Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Now with picture:

Even better, TBA in Red Deer May 22 features Jordan Peterson!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...ibextid=qC1gEa

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Muta

Yes that is possible, but I still stand by / support what I said. Those levels of education aren't easy to attain, and should be welcomed into the political forum.

That’s a double edged sword though because you could say the same things about a number of UCP candidates who are lawyers or come from other professional backgrounds. Let’s set good people as the standard instead.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Even better, TBA in Red Deer May 22 features Jordan Peterson!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...ibextid=qC1gEa

Oh ####, can that loser just stay in Ontario and be their problem? We've got enough feces to deal with out here.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I noticed that the NDP candidate in the area near the university felt the need to let everyone know she's a doctor by putting it on her campaign signs. Cringe move.

There is a UCP candidate that is a retired dentist and also has "Dr" on his signs, how do you feel about that?

[Harry Lime]

Que UCP candidates rushing down to Colorado to chiropractic school so that they can get their "dr" tag before the election.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Que UCP candidates rushing down to Colorado to chiropractic school so that they can get their "dr" tag before the election.

Hahaha.... Chiropractors, Mario's and Thuganomics are not real doctors and will be excluded from the conversation.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1656319239173869570

This should appeal to a lot of Albertans.

I mean, I guess it appeals to those of us who make money by striking down unconstitutional government actions?

Since bail conditions for violent offenders are plainly exclusive criminal law and procedure under the Constitution 1867, and 24/7 government surveillance is problematic for each of sections 2, 7 and 8 of the Charter, I went in search of what this part of the 'plan' is.

Here is what is on the UCP Platform website [my emphasis added]:

Ankle bracelet program for violent and/or sexual offenders on bail.
Establish a 24/7 electronic monitoring program to help protect Albertans against possible violent reoffenders who are out on bail.
Provides further options for courts to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of bail.

https://www.unitedconservative.ca/an...s-action-plan/

So, near as I can tell, the promise is to create a government-funded program (which would likely involve paying the private for-profit monitoring companies that are currently running to expand their operations) to be available to use in the event that a judge under the current constrictions of the Criminal Code and the Charter decides to impose ankle bracelet monitoring on an accused as a condition of release.

It will in no way change the binding law that limits when an ankle bracelet monitoring condition can constitutionally be imposed. So judges will still not impose the condition in the vast majority of cases because the law says they can't (the pesky presumption of innocence and free and democratic society and all that stuff).

Based on the above, unsurprisingly, in my view this announcement is designed to have those prone to believe misleading fake promises to imagine a utopian crime-free world where all people with any potential to commit violence will be 24/7 monitored with an ankle bracelet.

In reality, it will have a negligible effect, if any, because this is not within the provincial constitutional lane that the Premier seems very concerned about Ottawa respecting.

After Alberta's epic loss in the SCC on the recent constitutional reference case, what exactly do UCP supporters find appealing about doomed to fail legal posturing that cannot help to address the problems they are concerned about?


Edit - Found More:

A re-elected UCP government will also expand the use of Alberta Sheriffs in the 24/7 bail monitoring to monitor higher risk offenders released on bail to provide increased protection for Albertans.

As bail falls under federal jurisdiction, what can a UCP government do?
Canadians across the country are fed up with dangerous criminals out on bail going on to commit even more serious crimes. As part of today’s announcement, a re-elected UCP government will continue working with our provincial counterparts, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and others to demand immediate reform of the federal Liberal government’s catch-and-release, revolving-door bail system (C-75) that is plaguing our communities.

The UCP will also add funds to an electronic ankle monitoring program announced in Budget 2023, with Sheriffs helping enforce it so we can reduce the likelihood these offenders on bail reoffend.

So, they will "demand immediate reform" and also assign more Sheriffs to assist with monitoring those already being monitored.

As predicted, no impact on increasing the number of people who will actually get an electronic monitoring bail condition...

[timun]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Honestly, sorry / not sorry, but screw off with this. It takes about 3 seconds to write a post or several hours to properly research into the ground the 50 issues pertaining to this election that I'm not even voting in.

YOU are one of the key reasons this thread has ground to a halt for actual reasonable discourse and is now 1/50th of what it used to be for actual good discussion. I don't really have time or care enough to go ####ing research everything to the tits so that I can debate with the army of zealots in here squashing every discussion point with impunity. I posted it for discussion and to see what others thought. "Dill with it".

Sorry/not sorry, but this is a load of crap. It's precisely how disinformation spreads. "I don't have time nor care enough to check my sources, I just wanted to see what others thought about it" is lazy, and Fuzz actually doing the legwork and informing you of where this stuff is coming from isn't "zealotry", it's the foundation of "actual good discussion."

[puffnstuff]

Apparently that **** craig chandler has a new third party election advertising scheme to protect Alberta from socialism

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Apparently that **** craig chandler has a new third party election advertising scheme to protect Alberta from socialism

Send your worst NDP horror stories to YouMatter@StopTheNDP.info. We want to share real stories to educate people on the devastation of the NDP.

2) Email YouMatter@StopTheNDP.info and you will automatically be added to our email list and receive all notifications on the Who, What, When, Where, and Why.

[iggy_oi]

Just got a call from Cido research, they’re likely calling on behalf of the UCP since one of the answer options for every question about what I think is important was “Standing up to Ottawa”. Problem was I couldn’t understand what they were asking because despite Ottawa being what I consider an easy city name to pronounce the person on the other line wasn’t even close. This prompted me to ask them where they were calling from. Their response was Virginia. So much for creating jobs for Albertans.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by timun

Sorry/not sorry, but this is a load of crap. It's precisely how disinformation spreads. "I don't have time nor care enough to check my sources, I just wanted to see what others thought about it" is lazy, and Fuzz actually doing the legwork and informing you of where this stuff is coming from isn't "zealotry", it's the foundation of "actual good discussion."

I’ll take the hit on laziness and admit it. I just finished working and finally got back here but my reply to you would be this- to what extent should the average voter be expected to wade through and not just research all the various issues to the nth extent expected by people in this thread but also verify and confirm all sources and their respective biases or extent and intensity of such biases? How many hours a night do you expect people to go read through and stay in tune with all the issues while making sure that all the 5 million other obligations in the average persons life are adequately maintained, you know, people with kids jobs, billion other ####ing things to do?

Sorry I can’t keep up to the political wizards in here but therein lies the rub and the breakdown. The many people you suggest are “morons” (which ironically only makes you look like a moron but ok) probably have way too much #### going on in their life to dedicate the 40% of their days staying up to the latest and dialed in on biases and claims and fact checking and debate. Misinformation is spreading and you’re right that is a huge problem but see most regular people used to just read the news and could reasonably rely on it.

So when I get an email and there’s some info in it and I just kind of throw it in here to see people’s thoughts, what is ultra counterproductive to the entire premise of this websites purpose are the replies that have built over years shutting down discussion and discourse and not actually discussing the issues at hand. Luckily some other reasonable people came in and actually participated beyond the usual echo chamber critters purposefully trying to stifle such discussion by just outright immediately dismissing the source. The truth is, everyone has their biases, including the lefty echo chamber team in here and so a real fact based discussion would truly take hours of research from reputable sources on both sides to really wade through all the purposeful omitting of key details on any issue or blatant misrepresentations of key facts. The fact that the lefties just sit around here and crow “nobody can even dispute all these issues from the right!” And then when presented with an issue do their mightiest to just shut down the discussions through attacking a source whilst insulting the poster and calling anyone who has valid concerns or objections idiots is a reflection of the state of those posters and quality of this thread. And further, the extreme lack of self awareness in here of said posters is all the more shameful.

So yeah, after I get my kids home from sports practice, that’s where I am now trying to keep up with this bull####, and then getting my kids to bed house cleaned and then some more work I have to do tonight, maybe I’ll hop on at 11pm and go research all the ####ing key issues and related biases and sources for everything. Seems reasonable? No. Like, this is a message board. Discuss the issue- you have no clue about most things about most of these people participating- so stop being dicks? Or, like I said, maybe all you people are incapable?

So you tell me what a reasonable amount of time for people to stay “up to date” with “facts” should be to honour our democratic responsibilities.

[Fuzz]

I'll admit to being a bit snarky, so sorry for that, and you do bring up good points. I don't think anyone can know all the issues and the details of what is correct or not, which I guess leads to one of my shortcuts, good or bad. If I see something, or someone sends me it the first thing I do is check the source. Many times that will tell me if something is even worth reading, like if it is written by David Staples or Lorne Gunter or The Tyee I'm not going to waste much time on it until I see someone reputable comment in a similar vane, then I might go read it. But if, say, Trevor Tombe is mentioned? Ya, that is probably worth a read.

So when I come across a media brand or name I don't recognize, I Google it. I did that before even reading your entire post. When I saw he was a hard Libertarian committed to spreading the word, well, my give-a-#### about his numbers plunged pretty precipitously, since someone else had already debunked these sorts of numbers, and then Smith doubled down a few days ago.

Having some reputable sources you trust can just save a lot of time being misled, and reading fake news disguised as fact. Are my trusted sources right 100% of the time? No, of course not. But you have to go somewhere for info.

[Mr.Coffee]

Fair enough and thanks for the reasonable reply. I’ll point out though that based on some of the other replies to that discussion it actually does look like concern for those costs could be legitimately something people could be concerned about with Notley just agreeing to sign up for them. The point of posting it in a place like this is that good people can in fact come in and verify whether those crazy costs of $87 billion are accurate or not and or just call outright BS. I haven’t seen anyone debate that it might not be a problem at all though. Anyway, I’m being a bad dad and need to watch my kid now.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MBates

I mean, I guess it appeals to those of us who make money by striking down unconstitutional government actions?

Since bail conditions for violent offenders are plainly exclusive criminal law and procedure under the Constitution 1867, and 24/7 government surveillance is problematic for each of sections 2, 3, 7 and 8 of the Charter, I went in search of what this part of the 'plan' is.

Here is what is on the UCP Platform website [my emphasis added]:



https://www.unitedconservative.ca/an...s-action-plan/

So, near as I can tell, the promise is to create a government-funded program (which would likely involve paying the private for-profit monitoring companies that are currently running to expand their operations) to be available to use in the event that a judge under the current constrictions of the Criminal Code and the Charter decides to impose ankle bracelet monitoring on an accused as a condition of release.

It will in no way change the binding law that limits when an ankle bracelet monitoring condition can constitutionally be imposed. So judges will still not impose the condition in the vast majority of cases because the law says they can't (the pesky presumption of innocence and free and democratic society and all that stuff).

Based on the above, unsurprisingly, in my view this announcement is designed to have those prone to believe misleading fake promises to imagine a utopian crime-free world where all people with any potential to commit violence will be 24/7 monitored with an ankle bracelet.

In reality, it will have a negligible effect, if any, because this is not within the provincial constitutional lane that the Premier seems very concerned about Ottawa respecting.

After Alberta's epic loss in the SCC on the recent constitutional reference case, what exactly do UCP supporters find appealing about doomed to fail legal posturing that cannot help to address the problems they are concerned about?


Edit - Found More:



So, they will "demand immediate reform" and also assign more Sheriffs to assist with monitoring those already being monitored.

As predicted, no impact on increasing the number of people who will actually get an electronic monitoring bail condition...

Just for clarification.

MBates are you saying based on your expertise in criminal law that in your opinion Danielle Smith has no idea what she’s talking about here and will not be able to deliver on this promise?

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I noticed that the NDP candidate in the area near the university felt the need to let everyone know she's a doctor by putting it on her campaign signs. Cringe move.

I sort of understand there could be scenarios where that might be an unnecessary flex so to speak but I think she is running against the health minister in a riding where 2 major hospitals (at least) are situated- health care may be on the ballot in that riding even more than most- so live or die with your credentials- why not?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Fair enough and thanks for the reasonable reply. I’ll point out though that based on some of the other replies to that discussion it actually does look like concern for those costs could be legitimately something people could be concerned about with Notley just agreeing to sign up for them. The point of posting it in a place like this is that good people can in fact come in and verify whether those crazy costs of $87 billion are accurate or not and or just call outright BS. I haven’t seen anyone debate that it might not be a problem at all though. Anyway, I’m being a bad dad and need to watch my kid now.

Well another problem with your original post is the premise that Notley has already committed/is guaranteed to just rubber stamp any plan without any further consideration or due diligence. Which seems incredibly unlikely.

We know where the world of energy generation is evolving. We can cover our ears + stamp our feet, or we can be at the forefront of the change, or something in between. I don't know exactly what Notley said about this, but that would be an important detail for the discussion, and parsing her words would probably be the most important first step before we fuss over the policy details (because it may not matter)


Your points about not having time for all of this is totally fair. But you probably spent 5-10 minutes regurgitating a low value email...seems like it would be better to just source a link and then the hive can help chew the food

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Fair enough and thanks for the reasonable reply. I’ll point out though that based on some of the other replies to that discussion it actually does look like concern for those costs could be legitimately something people could be concerned about with Notley just agreeing to sign up for them. The point of posting it in a place like this is that good people can in fact come in and verify whether those crazy costs of $87 billion are accurate or not and or just call outright BS. I haven’t seen anyone debate that it might not be a problem at all though. Anyway, I’m being a bad dad and need to watch my kid now.

I read all that crap. I think that makes me a worse dad. Thoffee.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Well another problem with your original post is the premise that Notley has already committed/is guaranteed to just rubber stamp any plan without any further consideration or due diligence. Which seems incredibly unlikely.

We know where the world of energy generation is evolving. We can cover our ears + stamp our feet, or we can be at the forefront of the change, or something in between. I don't know exactly what Notley said about this, but that would be an important detail for the discussion, and parsing her words would probably be the most important first step before we fuss over the policy details (because it may not matter)


Your points about not having time for all of this is totally fair. But you probably spent 5-10 minutes regurgitating a low value email...seems like it would be better to just source a link and then the hive can help chew the food

The cool thing about a free market power system with an escalating carbon tax is that it will almost certainly get to a zero carbon energy mix, unless the remaining carbon in the mix is very necessary (eg might end up with a few gas peaker plants). Continuing to escalate the cost of carbon emissions over time is way better than any mandate based approach.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Just for clarification.

MBates are you saying based on your expertise in criminal law that in your opinion Danielle Smith has no idea what she’s talking about here and will not be able to deliver on this promise?

Kinda read to me like she’s looking to privatize an aspect of our penal system as well.