Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Slava]

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 listened to this and I took a very different interpretation from the interview. It sure sounds like she was railroaded here, and her points about not being a white nationalist seemed clear to me. But this is part of the issue with these kinds of allegations, and it’s fairly obvious why she felt that she had to step down. How could she have disproved them? She gives a pretty clear rebuttal in saying it couldn’t be further from the truth, and here are some things about me and my character which make me not a racist and basically it’s up to the listener to decide whether to believe her. What else can she say? She says her friends were flabbergasted and can’t understand where it’s comjng from, but the damage is clearly done. She can either run and have that argument for 28 days or get out of the way.

Who knows, maybe I fell for her lies, but she seemed genuine and I actually feel bad for her.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

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.

That's fair, and in my original mega response I did mention that she mentioned that they were supposedly "Academic" conversations. But that was about 30 seconds of a 15 minute interview?

The vast majority of that interview was dedicated to outlining how horrible of a person the guy was.

I'm more inclined to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they are willing to explain their own actions than to point out the fault in others actions, particularly when your closing argument is about how attacks and smearing aren't how you think politics should be done.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

She can either run and have that argument for 28 days or get out of the way.

That's kind of the thing here too. Political candidates are people too. I can't blame her for not wanting to put herself and her family through 28 more days of being accused and defending against being a white nationalist. Damage to her personally has already been done and it's likely permanent. She can go on in life and never go back into politics but every time anyone, an employer, a family member, etc. googles her name it's going to be right next to 'White Nationalist.'

We always lament here on CP that there's increasingly never enough good candidates running for public office. Well this is an example of why thousands of quality individuals who have a lot to offer in public service never bother throwing their hat in the ring and call-out culture is making it worse.

[Ozy_Flame]

I think more direct questions need to be posed to her, including what her thoughts are on the Great Replacement theory and how her point is any different from conspiracy theorists such as the Christchurch shooter. It's one thing to say she's not a white supremacist (which I don't think she is); it's another to think about this theory altogether.

It is also concerning that, through the double-down defense there is still no apologies, that what she said is fringe extremist thought and doesn't represent her character or how she sees the world in the slightest. As a voter I would want to know if she truly believes in Great Replacement. Actually even as a human being I would want to know that.

[Dion]

Taxpayers Federation launches election-year promise tracker

CALGARY, AB: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation launched an election-year promise tracker to add up the new spending promises made by the New Democrat Party and the United Conservative Party since the beginning of 2019. The NDP has announced more than $12 billion worth of new spending promises, while the UCP has promised more than $500 million worth of spending to date.

“After years of higher taxes, budget deficits and soaring debt, Albertans need politicians who will get the government’s spending problem under control,” said Franco Terrazzano, Alberta Director for the CTF. “The promise tracker will help Albertans keep track of frivolous spending and keep parties accountable before the election.”

The NDP’s 2019 spending promises to date total $12.7 billion. The five largest spending announcements include:

$3.7 billion for rail cars announced on Feb. 19;

$3.4 billion for petrochemical and upgrader companies announced on Mar. 21;

$1.5 billion for daycare subsidies announced on Mar. 24;

$1.4 billion for expanding the high load corridor announced on Mar. 27, and;

$1.3 billion for school development announced on Mar. 28.

The UCP’s 2019 spending announcements to date total $526.1 million. The five largest spending announcements include:

$100 million for a mental health strategy announced on Mar. 28;

$80 million for an energy war room announced on Mar. 22;

$50 million for an Alberta law enforcement response team announced on Mar. 27;\

$30 million to expand access to opioid treatment announced on Mar. 28, and;

$28 million for Northern Alberta Institute of Technology announced on Mar 26.

Alberta’s budget deficit is currently $7 billion and the government debt tab is increasing by over $1 million every hour.

“Politicians are trying to buy votes with huge spending promises instead of getting the province’s fiscal house in order,” said Terrazzano. “After more than a decade of runaway spending, parties need to do more than offer simple platitudes about balancing the budget, they need to make real cuts.”

https://www.taxpayer.com/news-releas...romise-tracker

[CaptainCrunch]

Bunch of drunken sailors I tells ya

[GGG]

I don’t think the 3.7 billion rail cars should be in there that is Capital at risk rather than spending. So it’s a liability on the expenses side of the ledger but also comes with an entry on the revenue side of the ledger. It could blow up but the west case outcome is the -3.7 billion so not really the same as the rest of the list

I’m not a big fan of building refineries. I don’t like non-means tested daycare, investing in road infrastructure like high load corridors generally has good ROI,

School announcements shouldn’t be done during election campaigns they should be built based solely on child pop growth and not politicized

So outside of the high load corridor not impressed with Notley buying me with my tax dollars.

The UCPs spending so far is pretty reasonable outside of the pledge to kill the rail car deal which hopefully given Line 3 delays he will keep in place and his ridiculously named energy war room.

[bizaro86]

I'll be thrilled if the rail cars end up as a giant waste of money, because that means that we got at least one good size pipeline to tidewater built.

[Dion]

Leadership Debate - April 4th

The leaders of Alberta's main political parties will face off in a debate less than two weeks before the spring election.

UCP Leader Jason Kenney, Liberal Leader David Khan and Alberta Party Leader Stephen Mandel will participate in the debate in Edmonton on April 4 at 5:30 p.m. MT.

NDP Leader Rachel Notley has been invited, but has not yet confirmed if she will participate.

The 90-minute debate will be broadcast on CBC TV, Radio One and online, and will be followed by 30 minutes of additional coverage after the event.

Only parties elected to the legislature under their current party banner were invited to participate.

Freedom Conservative Party Leader Derek Fildebrandt said on Twitter it's "grossly undemocratic" that he will not be allowed to debate.

CTV anchor Tara Nelson will moderate, and panelists include:

CBC Alberta provincial affairs reporter Kim Trynacity.
Postmedia legislature reporter Emma Graney.
CTV Edmonton anchor Erin Isfeld.
CityNews reporter Courtney Theriault.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...bate-1.5078065

[Dion]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1111785057088204800

[Looch City]

Nothing wrong here, let's move along... it's all totally normal

Emergency court injunction seeks to shut down investigation into UCP leadership campaign financing

Former United Conservative Party leadership candidate Jeff Callaway and five others including his wife are seeking an emergency court order that could force the shutdown of an investigation into irregular campaign contributions during his so-called "kamikaze" leadership campaign

On Monday, lawyers will argue the OEC had no authority to continue to investigate once the election was called.

"Requiring Albertans to attend such interviews during the election period interferes with their Charter right to participate in the electoral process, despite that the activity being investigated occurred prior to the election period, and there is no urgency to the investigation," reads the application filed with the court.

Last week, according to the application, lawyers for the applicants began seeking an adjournment of their scheduled interview with investigators.

The OEC refused and responded that "enforcement activities and responsibilities of the OEC must escalate during an election period."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...tion-1.5076621

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't know why they would have bothered, the whole thing had slid into the back pages of papers, and wasn't getting news coverage anymore at all.


The Polls showed that it really wasn't getting much play.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know why they would have bothered, the whole thing had slid into the back pages of papers, and wasn't getting news coverage anymore at all.


The Polls showed that it really wasn't getting much play.

I think it’s what comes next.

If the owners of the company that funded Calloways campaign are discovered or the Prab Gil email scam has more come out it could be trouble.

They are also making a charter argument that the self incrimination provisions were violated when the OEC gave info to the RCMP.

When lawyers for Callaway and the other applicants learned the OEC was referring its findings to the RCMP, they noted concerns their Charter rights against self-incrimination were not protected.

A letter "guaranteeing that the investigations would only be dealt with internally by the OEC and that any findings from the Investigations would not be referred to the RCMP" was demanded of the OEC but it refused.

This reminds of the Simpsons

Homer: Promise you won’t get mad
Marge: I promise I will get mad
Homer tells her whatever it was and Madge gets mad
Homer: you promised you wouldn’t get mad

[PepsiFree]

Yeah, if anything Calloway’s move just pushes it back into the news. Not exactly sure this has anything to do with it being a “distraction,” but rather I think a few people are getting nervous.

No business investigating election fraud during an election? That makes absolutely no sense.

[Ozy_Flame]

This is very Trump-esque. In my opinion only nervous people with something to would try and shut down an RCMP investigation.

[Travis Munroe]

I believe we have a number of cp Sunnyside residents. A good friend of mine was telling me this morning that he came home last week to a NDP sign on his lawn with a letter in the mailbox thanking him for supporting or allowing them to have the sign there.
Anyone else experience this or is it likely a case of the sign install going to the wrong place after someone submit a online sign request?

I'm sure it happens with all parties... Was just curious if it's a tactic or mistake.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I believe we have a number of cp Sunnyside residents. A good friend of mine was telling me this morning that he came home last week to a NDP sign on his lawn with a letter in the mailbox thanking him for supporting or allowing them to have the sign there.
Anyone else experience this or is it likely a case of the sign install going to the wrong place after someone submit a online sign request?

I'm sure it happens with all parties... Was just curious if it's a tactic or mistake.

I have a friend in the NW that this happened to, except it was the UCP. My guess is it’s just a mistake. It is actually a pretty big logistical headache to coordinate all these doorknockers and sign teams, and all of them are volunteers, so there is generally very little continuity from day to day.

[WhiteTiger]

A friend of mine made this sign for his yard. I think I know who I'm voting for, now.

Spoiler!

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

A friend of mine made this sign for his yard. I think I know who I'm voting for, now.

Spoiler!

You can buy those. I’ve seen some around.

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah I saw those signs in the last election.