News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.6K     0 
David A said:
Well whataboutism is alive and well! Don't forget the NDP went ahead with the South Edmonton Hospital, so at worst their score then is 1-1, the UCP is 0.
Click to expand...
Pointing out that the problem is more persistent is not whataboutism. The NDP funded the South Hospital when they knew they wouldn't be responsible for it: just like indexing Social Benefits, Affordable Housing Investments, etc. The UCP is the worst and the NDP are definitely better for the city than the UCP. Not being as vindictive and petty as Smith is not enough of a bar. This is a problem that is persistent and has hurt our city for a long time. There are a lot of structural inequities that the NDP should have fixed and didn't (Deerfoot funding for example). If we want real provincial equity we need to be clear about the problem. I will definitely vote NDP in the next election, but if Edmonton ends up being content with "At least its not the UCP" than we will continue to be short changed.
 
policyenthusiast said:
Financial analysts have been doomsaying since pre-COVID, and also saying the "housing bubble is going to pop". Believe it when you see it.
Click to expand...
I appreciate what you are saying but when the Warren Buffet is chiming in there is reason for concern. Regardless the UCP will grasp at any excuse to delay a financial reconciliation for Edmonton. Oil below $72 would be reason enough.
 
SarcasticMarmot said:
Pointing out that the problem is more persistent is not whataboutism. The NDP funded the South Hospital when they knew they wouldn't be responsible for it: just like indexing Social Benefits, Affordable Housing Investments, etc. The UCP is the worst and the NDP are definitely better for the city than the UCP. Not being as vindictive and petty as Smith is not enough of a bar. This is a problem that is persistent and has hurt our city for a long time. There are a lot of structural inequities that the NDP should have fixed and didn't (Deerfoot funding for example). If we want real provincial equity we need to be clear about the problem. I will definitely vote NDP in the next election, but if Edmonton ends up being content with "At least its not the UCP" than we will continue to be short changed.
Click to expand...
I've never been a fan of arguing against something better over something worse because it is not ideal. It is counter productive and often helps worse win.
 
Of course ‘Ol Smitty is heading down to DC to inaugurate the Trump. But reading the comments section of her followers is actually troublesome….
IMG_2232.png
 
MacLac said:
Of course ‘Ol Smitty is heading down to DC to inaugurate the Trump. But reading the comments section of her followers is actually troublesome….
View attachment 612286
Click to expand...
What a tone deaf idiotic thing to do. She has left no doubt in the minds of most Albertans of her far right tendencies. Let’s see how many more premiers attend.
 
Whattagame said:
Pretending that there's not already a significant discount on WCS. Cute.
Click to expand...
Yes, although not as much as before the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, but of course Smith isn't going to thank the Feds for that.

But, in any event, tariffs on oil and gas exports to the US do not make sense. It would disrupt US refineries set up to process WCS and the markets in the parts of the US supplied by them.

And no US President really wants this and higher oil and gas prices, it will really upset their citizens so I don't think Trump will go there.
 
David A said:
Yes, although not as much as before the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, but of course Smith isn't going to thank the Feds for that.

But, in any event, tariffs on oil and gas exports to the US do not make sense. It would disrupt US refineries set up to process WCS and the markets in the parts of the US supplied by them.

And no US President really wants this and higher oil and gas prices, it will really upset their citizens so I don't think Trump will go there.
Click to expand...
To your last sentence, The GOP's goal isn't keeping citizens happy, but ensuring that there is a clear target for their anger. As long as there can be a scapegoat nothing is off the table. All planned tariffs will hurt the majority.
 
Whattagame said:
To your last sentence, The GOP's goal isn't keeping citizens happy, but ensuring that there is a clear target for their anger. As long as there can be a scapegoat nothing is off the table. All planned tariffs will hurt the majority.
Click to expand...
Their plan to get elected was to whip up anger against the incumbents about inflation (declining), unemployment (low by historical standards) and immigration (a law to restrict it they declined to support) and they succeeded.

Now that they soon will be the incumbents, the last thing they want is noticeably rising gas prices while they are in power. US voters would really not like that. Most likely the anger will be whipped up against immigrants or China.
 
David A said:
Their plan to get elected was to whip up anger against the incumbents about inflation (declining), unemployment (low by historical standards) and immigration (a law to restrict it they declined to support) and they succeeded.

Now that they soon will be the incumbents, the last thing they want is noticeably rising gas prices while they are in power. US voters would really not like that. Most likely the anger will be whipped up against immigrants or China.
Click to expand...
Prices for everything else will go up, and they don't care. And part of the plan is to remove regulations and increase domestic oil production. They don't care if Suncor has a decline in earnings. Those dollars will go to US mega donors.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top