David A
Senior Member
.. and today in other news, some one is getting government contracts
|
|
|
- Thread starter ION
- Start date
Glenco
Senior Member
And she is a liar. Need we go on .
Glenco
Senior Member
David A
Senior Member
Apparently we still do given how many people voted for her. I believe they will eventually come to regret it, much as they did with their previous leader.
kcantor
Senior Member
that's not very fair is it?
that clip must be at least two months old by now which is multiple eons in "danielle speak". i'm sure that over the course of multiple eons we all mature and develop more nuanced and realistic views of life in general and politics in particular.
it might also simply be a matter of her having mis-spoken when that clip was recorded. it might not have reflected her full views on the subject matter at that particular moment in time, never mind past that particular moment in time.
or it might be that your conclusion is in fact pretty accurate and accuracy is more important than fairness when trying to ascertain the truth.
what was that old saw? "question: is she lying? answer: i'm not positive but her lips are moving".
The_Cat
Senior Member
The voters were warned.
TravellingChris
Active Member
Because there's a hell of a lot of runway between now and the next election. A ton can happen during that time. The concerns that have been raised (here and elsewhere) about Danielle Smith and the UCP are valid ones. But the time to raise a big stink about it was during the election. It's WAY too late now that the UCP have a fresh majority. As we've seen they can do a lot of what they want (and the pension plan boondoggle tops the list) before May 2027.
My point is that peeing and moaning about Smith and the UCP now is pointless. You talk about the next election: you think anyone will even remember issues like the current T-shirt fracas (and whatever critics feel that it shows about Smith's judgment or lack thereof) when May 2027 rolls around?
At the moment, it just seems like a lot of bellyaching by people who are ticked off that their party didn't win.
TravellingChris
Active Member
And the UCP was nevertheless reelected to a majority. That's democracy. Sometimes it breaks your way, sometimes it doesn't.
archited
Senior Member
I see that the "my team" vs "your team" mentality has crept into Canadian governance -- that is a sad, sad state of affairs. It bodes poorly for responsible leadership. First a Trump-lite as head figurine and now a comparison of shirt stripes. Look out Alberta!
David A
Senior Member
Lets not confuse election campaigns with accountability.
Accountability isn't something that happens for a few weeks once every four years. A government is accountable to the public for its actions every day always and unless you want a dictatorship, people are free to criticize the government for its actions.
If the best defense of those actions is it is too soon to criticize because we just had an election, that is a very weak argument.
Accountability isn't something that happens for a few weeks once every four years. A government is accountable to the public for its actions every day always and unless you want a dictatorship, people are free to criticize the government for its actions.
If the best defense of those actions is it is too soon to criticize because we just had an election, that is a very weak argument.
kcantor
Senior Member
kim campbell was quoted as having said “an election is no time to discuss serious issues” although she asserts she was misquoted by the reporter and meant that 47 days were not enough tackle such serious issues.
whether the quote is accurate or not, i believe it remains a truism.
serious issues need to be discussed all of the time if there is going to be any accountability. by the time an election is actually being held, it should be less about the promises of future action and accountability and more about accountability for decisions and actions taken since the last election (and to a degree that's as true for opposition parties as it is for governing parties).
Whattagame
Active Member
The loudest grievance is being bellowed from those whose party did win. I was at a funeral (!) in rural Alberta two weeks ago, and when I tried to make small talk about something innocuous, the person I was talking to immediately launched into a tirade about how the Notley/Trudeau alliance (?) is attacking Albertans. If voters of that other party can use their affiliation to promote conspiracy theories at a funeral of all places, I can certainly voice my displeasure when our elected leadership shows support for bigotry.
Perhaps you're not personally affected by it, I'd rather speak up in support of those who are instead of saying "Whelp! Sorry gay people - I guess you'll just have to choke on state-sponsored hate for the next 4 years.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "
Last edited:
David A
Senior Member
As always motivation in getting people out to vote is part of this. Riled up, angry people turn out to vote. If you can't expand your support, you rile up your base to get them out as much as possible.
However, at some point the extremism, anger and everything else that comes with it starts to turn off other people, so it can be counterproductive not to mention unhealthy for everyone and society in general.
Whattagame
Active Member
I'm not sure which group you're referring to here. This isn't a "both sides" situation.
David A
Senior Member
The comment I was replying to should clarify that for you. Yes, it is more of a one side thing at the current time, but at other times other parties have done some of the same things to, maybe not to the same extent or it may not have worked for them as well.