Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Its not the best position by far, but I'll take a UCP member with regressive/religious views on LGBT (not saying I agree) over the NDP destroying the economy any day of the week.

Pick your poison. For me, social regression over my career earnings being decimated is an easy pick.

Let's get those trains running on time!

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Its not the best position by far, but I'll take a UCP member with regressive/religious views on LGBT (not saying I agree) over the NDP destroying the economy any day of the week.

Pick your poison. For me, social regression over my career earnings being decimated is an easy pick.

I'm the opposite. I'll figure out my own money but them regressives can f off.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Its not the best position by far, but I'll take a UCP member with regressive/religious views on LGBT (not saying I agree) over the NDP destroying the economy any day of the week.

Pick your poison. For me, social regression over my career earnings being decimated is an easy pick.

Picking the easy choice is why we get bad leaders.

[Ozy_Flame]

Human rights will always come before economic prosperity for me. It's the fundamental core of why we exist and do things freely, and why we are privileged to enjoy that. Even playing field for all. Worse comes to worse you just live minimalist, learn how to be frugal, or move elsewhere for economic opportunity, at least in my opinion.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Human rights will always come before economic prosperity for me. It's the fundamental core of why we exist and do things freely, and why we are privileged to enjoy that. Even playing field for all. Worse comes to worse you just live minimalist, learn how to be frugal, or move elsewhere for economic opportunity, at least in my opinion.

I'm not in O&G but some of the names on my accounts receivable have words like "energy" and "drilling" so my livelihood depends on the health of the oilpatch almost as much. But I don't respect anyone who cries, "but muh pipelines" and ignores the awful truth that there are bigots in the UCP. It's FYIGM at its worst.

[Izzle]

Also, if you like to save, you should want the Government to run deficits. All their spends will lead to more savings for individuals and businesses on average. And if they decide to raise taxes in the future to get rid of the deficits, hopefully my investments have earned enough that I can afford those tax raises.

Generally, the Government spending on one side and individuals/businesses spending on the other side leads to inflation. Government savings on one side and individual/business savings on the other side leads to a stagnant economy.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Human rights will always come before economic prosperity for me. It's the fundamental core of why we exist and do things freely, and why we are privileged to enjoy that. Even playing field for all. Worse comes to worse you just live minimalist, learn how to be frugal, or move elsewhere for economic opportunity, at least in my opinion.

“Certainly there are always talks of about mobility of jobs between provinces so maybe they can go work in B.C. until it gets better and come back home,” said Marg McCuaig-Boyd, as part of a response to a question of what retraining opportunities were available for unemployed workers.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2379629/a...d-work-in-b-c/

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

How about we get a government that doesn't spend like a bunch of drunken sailors first? Show the public they can be more efficient and respect the taxpayers money. ...

Not to be too cynical, because I wholeheartedly share this sentiment... but I kinda am...

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I'm not in O&G but some of the names on my accounts receivable have words like "energy" and "drilling" so my livelihood depends on the health of the oilpatch almost as much. But I don't respect anyone who cries, "but muh pipelines" and ignores the awful truth that there are bigots in the UCP. It's FYIGM at its worst.

While I generally agree, I think you're incorrectly framing this election as oil and gas or human rights. We can easily have both.

I work at an oil and gas company. Personally, I support the NDP because I think they have been good for Alberta as a whole, including oil and gas. I value human rights more than a few dollars of taxes, but that wasn't even at the front of my mind when I looked at the options in this election.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Its not the best position by far, but I'll take a UCP member with regressive/religious views on LGBT (not saying I agree) over the NDP destroying the economy any day of the week.

Pick your poison. For me, social regression over my career earnings being decimated is an easy pick.

There are so few industries that the NDP has specifically targeted. Maybe if you're a farmer and can't use child labor anymore? Minimum wage increase and new labour laws if you're a business owner. I guess the UCP would roll back the labour laws which would be consistent with them decimating your personal career earnings.

I could see people being mad at Nenshi because property taxes have been rocketing up in the last couple years and they've done nothing, but Notley's decisions are so high level it doesn't really affect your personal income. In fact, government spending and putting our province in debt is more likely than not a net positive for your personal career earnings.

It's such a weird position to take. Alberta O&G is doing fine in a complete vacuum - lots of companies had large capital plans, and the AER is doing fine with getting everyone to drill. Notley's policy regarding petrochemical subsidies have attracted large investments into the Albertan industry at a time where noone in Alberta is investing. It's pipelines that's the main issue and neither the UCP or the NDP have any sort of effect on that entire process.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Soooo why where Caylan Ford and Eva Kiryakos immediately forced out, but Mark Smith gets to stay in with the "I'm sorry I got caught" apology? I suspect he gets ousted in a few days because of the backlash, but just interesting he isn't being made to walk right away.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Soooo why where Caylan Ford and Eva Kiryakos immediately forced out, but Mark Smith gets to stay in with the "I'm sorry I got caught" apology? I suspect he gets ousted in a few days because of the backlash, but just interesting he isn't being made to walk right away.

Eva Kiryakos wasn’t forced out was she?

[Zarley]

I see the NDP are keeping up with this transparent strategy digging up comments from ages ago and pointing to the UCP as some socially conservative boogeyman. They can't run on their atrocious record and their platform lacks substance - mudslinging is the only route. It's insulting to the intelligence of Albertans.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of UCP membership and candidates hold socially progressive views and the policy platform is not socially regressive in the least. This guy is a preacher from rural Alberta - should he be expelled from the party for his religious views? What if these views are shared by a majority of voters in his riding?

For the record, I'm an atheist and I think the guy's comments are idiotic. Generally, I think the government should stay out of people's personal business and let them do as they please. That's essentially the UCP approach.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Hits keep on coming for the UCP

https://twitter.com/user/status/1113131560646062080

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Eva Kiryakos wasn’t forced out was she?

Of course she was. She "quit", but only because she was told she had no choice. No way did she walk away voluntarily, especially in light of these comments which are arguably worse.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Zarley

This guy is a preacher from rural Alberta - should he be expelled from the party for his religious views? What if these views are shared by a majority of voters in his riding

Yes he should be expelled for his hateful and inconsiderate views. He can be as religious as he wants as long as he doesn't offend any minority's, no matter how small, rights.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Guys, please stop bringing up divisive debates. Didn't you even listen to the UCP? It's unfair to hold UCP candidates accountable for their past actions, even though they have done nothing to indicate they have changed and it's your fault if your offended.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Zarley

This guy is a preacher from rural Alberta - should he be expelled from the party for his religious views? What if these views are shared by a majority of voters in his riding?.

There's nothing legally stopping him from running. This is a party decision.

If the UCP wants to have backwards oppressive fanatics in the party, that is their right. If they don't, they also have the right to remove him from the party.

In any case, he has the right to run for election and the voters in the riding to vote for him. It's what (if any) party is next to his name on the ballot.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I see the NDP is keeping up with this transparent strategy digging up comments from ages ago and pointing to the UCP as some socially conservative boogeyman. They can't run on their atrocious record and their platform lacks substance - mudslinging is the only route. It's insulting to the intelligence of Albertans.



The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of UCP membership and candidates hold socially progressive views and the policy platform is not socially regressive in the least. This guy is a preacher from rural Alberta - should he be expelled from the party for his religious views? What if these views are shared by a majority of voters in his riding?



For the record, I'm an atheist and I think the guy's comments are idiotic. Generally, I think the government should stay out of people's personal business and let them do as they please. That's essentially the UCP approach.

The policy convention spoke loudly to me that the majority of active UCP membership do hold socially conservative views. The membership also voted in a leader of Canada's social conservative movement, and who gets 100% report card from social conservative groups.

Is this the majority of UCP members, maybe not, but to me, their recent history tells me that they are in fact a socially conservative party, I don't need to go back too far in history to inform me of this.

If you believe the UCP would be better for Alberta, that's fine, but I find it a stretch that anyone can believe they want to stay out of your personal life. They are a socially conservative party, this means they want to interfere with your personal life.

Kenny's position on GSAs alone is quite the invasion into my families life. Teachers or anyone in the government should not be interfering with my children want to talk to me about their sexuality.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Zarley

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of UCP membership and candidates hold socially progressive views and the policy platform is not socially regressive in the least.

*citation needed

[Ducay]

A religious person holding religious beliefs? I am shocked