Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

You are being intentionally obtuse, Use one word from my post and formulate a snide answer. At least you stay true to character.

Obtuse how? I asked for your reasoning as to how the UCP has acted in a way or produced results consistent with your beliefs and interests, you said you were going to try UCP. I'm assuming you're going to try UCP for a reason and I'm assuming that if the reason you aren't voting NDP is because they didn't act in line with your beliefs and interests that you feel the UCP is doing a better job of that... so... how?

It's not like the UCP is an unknown. So you're not justing trying them out to see what happens. You known what has happened in four years, so why are you being so cagey in expressing how they match your beliefs and interests? What's the reason for being mealy-mouthed?

You said you want a party that stands against the Federal government, to what end? In each instance where the NDP worked with the Federal government for a solution, Albertans were better off than every similar instance where the UCP worked against the Federal government. Look at the carbon tax, where we were better off with the one the NDP developed than the default one the UCP took. It made it worse. So you want it to be worse just... because?

Also, I haven't attacked your character, so I think it's a bit ####ty to attack mine directly after complaining about complaining about certain comments fostering division. Be better if you're going to pretend to care about that stuff.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by StickMan

That basically means that the provincial and federal parties need to be in agreement on everything.

"Unlike most other Canadian federal parties, the NDP is integrated with its provincial and territorial parties.

Holding membership of a provincial or territorial section of the NDP includes automatic membership in the federal party, and this precludes a person from being a member of different parties at the federal and provincial levels."

membership declaration.

"I hereby apply for membership in the New Democratic Party of Canada and the NDP in the province/territory of my residence where applicable. I promise to abide by the Constitution, policies and principles of the NDP both federally and provincially/territorially. I hereby state that I am not a member nor supporter of any other federal political party, nor a member or supporter of any other provincial or territorial party where there is a provincial or territorial NDP."

The NDP is different then any other party as far as integration with the federal party.

Have you read their constitution?

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by woob

Look, I'm no Trudeau fan nor Singh, but if I had to choose between a Danielle Smith led UCP party and a Rachel Notley led Alberta NDP party that might have some direction from a Jagmeet/Trudeau coalition, I'd still choose Alberta NDP.

But thankfully I don't drink the koolaid, and know I don't have to worry about this.

Wow

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by GGG

With PPAs it was a 1-2 billion dollar mistake.

By implementing the Coal phase out and some elements of the Carbon Tax It allowed power producers out of contracts they entered when privatization first started because changes in regulation made them lose more money on these contracts.

The NDP appeared to not be aware of this consequence of their policy and was a pretty significant screw up by the government.

The one saving grace which limits the damage is Enmax and Capital Power which are wholly owned by the cities got out of their agreements so those likely just transferred costs from cities to the province. The seas with Atco, Altagas (I think) and TC were losses.

I think in general this is a similar magnitude of screwup to the Keystone bet.

Except the Keystone bet got us absolutely nothing. The Coal phase is getting rid of coal power generation much faster, which is better not only for the environment but also for the health of the population. You can argue that the price was too high, but at least we got something out of it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by StickMan

That basically means that the provincial and federal parties need to be in agreement on everything.

Nope. That's not what it means, and we have plenty of evidence of the contrary, considering we had 4 years of a provincial NDP government that did not govern based on the policies put forth by the federal party.

I suggest you do a little more research.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by StickMan

Wow

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

pant pant


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Careful! That's promoting divisiveness between rabbits and tasmanian devils!

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Obtuse how? I asked for your reasoning as to how the UCP has acted in a way or produced results consistent with your beliefs and interests, you said you were going to try UCP. I'm assuming you're going to try UCP for a reason and I'm assuming that if the reason you aren't voting NDP is because they didn't act in line with your beliefs and interests that you feel the UCP is doing a better job of that... so... how?

It's not like the UCP is an unknown. So you're not justing trying them out to see what happens. You known what has happened in four years, so why are you being so cagey in expressing how they match your beliefs and interests? What's the reason for being mealy-mouthed?

You said you want a party that stands against the Federal government, to what end? In each instance where the NDP worked with the Federal government for a solution, Albertans were better off than every similar instance where the UCP worked against the Federal government. Look at the carbon tax, where we were better off with the one the NDP developed than the default one the UCP took. It made it worse. So you want it to be worse just... because?

Also, I haven't attacked your character, so I think it's a bit ####ty to attack mine directly after complaining about complaining about certain comments fostering division. Be better if you're going to pretend to care about that stuff.

You are using a turn of phrase, “ give them a try” to decide I'm making a nonchalant decision in my voting. I am not, I am voting this way because they took action on several fronts that a important to me. You will ask for examples and a burden of proof and if I dont take the time to fully flesh out every example with sourcing you will discredit those examples. It becomes too much, i dont have the time.
You are right, I did attack your character. Im sorry. There has been several instances in the past where you have attacked mine, and I chose not to reciprocate. You often attack posters in direct or passive aggressive means.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

You are using a turn of phrase, “ give them a try” to decide I'm making a nonchalant decision in my voting. I am not, I am voting this way because they took action on several fronts that a important to me. You will ask for examples and a burden of proof and if I dont take the time to fully flesh out every example with sourcing you will discredit those examples. It becomes too much, i dont have the time.
You are right, I did attack your character. Im sorry. There has been several instances in the past where you have attacked mine, and I chose not to reciprocate. You often attack posters in direct or passive aggressive means.

That's great.
All anyone is asking is a few examples of what that was?
I'm honestly interested in what they did that make you think they are a good choice.
I'm not attacking you or anything. If you're interested in an honest conversation about this, I'm offering that.
So what exactly did the UCP do that aligns with your interests?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Not the reason it bothers me. What bothers me is the willingness to divide. Not much different then the Rep/Dem chasm in the US.

Have you met Danielle Smith? That's her entire MO. It has been for decades. You want togetherness? People working toward a common goal? The UCP is the antithesis of this. Danielle Smith has endless policies that will divide Alberta from the rest of our great nation, Canada. So why vote for divisiveness? What policies do the UCP support, specifically, that make them on balance a better choice to reduce division?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

You are using a turn of phrase, “ give them a try” to decide I'm making a nonchalant decision in my voting. I am not, I am voting this way because they took action on several fronts that a important to me. You will ask for examples and a burden of proof and if I dont take the time to fully flesh out every example with sourcing you will discredit those examples. It becomes too much, i dont have the time.
You are right, I did attack your character. Im sorry. There has been several instances in the past where you have attacked mine, and I chose not to reciprocate. You often attack posters in direct or passive aggressive means.

You can literally just provide any specific examples, you've spent more time not providing them then it would have taken you to provide them.

What fronts did they take action on that were important to you? Were those actions successful?

You had no trouble bringing up examples of things the NDP did that you didn't like. I don't understand the difference. And if someone disputes those examples, what do you lose exactly? You don't even have to read the responses if you'd that worried about it.

I just don't see any point in saying "because reasons" and then refusing to give any reasons.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Have you met Danielle Smith? That's her entire MO. It has been for decades. You want togetherness? People working toward a common goal? The UCP is the antithesis of this. Danielle Smith has endless policies that will divide Alberta from the rest of our great nation, Canada. So why vote for divisiveness? What policies do the UCP support, specifically, that make them on balance a better choice to reduce division?

Come on, you honestly think Danielle Smith is the reason for any divide in Alberta politics right now?

Danielle Smith and the UCP famously have a good working relationship with the Federal Government, and a track record of making good deals with the Federal Government that benefit Alberta.

Meanwhile Notley and the NDP have built their entire campaign around fighting Ottaway, and have lost at every turn when they've tried....

Wait...something seems off about that.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Have you met Danielle Smith? That's her entire MO. It has been for decades. You want togetherness? People working toward a common goal? The UCP is the antithesis of this. Danielle Smith has endless policies that will divide Alberta from the rest of our great nation, Canada. So why vote for divisiveness? What policies do the UCP support, specifically, that make them on balance a better choice to reduce division?

I think people are sick of Trudeau, and voting NDP is voting for more Trudeau. People like that Smith is at least trying to push back against Ottawa. Notley will just be in total agreement with Trudeau and I bet you we will even end up with a provincial sales tax if she pulls the same stunt she did with the surprise carbon tax. Give us a better party to vote for that isn't NDP and I bet people will take it.

[Looch City]

All this and it's just May 2nd...

Smith must truly be desperate to release her AI spam bots/UCP-basement henchman out full force already.

Try to spread out your asinine opinions guys, it's just the second day of campaigning.

[PepsiFree]

The carbon tax is because of the NDP, and that's why the UCP got rid of it immediately and forever.

...right?

[burn_this_city]

Not sure why single issue voters won't admit why. Does your reason seem petty when you put it down on paper or something? It's ok to admit you want to dirt bike or ride quads wherever whenever, that you disliked the protection of certain habitat areas ect. I'm about 80% sure that's what you're implying about the changes. Own it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by StickMan

I think people are sick of Trudeau, and voting NDP is voting for more Trudeau. People like that Smith is at least trying to push back against Ottawa. Notley will just be in total agreement with Trudeau and I bet you we will even end up with a provincial sales tax if she pulls the same stunt she did with the surprise carbon tax. Give us a better party to vote for that isn't NDP and I bet people will take it.

You seem to have a Federal issue that you are projecting on to Notley. I get how people can be sick of Trudeau, that's fine. But this isn't a federal election. Would another party to choose from give you better options provincially? Maybe? But this election, there are 2 choices and one of them has demonstrably, repeatedly lied to us, and has put forth many many disturbing policies that will divide our nation, and make Albertans far less Canadian, as is their stated goal. Is that what you want to support?


You didn't clarify which UCP policies you find so important that they are worth taking this massive risk to our province with. They must be important.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by StickMan

I think people are sick of Trudeau, and voting NDP is voting for more Trudeau. People like that Smith is at least trying to push back against Ottawa. Notley will just be in total agreement with Trudeau and I bet you we will even end up with a provincial sales tax if she pulls the same stunt she did with the surprise carbon tax. Give us a better party to vote for that isn't NDP and I bet people will take it.

Since you can't seem to answer directly what policy the NDP created that offended you so deeply, can you name something that Smith is doing, actively, to "push back against Ottawa" ?

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You seem to have a Federal issue that you are projecting on to Notley. I get how people can be sick of Trudeau, that's fine. But this isn't a federal election. Would another party to choose from give you better options provincially? Maybe? But this election, there are 2 choices and one of them has demonstrably, repeatedly lied to us, and has put forth many many disturbing policies that will divide our nation, and make Albertans far less Canadian, as is their stated goal. Is that what you want to support?


You didn't clarify which UCP policies you find so important that they are worth taking this massive risk to our province with. They must be important.

I think both parties have equally lied and divided and put forth disturbing policies. That seems to be the normal in today's politics.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

You are using a turn of phrase, “ give them a try” to decide I'm making a nonchalant decision in my voting. I am not, I am voting this way because they took action on several fronts that a important to me. You will ask for examples and a burden of proof and if I dont take the time to fully flesh out every example with sourcing you will discredit those examples. It becomes too much, i dont have the time.
You are right, I did attack your character. Im sorry. There has been several instances in the past where you have attacked mine, and I chose not to reciprocate. You often attack posters in direct or passive aggressive means.

Let’s keep it simple.

Things the UCP successfully did (Consequence):

- Lowered corporate taxes. (Most likely reducing tax revenues when we were trying to pay down debt)

- Eliminated and/or reduced worker protections in the Labour Code (Never a positive for working people, they also implemented no additional protections for essential workers during the pandemic)

- Lowered the minimum wage for workers under 18 (Brutal move from the worker’s point of view but also put business owners at risk of having a human rights complaint filed against them if they were naive/greedy enough to pay their employees the reduced wage)

- Bought a pipeline (The project was cancelled as expected and the taxpayers are out over $1B)

There’s more but are you not seeing a trend in who their policies are designed to help? Hint: It’s not the majority of people who live here.