have all seen were taken out of context from a string of conversations she had with someone who had been/pretended to be a friend of hers from as far back as when she lived in Ontario. Press progress ran with the story before she could answer many questions which is why she decided to drop out before the writ dropped as she didnt want to be the focus.

Same guy found out she was moving to Calgary and knowing her political ambitions moved out here first with intention of hitching his wagon to her...so to speak. He bought her domain name as example. She started to figure out he was no one to be associated with and tried to distance herself. he went looney and unscrupulously then got himself elected as her ridings constituency president or board member.

It only got worse from there including what i would call stalking, an attemped burglary of her home while her children were there...just lots of stuff.

It really deserves a listen though...i suck at note taking btw.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Is anybody voting for the Alberta party because they actually like the platform? I’d be curious how many people are voting for the Alberta party because they don’t like the other options. Seams like we get a lot of Alberta Party votes by default in this thread. I should start a party with a slogan “not the other guys”.

I'd have to say at the moment I'm leaning AP but not entirely because of their platform and in fact there are a few items I strongly disagree with. But my riding is probably a UCP lock and the NDP likely won't win the election so I feel it's a safe protest vote and if they did win the riding I'd still be okay with it.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Is anybody voting for the Alberta party because they actually like the platform? I’d be curious how many people are voting for the Alberta party because they don’t like the other options. Seams like we get a lot of Alberta Party votes by default in this thread. I should start a party with a slogan “not the other guys”.

I am.

While they probably are getting lots looks simply for not being the UCP or NDP, the fact that their policies fall almost perfectly in between those two options are very appealing to people as well.

I do wish Clark was still the leader though.


I'm not the type to tell others how to vote but I will urge people not to vote strategically or worry about 'wasting' their vote on someone you don't think will win. If you like the Alberta Party, vote for them. If you like the Liberals, vote for them. Don't think your only options are the NDP and UCP just because of the Kenney vs Notley media spin

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I am.

While they probably are getting looks simply for not being the UCP or NDP, the fact that their policies fall almost perfectly in between those two options are very appealing to people as well.

I think having Mandel as leader is really hurting the Party IMO. He just comes off as weak and incompetent, whether that's true or not I'm not really sure.

They should've kept Greg Clark as leader or if they wanted to change it up go with Rick Fraser.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by kermitology

She lives down the block from me. She's also got 4 kids. I don't know how that woman does it.

She's a damn hard worker that's how.
But yeah, I'm amazed she's able to manage all of that and run in an election.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

I think having Mandel as leader is really hurting the Party IMO. He just comes off as weak and incompetent, whether that's true or not I'm not really sure.

They should've kept Greg Clark as leader or if they wanted to change it up go with Rick Fraser.

I don't dislike Mandell necessarily but definitely agree that Clark or Fraser would make better options.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

That being said, can you tell me how the views on white nationalism have changed recently?
I thought that one was put to bed pretty handily about 70 years ago, but I could be wrong? Did I miss something? Was it okay to make those remarks okay in 2017 when Caylan Ford made them? If so, I'll concede the point.

Maybe you can let Caylan Ford defend herself here:

https://globalnews.ca/pages/on-deman...lk770-calgary/


select today, 10 am, and skip to 34 minutes, for anyone who wants to listen.

Of course the reality of what's going on is nuanced and long-winded. Press Progress is at best the left wing mirror image of the Rebel Media. In the realm of truth seeking Duncan Kinney should be treated in the same regard as Ezra Levant.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Maybe you can let Caylan Ford defend herself here:



Of course the reality of what's going on is nuanced and long-winded. Press Progress is at best the left wing mirror image of the Rebel Media. In the realm of truth seeking Duncan Kinney should be treated in the same regard as Ezra Levant.

Here's the thing, the source of the original "Leak" isn't really relevant. The fact is no one is making things up, they are just reporting what Caylan Ford has/written. Does the source matter if what they are reporting is true/accurate?

Caylan Ford and Eva Kiryakos are prime examples of "When someone shows you who they are, believe them".

Both of them made some pretty inflammatory statements, neither one of them, at the time of resigning, made any attempt to really back off of, or explain "context", and in Kiryakos' case, she pretty clearly doubled down on them.

I didn't listen to the interview, I read the Coles notes. If she really was harassed, sure that's inappropriate, but there are 2 very important things that need to be noted:

1) Whether or not she was harassed does not, and cannot, excuse some of the comments she made.

2) No matter what they say, (particularly in Kiryakos' case), someone quoting you verbatim is not bullying, and is not blackmail, it is showing people who you are.

Clearly, people can and do change, as I pointed out in the post you quoted, and if these were old comments and they could show that they were out of context, or they had changed their stance/opinion, then I would welcome that change.

That's what we want in leaders, people who can evaluate new information and make informed decisions, and people who can recognize that they may be on the wrong side of a moral argument and change their mind/stance.
If either of these 2 had shown that sort of change, I would be applauding them.

They have not, and their excuse of "I don't want to be a distraction" is one more reason I can't support the UCP.

When a party would rather accept the resignation of people who feel the way these two do, and make statements of support, so that they "Aren't a distraction" rather than condemning those beliefs and removing them, it shows that at least some level they are willing to accept that in their party.

These statements aren't an issue to the UCP because people in their party are making them, they are an issue to the UCP because people are finding out their candidates are making them.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I didn't listen to the interview

Exactly.

someone quoting you verbatim is not bullying, and is not blackmail, it is showing people who you are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_yJ4QhrAaM

[Resolute 14]

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them"

Sure. Though that means Rachel Notley is anti-oil, anti-pipeline and not at all a friend to this province or its economy.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them"

Sure. Though that means Rachel Notley is anti-oil, anti-pipeline and not at all a friend to this province or its economy.

I'll qualify this by saying I am in no way an NDP supporter.

Is she anti-oil?
Well she certainly used to be.

Is she now?
There are probably arguments to be made on either side of that.
She certainly isn't the biggest cheerleader, but she did do a few things that were beneficial.
The royalty review for example. I was originally very skeptical of, and I thought the timing was horrible, but I think the results were very good.
Has she been perfect on pipelines? Nope.
Has anyone else done better? Nope.

So is she anti oil? I guess that depends on your definition, but she's certainly come around at least to some degree.

Is that something we should condemn her for?
Is the ability to change their mind not a quality we should desire in a leader?

By your logic, Jason Kenny will always be opposed to same sex marriage and hospital visitation.
If you're willing to accept that he can change, and see that as a good thing, then not giving Rachel Notley the same consideration is pretty short sited and small minded.

And that's the difference here.

Neither Ford nor Kiryakos, have shown any pattern to indicate that they have changed, they doubled down, took their balls, and went home. I wish they would, I hope they do, that's what we should all want, for people to be able to change their minds.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Neither Ford nor Kiryakos, have shown any pattern to indicate that they have changed, they doubled down, took their balls, and went home. I wish they would, I hope they do, that's what we should all want, for people to be able to change their minds.

Well one of those two did explain the whole story from their perspective, but you aren't interested in listening to that.

[Ozy_Flame]

I am more concerned that Ford's words indicate that she is sympathetic to the Great Replacement theory, and has not apologized for that, instead doubling down. This is a major problem - something the Christchurch shooter wrote in his manifesto.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

He's going up against Rick Fraser, who seems to be really popular with the constituents in this riding. Uphill battle for Jones, I could see this riding sticking with Fraser and the AP.

I think you are going to be in for a surprise.

[Flamenspiel]

The issue i have with the AP is that Mandel is another Edmonton guy and he will endup poring more Calgary money into Edmonton assets and jobs. Let’s not forget he gave the king size ransom to Katz and the gang to build that monstrosity.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

I think you are going to be in for a surprise.

Yeah I was in that area the other day and was definitely surprised at the amount of UCP lawn signs

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Yeah I was in that area the other day and was definitely surprised at the amount of UCP lawn signs

Rick has good popularity, but he's honestly in one of the most conservative ridings in the city.

Below is 338's look at it. He's trending the right way, but it's a huge mountain to climb.

http://alberta.338canada.com/districts/1024e.htm

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Well one of those two did explain the whole story from their perspective, but you aren't interested in listening to that.

Okay, after having listened to this (there is a big differnce between haven't listened to it, and aren't interested) I've got about two pages written about this, but it's rambling as all get out becuase i was writing my thoughts as I was listening.

Really short version/conclusion is this:

In the end I think there are 2 main questions:

1) What are the motives of the guy that released these statements?
2) Do they accurately represent Caylan Ford's views?

She did a lot of giving answers to #1, and not a lot of answering #2, which is a much bigger issue when you are trying to be an MLA.

So like I said. I'm willing to let a candidate/person change. In this case I really hope she has/does. But what I heard in that interview wasn't any explanation of her statements, or why they don't accurately reflect how she felt then or now. What I heard was a lot of "This isn't the way things should go", "I have a lot of people that support me", "These were private conversations", and "That guy is a horrible person".

Is she the monster the original story, and the guy that provided the quotes are making her out to be?
Probably not.

Is she simply the victim of a smear campaign?
Probably not.

Even if we give her the benefit of the doubt, and she really did walk away from the election so she "Wouldn't be a distraction" we are left with a couple unpalatable situations:

1) She walked away despite speaking pretty strongly at the end about how important it is that those kinds of attacks aren't how politics go, and that they not be successful, but she is now proving that they are. The damage is done, why walk away now? Not much of a principled stance on that one.

2) She was thrown under the bus by the UCP. They know it's a distraction either way, so let's get some distance instead of backing her.

The first doesn't paint a great picture of the candidate, the second doesn't paint a great picture of the party.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, after having listened to this (there is a big differnce between haven't listened to it, and aren't interested) I've got about two pages written about this, but it's rambling as all get out becuase i was writing my thoughts as I was listening.

Really short version/conclusion is this:

In the end I think there are 2 main questions:

1) What are the motives of the guy that released these statements?
2) Do they accurately represent Caylan Ford's views?

She did a lot of giving answers to #1, and not a lot of answering #2, which is a much bigger issue when you are trying to be an MLA.

So like I said. I'm willing to let a candidate/person change. In this case I really hope she has/does. But what I heard in that interview wasn't any explanation of her statements, or why they don't accurately reflect how she felt then or now. What I heard was a lot of "This isn't the way things should go", "I have a lot of people that support me", "These were private conversations", and "That guy is a horrible person".

Is she the monster the original story, and the guy that provided the quotes are making her out to be?
Probably not.

Is she simply the victim of a smear campaign?
Probably not.

Even if we give her the benefit of the doubt, and she really did walk away from the election so she "Wouldn't be a distraction" we are left with a couple unpalatable situations:

1) She walked away despite speaking pretty strongly at the end about how important it is that those kinds of attacks aren't how politics go, and that they not be successful, but she is now proving that they are. The damage is done, why walk away now? Not much of a principled stance on that one.

2) She was thrown under the bus by the UCP. They know it's a distraction either way, so let's get some distance instead of backing her.

The first doesn't paint a great picture of the candidate, the second doesn't paint a great picture of the party.

I thought she did detail out the context of the conversations, who she was having them with and for what purpose. She outlined that often arguments are posited for the purpose of discovering gaps in your reasoning, and potentially discovering new viewpoints and better articulating her own.

I think the part that you feel unsatisfied about is that she didn't self flagellate herself, apologize, and beg for contrition. Given that she was having what she believed to be a private conversation which was more about defining and formulating ideas on sensitive subjects, she probably doesn't believe she needs to apologize for participating in said conversations and any snippet thereof.

If she was still a candidate, I think it would be a duty of the interviewer to challenge her a bit further and ask questions for the public record about her specific views and then have her articulate them for the record.