MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Every third post, I just pretend they ended with "I blame the jews" and it just makes the whole thing fun to me

Damn. This is a lot less fun with all the Hitler talk

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Guys, can we calm down with the mischaracterization of Slava?

It's already been well established that he's literally Hitler. We don't need to go through this again.

I think he's metaphorically Hitler.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Slava

Whoa, literally? I can confirm that I cannot grow a thick, lustrous moustache like that. My German is a little rusty as well.

There's only one way to settle this. Get growing your best Chaplin stache, and post the results for the community to judge. Your clients will understand, it's for the internet!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I’m still not hearing the root problem that needs to be studied. PRs can’t vote is a fact, but is it an important problem that needs to be addressed?

Let’s assume for a moment that it is an important issue that needs studying and debate. How would you frame that debate? How do you judge if it is a good thing or not? A majority of councillors voted to debate it based on it being a good thing, just like you’re framing it as a positive thing for democracy. What process could lead them or you to a different conclusion? You complain about people objecting to this, disingenuously describing their positions as ‘cause it’s always been that way’ yet your mind is clearly made up. If I’m incorrect, what are the pros, cons and considerations you are mulling?

Are you suggesting that we don’t know if someone being able to vote is a good thing or not? lol.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I already tried engaging but then some old guys who complain about people dogpiling decided they would do the exact same thing and pretend it was different.

That said, I’m not sure I understand your question. You want me to explain why they should review something without talking about the benefits of making the change they would be reviewing? lol.

I guess the easiest answer is that, far beyond this issue, the people we elect to government should always be reviewing things and looking at ways to improve and protect our lives and our democracy. They don’t need justification for doing so, that should literally be the expectation. I’m not electing someone because I want them to be the best at sending emails, nor do I want them to wait until a problem is out of control before they do anything. Politicians should be proactively looking at ways to improve life for everyone. You disagree and think they need more justification for reviewing or exploring something that some other countries/cities/whatever do better? Cool, then we agree to disagree.

On a municipal level especially, there’s really justification for leaving it the way it is outside of “that’s the way it is,” and the justification for at least exploring it is that these people live here like the rest of us and should have representation, too. I don’t believe there’s any value in putting these people in a lower class. They’d be helping elect a city councillor in the city they live and pay property taxes in, not the Prime Minister. We have a councillor who plays golf all day and another that assaulted a girl, and we’re pretending there’s anything special and Canadian about the people that voted them in? lol.

This isn't the correct group of politicians to be looking at this though.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This isn't the correct group of politicians to be looking at this though.

Maybe it should be.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Maybe it should be.

One of the other things they don't have the power to do is grant themselves more power.

They could ask the UCP to put them in charge of this, but I'm 100% confident that would be a waste of time.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Are you suggesting that we don’t know if someone being able to vote is a good thing or not? lol.

On it’s own it’s a good thing, like apple pie. Is it a good thing to water down the unique rights of citizens? What is the trade off? What rights should be preserved for citizens in your mind?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Are you suggesting that we don’t know if someone being able to vote is a good thing or not? lol.

Also, define good, and for who? Does it help address any of the pressing issues in the city - housing, affordability, transit, etc.?

Your also still avoiding the question of what the pros and cons are, ie give us some deep thoughts. Or try this…why not give everyone who sets foot int country the vote? If not, what are the specific measurable criteria you use to decide who should and shouldn’t vote?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by edslunch

On it’s own it’s a good thing, like apple pie. Is it a good thing to water down the unique rights of citizens? What is the trade off? What rights should be preserved for citizens in your mind?

Sorry, can you explain how your rights are watered down by someone else having rights?

Citizens have a bunch of rights that permanent residents don’t have, from running for office to holding a passport, not being able to be deported, not having to maintain their status, being able to sponsor a wider range of family members, accessing more social programs and security clearance, etc. We’re not talking about changing any of those things. Hell, we’re barely talking about voting in terms of anything beyond municipal elections.

Why do you feel you have to trade something/get something to give someone else the right to vote in a municipal election?