Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[GirlySports]

Would there be opposition from the territories regarding an pipeline to Alaska?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Would there be opposition from the territories regarding an pipeline to Alaska?

It also looks to go through BC...but it's a train, not a pipeline...so maybe?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And before our hardcore UCP supporters come and blame the NDP for going with focus on this and not issues, a reminder that when you play in dirt, you get dirty.

Are there actual hardcore UCP supporters here who would be willing to try to stand in that space? That would be pretty discrediting.

As far as the party politics thing, there's really no room to say that when there's an active RCMP investigation into possible criminality and the leader's team clearly had something to do with that criminality. The question is whether you care, or are able to wave it away from your mind as backroom party politics that doesn't really affect the public (i.e., the position that interfering with an internal leadership decision withing a party - a private organization - is a very different thing that interfering with a public election). Even if you can, you can hardly blame people for taking it very seriously.

As far as the obvious homophobia that's soaked into the party's fabric, it would be easy to dismiss an event like that recording if it were the only example. Fine, Kenney came out and said he finds it offensive and rejects those statements, and the candidate himself comes out and says he apologizes for them and his views have changed since whenever it was recorded. Bullet dodged. Similarly, with the party vote and McIver having to beg the members not to be the "lake of fire party", you could dismiss that as a bunch of unimportant extremists who showed up to a convention and don't really reflect the party's platform, as evidenced by the actual party officials standing in opposition to the resolution. Fine.

But there have been a half dozen of these. One incident is very troubling, but can be mitigated if handled properly. Maybe even two can, or at extremis, three. But this is getting to be Jian Ghomeshi territory. You can't spin your way out of it: the UCP has a clear problem with anti-gay sentiment among not just a bunch of its voters (which can't be avoided for a conservative party these days), but its candidates, including some who would be in the upper echelons of power and (it would surprise no one) maybe the Premier himself, still. And they plan to legislate in that fashion, as their education plan clearly shows.

If you're voting UCP now, you have a couple of options. First, you can say "the social issues like anti-gay beliefs don't matter to me". Second, you can say "I'm holding my nose, this bothers me, but I think the economy is a more important issue and believe in the UCP's platform on balance". I can't think of a third possibility. I'm open to hearing one if someone can provide it.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Would there be opposition from the territories regarding an pipeline to Alaska?

You would think not, but I'm sure all 7 people that are withing a 20km radius of this thing will be holding this thing up in court until 2037.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If you're voting UCP now, you have a couple of options. First, you can say "the social issues like anti-gay beliefs don't matter to me". Second, you can say "I'm holding my nose, this bothers me, but I think the economy is a more important issue and believe in the UCP's platform on balance". I can't think of a third possibility. I'm open to hearing one if someone can provide it.

The third is that people's views can change over time and statements/actions in the past don't necessarily represent their current views. You have the NDP dredging up examples from the past to prove someone's current position on a subject, even in the face of regrets expressed, apologies given and statements contradicting the past.

The question is whether or not you believe that a person can change their mind on a matter or do they hold that belief for their entire life?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The question is whether or not you believe that a person can change their mind on a matter or do they hold that belief for their entire life?

You mean like how these grown adults - who's viewpoints have been slowly formed over the years - suddenly saw the error of their ways and conveniently feel remorseful they got caught while they're running for public office?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The third is that people's views can change over time and statements/actions in the past don't necessarily represent their current views. You have the NDP dredging up examples from the past to prove someone's current position on a subject, even in the face of regrets expressed, apologies given and statements contradicting the past.

The question is whether or not you believe that a person can change their mind on a matter or do they hold that belief for their entire life?

There is also the question of whether there is a pattern that would show a change since that statement was made vs what we are seeing which is a pretty boiler plate "Apology", or in a few cases doubling down and stepping down.

I want leaders who can/do change. That is an admirable quality, and one any good leader should have.
The problem is if these people have changed, why don't they show they have a pattern of walking back from those statements prior to running in an election?

Yeah, if you went back to the original gay marriage threads on CP, you'd find me saying stuff like "I don't understand why it's a big deal, just call it something else". Would I be worried about those posts coming up any time soon in an election? Nope, because in the MANY years since, I've shown a pattern of change, and my stance now has pretty clearly changed from when those original posts were made.

Showing you've changed, vs saying "Ah yeah I've changed" are 2 very different things. And quite frankly, I think the bar for being elected, especially when the statements are this contentious, should be a bit higher than what we've seen so far.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

For the record, I agree with Ryan at the end - Canada is watching and Albertans better start taking this seriously when people like Mark Smith are going to occupy high positions in Kenney's government.

And yet we were completely comfortable handing the keys to a $60Bn enterprise that four million people rely on every day to a bunch of first time legislators. The best option they had for Finance Minister of a $60Bn enterprise was Joe Ceci. What an absolute farce.

Within the first year of power, with the province spiralling into the worst recession in decades, the NDP were unable to put ideology aside, and chose instead to step on the shoulders of Albertans when they were drowning by chasing away investment, causing regulatory uncertainty, and increasing taxes.

This whole ideological boogeyman trope keeps getting brought out because the NDP do not have a credible platform, and they haven’t had one since they were elected in 2015. They don’t have the ability to debate on the economy, or jobs, or healthcare, or the budget, so they are forced to rely on “Oh no, the Conservatives aren’t going to treat everyone the same.”

What a bizarre position. We live in Canada. Equal rights are a pillar of our democracy. The NDP are once again trying to make this election about how people feel, to keep them from critically analyzing their results as a government. The knives are out on the campaign trail, no question.

So let's get back to the heart of it.

The NDP budget relies on rosy royalty rate increase assumptions to eventually lead to balance.

Here’s what will actually happen.

They will continue to outspend income and rely on debt to keep the lights on.

That means not only do we stay on the commodity roller coaster, our problems get exacerbated because we will have even more of a debt anchor reducing our financial flexibility. That level of debt is something that my children’s children will be paying off.

The 2015 election will go down as the most expensive temper tantrum this province has ever had.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The third is that people's views can change over time and statements/actions in the past don't necessarily represent their current views. You have the NDP dredging up examples from the past to prove someone's current position on a subject, even in the face of regrets expressed, apologies given and statements contradicting the past.

The question is whether or not you believe that a person can change their mind on a matter or do they hold that belief for their entire life?

I believe you can't change your personal social values without a large driving event. Racists are racists til the end - it's who they have been brought up to be, and something like a provincial election isn't the type of impetus that will change it. It takes years of self reflection to actually change personal values. None of the comments really tell me that these UCP candidates have gone through this type of process (with the "I'm sorry you're offended" type, or repeating party talking points).

On the other hand, I do think public policy is something that does change and DRASTICALLY changes when a person gets voted into public office. You know all the thoughts about Trump becoming "presidential" once he gets into office? That's because most people do. Radicals on both sides of the political spectrum usually moderate themselves once they get into the reality of leadership. Once they see that their words and actions have real impact on people, their previously extremist policies get toned down. This is why I'm more willing to believe that the NDP has changed with regards to the oil industry - they thought they could make some utopia where we shut off the taps tomorrow and noone gets hurt, but once they got into office, saw the books, met the oilfield workers, they moderated their stance.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You mean like how these grown adults - who's viewpoints have been slowly formed over the years - suddenly saw the error of their ways and conveniently feel remorseful they got caught while they're running for public office?

So you're in the camp of people can't change their beliefs. Does that thinking only cover the UCP or does it extend to all parties?

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

There is also the question of whether there is a pattern that would show a change since that statement was made vs what we are seeing which is a pretty boiler plate "Apology", or in a few cases doubling down and stepping down.

I want leaders who can/do change. That is an admirable quality, and one any good leader should have.
The problem is if these people have changed, why don't they show they have a pattern of walking back from those statements prior to running in an election?

Showing you've changed, vs saying "Ah yeah I've changed" are 2 very different things. And quite frankly, I think the bar for being elected, especially when the statements are this contentious, should be a bit higher than what we've seen so far.

How would you suggest that someone demonstrate that change? Is an apology for said actions and saying their views have change not enough? Is a statement like "I made that sermon x years ago and haven't given one since" enough? I'd imagine f the NDP had recent examples of these two expressing homophobic opinions or giving sermons that condone it, they would have used those instead.

[chedder]

Livingstone MacLeod ucp candidate.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5124821/u...h-alberta-ndp/

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

So you're in the camp of people can't change their beliefs. Does that thinking only cover the UCP or does it extend to all parties?

Regardless of party, when someone's beliefs change on a dime, during an election no less, I find it remarkably hard to believe they've had some kind of Road to Damascus moment. The more likely scenario is they'll do what it takes to win an election, including "evolving" for the election cycle and hoping it goes away afterwards.

[Weitz]

nvm

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

So you're in the camp of people can't change their beliefs. Does that thinking only cover the UCP or does it extend to all parties?

It should apply to all parties. But the bozo eruption ratio and frequency is much higher right now for one particular party than the others. And I don't think anyone is surprised when they basically combined the "Lake of Fire" folks with more moderate elements of the right and made an umbrella party.

It is very convenient that these attitudes are only exposed - and dealt with - when the cameras are rolling and the scrutiny machine is in full force. Where was Kenney and the UCP in filtering out the bozos prior to these media exposures?

Charles Adler on his show last night mentioned he talked to Kenney last year on the show, and asked him about the bozo eruptions. Kenney said he would put those fires out before they even started, and would have no tolerance for these kind of idiots in his new party. Now he basically lets Mark Smith's past comments slide and excused them, much like he let Ford, Kiryakos, and others slide by not removing their party memberships.

I wouldn't excuse the NDP, Alberta Party, or any other party from this too.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The third is that people's views can change over time and statements/actions in the past don't necessarily represent their current views. You have the NDP dredging up examples from the past to prove someone's current position on a subject, even in the face of regrets expressed, apologies given and statements contradicting the past.

The question is whether or not you believe that a person can change their mind on a matter or do they hold that belief for their entire life?

But some of those views are present views - the membership vote was what, last year? Kiryakos or whatever her name was didn't back down from her statements so much as recuse herself out of fear of having them used against the party. And the education plan is nakedly, and completely unnecessarily, anti-gay rights, through its prospective repeal of former Bill 24. There was no need to do that - you could have easily said "we're making the following changes but no protections regarding GSAs will be affected". All of this is in the here and now, and makes recanting of statements (apparently as recent as 2013) and protestations that "my views have changed" - which I'm more than willing to credit on their face - much, much harder to swallow. Like I say, if there had been one or two incidents of digging up past bad statements and the response was as you say, I think you could talk yourself into waving those past statements away. But there is too much of it at this point.

And I say this fully despising the notion of voting on a single issue, especially a social issue, which are not, in my view, at the core of the government's role and mandate. There's just a point where it's beyond the pale, and it's up to each person to decide what that is for them.

At the end of the day, even taking the most cautious approach against jumping to conclusions based on sensationalist news, the conclusion seems inescapable when looking at the total picture. This is a party that is hostile to gay rights. They're already campaigning on one such policy. The question you have to ask is what else they'll do. If they're elected, and they do more to hurt LGBTQ people in this province, you cannot honestly look yourself in the mirror and say "I can be excused, I couldn't have seen this coming when I voted for them".

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Fun fact: Albertans now have the highest debt/capita in the country.

Correction: Deficit per capita. Although the way things are trending we could end up there

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Correction: Deficit per capita. Although the way things are trending we could end up there

No that's not wrong. Consumer debt per capita is the highest in Canada. Source: BDO Canada, Media: The Star. Also similar numbers from the Financial Post.

Can you provide a source for deficit per capita?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

No that's not wrong. Consumer debt per capita is the highest in Canada. Source: BDO Canada, Media: The Star

Can you provide a source for deficit per capita?

You are correct on an individual personal basis Albertans are the most in debt. Fiscally the government of Alberta is running the highest deficit among provinces. The numbers are so bad I don't need to run the 'by population' math:

http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/provincial-forecasts/prov_fiscal.pdf

When the Notley talks about the 'best balance sheet among provinces,' she is not incorrect in the current time period. The massive size of the deficit if allowed to continue would compromise that statement going forward.

[IliketoPuck]

nm

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The question is whether or not you believe that a person can change their mind on a matter or do they hold that belief for their entire life?

The anti-gay preacher, who when caught offered no real apology, that is also campaigning on anti-gay laws, I'm sure has totally changed his views.