Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Slava]

Originally Posted by belsarius

The ridiculousness is people are butthurt about her appointment.

The co-chair of the Oil Sands Advisory Group was a former Shell President and CAPP CEO Dave Collyer. The NDP made sure that the committee was equally represented by people focused on Industry AND the Environment. Its a concept that makes perfect sense, to have all views (both opposing and supporting) be part of the decision making process. This is vastly different to most political committees which nominate only members who share their viewpoint.

You want to complain about the Berman appointment being extremist.. but really it was one of the most centrist things that the NDP could do, because they didn't give power to either extreme, they let the extreme's share the load so that the result is a compromise that suits both.

That's how a government should work, listening to ALL sides, not just the ones you agree with.

Lol, that’s one way to spin it I guess. She was advising the province on oil sands development after comparing the oil sands to Mordor. It’s farcical to think you need that opinion in a position like that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

I’m just pointing out that they’re extremists in both parties. I think that’s the case with the ANDP as well. And we did get to see some of that ridiculousness last time around with the Tzeporah Berman appointment. I get why they’re adding blue to the logo and trying to push the idea that they’re in the middle. I also understand why NDP supporters here are pushing that narrative.

No, you’re trying to point out that there are extremists in a federal party and a provincial party and calling it “both parties.” The federal party isn’t running in the provincial election, and I know for a fact that you understand that better than you’re letting on. Or maybe my confidence is misplaced.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I guess I don’t agree that the idea of the NDP being in the political centre is a “narrative.” The smartest move the NDP made in the last decade was to move to the middle and crowd out the other options there, including the Liberals and the Alberta party (which had promise but never got off the ground). Yes, the FEDERAL NDP is further to the left; so are many other provincial NDP caucuses. But the evidence simply does not support the idea that Notley is an extremist, or that the ALBERTA NDP is anything other than a centrist party right now. And that fact has guided my political choices too: I’m not ready to vote NDP federally but the choice to vote for the Alberta NDP is very easy right now.

The way I see it, we have two choices in Alberta: a far right wing party that includes and panders to the political fringe, and a center-left party with a history of being further to the left than they are currently, and a brand affiliation with other parties (like the Federal NDP) that are more extreme. But that’s not a reason not to vote for them. It would make as much sense to say that you won’t support the Federal Liberal party because you don’t care for the ideas of the BC Liberals.

And we can bemoan our choices all we want, but it is kind of similar to what Americans faced in 2020.

There’s an apt analogy: voters are all forced to eat at the same restaurant. The restaurant only serves two dishes, and you have to order one (if you don’t, someone else orders for you).

The choices are a salami sandwich and a steaming plateful of dog turd.

Half of voters will look at those choices and go “well, I don’t really like salami…..”. Some of them might even have had salami sandwiches they didn’t like in the past. You might even be a vegetarian. Maybe in the past you’ve ordered the other choice, and it wasn’t a turd before. So you kind of hope that maybe the restaurant isn’t REALLY serious about serving you an actual turd—but in your heart of hearts you know that this is deadly serious, because there was a turd on the sampler platter.

At the end of the day, this isn’t a hard choice. You don’t have to like salami. Lots of people don’t. But today you have to order the salami, because, well… the other choice is a literal turd.

And don’t forget: the only way to get the restaurant to stop serving turds to its customers is to make it 100% clear that no matter how they are dressed up, and no matter what party logo is on the plate, we will not eat them.

That’s how I think of this election. And I’m ordering the salami. I don’t even REALLY like salami that much, but the choice is still really easy.

I can agree with a chunk of this. I mean comparing the BC Liberals and federal Liberals is different because they share a name only. That’s not the case with the NDP though.

I also don’t think that Notley is a radical. I do think the party is still left-wing though. I do also agree that we have two options, and that’s discouraging.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

Lol, that’s one way to spin it I guess. She was advising the province on oil sands development after comparing the oil sands to Mordor. It’s farcical to think you need that opinion in a position like that.

She was also a key contributor to moving major companies towards renewable energy and the protection of Canadian old-growth forrests.

Instead of calling something spin you should just educate yourself on the person. Just calling her an “extremist” shows you’re more bought-in to generic right wing talking points than you want to let on. Why don’t you just be honest?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, you’re trying to point out that there are extremists in a federal party and a provincial party and calling it “both parties.” The federal party isn’t running in the provincial election, and I know for a fact that you understand that better than you’re letting on. Or maybe my confidence is misplaced.

It’s the same party. Plain and simple.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

She was also a key contributor to moving major companies towards renewable energy and the protection of Canadian old-growth forrests.

Instead of calling something spin you should just educate yourself on the person. Just calling her an “extremist” shows you’re more bought-in to generic right wing talking points than you want to let on. Why don’t you just be honest?

I know who she is and yeah she’s had some impacts. Did she or did she not make that comparison? I mean you love to tell me that “I’m better than that”, so take your own medicine here. She has made those comments and pushed for a moratorium on fossil fuels, and things of that nature. You might agree, and think it’s great, but you can’t somehow think that person should be paid to advise on oil sands development.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

It’s the same party. Plain and simple.

This has been corrected multiple times. Whether you’re being ignorant on purpose or you’re just not capable of getting it, I’m not sure it’s worth wasting more time in you.

Originally Posted by Slava

I know who she is and yeah she’s had some impacts. Did she or did she not make that comparison? I mean you love to tell me that “I’m better than that”, so take your own medicine here. She has made those comments and pushed for a moratorium on fossil fuels, and things of that nature. You might agree, and think it’s great, but you can’t somehow think that person should be paid to advise on oil sands development.

Sorry, I’ve been trying to be nice and take your “lost centrist” schtick at face value. Maybe you aren’t better than that.

It’s already been explained to you why she was included and if you know who she is, you know the value she would bring to that conversation. If you don’t think anyone who isn’t a guns-blazing advocate of taking the environment for everything it has should contribute to conversations in the future of natural resources, then that seems incredibly myopic and dumb.

You’re whole thing is whining about how people and parties don’t agree with you, so maybe that makes more sense than I thought.

[PepsiFree]

Seriously, imagine complaining about a conversation around mining in Alberta because it featured someone who thought knocking down every mountain was bad. Jesus.

[iggy_oi]

Pepsi are you suggesting that an echo chamber isn’t the best place to get a balanced opinion on something?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know who she is and yeah she’s had some impacts. Did she or did she not make that comparison? I mean you love to tell me that “I’m better than that”, so take your own medicine here. She has made those comments and pushed for a moratorium on fossil fuels, and things of that nature. You might agree, and think it’s great, but you can’t somehow think that person should be paid to advise on oil sands development.

And yet despite her on the panel we got pipelines approved that are actually getting built. People make it seem like she was appointed as some kind of czar with unilateral powers to shut production down on a whim.

Oil sands development has huge environmental implications. Thinking that an environmentalists contribution to an advisory group about such development isn’t worthy is the kind of attitude that lets people take potshots that the oil sands industry doesn’t care about the environmental impacts of the oil sands.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

And yet despite her on the panel we got pipelines approved that are actually getting built. People make it seem like she was appointed as some kind of czar with unilateral powers to shut production down on a whim.

Oil sands development has huge environmental implications. Thinking that an environmentalists contribution to an advisory group about such development isn’t worthy is the kind of attitude that lets people take potshots that the oil sands industry doesn’t care about the environmental impacts of the oil sands.

She didn’t have anything to do with the pipeline, and frankly she supported the BC NDP in their opposition to the pipeline.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This has been corrected multiple times.

What’s been corrected? Is that in reference to Notley not going along with the Leap manifesto?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Slava

It’s the same party. Plain and simple.

All you have to do is look at the BC NDP to see that this is false. They’re basically a right leaning centrist party that has abandoned many of the federal principles as soon as they got power.

It’s funny, I still have an Alberta phone number even though I live in BC now, so I’m getting non stop phone calls and text messages asking who I’m supporting.

I’ve noticed that the NDP texts (this is the case for federal as well) is actually a person. My MP is NDP and I know the person who was texting me during the last federal election.

But the UCP.. it’s a fire and forget.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Slava

It’s the same party. Plain and simple.

I guess this is where we disagree. I don’t think they are. I also don’t think the federal conservatives are the same party as the Danielle Smith-led UCP, which is really the fringe elements of the Wild Rose Party taking the UCP for a joyride after someone left it running with the keys still inside.

[GGG]

Is the issue just the party constitution? If that’s your issue I don’t understand. I think when assessing the relatedness of a party you should be looking for common fundraising and organizational groups and common policy think tanks.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Slava

She didn’t have anything to do with the pipeline, and frankly she supported the BC NDP in their opposition to the pipeline.

So her being on the advisories panel wasn’t some death wish to the oil sands? Is the concern that the oil sands’ feelings were hurt by her comments?

And what happened with the “same party, plain and simple” doctrine that it didn’t funnel from the BC NDP to the federal NDP to their underlings in Alberta to follow the party position?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

So her being on the advisories panel wasn’t some death wish to the oil sands? Is the concern that the oil sands’ feelings were hurt by her comments?

And what happened with the “same party, plain and simple” doctrine that it didn’t funnel from the BC NDP to the federal NDP to their underlings in Alberta to follow the party position?

And not even just “some panel,” specifically one “tasked with creating policy recommendations on how to implement the climate plan, address cumulative impacts of the oil sands and recommendations on meeting Canada’s climate targets between 2030 and 2050.”

Something she’s made a career out of across Canada and internationally. Something she has won awards for. Something that has earned her the ear of some of the biggest companies in the world and influenced actual positive change.

She was the co-chair of a committee in charge of making recommendations. And she was extremely qualified.

Meanwhile, the UCP put a catholic pro-life activist with zero experience as an educator in charge of education, where she then attempted to push through a rewritten curriculum that would ensure kids were taught that the Nazis did some good things?

But hey, “both sides have extremists!” Genius stuff.

[Izzle]

If Slava is the typical Calgary voter then the UCP will win. Not because they voted for them. But that they voted for whatever rhino, donkey or zebra party exists so that they can hold their nose high and say they've not voted for the extreme left wing socialist party despite much evidence to the contrary.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

This is a general comment/PSA, and not directed at anyone or any side in particular.

These threads are a giant pain to moderate. One of the reasons is that we have to accept that people will disagree, and sometimes they will disagree harshly and may even get a tad frustrated and emotional. So the line is hard to identify sometimes between disagreement and debate and just attacking and insulting your adversary.

But let’s at least just… try. Remember that people have different values and different beliefs and will come to different conclusions about what to do, how to vote, who is good and who is bad, and all of that. There is a diversity of opinions out there and as long as people are being honest brokers about it there is no reason we can’t both express our disagreement and just kind of…. be nice about it.

Now, I know that’s not always easy. But the more effort we put into that, the easier the job of being a mod is. And I’d rather just participate in the thread than moderate it, if I’m being honest. So…. help a lazy mod out, and try to be nice to each other as much as you can..?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

This is a general comment/PSA, and not directed at anyone or any side in particular.

These threads are a giant pain to moderate. One of the reasons is that we have to accept that people will disagree, and sometimes they will disagree harshly and may even get a tad frustrated and emotional. So the line is hard to identify sometimes between disagreement and debate and just attacking and insulting your adversary.

But let’s at least just… try. Remember that people have different values and different beliefs and will come to different conclusions about what to do, how to vote, who is good and who is bad, and all of that. There is a diversity of opinions out there and as long as people are being honest brokers about it there is no reason we can’t both express our disagreement and just kind of…. be nice about it.

Now, I know that’s not always easy. But the more effort we put into that, the easier the job of being a mod is. And I’d rather just participate in the thread than moderate it, if I’m being honest. So…. help a lazy mod out, and try to be nice to each other as much as you can..?

To the bolded: then just don't?

Unless you just had to delete some crazy posts or something, this seems like an odd time for this message. This has been about as good a political discussion as one could ever expect...of course there is going to be a little bit of spice here and there because we are talking about things that actually matter, but this discourse is still more civil than most of the threads about hockey.