Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Hold up a minute.

There’s a difference between shutting up on social media and in the news and not coming to candidate forums. Why would you say that?

More of a tongue in cheek comment. The NDP club jokingly made remarks about how the UCP could have said nothing at all and won this election and I found it funny that it seems to be the approach some UCP candidates are taking which is beyond ridiculous (although I still question how frequent this has happened or of mr Khan is just looking for press coverage. For the record, I believe they should be at every debate, appearance, etc.


I think that as the current leader, you focus on what you have accomplished and make sure everyone knows it. You also should not be shy to open up about what went sideways and how you plan on fixing it. I feel the NDP really missed the boat and went too heavy on anti Kenney when they could remind people of their better "3rd period" compared to the first "2 periods".

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

More of a tongue in cheek comment. The NDP club jokingly made remarks about how the UCP could have said nothing at all and won this election

You're completely off missing the boat that there's no point throwing you a lifesaver. It wasn't the NDP club who said that. It was the wanted-to-vote UCP club who said that.

Why would the NDP club want the UCP to shut up? It's the only (very extremely slim) chance they have at winning by continuously having the UCP shoot themselves in the foot when some other idiot candidate says something or had said something offensive and backwards.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You're completely off missing the boat that there's no point throwing you a lifesaver. It wasn't the NDP club who said that. It was the wanted-to-vote UCP club who said that.

Why would the NDP club want the UCP to shut up? It's the only (very extremely slim) chance they have at winning by continuously having the UCP shoot themselves in the foot when some other idiot candidate says something or had said something offensive and backwards.

I know who could use the lifesaver more than I .

"Tonge in cheek" "joking" are a couple of words I used in that post and I get that you feel the need to post more than anyone in this thread but you do not speak for the NDP supporters of the group. There have been many jokes made as the UCP scandals came out that the UCP would have been better off not saying a word throughout the following 2 weeks. Again, I am pretty sure people were joking about this and I was then joking that is seems some have actually taken this route.

Anyway, have a good night.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

"Tonge in cheek" "joking" are a couple of words I used in that post and I get that you feel the need to post more than anyone in this thread but you do not speak for the NDP supporters of the group.

I have less posts in this thread than you, but you never seem to care about facts anyways.

And yeah, I don't speak for NDP supporters, I would say I speak for many wanted-to-vote-UCP posters though and wished more than anything that the UCP would have been able to just shut up.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I have less posts in this thread than you, but you never seem to care about facts anyways.

And yeah, I don't speak for NDP supporters, I would say I speak for many wanted-to-vote-UCP posters though and wished more than anything that the UCP would have been able to just shut up.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Kenney calling Notley Justin Trudeau's "ally" (which is also flat out wrong) is fear mongering too. Both parties are doing it.

Kenney needs to read up on what "smear" means. Repeating things that were said by him and his candidates - verbatim - is not a smear. It's a dirty campaign tactic, but it's not a smear if it's the truth.

If I look at everything Trudeau has done and everything Notley has done I would call them allies more than enemies.

I don’t think Notley has gone to bat for Alberta enough and lots of of other people agree. Likely the main reason she loses.

I have my suspicions why this is.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I intended to have 7. Which probably wasn't enough.

That enough for you

The real issue is Kenney commending her. He called her selfless for stepping down.

He could have condemned her hateful language. He could have apologized for not vetting her probably. He could have made it clear in no uncertain terms that the UCP is against bigotry like her words. He didn't. Instead he commended this individual for fighting for her right to call transsexual individuals "perverts."

But also you're making a Catch 22. If there's no focus on candidates hateful rhetoric then people like her will remain, but if there is, then they are "smear and fear" campaigning. Even though in this instance no one really knows who was going to release her hateful posts.

Duane Bratt has a good explanation for what is going on in the UCP. To be clear I think he's right

Mount Royal University political science professor Duane Bratt said Kenney wants to stay focused on economic issues, and responding in detail to candidate blunders would play into the NDP’s “trap.”

Bratt said the stream of racist comments is important to look into, though he added that as long as the worst offenders are removed from their candidacy, the revelations likely won’t hurt the party.

“I think there is something there. I think we need to figure out what is it about the UCP that seems to be attracting this,” he said.

“Ultimately the question is: Does any of this matter? … The economy is in such dire straits — are people just so fixated on jobs, getting rid of the carbon tax, issues of the pipeline, that the rest of this stuff doesn’t matter?”

While the UCP has been combing through NDP candidates to dig up dirt from their past, such as Shannon Phillips attending a Northern Gateway pipeline protest in 2013, Bratt said they don’t seem to have applied the same scrutiny to their own members.

“They’ve been combing through NDP candidates. And given some of the bozo eruptions in the past, I would have thought a stronger vetting process would be in existence for their candidates. So I don’t know how it fell through the cracks,” he said.

“I understand how Ford’s fell through the cracks in the sense that these were not public messages, but I don’t understand Kiryakos.”

https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/201...on-kenney.html

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Dion

That enough for you

2 more and we would be good.

Originally Posted by Dion

Duane Bratt has a good explanation for what is going on in the UCP. To be clear I think he's right

[I]Mount Royal University political science professor Duane Bratt said Kenney wants to stay focused on economic issues, and responding in detail to candidate blunders would play into the NDP’s “trap.”
...

My biggest issue with this situation is that Kenney didn't have to say anything. He could have left it at Kiryakos has removed herself as a candidate. Full stop. There done.

But no. He actively went out of his way to commend her. To make her a martyr. To call her selfless to say how much he appreciated her. To defend her actions and note she was a minority herself. To let her remain in the party.

Like why did he? Just making sure the transphobic and xenophobic bigots don't get the wrong idea and vote for the Freedom Conservative Party or something? Like it really doesn't make sense unless Kenney had no issues with what she said and agrees with it but understand it hurts the election chances. Which is a problem to me, and of course we all can decide what is most important and some people will bring up overspending (my issue with the NDP) or pipelines or what have you.

But again, pipelines are federal. People could complain about the days being too short and Kenney would campaign on increasing sunlight hours and when they keep getting longer after the election (for a couple months) his constituents would be clamoring about how Kenney increased daylight but he has about as much of an effect.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

2 more and we would be good.

Again, Kenney didn't have to say anything. He could have left it at Kiryakos has removed herself as a candidate. Full stop. There done.

But no. He actively went out of his way to commend her. To make her a martyr. To call her selfless to say how much he appreciated her. To defend her actions and note she was a minority herself. To let her remain in the party.

Like why did he? Just making sure the transphobic and xenophobic bigots don't get the wrong idea and vote for the Freedom Conservative Party or something? Like it really doesn't make sense unless Kenney had no issues with what she said. Which is a problem to me, and of course we all can decide what is most important and some people will bring up overspending (my issue with the NDP) or pipelines or what have you.

I agree. I've been searching through news articles and have yet to find and any comments from Kenney that justifies his support for her and her comments. That said he seems to be careful about which candidate's comments he condemms. You have Mark Smith who made hateful comments, for which he later apologised for.

But again, pipelines are federal. People could complain about the days being too short and Kenney would campaign on increasing sunlight hours and when they keep getting longer after the election (for a couple months) his constituents would be clamoring about how Kenney increased daylight but he has about as much of an effect.

IMO Notley is at fault for this. She has put so much of her own political capital into pipelines which has made her an easy target for the UCP and others. Bragging about shovels in the ground before the court ruling and saying that social licenses are why it was a done deal.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Dion

IMO Notley is at fault for this. She has put so much of her own political capital into pipelines which has made her an easy target for the UCP and others. Bragging about shovels in the ground before the court ruling and saying that social licenses are why it was a done deal.

But at the same time no one has really pointed out how they would have handled it differently to get things done. At least nothing reasonable. I've heard everything from stop paying equalization payments, seceding from the rest of Canada, to getting the military but there's a reason the UCP hasn't really said anything of substance except that pipelines=good.

And when it was originally approved, and remember that it was approved, Trudeau did bring up all the Climate Leadership Plan stuff as a reason. Unfortunately for Alberta (and Notley) the Court of Appeal ruled they dun goofed. This was really outside their control, the NEB ####ed up.

https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-...of_Conclusions
....

[4] While a number of applicants challenge the report of the National Energy Board, as explained below, the Order in Council is legally the only decision under review. Its validity is challenged on two principal grounds: first, the Board’s process and findings were so flawed that the Governor in Council could not reasonably rely on the Board’s report; second, Canada failed to fulfil the duty to consult owed to Indigenous peoples.

[5] Applying largely uncontested legal principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada to the factual record, a factual record that is also largely not contested, I conclude that most of the flaws asserted against the Board’s process and findings are without merit. However, the Board made one critical error. The Board unjustifiably defined the scope of the Project under review not to include Project-related tanker traffic. The unjustified exclusion of marine shipping from the scope of the Project led to successive, unacceptable deficiencies in the Board’s report and recommendations. As a result, the Governor in Council could not rely on the Board’s report and recommendations when assessing the Project’s environmental effects and the overall public interest.
....

It's very likely that the pipeline is approved if the NEB did some consultation and included the tankers in the scope.

[Manhattanboy]

Hi ho hi ho one week to go...,,

[Rando]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Hi ho hi ho one week to go...,,

One week to go. Let's pray the use of "NDP Club" and anyones "Natty gas bill" is kept to a minimum

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Dion

I agree. I've been searching through news articles and have yet to find and any comments from Kenney that justifies his support for her and her comments. That said he seems to be careful about which candidate's comments he condemms. You have Mark Smith who made hateful comments, for which he later apologised for.

Smith didn’t apologize he said sorry if I offended you. That’s not an apology.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Rando

One week to go. Let's pray the use of "NDP Club" and anyones "Natty gas bill" is kept to a minimum

I'm a little disappointed we haven't had more jokes relating to the pee that you see.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm a little disappointed we haven't had more jokes relating to the pee that you see.

I'm disappointed that we haven't seen much in the way of jokes in general. It's been super serious and full of attacks and malice.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

But at the same time no one has really pointed out how they would have handled it differently to get things done. At least nothing reasonable. I've heard everything from stop paying equalization payments, seceding from the rest of Canada, to getting the military but there's a reason the UCP hasn't really said anything of substance except that pipelines=good.

And when it was originally approved, and remember that it was approved, Trudeau did bring up all the Climate Leadership Plan stuff as a reason. Unfortunately for Alberta (and Notley) the Court of Appeal ruled they dun goofed. This was really outside their control, the NEB ####ed up.

https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-...of_Conclusions
....


It's very likely that the pipeline is approved if the NEB did some consultation and included the tankers in the scope.

So you’re saying no solutions you like have been proposed not that no solutions have been proposed.

Alberta is seemingly running out of options, you’re right about that. But the solutions / options you propose are in fact solutions and options you just don’t like them.

Personally I’m surprised people are surprised at what happens when you try to non-sensically sabotage an entire industry and economy of a province of 3 million people. It’s as if people across Canada are shocked that these types of firm and escalating solutions are being proposed. But should they be? Look at what you’ve done to us Canada / BC / Quebec.

So, yeah, the best options are to escalate things / shut in pipelines to BC (since they don’t want it right?) move the army in to build it if necessary, etc.

Just because you don’t like solutions doesn’t mean they aren’t solutions. Historically many many many battles / wars / tensions / trade wars / etc were all driven by economics. That’s what this is. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. And for the record I was okay with Notleys strategy, the play nice thing, but it didn’t work. Time to move on.

[OMG!WTF!]

I think the problem with the "solutions" being proposed would be found unconstitutional in about 5 seconds.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think the problem with the "solutions" being proposed would be found unconstitutional in about 5 seconds.

I find this line of reasoning curious. At one point there were laws preventing anybody but white men from voting. Yet somehow women are now able to vote.

What changed?

Laws defining Canadian confederation are rather loose at best.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think the problem with the "solutions" being proposed would be found unconstitutional in about 5 seconds.

Expropriation of the land for the energy corridor? Federal solution, not unconstitutional.

Using armed forces, potentially could be right but why is this unconstitutional? A court injunction may be imposed but I believe the feds could draw up a bill declaring this project as a national emergency and or as a critical infrastructure project in the best interests of the population and then use armed forces (only if necessary due to protests) to get it done. Pretty sure this is an option but could be wrong. Federal solution.

Sorry what is unconstitutional about creating laws in Alberta restricting flow to BC?

There are 3 options right there. I think the bigger problem is the instant no-sayers because of how things will build tension and escalate and Canadians don’t like those solutions even though sometimes they are necessary like they are now.

BC picked a fight and honestly I think they want one otherwise they wouldn’t behave how they’ve behaved or do what they’ve done.

The feds at the end of the day create laws. Laws are not imposed by some higher form on the feds. Don’t kid yourselves. There is a way to get this done it’s just not popular because all the popular options haven’t worked or aren’t being sought after in good faith.

[Shazam]

Horgan's recent comments lead me to believe the only reason they're opposing TM is because the Greenies demand it.