2023 UCP Alberta election

[Quirky]

Now apply that to all policies.

 

[Remius]

Now apply that to all policies.

Wishful thinking but yes…

 

[mariomike]

I think it had more to do with the Hitler stuff.

The Hitler stuff?

Don't follow their politics. More concerned with their fires.

My mother just moved to Cold Lake to live with my sister. Permanently, I think.

 

[brihard]

The Hitler stuff?

Yup, “the Hitler stuff”. One of those lines you generally don’t want uttered as an electoral candidate. It hasn’t been a great week for Smith. That said, the Hitler stuff/poppy stuff came out early enough in the campaign that - in conjunction with the provincial wildfire emergency - it may simply fade from the news cycle and public consciousness as Election Day approaches.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Yup, “the Hitler stuff”. One of those lines you generally don’t want uttered as an electoral candidate. It hasn’t been a great week for Smith. That said, the Hitler stuff/poppy stuff came out early enough in the campaign that - in conjunction with the provincial wildfire emergency - it may simply fade from the news cycle and public consciousness as Election Day approaches.

Foot in mouth is (was?) standard for Smith, something else will surface before the election. So far this election seems very different than the few previous. Beside the increased negative campaigning from both sides (UCP and NDP are the only 'real' players), there also seems to be an increase in directed polling, robo-calling and calls from "interest groups". Just in the past three days, I've received calls from three polls (two computerized, one live person), three robo-calls in favour of specific candidates/parties (not necessarily the main contenders - at least one I would characterized as far right) and calls from "groups" who want voters to consider the following issues; abortion, gun control, vaccine freedom and the poor policy of replacing the RCMP as provincial police. Those are just the calls to my household land line; I'm much more successful screening my cell, though text messages (several a day until I sent very negative responses to them) seem to be mainly from the UCP and CPC (though those are seeking support for Poilievre and not provincial candidates).

 

[Booter]

I’m a vaccinated dude. Who got my shot early- out of concern for my neighbour and doing what I thought was right for my community.

The Smith Hitler thing is a weird one. Are we not allowed to draw parallels anymore? Even exaggerated ones?

Like the point is that most people who say they wouldn’t have fallen in line in Nazi Germany actually would have- I’ve seen the same said about the crucifixion of Christ.

It’s a comment on mob behaviour- and to examine the motives and willingness to follow the leader- which is fair game…isn’t it? Am i missing something or am I out of touch…or both.

 

[brihard]

I’m a vaccinated dude. Who got my shot early- out of concern for my neighbour and doing what I thought was right for my community.

The Smith Hitler thing is a weird one. Are we not allowed to draw parallels anymore? Even exaggerated ones?

Like the point is that most people who say they wouldn’t have fallen in line in Nazi Germany actually would have- I’ve seen the same said about the crucifixion of Christ.

It’s a comment on mob behaviour- and to examine the motives and willingness to follow the leader- which is fair game…isn’t it? Am i missing something or am I out of touch…or both.

There’s drawing parallels, and then there’s comparing those of us who got a vaccine to protect ourselves or family members to those who went along with Hitler and the holocaust. I guess for me, personally, that crosses enough of a line that my reaction is basically “wow, eat shit”? Comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis aren’t just a casual rhetorical device; they’re a choice made to achieve a certain degree of shock. That’s fine, that’s her right- but, hopefully, exercising that right that way backfires politically.

 

[Booter]

There’s drawing parallels, and then there’s comparing those of us who got a vaccine to protect ourselves or family members to those who went along with Hitler and the holocaust. I guess for me, personally, that crosses enough of a line that my reaction is basically “wow, eat shit”? Comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis aren’t just a casual rhetorical device; they’re a choice made to achieve a certain degree of shock. That’s fine, that’s her right- but, hopefully, exercising that right that way backfires politically.

Man you must get exhausted being outraged,

showed Smith referencing the Netflix documentary How to Become a Tyrant, which illustrates how Hitler convinced people to fall in line.

"It starts with Hitler in the first episode, and it's absolutely appalling and shocking," Smith in the interview.

"One academic says -- they must have filmed this before COVID -- that so many people say that they would not have succumbed to the charms of a tyrant, somebody telling them that they have all the answers, and he said, 'I guarantee you would.'"

Smith then goes on to say those who were vaccinated in Alberta listened to their governments.

"That's the test here, is we've seen it. We have 75 per cent of the public who say, not only hit me, but hit me harder, and keep me away from those dirty unvaxxed," Smith said.

This doesn’t seem like she’s doing anything other than making an awful point awfully. It should cost her politically for being an absurd oversimplification.

It’s not something to cause grave offence. Dumb people saying dumb things. That’s hardly worth a tempest in a teapot. Which you’re saying it didn’t cause you. I read your post differently- which is my fault

When I read the article originally, it twisted my face up- which is something common of things said by most political parties presently. The success is in demonizing those we disagree with. I guess I’m shocked by how successful that strategy is.

 

[brihard]

Man you must get exhausted being outraged,

I have no outrage on this at all, or just about anything else- outrage and emotional reactions aren’t my thing. She said something really dumb, I fall within the target zone of her comment, it’s basically the mental version of a brief eyebrow raise, “cool, eat shit”, and then I carry on with my day. I’ve spent less time independently thinking about in than I did composing any of these replies. No different from when anyone has said anything foul to you or I on the job; noted, brief flicker of opinion, carry on.

Since there’s a thread on it here, I just shared what that brief opinion was. Fair enough?

 

[lenaitch]

Sounds like a corollary to Godwin's Law: (s)he who makes the first comparison to Hitler loses the debate.

 

[RangerRay]

So she basically insulted 3/4 of Albertans by calling them lemmings who would follow Hitler, because they followed public health mandates.

Her lack of judgment is astounding. Right up there with Trudeau.

 

[Lumber]

.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There’s drawing parallels, and then there’s comparing those of us who got a vaccine to protect ourselves or family members to those who went along with Hitler and the holocaust. I guess for me, personally, that crosses enough of a line that my reaction is basically “wow, eat shit”? Comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis aren’t just a casual rhetorical device; they’re a choice made to achieve a certain degree of shock. That’s fine, that’s her right- but, hopefully, exercising that right that way backfires politically.

That is the lightning rod. Hitler.

But we don't attach the same weight to Stalin, Mao, Gengis Khan and their like, who were equally as bad, if not worse. I wonder why that is?

Anyway, in the end it's a word. Distasteful to many, not so much to others. It has shock value for those that put stock in it. The press has used it to describe the far right, along with nazi. Do we take them to task or give them a buy, because secretly, many agree with them?

When I hear it used against someone, I don't look at it as calling someone genocidal as much as a rigid bullying asshole.

But they aren't yelling FIRE!! in a theater. They are protected by the Charter

And I'll bet there isn't a single person here, that somewhere in their lives haven't said anything really stupid that they regret. We're human. We make mistakes. She recognized that, apologized and now we forget it and move on. If she referenced him every couple of days, that would be different.

I took just as much offence to a clown that called me an unscientific, fringe minority, misogynist, racist. What was the other part. Oh yeah, something like "Why do we tolerate these people"? How very 1940's German of him.

** I'm sure that anyone going through Cornwallis remembers that one MCpl on base that everyone called Little Hitler. Never the same guy, but there was a LH there the whole time it was a Basic base.**

 

[brihard]

That is the lightning rod. Hitler.

But we don't attach the same weight to Stalin, Mao, Gengis Khan and their like, who were equally as bad, if not worse. I wonder why that is?

Anyway, in the end it's a word. Distasteful to many, not so much to others. It has shock value for those that put stock in it. The press has used it to describe the far right, along with nazi. Do we take them to task or give them a buy, because secretly, many agree with them.

When I hear it used against someone, I don't look at it as calling someone genocidal as much as a rigid bullying asshole.

But they aren't yelling FIRE!! in a theater. They are protected by the Charter

Shrug she didn’t name those people. My comment is limited to the actual thing she actually said a few years back. She chose the name she used. That said, polarizing as she is, this may be one of those things that simply doesn’t change many minds at all.

Not sure why you’re bringing the Charter up; I don’t see anyone here suggesting the state should prohibit her from saying something really dumb.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Shrug she didn’t name those people. My comment is limited to the actual thing she actually said a few years back. She chose the name she used. That said, polarizing as she is, this may be one of those things that simply doesn’t change many minds at all.

Not sure why you’re bringing the Charter up; I don’t see anyone here suggesting the state should prohibit her from saying something really dumb.

Bri,
Just trying to be thorough. Nothing personal. I didn't try pick a fight, my position is pretty middle of the road, I think. I wasn't really answering your post as much as using it as a springboard to write my opinion. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[quadrapiper]

So she basically insulted 3/4 of Albertans by calling them lemmings who would follow Hitler, because they followed public health mandates.

Which is also an odd angle for a premier to take, as someone who might need to issue comparable direction with some hope it be followed.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Context means a lot.

Like @Booter stupid people say stupid things.

Having said that, the polarization on COVID and the jab was pretty strong. And I think its probably ended more on the side of the anti-jab crowd.

But having said that a politician who will make a statement like that is pretty distasteful.

 

[brihard]

Bri,
Just trying to be thorough. Nothing personal. I didn't try pick a fight, my position is pretty middle of the road, I think. I wasn't really answering your post as much as using it as a springboard to write my opinion. Sorry for the confusion.

All good, I misinterpreted- sorry about that.

 

[Lumber]

That is the lightning rod. Hitler.

But we don't attach the same weight to Stalin, Mao, Gengis Khan and their like, who were equally as bad, if not worse. I wonder why that is?

Because when it comes to people's perception of "evilness", it's less about the number you killed, and more about the reasons/motivations and methods of your killin. It's because of the reasons/causes of those deaths. All deaths are bad, but it's the motivation behind the killings that determines the level of "villany" or "evil".

I would rank the evilness of "motivation" this way:
4. Being killed as a result of conquest would be the least evil, unless the killkng are bucherous like we've seen some of in Ukraine.
3. Next for me would be eople dying because of your policies (assuming the policies weren't instituted specifically to to kill you);
2. Being killed because you are a political enemy; and
1. Being killed because of who you are (i.e. Genocide)

So, based on that, I would order the people you mentioned in terms of evilness as follows:

4. Genghis Khan.

3. Stalin. Of the 7 (ish) million killed under Stalin's rule, only about a million were considered "purposive", the rest were the result of neglect, failed policies, etc.

2. Mao. His rule definitely resulted in the most deaths of all, but did he really "kill" the most? Most estimates are anywhere between 40-80 million killed under Mao, and I don't think he gets the negative treatment he deserves. However, most were the results of famines and forced labour, similar to Stalin (i.e. They weren't sentenced to death directly). Exact numbers of those "purposefully" killed for political reasons is unclear, but likely close to Hitler.

1. Hitler. He aimed to eradicate an entire race/culture of people for no good reason, and he "successfully" murdered a out 2/3 of European Jews. A crazy fact I learned recently is that as a result of the Holocaust, the world jewish population still hasn't recovered to pre-WW2 levels.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Because when it comes to people's perception of "evilness", it's less about the number you killed, and more about the reasons/motivations and methods of your killin. It's because of the reasons/causes of those deaths. All deaths are bad, but it's the motivation behind the killings that determines the level of "villany" or "evil".

I would rank the evilness of "motivation" this way:
4. Being killed as a result of conquest would be the least evil, unless the killkng are bucherous like we've seen some of in Ukraine.
3. Next for me would be eople dying because of your policies (assuming the policies weren't instituted specifically to to kill you);
2. Being killed because you are a political enemy; and
1. Being killed because of who you are (i.e. Genocide)

So, based on that, I would order the people you mentioned in terms of evilness as follows:

4. Genghis Khan.

3. Stalin. Of the 7 (ish) million killed under Stalin's rule, only about a million were considered "purposive", the rest were the result of neglect, failed policies, etc.

2. Mao. His rule definitely resulted in the most deaths of all, but did he really "kill" the most? Most estimates are anywhere between 40-80 million killed under Mao, and I don't think he gets the negative treatment he deserves. However, most were the results of famines and forced labour, similar to Stalin (i.e. They weren't sentenced to death directly). Exact numbers of those "purposefully" killed for political reasons is unclear, but likely close to Hitler.

1. Hitler. He aimed to eradicate an entire race/culture of people for no good reason, and he "successfully" murdered a out 2/3 of European Jews. A crazy fact I learned recently is that as a result of the Holocaust, the world jewish population still hasn't recovered to pre-WW2 levels.

I hope you limbered up before writing that, I wouldn't want you tearing a muscle doing those gymnastics.