You might remember that we FOIP'ed the Western Standard ads and while we didn't get how much money the Alberta Government sent to the Western Standard, we did get a list of the campaigns.
For reasons that can only be filed under "Inconsistent government", not only did we get a list of campaigns, we also got a list of the AMOUNT of taxpayer money that the UCP government has sent the Countersignal for ads.
I've never even heard of Countersignal. How big can their audience possibly be?
I imagine they got a bump in publicity when our moronic premier went for a year end "interview" with them. So they are not only supported with our tax dollars, but also with the ultimate face of stupidity. They are not a news organization, have never been, and never will be.
I don't really understand why in 2025 we even need to have these discussions, but since RW wacko leaders seem happy enough to fund and lend their legitimacy to propaganda bull#### factories, we have people pretending like they should get the same access as real media. And then everyday RW supporters keep them in business with views of feces, and slop it up like pigs in an overcrowded pen. Thanks, wackos.
Countersignal, Western Standard, True North, Rebel, all lying to you. And apparently taking our money, because I guess by lying to you about our premier, you voted her in, and now she hands our tax dollars to them. I really have trouble comprehending the amount of stupid you'd have to be to fall for all this, but I know I'm probably starting to upset some of our regulars here. Feel free to share with the circle, though.
I guess I don't really understand the way the Smith vs. Trump thing is being characterized. If I am understanding her goal correctly, it is to essentially separate Alberta's primary industry from a series of tariffs and retaliatory tariffs - in effect, putting this province on the sidelines in a pseudo-trade war.
That attempt seems very clearly to be in Alberta's best interest, because the consequences of a 25% tariff on oil products from this province would be a total disaster for the people of this province, arguably to a greater extent than those tariffs would be for other provinces simply due to who our more-or-less sole customer is.
The question of whether she is competently pursuing that aim is separate from whether the goal is appropriate, and I share every doubt and skepticism about her ability to not #### up whatever she tries to do or listen to the right people in pursuing that goal. But the goal itself? I mean, she's the premier of Alberta; she has zero constituents in Manitoba or Quebec or Newfoundland, so prioritizing the interest of the only people she has an actual duty to (again, leaving aside the question of whether she's capable of carrying out that duty correctly given her obvious personal shortcomings) does not seem like something crazy or inappropriate to me.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I guess I don't really understand the way the Smith vs. Trump thing is being characterized. If I am understanding her goal correctly, it is to essentially separate Alberta's primary industry from a series of tariffs and retaliatory tariffs - in effect, putting this province on the sidelines in a pseudo-trade war.
That attempt seems very clearly to be in Alberta's best interest, because the consequences of a 25% tariff on oil products from this province would be a total disaster for the people of this province, arguably to a greater extent than those tariffs would be for other provinces simply due to who our more-or-less sole customer is.
The question of whether she is competently pursuing that aim is separate from whether the goal is appropriate, and I share every doubt and skepticism about her ability to not #### up whatever she tries to do or listen to the right people in pursuing that goal. But the goal itself? I mean, she's the premier of Alberta; she has zero constituents in Manitoba or Quebec or Newfoundland, so prioritizing the interest of the only people she has an actual duty to (again, leaving aside the question of whether she's capable of carrying out that duty correctly given her obvious personal shortcomings) does not seem like something crazy or inappropriate to me.
It's her method. Of course having oil exempt would be a win, and the best for Alberta. But doing that, while also throwing the RoC under the bus is the issue, and promising it will trigger a national unity crisis. It's unnecessary at this point. It makes Canada, as a whole, worse off in negotiating. And despite what people seem to think, that's bad for Alberta, too. It's not like we only have one industry.
So if the choice were between no oil tariffs for Alberta, and the RoC still gets nailed, or a strong position form a united Canada against all tariffs, well, I'll take the second any day of the week, with the hidden understanding that the RoC will not throw Alberta under the bus in the process. Exempting oil can always be a last resort option if it turns out to be the best choice. But by opening with that, it's a huge trip up for Canada. The problem with Smith is she only knows how to oppose the RoC, so cooperating isn't really a thing she is capable of.
I guess I don't really understand the way the Smith vs. Trump thing is being characterized. If I am understanding her goal correctly, it is to essentially separate Alberta's primary industry from a series of tariffs and retaliatory tariffs - in effect, putting this province on the sidelines in a pseudo-trade war.
That attempt seems very clearly to be in Alberta's best interest, because the consequences of a 25% tariff on oil products from this province would be a total disaster for the people of this province, arguably to a greater extent than those tariffs would be for other provinces simply due to who our more-or-less sole customer is.
The question of whether she is competently pursuing that aim is separate from whether the goal is appropriate, and I share every doubt and skepticism about her ability to not #### up whatever she tries to do or listen to the right people in pursuing that goal. But the goal itself? I mean, she's the premier of Alberta; she has zero constituents in Manitoba or Quebec or Newfoundland, so prioritizing the interest of the only people she has an actual duty to (again, leaving aside the question of whether she's capable of carrying out that duty correctly given her obvious personal shortcomings) does not seem like something crazy or inappropriate to me.
Albertans are also Canadians. They will be affected by economic catastrophe in Ontario or other provinces. A national recession means less revenue for federal programs (like healthcare), more demands on federal resources or higher federal deficits and debt (or, most likely, some combination of those things). All of these things will hurt Albertans.
I agree that a diligent, competent and earnest premier might carefully weigh all of the potential benefits and costs and risks to Albertans and might arrive at the position that, all things considered, breaking ranks with fellow premiers and advocating to the US President alone is the best path forward for Albertans. However, I have zero confidence that Premier Smith is diligent, competent or earnest. I have zero confidence that she engaged in any sort of consideration or weighing of the above risks. I have zero confidence that she had any real prospect of success by talking to Trump alone.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
It's her method. Of course having oil exempt would be a win, and the best for Alberta. But doing that, while also throwing the RoC under the bus is the issue, and promising it will trigger a national unity crisis. It's unnecessary at this point. It makes Canada, as a whole, worse off in negotiating. And despite what people seem to think, that's bad for Alberta, too. It's not like we only have one industry.
So if the choice were between no oil tariffs for Alberta, and the RoC still gets nailed, or a strong position form a united Canada against all tariffs, well, I'll take the second any day of the week, with the hidden understanding that the RoC will not throw Alberta under the bus in the process. Exempting oil can always be a last resort option if it turns out to be the best choice. But by opening with that, it's a huge trip up for Canada. The problem with Smith is she only knows how to oppose the RoC, so cooperating isn't really a thing she is capable of.
I mean, in this prisoner's dilemma I don't think the bolded is something you can trust. If it's better for the RoC to throw Alberta under the bus I 100% think they will.
I mean, in this prisoner's dilemma I don't think the bolded is something you can trust. If it's better for the RoC to throw Alberta under the bus I 100% think they will.
Except that it wouldn't be best for the RoC, unless things really really got out of hand. And I think most of the premiers are smart enough to see that(and would listen to their advisors).
I agree that a diligent, competent and earnest premier might carefully weigh all of the potential benefits and costs and risks to Albertans and might arrive at the position that, all things considered, breaking ranks with fellow premiers and advocating to the US President alone is the best path forward for Albertans. However, I have zero confidence that Premier Smith is diligent, competent or earnest. I have zero confidence that she engaged in any sort of consideration or weighing of the above risks. I have zero confidence that she had any real prospect of success by talking to Trump alone.
OK, then we're on exactly the same page on everything with the exception of the bolded, and I don't think it's a difficult risk analysis to perform overall. But maybe I am somehow underestimating the negative impact of having one premier "break ranks" here... it seems like either she is successful (agreed, unlikely prospect) or her attempt has no real effect on anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Except that it wouldn't be best for the RoC, unless things really really got out of hand. And I think most of the premiers are smart enough to see that(and would listen to their advisors).
This is a fairly insane take given that the premiers of other provinces routinely take asinine anti-Alberta positions for local political purposes that are, on the whole, economically harmful to the RoC by virtue of throwing Alberta under the bus.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Something I find interesting, smith went down to trump to fight for O&G, but nothing else for Alberta. Alberta beef alone would take a huge hit if these tariffs happened but nothing from her about that. You would think that an industry that affects so many people that voted for her would at least get a little mention, but nothing.
Hell last time that the US blocked beef from here it was massive. That spurred the whole I heart Alberta beef campaign that took right off. People were boycotting places that would not loudly advertise they served Alberta beef. Now though, whatever.
The Following User Says Thank You to Superflyer For This Useful Post:
