Premier Danielle Smith: Train wreck

[eyeball]

On 2/2/2023 at 10:52 AM, bcsapper said:

She's given me a good reason to get out on election day, bless her.

She seems like a blend of Marjorie Greene and Sarah Palin.

[bcsapper]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

She seems like a blend of Marjorie Greene and Sarah Palin.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to voting against her. 

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, I'm looking forward to voting against her. 

Well i'm confident she's looking forward to you losing anyway and becoming an elected premier for the next 4 years.  So it's great you both have something to look forward to

Jests aside it will be interesting to see how she actually runs the province once no election is pending. It's a little hard to say at this point who the 'real' smith is. Obviously a lot of it is spinning for the base, but so far her actions and her rhetoric aren't lining up.

[bcsapper]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well i'm confident she's looking forward to you losing anyway and becoming an elected premier for the next 4 years.  So it's great you both have something to look forward to

Jests aside it will be interesting to see how she actually runs the province once no election is pending. It's a little hard to say at this point who the 'real' smith is. Obviously a lot of it is spinning for the base, but so far her actions and her rhetoric aren't lining up.

I don't know so much.  The last time the Conservative government showed such arrogance it let the NDP in.

I think she miscalculates public opinion when she speaks of Alberta sovereignty and a provincial police force.

[Contrarian]

32 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

when she speaks of Alberta sovereignty and a provincial police force.

You know will be the first to admit that I have no idea about Alberta politics. I try to not talk too much about things I don't understand, but what I can say is this idea that in 2023 a province can break out is science fiction for me. 

As I said, most likely will vote conservative here where I am, but if my Conservative member starts talking about separation, then that reminds me of some European grievances that people keep ranting about their own little patch of land being independent. Move on already.

Don't think the status quo will ever allow it. If it does, will be a shocker for me even though Alberta politics is not a passion of mine. 

Edited February 20 by Contrarian
changed my language = )

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know so much.  The last time the Conservative government showed such arrogance it let the NDP in.

I think she miscalculates public opinion when she speaks of Alberta sovereignty and a provincial police force.

This is canadian politics, where literally anything can happen and often does. So i'm not going to say you're wrong.

But so far the evidence is leaning towards a UPC victory, albeit not as strong as ones in the past and that does seem very likely. As is often the case it will come down to calgary

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

You know will be the first to admit that I have no idea about Alberta politics. I try to not talk too much about things I don't understand, but what I can say is this idea that in 2023 a province can break out is similar to the dreams that the communists used to sell back in Europe that they will make their own box strong. 

 

Well if you mean you don't think it could happen because it wouldn't be allowed, i would have to disagree and there is much history to show that it absolutely could and would if that's what the people wanted. For sure its "possible" to do

 

If you mean you don't think it would go well and couldn't be successfully managed, that's probably more accurate. Alberta by itself would not have the population and economic diversity to support itself as a land locked small nation for long.

To have a successful 'breakaway' that would stand the test of time you'd really need bc, alberta AND sask as a minimum and tossing manitoba in would greatly improve the chances of success. Anything less than that would be a pretty hard go.

[Contrarian]

Just now, CdnFox said:

i would have to disagree and there is much history to show that it absolutely could and would if that's what the people wanted. For sure its "possible" to do

Welcome to the forum. 

Which history specifically are you referring in regard to the above? specific cases? I would like to hear your view. 

[CdnFox]

46 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Welcome to the forum. 

Which history specifically are you referring in regard to the above? specific cases? I would like to hear your view. 

Thanks!

There are many worldwide,  it has essentially been recognized by the global community that if a region votes to leave a larger body then that should be respected and recognized. This is why many countries had to bite their tounge in 2014 over crimea.

Getting closer to home all of this was addressed during the constitutional crises of the 80's and 90's.  The Clarity act in article 3 outlines when the feds are required to negotiate a secession resulting from a vote. We are a confederation of provinces after all, and if  a province can opt into that confederation then there must be a mechanism for it to  leace as well.

oF course that creates some of it's own problems - if a province can secede then why not a smaller section? Could upper quebec choose to stay in canada even if there was a vote where a majority in quebec chose to leave? What about first nations communities? Could a reserve vote to stay or form it's own country? If you allow the province you pretty much have to allow for that as well.  So it can get sticky

But there can be no doubt in the end  -  if a "clear majority' of albertans want to seperate, then the feds are required to entertain that process and the international community will recognize that right.  And the feds would have a very weak position to try to 'force' them to stay.

[bcsapper]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Thanks!

There are many worldwide,  it has essentially been recognized by the global community that if a region votes to leave a larger body then that should be respected and recognized. This is why many countries had to bite their tounge in 2014 over crimea.

Getting closer to home all of this was addressed during the constitutional crises of the 80's and 90's.  The Clarity act in article 3 outlines when the feds are required to negotiate a secession resulting from a vote. We are a confederation of provinces after all, and if  a province can opt into that confederation then there must be a mechanism for it to  leace as well.

oF course that creates some of it's own problems - if a province can secede then why not a smaller section? Could upper quebec choose to stay in canada even if there was a vote where a majority in quebec chose to leave? What about first nations communities? Could a reserve vote to stay or form it's own country? If you allow the province you pretty much have to allow for that as well.  So it can get sticky

But there can be no doubt in the end  -  if a "clear majority' of albertans want to seperate, then the feds are required to entertain that process and the international community will recognize that right.  And the feds would have a very weak position to try to 'force' them to stay.

I agree with the principle.  It works both ways, and I've always supported the rights of the Falkland Islanders and the Northern Irish to remain independent.

That said, Canada would have no obligation to make it easy, and given our geographic limitations and the absolute necessity of using parts of what would be another country for our imports, exports and mobility, I don't see how it could ever come about.  Unless the Americans were feeling particularly altruistic.

If Albert ever did leave, I wonder how much time I would be allowed to find somewhere else to live before I'd need a visa. 

[Contrarian]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

it has essentially been recognized by the global community that if a region votes to leave a larger body then that should be respected and recognized. This is why many countries had to bite their tounge in 2014 over crimea

Yes, but is not 100 % accurate. Let's be honest here. The issue of secession is complex and varies.

While the principle of self-determination is recognized under international law, the right to secession is not an absolute one.

---> The United Nations Charter upholds the principle of respect for territorial integrity and the prohibition of the use of force in international relations. In addition, many countries have their own laws and constitutional provisions regarding secession.

Regarding the situation in Crimea in 2014, The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution in 2014 affirming the territorial integrity of Ukraine and condemning the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.

Edited February 20 by Contrarian

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I agree with the principle.  It works both ways, and I've always supported the rights of the Falkland Islanders and the Northern Irish to remain independent.

Sure, good examples.

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That said, Canada would have no obligation to make it easy,

but they do.  And they have no practical way of making it terribly hard.

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

given our geographic limitations and the absolute necessity of using parts of what would be another country for our imports, exports and mobility, I don't see how it could ever come about. 

It's an issue if it's just alberta - but there's only so far they would go either. Alberta could likewise make things more challenging. 

But at the end of the day for alberta to go it alone without at least a few other provinces - even if Canada remained friendly and the terms were good, i don't think they'd make it.

Mind you if they did split there's a very good chance that in short order bc and sask would as well. And that would change things quite a bit.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Yes, but is not 100 % accurate. Let's be honest here. The issue of secession is complex and varies.

Sure, it's hardly surprising that i can't give a full account on a small forum   But it is more accurate than not.  And for canada that would be even more so. It doesn't need to be absolute to be real.
 

Quote

 

Regarding the situation in Crimea in 2014, The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution in 2014 affirming the territorial integrity of Ukraine and condemning the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.

 

But individual countries ignored it. It was recognized that while the vote was a little hokey, there was a legit vote and there did seem to be strong feelings in that region to side with russia. And there were reasons for that historically.

Compare that with the recent 'votes' which were obvious shams, which NOBODY has taken seriously and every country condemns. Different story.

There can be no dobut that if Alberata wanted to try it as a seperate nation it would happen. And other countries would recognize  it.  But i don't think it would last long without at least some of the other provinces getitng involved. Unless we're talking about some hybrid sovereignty-association crap.

[Contrarian]

I am curious if a poll has been done in Alberta, as to what is the percentage of people that want to go this route. Maybe something to look into later over the internet. 

Edited February 21 by Contrarian

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Contrarian said:

I am curious if a poll has been done in Alberta, as to what is the percentage of people that want to go this route. Maybe something to look into later over the internet. 

Well like most contentious subjects the numbers change quite a bit.

They used to be very high (in the high 40s as i recall) before harper won. BC at the time was even higher.

It went way down during harper's term. Now it's back up a bit but fluctuating. Still definitely well below what would be needed.

But things can change, and suddenly. The potential is there. I really don't think it'll happen tho if it's JUST alberta.

[OftenWrong]

On 2/20/2023 at 12:32 PM, CdnFox said:

Looks like the whole 'Interference" thing was nonsense at this point. No sign of the emails, no witnesses, and the newspapers have admitted they didn't see any of that before posting the story either.  Which is HORRIBLE journalism, it's one thing to protect a source, but if you do you have to be pretty damn sure the source is accurate and at least verify things like these emails exist.

This isn't the first time we've seen allegations from the CBC which turned out to be false and unsubstantiated.

That's right, but while CBC et al were screaming entire front pages about the accusations and inuendo when it first came out, they've quietly retracted and said little about it. Proof that our journalism completely sucks.

Luckily most Canadians have the memory of a hamster, and forgotten about it already.

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

they've quietly retracted and said little about it.

Have they? last i saw they doubled down on it when it was pointed out they hadn't even seen the 'emails' claiming that the unknown source was SOOOo reliable that everyone should just trust them.

Nice if they have retracted it - i wouldn't know, i rarely have time to read the paper all the way to page 78 these days and i'm sure it would have been after that

49 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Luckily most Canadians have the memory of a hamster, and forgotten about it already.

Our weakness is our strength.

[TreeBeard]

The Premier of Alberta thought she had clemency power “like in the USA”.  
 

Quote

"It's unfortunate that I didn't understand the limitations," she said in the phone call. "I thought we had the same power of clemency we had in the U.S."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-premier-danielle-smith-leaked-call-artur-pawlowski-1.6743685

She also spoke to justice officials in Alberta weekly to try and convince them to drop charges on someone.  Not a great look for the new Premier…. political interference in prosecutions.  

[bcsapper]

26 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The Premier of Alberta thought she had clemency power “like in the USA”.  
 

She also spoke to justice officials in Alberta weekly to try and convince them to drop charges on someone.  Not a great look for the new Premier…. political interference in prosecutions.  

Roll on the election, see if we can bin her.

[ironstone]

As usual, it depends on who you hear the story from.

GUNTER: CBC spin on Smith recording just shows broadcaster's bias (msn.com)

Not as bad as the CBC is making it out to be?

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

The Premier of Alberta thought she had clemency power “like in the USA”.  
 

She also spoke to justice officials in Alberta weekly to try and convince them to drop charges on someone.  Not a great look for the new Premier…. political interference in prosecutions.  

The phone conversation makes it clear she's aware of what she can do and can't and that she's adamant she isn't willing to cross that line.

The look is fine.

And this kind of attempt to smear is going to win her back a lot of hesitant votes.  Many will decide they don't like how she's been unfairly and unreasonably picked on and vote for her just to 'show them' .  Which is not a great reason to vote for someone but it's what will happen.

Looks like 4 more years of ucp for alberta

 

Edited March 30 by CdnFox

[TreeBeard]

When has a Canadian Premier ever provided amnesty to anyone facing criminal charges?   Smith is either utterly stupid, or just lying that she had the powers of an American governor.   

Edited March 31 by TreeBeard

[CdnFox]

On 3/30/2023 at 7:38 PM, TreeBeard said:

When has a Canadian Premier ever provided amnesty to anyone facing criminal charges?  

Never. That's not within their power.

On 3/30/2023 at 7:38 PM, TreeBeard said:

Smith is either utterly stupid, or just lying that she had the powers of an American governor.   

Well i'd go with stupid to be honest. Or just overstating what she intended -a premier CAN question whether something is in the best interests of justice to pursue and can make those in charge think it over before proceeding.

That's not really wrong to do either provided they don't pressure them (gosh - i hope your department doesn't lose funding over this, etc) or pressure the wrong people. 

But she can't provide amnesty.

Now - if you had asked which premier promised a little more than they could deliver before getting elected - the answer is 100 percent   So, yeah.

[blackbird]

I'm sure the Alberta NDP has its share of scandals when they were in power.

"

This email accidentally sent to CBC News contains scripted answers to reporters' questions about the two unnamed NDP MLAs who were investigated for sexual misconduct. (CBC)

The email offers a glimpse at the government's behind-the scenes message management on an issue the premier's office has appeared eager to avoid. 

Premier Rachel Notley has refused to reveal the identities of the two MLAs, claiming that could reveal the identities of the complainants.

The incidents took place outside the workplace.

The third-party investigations found the issues could be resolved through education, Notley said."  -CBC news

So does that mean the public don't get to know who or what happened with regard to leaked reports about sexual misconduct involving MLAs and what the punishment was?  Looks like no punishment,  just a bit of "education".

Another issue:

"Luff was removed from NDP caucus two weeks ago after she made allegations about bullying and intimidation by party leadership. "   

What about bullying and intimidation within the party?  Where are the details about that?

The NDP are certainly not angels either.  Anyone who is looking for the perfect political party, you can always be hopeful.

I know who I prefer.  Someone who is not a Socialist and who will stand up to the Trudeau climate change radicals who have been harming Alberta's energy industry for years, not some lefty who will cozy up to Trudeau and climate change radicals without any real resistance to their harmful policies.

[blackbird]

On 1/21/2023 at 9:05 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

I've heard a lot of criticism of Prime Minister Trudeau's request to the AG of Canada to see if the Chief Prosecuter would consider a deferred prosecution for SNC Lavalin. Now we have Premier Danielle Smith's office trying to influence the prosecution of suspects involved in the illegal blockade at Coutts,Alberta. I happened to be in BC in 1998 when Glenn Clark was Premier of BC. The question every morning was, not if Premier Clark did something stupid that day, but what kind of new studid thing did he do. The fact that he would do something stupid every day was a given, like the sun rising in the east. But what was amazing was the lengths he would go to to find some new stupid thing every day. He was almost an artist, using stupidity as his medium. Now, we see he has an apprentice in the Glenn Clark School of the Stupid Arts, in the form of Danielle Smith. Where do they find these people.

So you would prefer a Socialist party rather than a free enterprise party?  It is the liberals and NDP that are wrecking the economy and society in general in Canada.  No party is perfect as far as ethics. When in power they have all had their ethics failures or scandals.  That is a given in the system and in politics.   If you find the perfect party, let us know.  But Socialist and liberal lefties are the worst in every way.

Edited April 10 by blackbird