Alberta Election May 2015

[guyser]

Back it up with some examples or you're just spewing UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion!

WWWTT

every single debate.

Theres your proof.

Now grow up.

[WWWTT]

Please try to read what people say. Its called comprehension.

This comment isn't an example of what you claim.

Once again, how about posting an example of how her debating strategy makes her a weak politician.

WWWTT

[Hydraboss]

He never said she was a weak politician, he said she was not a natural. There's a difference.

I wasn't a "natural" public speaker when I started in my industry 20+ years ago, but after this long giving presentations in front of up to 3000 people a couple of times a year, I'm a "natural" now.

Same with Rachael. She may not have been a natural debater/politician, but you can be pretty sure she's been groomed for the position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

[Accountability Now]

This comment isn't an example of what you claim.

Once again, how about posting an example of how her debating strategy makes her a weak politician.

WWWTT

Do you always create strawmen arguments when you debate?

[Hydraboss]

Take a look at the sample size before you jump to conclusions.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/

[WWWTT]

He never said she was a weak politician, he said she was not a natural. There's a difference.

I wasn't a "natural" public speaker when I started in my industry 20+ years ago, but after this long giving presentations in front of up to 3000 people a couple of times a year, I'm a "natural" now.

Same with Rachael. She may not have been a natural debater/politician, but you can be pretty sure she's been groomed for the position.

Yes we are in agreement.

I asked for examples from him are where to support his claim of Rachel's use of debate material is considered weak.

Interest and a strong work ethic MUST exist within the subject to pursue and endure to become an accomplished master. Regardless of the discipline!

These core values by my definition can be/are naturally existing.

Perhaps my use of the word "natural" is misinterpreted?

WWWTT

Edited April 25, 2015 by WWWTT

[WWWTT]

http://www.threehundredeight.com/

Thanks for providing the link!

Little more info does help.

WWWTT

[Accountability Now]

I asked for examples from him are where to support his claim of Rachel's use of debate material is considered weak.

And where exactly did I say such a thing? Making up something I didn't say and then arguing against is a straw man argument.

I said she wasn't a natural since she grew up in a house where politics were an everyday thing. A natural in my mind would be someone that has no involvement in politics but is good at it. Never did I say her use of debate material was weak.

Perhaps if you actually read what people were saying and not making stuff up then you wouldn't get so deluded.

[Accountability Now]

He never said she was a weak politician, he said she was not a natural. There's a difference.

I wasn't a "natural" public speaker when I started in my industry 20+ years ago, but after this long giving presentations in front of up to 3000 people a couple of times a year, I'm a "natural" now.

Same with Rachael. She may not have been a natural debater/politician, but you can be pretty sure she's been groomed for the position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

At least someone on this thread gets it

[Hydraboss]

Perhaps my use of the word "natural" is misinterpreted?

I think maybe you're equating "natural" with "good". That is causing confusion.

[Hydraboss]

This is really interesting. With regards to the chart I posted above, the NDP only have a 20% chance of gaining seats in the "average to high" range (38-45 seats) as opposed to the WR having a 41% chance (34-42 seats). Rachel stands a better chance (30%) of landing in the "low to average" range (26-38 seats). This is a little closer to my prediction (which of course will be the correct one).

[WWWTT]

Its easy to be successful in a debate when you promise everything for everyone but yet have no track record to prove you can back it up.

Lets see some examples to back up your claim.

LOL!

You like avoiding giving Rachel any credit hey.

You commented or rather discredited her strong performance as a debater.

Back it up with some examples or you're just spewing UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion!

WWWTT

Reasonable request, reasonable request, reasonable response to your comments.

And where exactly did I say such a thing? Making up something I didn't say and then arguing against is a straw man argument.

I said she wasn't a natural since she grew up in a house where politics were an everyday thing. A natural in my mind would be someone that has no involvement in politics but is good at it. Never did I say her use of debate material was weak.

Perhaps if you actually read what people were saying and not making stuff up then you wouldn't get so deluded.

Still not an example of her debate tactic used.

But just keep spewing out, over and over and over again about "oh you can't read" or "oh you're using a strawman" to avoid actually backing up your opinion.

Each time you avoid, I will again ask you to provide an example to support your argument!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I think maybe you're equating "natural" with "good". That is causing confusion.

I bear NO RESPONSIBILITY for what you may think!

WWWTT

[Accountability Now]

Lets see some examples to back up your claim.

Reasonable request, reasonable request, reasonable response to your comments.

Still not an example of her debate tactic used.

But just keep spewing out, over and over and over again about "oh you can't read" or "oh you're using a strawman" to avoid actually backing up your opinion.

Each time you avoid, I will again ask you to provide an example to support your argument!

WWWTT

I can't believe that your are against women's rights. It's certainly appalling that you can't control your racist views either. What....you don't think the sky is blue??? Wow.

See...I can make stuff up too

[Accountability Now]

I bear NO RESPONSIBILITY for what you may think!

WWWTT

Apparently you also bear no responsibility to your own thoughts either

[WWWTT]

edited

Edited May 2, 2015 by WWWTT

[Accountability Now]

Still not an example to back your debating claim

WWWTT

You still have no clue what you're talking about

[socialist]

I feel the people of Alberta are finally coming to their senses. They realize that the only party that truly fights for the lower and middle class is the NDP. Residents in Alberta don't want a government that will under fund public education, like the government in neighbouring BC>. Christy Clark in BC will be long gone after next election. Many residents of BC are disgusted by the BC Liberals and their attack on teachers.

Residents of Alberta don't want a gutted public education system.They know the NDP is the only party that properly funds public education.

[Hydraboss]

Ms. Notley's "anti-Northern Gateway Pipeline" stance is likely going to cost her some of the "I voted PC, but maybe I'll give the NDP a try" crowd. Shooting that down, along with all of the perceived jobs/money that goes with it, is being well played by Jim's PCs as another indicator that Rachel and her party will "destroy the economy". With any luck, this turns against her in Calgary but not Edmonton (which it shouldn't). A handful of seats in Calgary and a landslide in Edmonton would be enough to give her the official opposition that she should have, and clear the way for the Wildrose to decimate the PCs in the rest of Calgary and all of rural Alberta for a win.

I still have my doubts that this election will do anything other than put the PCs in a minority government, but one can hope correct?

I'm almost to the point of having to pick the NDP over the PCs if it were to come to it. It would kill me to do, but I dislike Jim and his liberals enough to do it. Yikes.

[overthere]

They know the NDP is the only party that properly funds public education.

Except for the PCs of course, who made the teachers in Alberta the highest paid in Canada.

[Hydraboss]

Great poll if you have a minute to read it. Point of interest.....Prentice refused to answer.

http://mikesbloggityblog.com/albertas-political-leaders-weigh-in-a-pop-culture-survey/

[ProudCanadianConservative]

This election if the polls hold true will be decided in Calgary.

The ndp will likely win Edmonton, the Wildrose will likely win most of the rural slash outside Calgary and Edmonton ridings, so Calgary will decide.

If ndp wins Calgary it will be an ndp majority

if Wildrose wins Calgary it will be a Wildrose majority

if pc keep Calgary it will be a minority government.

If the ndp win there could be some more students turned politicians which I'm tired of in politics.

[Hydraboss]

All true.

Now what happens if WR and the NDP split Calgary? I strongly doubt Rachel will gain enough seats in cowtown to form a majority, but it is plausible (if not likely) that the WR may take to majority of seats there. Should that happen, there is an ever-so-slim chance that they could total the 44 seats needed. Now THAT would be a shocker - but a hell of a good one to see.

Unfortunately, I'm still going to go with a PC minority at this point. Disappointing I know, but Albertans tend to come off the couch to vote only when there is a challenge to the status quo.

[overthere]

Disappointing I know, but Albertans tend to come off the couch to vote only when there is a challenge to the status quo.

I'm curious to know how you would define the political and economic status in Alberta.

Edited April 29, 2015 by overthere

[Hydraboss]

In what terms would you like me to define it?

Economic - "the province is crumbling under a massive deficit and this will be 1982 all over again"....only, not really. I've been in the energy industry long enough to have seen this time and time again (hence the Oilfield Prayer - "Please god let it come again. I promise I won't piss it all away this time.") The sky is NOT falling; the province is NOT going to be penniless; there will not be widespread MASSIVE job losses or home foreclosures. I believe this is just another energy company cost correction which they do every few years (including my company). Keeps the pendulum from swinging too far in one direction or the other.

Political - "the PCs are the most corrupt political party that has ever existed in Canada"....only, not really. They are shady to say the least and there are lots and lots of skeletons in the closet. Name a party that has been in power that doesn't have that. I think the majority of the electorate's "political acumen" extends as far as the most recent soundbite that reflects their beliefs. It's easy to spout off about how mad you are, but I highly doubt most people will be upset enough to actually go vote unless they are already the type that does. The NDP are creating some new "excitement" that was long overdue politically, and I think they will have their best showing ever in terms of seats. They won't form government though. The Wildrose, although they have a newbie leader, are finally not wandering off the message and letting their feet get firmly planted in their collective mouths. That should be enough to get them quite a few seats (because we all know TAXES ARE BAD).

I still think the PCs will win a thin minority, but I don't particularly care for that outcome since I am far more "right wing" than the PCs which I perceive to be VERY "left wing".

Does that answer your question or did I just ramble on for no reason?

edit->sp

Edited April 29, 2015 by Hydraboss