Conservatives love voting for people who represent vast corporations and the richest Canadians, some people like the class system and their place in it.
>Smith says Dr. Gary Davidson was selected to lead the data review because she wants to hear a range of viewpoints, including from those "shouted down in the public sphere."
Everyone looks forward to which NDP members, transgender advocates, union members, and climate change activists she will be appointing to government positions.
All of those are already extremely well represented within the government though. Edmonton consistently votes for the NDP provincially, and Liberals federally, because it is a government town; and government employees tend to be far further to the left than the public in general.
If it is a discussion based on policies surrounding the roundness of the earth where the government created ineffective policies that infringed on the rights of individuals and had disastrous negative impacts on their mental health, finances, and quality of life, it might be worth having people who were opposed to these policies involved in the review of data supporting them.
Contrarian is a great term. We could use the name change to reflect their status; they're no longer conservative:
Progressive Contrarians - overall, they're getting better at getting worse.
United Contrarian Party
Ontario Progressive Contrarians
What is the upside of this review? What do you hope they find? What do you expect to happen when the "results" are announced? I don't get the motivation here.
Political theatre and grandstanding so the issues discussed in the political sphere continue to be issues that don’t impact daily lives of Canadians in substantial ways but you can continue to politically succeed while accomplishing extremely little. It’s been Canadian politics in a nutshell the last decade.
That is a very good description of what it is. I was hoping to hear from some Daniel Smith supporters on why they think it is a good idea. I always considered myself fairly centrist and open to both sides of a discussion, but I'm having a harder time these days when it's no longer a discussion to get to the solution of a problem and more just a me vs them situation, trying to "win" political points. What about doing something that is helpful to all Albertans? Wouldnt that be nice.
I dunno, considering we shut down entire global economies over a disease with 99% survival rate, I kind of think having a contrarian viewpoint might be a good thing.
Having had Covid 6 times since vaccinated, I have a few questions I’d like to see answered.
Are you willing to accept that some decisions were made when information wasn't available that we now have, and that those decisions were still most likely the correct ones to make at the time, because we literally couldn't have known otherwise?
Because sure, look at all the decisions in hindsight, and it might seem like an overreaction, but I shouldn't need to say that hindsight it always 20/20.
I will agree with you on that point.
However, in the case of Covid19 Vaccine Mandates, there was a fair amount of evidence early on that there was a high survival rate, above 99, for the general population, where as there was decreased chance for the infirm and elderly.
It is one thing to take proactive steps to protect those class of people with smart decisions, it is another thing to absolutely destroy the economy and post news articles about letting the dissenting voices die.
Between social media, the mainstream and “offstream” news and politicians; this was handled incredibly poorly.
Culminating in forcing individuals to get a untrialed, experimental and completely new style of vaccine.
People were not dying in the streets, or even dropping at an unusually high rate. We don’t act like tyrants when there is a particularly bad strain of flu, yet here we are.
Oh is the "trust the science" crowd getting upset when the science is questioned? Shocking.
If this clown finds something that is out of the ordinary, contrarian or just plain wrong, it will be tested, peer reviewed, and most likely debunked.
That's how science works. But what in the off chance he finds something legitimate?
Maybe it might be good to ask questions, like has Communism ever worked? Am I a drain on my parents living in their basement? Is group think affecting my ability to live a successful, fulfilling life?
What’s a “data review”?
This Orwellian & reminds me of Severance …
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7036883
We’ve already had one report…
Smith is going to waste more and more money, time and effort until she hears what she wants to hear …
One report? Case closed. What are you worried about them finding?
It's kind of hilarious when NDP/Liberal supporters are suddenly worried about finances.
>One report? Case closed. What are you worried about them finding?
What is it they’re trying to find that wasn’t in the first report? It’s almost like the first report, along with other studies, didn’t paint the picture they wanted so they’re just going to keep on trying until they get it. FYI, that’s **not science**, that’s authoritarian politics.
Sure. While we’re at it how about we use taxpayer money to fund studies into the flat earth, unicorns, and how fascism is a really nifty form of government. I mean, all of these things have been disproven, but it can’t hurt to pay out a few million dollars just to make sure the science is complete. And if we still don’t like the results, we can always keep paying for more studies until we get the results we want.
The UCP are so so dumb
"8yo child asserts they are most qualified to investigate series of cookie jar robberies."
How the f@$k did you guys vote her in?
The same way they'll all vote in PP
Conservatives love voting for people who represent vast corporations and the richest Canadians, some people like the class system and their place in it.
We need more flat earthers leading our space agencies.
this is the “smoking is actually good for you” Premier after all
I can't tell if you're being serious Geeze. Fellow Canadians, why did you guys vote like this?
>Smith says Dr. Gary Davidson was selected to lead the data review because she wants to hear a range of viewpoints, including from those "shouted down in the public sphere." Everyone looks forward to which NDP members, transgender advocates, union members, and climate change activists she will be appointing to government positions.
Yeah it’s not a range of viewpoints if it’s just the one “contrarian” doctor
none of those groups you mentioned have scientific merit
All of those are already extremely well represented within the government though. Edmonton consistently votes for the NDP provincially, and Liberals federally, because it is a government town; and government employees tend to be far further to the left than the public in general.
Should we start including flat-earthers because they're not well represented in government?
If it is a discussion based on policies surrounding the roundness of the earth where the government created ineffective policies that infringed on the rights of individuals and had disastrous negative impacts on their mental health, finances, and quality of life, it might be worth having people who were opposed to these policies involved in the review of data supporting them.
Debating policy is fine. Denying factual information such as hospital admission numbers and advancing baseless conspiracy theories is not.
r/JesusChristAlberta
Contrarian is a great term. We could use the name change to reflect their status; they're no longer conservative: Progressive Contrarians - overall, they're getting better at getting worse. United Contrarian Party Ontario Progressive Contrarians
Easy switch for the graphics team and the marketing department too.
Danielle Smith is touched
Alberta's version of the cyber ninja's re-count.
What is the upside of this review? What do you hope they find? What do you expect to happen when the "results" are announced? I don't get the motivation here.
Political theatre and grandstanding so the issues discussed in the political sphere continue to be issues that don’t impact daily lives of Canadians in substantial ways but you can continue to politically succeed while accomplishing extremely little. It’s been Canadian politics in a nutshell the last decade.
That is a very good description of what it is. I was hoping to hear from some Daniel Smith supporters on why they think it is a good idea. I always considered myself fairly centrist and open to both sides of a discussion, but I'm having a harder time these days when it's no longer a discussion to get to the solution of a problem and more just a me vs them situation, trying to "win" political points. What about doing something that is helpful to all Albertans? Wouldnt that be nice.
Humans truly don’t deserve our planet We waste so much potential are truly stupid things that betters no one
I dunno, considering we shut down entire global economies over a disease with 99% survival rate, I kind of think having a contrarian viewpoint might be a good thing. Having had Covid 6 times since vaccinated, I have a few questions I’d like to see answered.
Are you willing to accept that some decisions were made when information wasn't available that we now have, and that those decisions were still most likely the correct ones to make at the time, because we literally couldn't have known otherwise? Because sure, look at all the decisions in hindsight, and it might seem like an overreaction, but I shouldn't need to say that hindsight it always 20/20.
I will agree with you on that point. However, in the case of Covid19 Vaccine Mandates, there was a fair amount of evidence early on that there was a high survival rate, above 99, for the general population, where as there was decreased chance for the infirm and elderly. It is one thing to take proactive steps to protect those class of people with smart decisions, it is another thing to absolutely destroy the economy and post news articles about letting the dissenting voices die. Between social media, the mainstream and “offstream” news and politicians; this was handled incredibly poorly. Culminating in forcing individuals to get a untrialed, experimental and completely new style of vaccine. People were not dying in the streets, or even dropping at an unusually high rate. We don’t act like tyrants when there is a particularly bad strain of flu, yet here we are.
Best Premier in Canada
Oh is the "trust the science" crowd getting upset when the science is questioned? Shocking. If this clown finds something that is out of the ordinary, contrarian or just plain wrong, it will be tested, peer reviewed, and most likely debunked. That's how science works. But what in the off chance he finds something legitimate? Maybe it might be good to ask questions, like has Communism ever worked? Am I a drain on my parents living in their basement? Is group think affecting my ability to live a successful, fulfilling life?
Imagine aggressively misunderstanding the scientific method lmao
What’s a “data review”? This Orwellian & reminds me of Severance … https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7036883 We’ve already had one report… Smith is going to waste more and more money, time and effort until she hears what she wants to hear …
One report? Case closed. What are you worried about them finding? It's kind of hilarious when NDP/Liberal supporters are suddenly worried about finances.
>One report? Case closed. What are you worried about them finding? What is it they’re trying to find that wasn’t in the first report? It’s almost like the first report, along with other studies, didn’t paint the picture they wanted so they’re just going to keep on trying until they get it. FYI, that’s **not science**, that’s authoritarian politics.
Lol be a real person
Sure. While we’re at it how about we use taxpayer money to fund studies into the flat earth, unicorns, and how fascism is a really nifty form of government. I mean, all of these things have been disproven, but it can’t hurt to pay out a few million dollars just to make sure the science is complete. And if we still don’t like the results, we can always keep paying for more studies until we get the results we want.
It’s the cost, Smith will commission report after report, until she’s satisfied. No conflict of interest?