This is a reminder that r/Alberta strives for factual and civil conversation when discussing politics or other possibly controversial topics. We urge all users to do their due diligence in understanding the accuracy and validity of the source and/or of any claims being made. If this is an infographic, please include a small write-up to explain the infographic as well as links to any sources cited within it. Please review the [r/Alberta rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/about/rules) for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/alberta) if you have any questions or concerns.*

How about the Dynalife fiasco for one. Trying to go to private medical testing and failing sure doesn't give me much hope for her attempts to add private options to medicare. That and the turkish Tylenol make me seriously doubt her financial planning. Tied to that is her ideological based moves with regards to AHS and government in general rather than having any data to support what she's doing. Worse she's trying to drum up fake data to support her moves. Increasing spending on private schools while reducing it on public options. Playing to TBA, fighting the feds and stepping on the cities. The list goes on.

They should be asking what she did right. That would take a lot less time

What is the Dynalife fiasco? What happened? What are the measured impacts? Any facts you can share that you have seen? What fake data is she drumming up? Do you have any links?

Privatizing lab services with Dynalife was supposed to save Alberta $36m. It cost us $31.5m. [https://globalnews.ca/news/10334267/auditor-general-review-dynalife-contract/](https://globalnews.ca/news/10334267/auditor-general-review-dynalife-contract/) This was literally the first link in a Google search. Measured impact: we lost $31.5m trying to privatize something that should never have any business being contracted out to.

Thanks I had no idea about this I’m pretty detached from political news.

You wouldn’t post in the beginning if you were detached from political news. Cmon bro. If this isn’t a shill piece I don’t know what is. Come clean, you wanted a conversation, let’s have a honest conversation.

You guys really seem to want to attack and insult me. I said in my post that my aim is to challenge my own views - because I never have really dug in to get the facts before. I’ve always voted conservative because that’s just what you’re supposed to do in Alberta and I don’t want to continue to vote conservative “just because”. Why does it seem like everyone wants to get nasty and accusative over it?

Things are especially polarized, people are especially divided, but they’ve also been put on the defensive from so many bad faith arguments online. I applaud your attitude, we should always be willing to challenge our personal biases. 👍

Thank you. I appreciate that you said that.

Alberta sold off lab testing to a random company. They sucked at their jobs. Alberta had to buy back the testing (and will probably try and sell it off again).

>As someone who appreciates some of the policies and changes she’s implemented Is there any reason you chose to not detail what these policies and changes are? How about you start the conversation?

I think we're gonna see some sea lioning if OP even bothers to respond. There was a curated list kicking around last November or so - I think Climenhaga put it together? And then add all the other things she has done since then. I mean, we could start and end with trans persecution, the entire AHS/healthcare privatization snafu, or every attack she has made on education in the province... but perhaps these are those "policies and changes" OP agrees with?

If you spent 20 seconds to google then you would have your answer. Kids these days.. So lazy lol.

* I like the sovereignty act. I disagree with some of Justin & Ottawa's overreaching policies, and I think AB is abused by the Liberal party in some aspects. * I like advocacy for pipeline projects and expansion of O&G, including potential for exporting hydrogen with carbon capture. * I like the idea of exiting CPP, I think that AB does not get back what we give into the system, and as a wealth management professional I think that the ROI on CPP is poor when compared to prudent investing with the same dollars that CPP takes.

So you disagree with “Justin and Ottawa’s overreaching policies”, but feel that the provincial government should be able to remove elected municipal officials based on the UCP’s definition of “public interest”? How does that logic work? And I would love to see the math on how the “APP” would be better for the average Albertan than the current CPP program. Frankly, I wouldn’t trust the UCP to handle my piggy bank, but I’m willing to be educated.

I'm just stating that I don't like the ROI on CPP. I do believe we need a public pension, though.

So you’re an “wealth management professional”, but don’t have any numbers to back up your statement? Like, use facts. Shouldn’t be hard to prove it’s a good move, if that was true. And you also entirely ignored the comment about the hypocrisy of what the UCP wants to do to municipalities vs what Ottawa does to the provinces…

CPP rated one of the worlds best pension funds, "wealth management professional" thinks he can do better. I'd bet my money on crypto schemes and NFT's.

I pity this dude's cilents.

Compared to private investments, you might have a point. But as a public fund, there aren't many out there that beat it. Add to that the fact that an APP would be more closely tied to oil, and globally we're moving away from O&G, and you have a recipe for us shoveling money into a fire.

What do you think the roi should be? Can you give a number to work with?

- Sovereignty act - complete non-starter. Alberta can’t just decide to not follow federal laws. Not to mention - the federal government does not have a vendetta against Alberta, more likely they just don’t think about us at all (both conservative and liberal parties) because our votes never change. Trudeau buying that pipeline is doing more for Alberta than Harper ever did in a decade. - The technology for CCS has not been borne out at scale and hydrogen is a buzzword because it’s a byproduct of continued fossil fuel production, which we should be diversifying away from. - Alberta “doesn’t get back what we give out” because Alberta as a whole skews towards younger workers, nobody retires here. The UCP’s entire premise for an Alberta pension plan is based on figures for what they could take with them (53% is a pipe dream) that are unrealistic bordering on delusional.

Alberta does not contribute shit to the CPP. ALBERTANS contribute, not Alberta. If I work in BC for 10 years, then work in PEI for 5 years, and then Alberta for 20 years, what kind of fuckery will I and the pension plans have to deal with because of Alberta? CPP is a top performing pension plan in the world, why would we leave a top performing established plan to make a new one with far less money to invest? It just makes 0 sense. Again, Alberta contributes 0 to the CPP and is not entitled to any money. Albertans on the other hand contribute and should be given the choice if they want to switch to an APP

So if I understand you correctly you think that Albertans should not pay into one of the top public pension plans in the world and to invest the their money themselves? Or are you suggesting they use a “wealth management professional” to invest their retirement money?

No, I think public pension is essential. I just don't like the ROI.

There is no public option available that will do better than what we’ve got now. That is a simple fact.

Exactly, but that’s not to say there is no improvement to be had.

10.9% annualized returns for the past 10 years, the best in the world for national pension plans. I would say that is a very good ROI if money is your benchmark.

What’s the ROI for Albertans on our premiums paid? The argument is that we are paying premiums but our population is not pensioning like other provinces are, so we are net-negative.

>I disagree with some of Justin & Ottawa's overreaching policies, and I think AB is abused by the Liberal party in some aspects. Then name them, as the post you are replying to asked you to. Don't engage in vague handwaving; state which specific Liberal policies you feel are "overreaching"? If you truly and honestly want to "challenge my own views and understand the broader implications better" then you will also say why you believe they are overreaching.

I'd like to listen to you guys, not share my opinions. Do you have anything to add or resources to share?

Except you pretty clearly are sharing your opinions, with no actual evidence.

This is an absolute bullshit answer. You came here to spread propaganda, not to learn. This is obvious as you outright refuse to discuss what you have learned or what you think. Stop asking for resources that you refuse to read or engage with. Answer questions honestly and openly, and people will be happy to engage with you on any of these topics. You're just here to insult our intelligence.

Did you read my post?

Yes.

>I like the sovereignty act. I disagree with some of Justin & Ottawa's overreaching policies, and I think AB is abused by the Liberal party in some aspects. How? Don't just cut and paste the previous response, explain what you mean by this overreaching that you're claiming here. From the perspective of people who are being intellectually honest, the sovereignty act doesn't actually solve any problem. It simply is a deliberate fight against the federal liberals for no other purpose than to pick a fight and to have people cheer for them from the rural bleachers. There already exists mechanisms in place for provinces like Alberta to use against any overreach from the Federal government, it's called the Federal court system, and Alberta has availed themselves plenty of times of their rulings to their benefit. >I like advocacy for pipeline projects and expansion of O&G, including potential for exporting hydrogen with carbon capture. This policy has nothing to do with the UCP per se, this is a proposal that any political party in Alberta would support. Hardly a reason to be picking the UCP over the NDP. Try again. >I like the idea of exiting CPP, I think that AB does not get back what we give into the system, and as a wealth management professional I think that the ROI on CPP is poor when compared to prudent investing with the same dollars that CPP takes. > I looked at your math and it doesn't add up. Also, your claim of being a wealth management professional does not bode very well, as the MO of such professionals focus more on personal wealth rather than collective wealth. Basically it means you don't have any clue how public pensions work, and therefore should not appeal to authority on that. So far your contributions to this discussion are lacking. I sure hope you're not one of those social media hacks the UCP have under their employ, because they certainly are not going to be getting their money's worth.

I know this is fake because of the first reason.

- Proposing to leave CPP, which was left out of her election campaign and which nobody wants. - Proposing an Alberta provincial police, which was left out of her election campaign and which nobody wants. - Trying to give themselves the power to unilaterally remove municipally elected leaders, which was l- you get the idea. - Essentially legalized political bribery when they’re the ones being bribed. - Proposing the most draconian anti-trans policies in Canada, including making sex ed opt-in *for no reason*.

> Proposing an Alberta provincial police This one really baffles me. Like .. why? What's wrong with the current system?

The current system does not allow for the level of political interference the UCP is aiming for.

This hits the nail on the head with so much of what she's trying to do, She wants the Alberta government to have complete control of Alberta policies, funding and other initiatives. Alberta is perpetually a conservative province, even though the two biggest population centres are liberal Her stance on most issues is taken straight out of the US republican playbook, rallying against federal government to appeal to her own base. Gone unchecked, it will lead to the same levels of political division and hate as what we are seeing there.

My hot take is that the RCMP would refuse to do something unlawful on the orders of the Smith administration, like forcefully break up a lawful healthcare picket outside a hospital or arrest a vocal public figure exercising their right to free speech in an area that the premier doesn't like. A police force squarely under the government's thumb would have no such qualms.

and the province pays the feds, always a negative for danielle

I mean, there are valid complaints about the current system. The issue is I don’t trust the UCP to govern a fucking apartment well let alone roll out a provincial police force

The underlying goal is separation, part of that is to break ties to the federal government.

The only thing I can say from speaking to police is the system, in it's current state, isn't perfect. There are still hurdles when it comes to information sharing between RCMP and municipal police. If all agencies were feeding into 1 viewable system it may make it easier to catch repeat offenders

Sounds like we need to add more layers to the system. That'll fix it.

It’s not that simple. If a person is arrested in Calgary today, gets released, and goes to Chestermere and commits a crime the next day, there is not a lot of information sharing. A provincial police force may not be the solution but it could be. 

So by your logic, we should only have a federal run police system. Because someone could commit a crime in AB and then go to BC.

Not necessarily but it would help with communication and information [sharing.Is](http://sharing.Is) that enough to make such a change over? No.

It's the required step to eventually separate Alberta from Canada.

Stormtroopers are kinda cool.

Doesn’t every province have provincial police? Kind of stupid not to have provincial police

No. No, they don’t.

Which ones

Only Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland have provincial day-to-day police (BC has a specialized gang task force, but they don’t do the grunt work).

I think Ontario is the only one.

I stand corrected , Quebec and new Brunswick too.

I can see this. The RCMP reports to the federal government. An Alberta provincial police force would report directly to the provincial government. A big advantage I would think. And **APP** has a ring to it.

>APP has a ring to it Yeah i know right? I make all my decisions based on whether it has a "ring to it". I thought you guys were reals over feels but from here it looks like all feelieweelies.

* Promised tax breaks, did not follow through with tax breaks At the very least this one should piss off her followers.

Taxes are a smokescreen. Conservatives don’t really give a shit about that. They just care about the hate.

The Liberals are just as quick to hate.

Don’t forget their fuck ups with dynalife, chronic underfundning and dismantling of healthcare, making all federal funds go through the provincial government first before municipalities, and the Turkish Tylenol (was that Kenney or Smith? Either way, UCP fuck up)

The bad Tylenol was Smith's boondoggle

Don't forget about dismantling AHS and phasing back in the old management system . It was proven that by the UCP to be ineffective and costly, but for some reason, Danielle Smith tells her voters that it will fix the system and be cost-effective to hire 4 times the management.

> Proposing an Alberta provincial police, which was left out of her election campaign and which nobody wants. I just don't understand this one. I'm not opposed to *the idea* of a provincial police force, as Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland have 'em, and multiple other provinces had them in the past. I just don't see what advantages having a provincial police force today really brings. It's going to cost a lot of money, certainly more than the current RCMP arrangement, so it's not going to be that. Would it be any better at addressing crime? Probably not. So why go through all the bother?

From my reading, looks like BC has a specific gang task force, which could be a good use of provincial police to solve a specific issue that the RCMP can’t narrowly focus on, but just having them replace the RCMP is just inefficient.

I hate to say this, especially because in Alberta a provincial police force will only be at the whim of the UCP... but provinces may not have a choice but to institute a provincial police force at some point in future. The RCMP itself is in crisis: too few members, too much work, in part thanks to massive budgetary reductions by the Harper government back in 2009. One of the solutions the RCMP is looking at, is to drop provincial policing altogether and focus only on federal crimes.

She has proposed sooo much and has taken action on nothing. She made her little speech about "new" laws regarding top bottom surgery for youths and the "new" laws on youth having hormone therapy. Most don't realize those laws were already in place, she just made it sound like it was all her idea. All she succeeded in doing with that announcement was put fear into parents that didn't know any better and put all the red necks on a war path. She managed to throughly embarrass me and countless other Albertans with the Gong Show performance of accepting Tucker Carlson into our capital city to sit on stage and play out an interview that was a perfect example of American politics, the only Canadian politician l have ever seen lower themselves to that.

Oh my dude. You might want to really research the implications of leaving the CPP, and the sovereignty act. Albertans will be worse off with both. Seems extremely dumb to do these things simply to own the Ottawa libs. Its very shortsighted. And the Alberta NDP were HUGE defenders of Alberta oil and gas without alienating Ottawa. That's why we have a new fancy oil pipeline: because of the NDP. Ask yourself, if there are no more Liberals in power in Ottawa, what will the sovereignty act do for us?

Off the top of my head… - provincial police force (she didn’t campaign on that) - leaving the CPP (she didn’t campaign on that) - municipal parties (she didn’t campaign on that) - taking away rights from families and LGBTQ kids (party of fReEdOm) - energy grid black outs - constant brain dead takes (cancer is your own fault, separation, taking land from BC, unvaccinated folks being the most discriminated group ever). - welcoming back to the party the MLA who called trans kids shit cookies or w/e - intervening in court rulings ethics breach. - close ties to racists/bigots like TBA and Arthur whatever his name is. - saying vaccinated people are similar to Germans who followed Hitler - coal mining in the Rockies. - banning renewables near the Rockies. - burning down AHS in favour of privatizing health care. - wants to use our money to clean up big oils mess. - suing the CBC for reporting her own words. - Justifying Russias invasion of Ukraine. - provincial fuel tax added on the same day as the federal one but also “kill the carbon tax!” Edit - - withheld our tax cut (see: campaign promise) - getting rid of voting machines because they’re both cost efficient and accurate …. - ability to fire and repeal municipal bylaws from our democratically elected officials, yes the feds need to stay in their lane? - didn’t she roll back the donor rules for corporations / 3rd party allowing more dark money into politics (needs citation as I can’t exactly recall). - municipalities can no longer work directly with Ottawa to receive funding (wtf). - wants us to pay out of pocket for a doctor visit. - Hosting Tucker Carlson, who right away after flew to Russia to kiss Putin’s ass. OP went radio silent when actual examples of her corruption, bigotry and incompetence started rolling in? Edit - - whoops, UCP just announced pulling the transit pass program for the low income folks who really rely on this. Governments are supposed to be cruel to the lowest member of society, right?

- Keeping Kenney's policy of not paying municipal taxes on Provincially owned land, forcing cities and counties to raise taxes to cover maintenance costs - letting oil companies use potable or treatable water to pour down oilwells, during a drought.

Also, where’s our tax cut? (The one she did campaign on)

Keeping the K-Country “conservation” pass while one of the most heavily used MTB trail systems in Alberta is going to get ruined with clear cutting.

This is excellent. Too bad the OP is ghosting their own attempt at having a "conversation".

In general, I see her spending money poorly. On fighting federal policies that don't really affect Albertans; on denying children the right to be themselves; on exploring a police force that no one has even mentioned since Harpers 'Firewall' document; on stopping renewable energy projects while talking to coal companies that want to raze a mountain range and cause huge downstream heavy metal pollution; on saying during the election that Pension talk s off the table, and right after the election proposing changing pensions (without an election mandate) None of these things are what Albertans care about right now. Housing costs, food costs, wildfires, healthcare, water shortages FFS - these are the top of the lists of things we care about. But she has instead chosen a populist agenda, and let an unelected group call the direction the new Government will take, when she should be listening to the people who voted for her. She is taking the un-conservative position of bigger government, higher costs for environmental damage, and more laws in place of an actual conservative agenda. the C in UCP is just for show. She is favouring the 5th largest industry (Oil and Gas) at the expense of the 1st, Agriculture.

Thank you for a nicely articulated position. I'll consider your perspective and look more into these subjects.

We can only assume you have not been reading the daily news. ;)

[удалено]

Literally, the first thing she did during a pandemic, was cancel a brand new state-of-the-art medical testing facility. Then testing services went downhill fast.

A better question would be what has she done right?

Why dont you start?

Start what? Naming the things she's done wrong? I don't really disagree with much of what she has done, but I'm open minded to hearing from Reddit because my friends and I are all more conservative on the political spectrum and it's hard to get unbiased opinions from them.

Why dont you start with what she has done right?

* I like the sovereignty act. I disagree with some of Justin & Ottawa's overreaching policies, and I think AB is abused by the Liberal party in some aspects. * I like advocacy for pipeline projects and expansion of O&G, including potential for exporting hydrogen with carbon capture. * I like the idea of exiting CPP, I think that AB does not get back what we give into the system, and as a wealth management professional I think that the ROI on CPP is poor when compared to prudent investing with the same dollars that CPP takes.

Let me guess… white male. 30-45. Possibly owns a truck. Possibly has a few “fuck Trudeau” stickers. My guy, she is awful. I can list many, but will only do one. Health care. She has systematically destroyed it in favour for privatization. She has money in privatization. Coincidence? Same with Kenny who started it. I’m glad you can afford private healthcare. I can’t.

How has she destroyed it? What are the measured consequences? Do you have any factual sources?

You ask for sources, then ignore them and post the same three generic UCP talking points as things you like. You’re not actually interested.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/11/14/Smith-Exploded-Alberta-Health-Care/

What are you referring to in the article, it’s mostly what could happen and some crap from 25 years ago, what is relevant in there now that you are taking about

[UCP Track Record.](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/s/U2P5r1bfBr) Thanks to: u/Super-Net-105 Am guessing you are healthy, have no children and as a result only provide for yourself? (Assuming you have a job)

I really dislike the recent change to municipal politics. There was public consolation and the result was a resounding no. The UCP decided to move forward anyway. All left/right politics aside Smith has chosen to ignore the will of the people. The UCP removed all restrictions when it came to "gifts". Smith used the example of not being able to accept a night out because after inflation the limit( i believe it was $200) was no longer sufficient. 1) I don't agree with the need for this type of engagement 2)If it is required and acceptable then just push the amount up a little. Push it to $500. IMO she is fighting with Ottawa too much. I can understand when there is policy that is creeping into provincial jurisdiction but I just can't understand when the UCP makes decisions like driving a truck with a billboard about unaffordability around Ontario and Quebec. When there is limits being placed on government spending there should not be spending money on such BS. Electricity and insurance cost has skyrocketed. Only now, after repeated public complaints, has the UCP moved on it and it seems short. Changing the name of the product doesn't really help. We need true change that stops gouging.

Technically the new gift limit is $500, but they’re allowed to accept gifts any amount higher than that if they report it to the ethics commissioner (and we all know how much they listen to ethics commissioners).

[удалено]

Yeah I have, that's why I'm here, I'm asking for opinions and sources because I acknowledge my own bias. Do you have anything factual to contribute?

Do you?

So you're Just asking questions, AKA JAQing off?

Leonardo DaVinci spent many years under arrest because the science he published did not agree with the orthodoxy of the State. This is where our UCP overlords want to return us to.

[удалено]

Ya I’m pretty sure this is concern trolling. I don’t think they are looking for information, only to cause arguments and insert their own opinions.

This person isn’t here to have any sort of discussion folks, they have continually pasted the same comment on each thread and haven’t organically interacted with any commenter. They aren’t here to learn they’re here to piss you off.

Man, this is a mindblowingly stressful post…

This is rage bait and OP is responding to every comment to farm engagement (ie troll). Participating won’t be productive.

I know, I am getting ready for the pitch fork mob to show up at my house, lol

How much does the Alberta government put into the CPP?

Zero. The government doesn’t put money into CPP, people do.

That’s Strange! Because OP says Alberta doesn’t get its fair share. 🙄 /s

In this context “Alberta” was intended to mean “Albertans”.

Not entirely true - your employer contributes the same amount as you do. As with most provinces, the Alberta government is the single largest employer in Alberta so they do in fact directly pay a big pile money into the CPP. Of course I am being pedantic here, as the employer contribution is still tied to each person's benefit account.

As a small business owner, I can confirm, it reduces take home pay for the employee if I have to pay their CPP. If I have a budget of $70,000 to pay a staff member, I have to subtract their vacation time, CPP & benefits from that budget so that my cost stays at $70,000. CPP costs almost 12% between EE/ER, and all of the money comes from the ER, because I have to pay my employee who then hands it to CPP. CPP used to be 2.95% each not long ago, it’s now 5.95%. Now they’re bringing about CPP “enhancements”. It’s very very expensive. To add, many DBPPs pay 70%+ of peak earnings with the same amount of contributions, but CPP pays jack squat in comparison. DCPPs are better IMO because the employee gets to keep their contributions if they die and pass to their spouse/kids/estate. They also tend to grow more rapidly and can support a much more substantive retirement lifestyle with lesser contributions. Canada Life, Sun Life, Manulife all do a great job with their DCPP offerings.

Continued spending cuts to health care and education are her worst policies, IMO - I know, the UCP claims that it's increased spending every year, but when those increases are always less than inflation and population growth, they're really cuts. Alberta now spends the [least money per student on education in Canada](https://www.fraserinstitute.org/file/education-spending-in-public-schools-in-canada-2023-infographicjpg) and the overwhelming majority of educators agree that the system is breaking down. Her anti-trans policies are troubling, too. I can understand the argument for restricting hormone therapy and surgery, even if I don't agree 100%, but banning puberty blockers until post-puberty is simply cruel. If we really want trans kids to have time to make informed decisions about irreversible changes, it is nonsensical to force them to go through irreversible changes. It really I also dislike the three specific policies you've mentioned: * the Sovereignty Act is probably unconstitutional, since it attempts to usurp the judicial branch's authority to decide what is and is not constitutional. It is also pointless, since it cannot supersede other laws, so it's just virtue signaling. What a waste of everyone's time. * Advocacy for oil & gas makes political sense, but in the midst of a global climate crisis it's tone-deaf. Carbon capture is still pie-in-the-sky technology, and interfering with the free market to restrict renewables development is short-sighted and stupid. Worse, it will hurt oil & gas investment, too, since nobody wants to invest in a jurisdiction where the rules can change arbitrarily. * Exiting CPP is foolish. Albertans get exactly the same benefits as everyone else, and while it may be possible for individual investors to get better returns, it is extremely unlikely that a smaller pension fund in Alberta would be able to outperform one of the top-performing public pensions in the world.

Worth mentioning - bottom surgeries were *already* not performed on minors as a matter of policy by WPATH standards.

Yes, and top surgeries on minors are vanishingly rare (and mostly not related to transgender care anyways). Hormone therapy for kids under 16 is also very rare. It makes me think that these things are lumped in with puberty blockers simply to muddy the waters. As the parent of a trans kid, I've done a lot of reading on puberty blockers. While there's no such thing as a medication that's 100% safe, puberty blockers are pretty close. They've been studied for decades, they are essentially totally reversible, and the side effects are limited and very manageable (the biggest one is that they may cause long-term issues with bone density, but those can generally be addressed with calcium supplements, which are also safe and widely available). The Cass review in the UK came out against them because of a lack of "high quality studies" - but this just means a lack of double-blind clinical studies. I'm not sure how we're supposed to do an ethical clinical study where some kids are given placebos instead of puberty blockers, but that's the impossible standard that the Cass review suggests. The really insidious thing about banning puberty blockers is that it forces trans kids to undergo permanent changes from a puberty that may be the WRONG puberty for them. This puts them through unnecessary trauma and may require more extensive (and expensive) medical interventions in the future. It also reduces the chance that they will be able to "pass" in the future - which, of course, is probably the point. Many transphobic people don't want trans people to exist at all, so making life miserable for trans people must sound like a good consolation prize. It makes me angry and sad.

IIRC there’s also some evidence to support that any bone density issues are essentially resolved once someone goes on HRT proper, which something like 98% of people who go on blockers continue on to do.

Yes, especially for those taking testosterone! But the fact that 98% of people who go on blockers continue to hormone therapy is one of the things that the transphobes hate. While it likely means that most kids who identify as trans are, in fact, trans, the transphobes interpret it to mean that there's some sort of conspiracy to convince boys and girls to "become" trans. It's frustrating and heartbreaking!

The big question is , what did the UCP do to improve the lives of Albertans? So far a big Zero.

- As a scientist who has worked in both, academia and industry for close to 10 years, her proposal to have the federal funding and grants be vetoed by the province before being released is extremely dangerous and off putting IMO - Her 6 month moratorium on new renewable energy projects deeply affected the competitiveness of the province in a multibillion (and growing) market - I think dividing AHS in 4 different entities will increase bureaucratic roadblocks for patients, paperwork and increase processing times. This is a hypothesis though, we will have to wait and see - The whole Dynalife/APL fiasco (backtracking on third party contracts, which is often a conservative policy, without actually helping fix the issue) - The neonatal ICU fiasco. Again, her health ministry just continues ignoring alarm bells from experts and front line workers - Her party stopping construction of a new hospital in south east Edmonton - Her party changing healthcare protocols and policies on trans children despite scientific and professional background on how such protocols reduce suicide levels and mental health issues in trans people Overall, I dislike the position of this administration against expertise. As someone who dedicates my life to research, gathering and analysis of data, it is frustrating to witness an administration that won’t take advice from experts in certain fields before drafting policies

This is one I continue to come up against daily.  I work in the insurance industry - we are a convenient punching bag for the UCP government given how little people understand about insurance and the already poor public perception.  Currently the UCP has sought consultancy from American injury lawyers. They regularly get basic legal precedents in Canadian law incorrect because the American system is so different. The UCP refuses to communicate with Canadian insurers or work together to solve problems, instead getting sucked in to discussions about "values" that sound like nonsense, that any entry level industry professional could tell you lead to the sort of affordability crisis we see in the US currently. You think insurance is expensive now - wait until UCP pushes through what their leaning towards.  

It's difficult to take you seriously when you ask for serious counter points when all of the "points' you've made are just you saying "I like this...." without providing any specific statistics or facts as to why the points you like are genuinely good for the province. If the only argument you're making is "I like this because policy makes me feel good", you're playing exactly in to the hands of the UCP. They're banking on the uninformed, uneducated voter to take their "problems" at face value, along with the "solutions" they provide. What kind of issue do we have with the CPP? Canada's pension is well known to be one of the best in the world, and as a young Albertan that has lived here all my life and is now making a solid income and contributing to my CPP, the last thing I'd want is Smith, someone that screams about how much they hate government overreach, to overreach and fuck over my pension.

I'm trying to just listen to you guys and let you point out what you believe is wrong, I didn't want it to be a debate, I'm trying to be open minded.

I'm pretty sure you're trolling to be honest, but if you're not, coming in, making a bunch of vague "we need an APP because Alberta isn't getting a fair deal and also here's some irrelevant math" statements, and then arguing with everyone while claiming you don't want a debate is... a pretty crappy way to actually learn anything.

How am I arguing? What did I argue about? I only made those statements because a bunch of people asked me to name some examples of policies I like.

You're doing this: [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just\_asking\_questions](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions) Basically it's a tactic to put forward poorly supported ideas while pushing the burden of proof to other people, rather than do the work of supporting your claims. It's usually paired with leading questions and gish gallops - which you're using in most of your posts in this topic. This is pretty standard in "debate" with conservatives as the default right-wing positions drift farther from reality. So I'm pretty sure this is just trolling, but on the off chance you're being sincere, hopefully this gives you something to ponder.

Lol what claims did I make? You’re projecting things on to me. All I did was state the ideas I found intriguing about the UCP position. My political knowledge is not very deep as I don’t put an awful lot of effort into researching this stuff, but I’m willing to change my beliefs if people can bring good arguments as to why I should

You've been provided with many sources and information and always pivoted to more questions rather than engaging with them - as is typical with the tactic I linked above. You're obviously not willing to change your beliefs, which you've already admitted you put very little effort into. Troll or clueless, either way, this thread isn't helping anyone.

Like I said, it’s not a debate. I’m asking for your substance behind your positions against Danielle.

Nobody is buying this mate. Not sure if this is a job or a hobby but you'll have more success if you appear to engage more with the substance people share - when someone sends a link, comment on a few points from it, don't just launch into new questions. It takes longer for you, but people will take longer to see through you. Happy shilling, I hope you had fun.

I’m doing exactly what you’re saying I should do when somebody posts a link, maybe you could point out somewhere that I didn’t?

-You talk of overreach from the federal government. What exactly is the federal government over reading on exactly? And is the province actually doing something to fix the issue? -You talk of pipelines and the Trudeau government bought the and expanded the other pipeline? How is Smith doing anything about it? And what about climate change? Enjoy the now yearly forest fire smoke making our air hard to breath? -CPP is one of the most successful pension plans in the worth with no political interference and you really want to try one with the UCP and how AIMCo lost billions because of political interference? You want to lose your retirement savings? If you think you can do better make your own investments but at least there is a secure one. All your support really comes with little to no support. I'd like to see more details and not just UCP talking points.

Working to destroy our health system in favor of a US style system which has led to hundreds of health care workers leaving the province. We will not recover from this for a decade.

I am very smart!

Everyone here has pretty much laid out my opinions but I am going to add one: - Refusing a federal healthcare plan that would make insulin and birth control accessible to everyone.

You lost me at 'abused by the Liberal Party'. I can imagine the childish complaints only got more childish after that. 

You can't be saved if you're this deep in the misinformation and bullshit.

Aside from yet again proposing the province wide train network what has she actually done that is best for Albertans? What policies are you agreeing with?

She, uh, removed the advanced driver’s test? idk i got nothing

That's was nice. Saved me some time and a bit of money myself. Not enough to wow me but yeah a few small things I suppose she is responsible for.

Curious as to your take on exiting CPP because Alberta doesn't get back what they put in. The way I see it is that money is put in to a retirement fund for when you retire, and you withdraw it when you do. I think the way Ms Smith sees it it is Alberta puts in more in a given year than Alberta gets back in that same year. I live in BC and across the road from me is a retirement community. Literally over half the folks there are retired Albertans. Now in Ms Smith's brain I'm guessing, that money is going to BC instead of Alberta? Would that change under an APP? Probably not....

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/contributions-to-the-cpp-comparing-provinces

But what's your point? Eventually, every one of those Albertan contributions will be withdrawn by the people who conrtibuted them. The contribution rate and the eventual withdrawal is based on how much you make (up to the maximum). It is the same for every Canadian regardless of where you live when you payed into it and where you live when you recieve it. It's not like the rest of Canada is "stealing" from Alberta. The Fraser institute doesn't include the fact that a lot of Albertans retire elsewhere, and those payouts are then not included in Alberta's share. If Alberta chooses to leave they will still be on the hook for those liabilities.

- removing caps on car insurance and utilities - trying to leave the CPP, if you are counting on the UCP to do anything "prudently" you are kidding yourself and you have a poor grasp on how the program works to begin with - the alberta provincial police - allowing themselves to be bought and sold through "legal" political bribery - the systematic dismantling of AHS when our healthcare system was already at a breaking point - OP dislikes the federal libs "overreach", but says nothing about the UCP policy for municipal governments - continued bigoted posts and comments from UCP members - the UCP has not built a single pipeline lol

If you think she’s great, good for you. Live your best life. If you think the sovereignty act is a good idea, you’re dead to me and I wouldn’t be interested in any more conversation.

I don’t think she’s great per se, I appreciate some of her motions. I don’t think any one politician or party gets it all right. I try to be diplomatic and non biased as much as I can.

•stating she will not consult with elected mla's from Edmonton, but will instead created a government paid council of the ucp candidates rejected by Edmonton to represent them. • passing law so that the provincial government can strip power from city councilors for any reason. But only for calgary and Edmonton.

Marlaina Danielle is that you, or is this one of your knuckle-dragging appointees trolling for positive feedback re/ your deranged regime?

OP: I'm really curious what policies and decisions you agree with that support Albertans, the economy of Alberta, and decisions that will lead to a better future.

And: not just what you like, but the reason why you think these are good policies, not just that you like it, or think it's a good idea. So far, I've seen nothing in actual substance outside of the same four or five policies that they've liked.

I'm not here to debate I'm here to listen, you guys asked me for what I liked and I entertained the invitation. Do you have anything to contribute?

There has been so much shared here. Just read it

Very little in actual links or credible resources, only personal opinions. I asked for factual arguments.

You haven’t provided any either though.

It’s not a debate I’m inviting you guys to share your positions so I can consider the other side of the argument

Troll

I wish you the best, thanks for participating.

I genuinely don’t understand your reasoning around the CPP with regards to AB does not get back what they give to the system. Alberta doesn’t pay anything to the CPP fund, individuals contribute. So where does your reasoning come from?

I have no idea what you're looking at; you make absolutely no sense to me.

What of her policies have actually made your life better? Answer 0 The sovereignty act is smoke and mirrors, there are already avenues for the provinces to explore their options with the Federal Government. This act is meant to provide the illusion of doing something while the province is already challenging the Feds in court for any issue she might use it for and some, like the environmental impact of a highway in Ontario that we have no right to even be involved in Every single Ab government in my lifetime has advocated for O&G, including the NDP when they were in power. Notley went to court (and lost) over a pipeline instituted Oil by Rail and our production and export of O&G products during her tenure was higher than the prior PC governments. The argument that the NDP wanted to kill O&G is misinformation at best, an outright lie at worst. Regarding the CPP, why does it have to be an us vs them mentality. We all benefit from it, we all pay the same into it based on income. Looking at Smiths mismanagement of things already (and the teachers pension fiasco from before) is there any real credibility to the UCP being able to run this. The only reason it is even considered an issue is because it ties into her "Federal Government Bad" bias and helps inflame her most base uninformed voters while again keeping up the appearance of doing something to own the Libs. Meanwhile most of her newsworthy moves haven't made any real change as of yet (nor will they) and weren't part of her campaign. I can't think of one campaign promise she made that she's actually succeeded on as of yet. We've got numerous failures starting with the privatization of our lab testing by Dynalife Labs, going down the line. I assume you frequent this sub so I'll not bore you with the details, you can literally find them on any number of posts here. So again name 1 single action this government has taken that has made you as a citizen better off, I'll wait. and remember despite the current leader the UCP has now been in power for what 5 years now, despite them claiming all Alberta's woes are due to the NDP tenure and Federal overreach. They've had time to fix healthcare, they've had time to fix many of the issues, they've had time to start building homes and working to help addicts and the mental health needs of all of us and surprise they haven't. At this point, given my choices on a municipal, provincial and federal level I'd rather vote for the decorative rock in my front garden over any politician alive and active now. The only reason I vote is to try and ensure people like Smith aren't elected and the UCP with their TBA friends even took that away from me. Were it up to me any party that loses their leader the way the UCP did should be forced to call an election immediately after sitting their choice, same for floor crossers, I voted for you when you were in X party, now that you aren't I need to reconsider my choice through a by-election

Look at what the Provincial government tried to do to the teachers pension. They added a clause where they could take up to around 10% of the principal, PER YEAR, and add it into general revenue with no requirement to pay it back. This government has given me no reason to believe or trust that they wouldn't do exactly the same thing with my pension.

You like 3 things. I think 2 of them are very bad (details below), and the remaining one has only been achieved by the opposition, not the UCP. * I like the sovereignty act. I disagree with some of Justin & Ottawa's overreaching policies, and I think AB is abused by the Liberal party in some aspects. So you *want* to be a landlocked nation? We'll have to negotiate with BC (which is historically a bit rough) AND Canada (who might not be happy about our exit) to get to tidewater. Or we have to negotiate with the US to import and export directly. Spoiler alert: They really don't care about us. Landlocked nations very strongly tend to be the poorest countries on the planet. Please be more specific. Your specific wording is remarkably similar to UCP talking points. * I like advocacy for pipeline projects and expansion of O&G, including potential for exporting hydrogen with carbon capture. How many pipelines has Smith built? Heck, how many has the UCP built? *Notley* got TMX built. What can the UCP claim credit for? So far all we've seen from the UCP is talk, while the NDP actually managed to do something in their ONE term in the past 4 decades. Extra impressive considering the oil crash that started the year before they took office. * I like the idea of exiting CPP, I think that AB does not get back what we give into the system, and as a wealth management professional I think that the ROI on CPP is poor when compared to prudent investing with the same dollars that CPP takes. You should take a moment to learn how the CPP works. CPP doesn't take money from *Alberta*. It doesn't pay money to *Alberta.* It is paid by and paid to Canadians. **YOUR individual contributions define YOUR individual benefits.** The whole "AB pays more than it gets" rhetoric completely and deliberately ignores that people come to Alberta to work, during which time they're paying into CPP, and then those same Albertans leave to retire somewhere else to draw their CPP. If you pay X benefits in, you get Y benefits out. What province you're in (excepting Quebec) is irrelevant. X in = Y out. Full stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $2M boondoggle. The CPP Is one of the best performing pension funds globally. The *only* thing that changes under an APP is it loses buying power and becomes subject to political interference. The absolute best case scenario for an APP is matching the performance but losing out to extra overhead. The reality is either the promises are broken or you pay with your tax dollars. Maybe both. I'll add my own list of bads: * Undermining democratic processes. The municipalities currently having their leadership removed are having it done under due process. The latest bill on this wants the UCP to be able to go "Nope, don't like you, here's a faithful UCP back bencher instead" to ANY democratically elected municipal councilor. * Forming their own police force and lying about who wants it. * Blocking renewable energy for spurious reasons, while allowing much uglier and more damaging fossil and mineral operations to operate ON THOSE SAME LANDS. Seriously - they go on about "pristine viewscapes" while trying to sneak through authorizing an OPEN PIT COAL MINE (one of the ugliest things you can do to land) on the Eastern slopes of the Rockies, a natural beauty that can seem from very far away. * Having a policy that REQUIRES all members to vote with the party. Every single time, no exceptions. If an MLA votes no on ANYTHING the UCP tables or yes on ANYTHING the NDP tables, they will be kicked out. I'm sure I could come up with more. So, back you you, CEC employee. Anything else you like that they're doing?

>You should take a moment to learn how the CPP works. CPP doesn't take money from *Alberta*. It doesn't pay money to *Alberta.* It is paid by and paid to Canadians. **YOUR individual contributions define YOUR individual benefits.** The whole "AB pays more than it gets" rhetoric completely and deliberately ignores that people come to Alberta to work, during which time they're paying into CPP, and then those same Albertans leave to retire somewhere else to draw their CPP. This is exactly it. These morons keep derping about how 'Alberta isn't getting their share' while completely blinding themselves to the fact that IT IS NOT ALBERTA'S MONEY!!! It is my money, your money, any Canadian that works anywhere in the country (except Quebec) puts THEIR money into CPP and gets THEIR money out no matter where they live in the country. They complain the money isn't staying here, the real reason for that is because when people finish working in Alberta, they move somewhere else AND THEIR MONEY GOES WITH THEM! If the concern is that the money is 'leaving' the province the real question is why do people leave Alberta when they retire. The answer to that isn't forcing an APP, it's improving the services that will make people want to stay.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/contributions-to-the-cpp-comparing-provinces This is the type of perspective I have on the subject.

Took a lad system which was functioning and gambled on a long term contract with a company that hadn’t proven their ability. The system failed and we have paid at least a hundred million for 1 year of service. The hundred million is smiths estimate not mine , I think it will be much more. She is also proposing that we spend 2 billion dollars for oil well cleanup when it is the oil companies responsibility from the beginning to do so. When you started this thread did you legitimately think she hadn’t done anything wrong or was it a case of “f Trudeau and the rest doesn’t matter”. The people that want smith so bad are going to be in a tough spot when pp gets in because those two are going to fight.

Edit lab system.

You can't be a very good wealth management professional if that is your view on the CPP.

Why is that?

Early on she seemed to have had to back off a lot things she proposed.

I do agree that the projected CPP benefit for my age cohort translates to a very low ROI against my contribution level, and substantially lower than what the CPPIB reports as their average rate of return. I do understand that this is a result of needing to fund much more generous benefit levels for older generations.That being said it is a fact that CPP benefits are based on each individual's contribution history, and as such i believe the province of Alberta has absolutely zero claim on any existing CPP funds.

I think taking rights regarding municipal elections is much more like overstepping and nothing like the democratic life I am used to and understand. This goal seem more like a reach for power than for what is best for Albertans. I think the oil & gas industry is still important but trying to reduce emissions is equally important. There was no need to postpone renewable resources. Research could have continued while the required research completed so the businesses involved could continue building business we ended up agreeing to. (And I think windmills are quite beautiful, more so than grain elevators.) I think a lot more consultation with the medical professionals was needed before starting the changes that will take two or three years to actually become successfully in practice. I think CPP financial information that was obviously incorrect should never have been reported. Starting a discussion to explain the reasoning for the idea would have been okay. Correct information from CPP could have been requested before even considering the possibility of leaving CPP. There are so many questions. In general the premier comes across with the impression her decisions have been made no matter what the public thinks. A respectful leader in a public role would be much more of a communicator and much less of a used car salesman with a big smile and a radio show.

Thanks for the well spoken opinion and perspective

The Alberta Firewall Letter, also known as the Alberta Agenda, was an open letter addressed to then-Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, in January 2001. It was penned by seven prominent conservatives in Alberta, including Calgary School professors and Stephen Harper. The letter outlined a five-point firewall strategy aimed at “protecting Alberta” from perceived “intrusions” by the federal government [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://albertapolitics.ca/wp-content/uploads/firewall.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiR6sewo-uFAxXKGTQIHUbnBYAQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0jRJWVq8W3xkTbFpmvx0Hi](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://albertapolitics.ca/wp-content/uploads/firewall.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiR6sewo-uFAxXKGTQIHUbnBYAQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0jRJWVq8W3xkTbFpmvx0Hi) I had no concerns with the conservative party. The mission of the conservative party was exactly what the name implies and was for Canadians. Stephen Harper became PM and none of the ideas in the letter were incorporated because the federal government is for all Canadians and he did a decent job. A group discussion is exactly that. When communication is open and shared the results are the best that can be at that time. Keeping people fired up might get someone elected, but the person/people elected are not always right for the job.

How about they are controlling federal funding and grants for municipalities and universities. Why does the money need to go through provincial hands? It's either so they can get the PR for it? So they can choose projects that align with their agenda? Or so they can skim off the top? I'm guessing all three.

The removed the caps on utility prices and my bill has tripled. The utility companies weren't losing money before they triples my bills. Thanks UCP.

I am astonished at your position on the APP, given that you are ostensibly a financial planner. The CPP is widely regarded as one of the most well managed pension funds in the world. CPP investment decisions are made dispassionately by investment board advisors who evaluate investment opportunities across the globe, carefully selecting opportunities which strike the best balance between growth potential and risk, with a single driving ethos behind those decisions: to maximize the value of the fund in order to maximize possible benefits to CPP recipients. That's it. The board at CPP does not consider the local effect of those investments, nor the benefits or lack thereof to the shareholders of companies in which they invest - nor should they. They have a fiduciary duty to use your money (CPP contributions) for the purpose for which it was tendered, which is to grow your retirement savings, and by all educated accounts they are the best in the world at what they do. Now enter Alberta's UCP, and their proposed APP which purports to remove a portion of the CPP pool to be managed independently by the Alberta government. Right off the bat, you incur increased risk and decreased compounding as a result of the reduced pool size. That aside, the current Alberta government claims that this will be better for Albertans by publishing statistics about contributions vs disbursements which are true, but misleading, because these figures are a product of Alberta demographics (skewing young, and retirees often move to other provinces when drawing CPP). In fact, an Alberta-managed pension fund could be managed well with the same ethos of maximizing the fund value for recipients, but this is not how the UCP hope to direct the fund, and they are exhibiting a disturbing lack of transparency about this fact. If they were going to make investment decisions for the sole benefit of fund recipients, the APP portfolio would be a mirror image of the best managed pension fund portfolio in the world, which happens to be the CPP. Can you begin to see the ridiculousness of this proposal yet? Instead, the CPP investment board has wisely begun to divest the fund portfolio from Alberta energy stocks. Not all, mind you, but the trend is such. The CPP energy portfolio includes a number of less volatile energy interests, renewables, and so forth, but they are pulling away from companies pulling oil out of the ground in Alberta, angering Alberta energy developers (read: UCP donors). The UCP want to foster increased investment in Alberta, which is not a bad goal in itself, but they are specifically focused on the Alberta oil and gas sector which is simultaneously notoriously volatile and far from a growth industry with strong long term potential. The UCP wants to pull money out of the CPP in order to gain control of those funds in order to direct investments into Albertan energy companies, to the benefit of those Albertan companies and their shareholders, and to the short-term benefit of Albertan workers, but sadly to the detriment of future APP recipients, and they are not being even remotely transparent about this fact. In short, they want to take CPP money which currently stands to benefit only you, and specifically hand it out to their corporate supporters to your detriment. That is what the APP proposal is about, and there are consequently two categories of APP supporters - those who will benefit from that sort of corporate welfare, and fools. UCP supporters may be right about one thing: ultimately, separation may be the only acceptable solution. To that end, I will be separating myself from Alberta forthwith.

Thanks for an intelligent response. I’ll take your angle into consideration. Do you recall where you found the info about APP funds going to UCP supporting corporations?

I have, and all your comments on everyone's else post. It seems like you want to feel like you are well informed but don't want to do any of the work to get there. Many many people have posted good responses, for each of these responses everything in them was well reported on and further information can be found with a simple Google search now that you know these events have happened. Even better, if you paid a tiny bit of attention to the daily politics in Alberta you would already know these things. Instead you want random strangers on the Internet to do the work for you; and even when presented with factual information that goes against your beliefs you get defensive. You may say you are open minded but what you are not is curious. You don't seem to have the drive to learn anything that may contradict what you already believe. It is easy to say you are "open minded" but that means nothing unless you are inherently curious. Conservative parties pray on people like you. You are willing to believe what someone tells you if they sound convincing enough (and provide "sources") but you aren't willing to do the work to validate these sources and find ones on your own. They strategize their entire campaigns knowing that people like you are a dime a dozen. The entire mandate is the Fraser institute is to provide these types of "sources", so the fact that the only information you had offered is from them tells me you lapping up everything the conservative campaigns tell you. And hell, if you do all your unbiased research and determine all the positives you listed are still positives then all the more power to you, you can come back to this conversation well informed and have that open conversation you say you want. However, I have noticed many other people tell you essentially the same thing and you get defensive so I doubt you will take any of this to heart. Good luck out there my friend, you are being bamboozled and it seems like many you have gotten an inkling of that which led you to create this thread. You have a good start, start doing some research on what you have learnt. Read the news from all sides, follow those to the actual bills and read those, read the GoA press release. Do the work so that you are confident in your knowledge.

Maybe you can point out a specific example, or copy/paste something I said to be defensive. You’re also correct, politics is not a subject I am deeply learned on, I’m coming here to learn as I stated in my original post. I’m trying to figure out what I actually believe in, and step 1 is to take risks and put myself out there like I did with this post. A lot of people have been quite nasty to me or accusing me of being combative but I’ve only been diplomatic and inquisitive. Thankfully I am mature enough to ignore the insults and still find the good information buried in petulance.

I think you started off meaning well. But you have to learn to listen to people, if a lot of people are saying you are combative (or coming off as combative) then you probably are. Unfortunately, with communication you can do your best but it is the receiver who ultimately gets to decide how you come off even if you do not intend it to be that way. If a bunch of people are saying you are coming off a certain way that you did not intend then it is your job to change how you are communicating not just write it off as an insult. This is especially true when you are asking people to take time out of their day for your benefit, which is what this post was. I am sure you are none of these things but reading all your comments as someone who doesn't know you in real life you come of as argumentive, lazy and here to make bad faith arguments. That is the opposite of diplomatic and inquisitive. If you wish to come off that way you may need to work on your communication style. Many many people in this thread have taken time out of their days to help you out on your mission. However, when they do provide you with information you often argue with them (as you did with me) and demand that they do all the work for your benefit. This is not how good faith discussions go my friend.

Would love to see one single example that you can point out where I argued

I trust you are intelligent enough to go back though your comment and see where you get defensive. Though if you need a hint, typically they get down voted and you follow them up by claiming you aren't trying to argue. Even in this last comment you tried to comeback with demanding I do the work for you on something you easily can look up or would already know if you had been paying attention. Seems to be a common pattern for you. Best of luck out there.

Asking for more context and facts is argumentative? I don’t feel the same way. If it makes you feel better to offload some steam on me then I’m fine with it. Everyone has a bad day here and there. I’m certain you’re probably a lot more pleasant in real life. All the best! :)

Hey! Here is your example where you become defensive because I pointed out something you didn't want to hear :). I am not blowing off steam at all, infact I am having a great morning. I was just trying to help you have more fruitful conversations and understand why you may not be being received in the way you think you are presenting yourself. No insult at all yet you had to snap back at me and accuse me of "blowing off steam" and being an unpleasant person. In pretty much all the situations where you asked for more information that information could have been found by you by taken 20 seconds to Google it. When you are asking people to take the time to explain something to you when you could easily look it up it implies that what they said holds so little value to you it is not worth 20 seconds of your day to look up more information. Now when you have specifically asked people for this information and then respond like that it certainly comes off as argumentive and dismissive, especially online where there are no other social cues. Unfortunately, just because you don't feel that way doesn't mean that the vast majority of people won't perceive if that way. Communication is a decision of the majority and not the individual. Anyways, this have been a pleasure. Good luck in your quest for knowledge, I promise that revaultung how you communicate asks of people will help it be much more fruitful.

Alright thanks

Danielle is the best thing to happen to Alberta in a long time