Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Ace]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Unless there's some argument that holds water as to why the UCP policy will offset these deaths with saved lives, the decision to repeal bill 24 appears completely monstrous to me.

I would assume there are studies showing involved and active parents (most parents who want the best for their kids), in their kids lives helping them through all kinds of tough life situations is also a major factor of reducing suicide risk. I also assume that this is the major concern of most of the parents that object it being absolutely illegal to inform them.

I don’t think you can say definitively that there are not valid arguments on both sides of the issue.

Let me add though that it is a bit of fresh air to have this type of dialogue on a hockey forum. The political space just doesn’t allow it anymore.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

So would that not be the dreaded "outing"?

No.

I think people think this is what Bill 24 contemplates:

GSA Liaison: I'm going to take the GSA to a homosexual orgy and forced sex-change workshop.
Principal: No, please don't! They are just kindergartners!
GSA Liaison: Haven't you read Bill 24, there's nothing you can do!

In actuality it's this:

GSA Liaison: Here's a local LGBT artist who's available to come to the school and give a presentation of how he got into his art as it relates to growing up as LGBT individual.
Principal: Great idea, let's add it to the May newsletter that students in the GSA will be removed from third period if they want to attend this event.
GSA Liaison: Thanks.

And this:

GSA Liaison: There's a LGBT conference that I think would be beneficial.
Principal: This panel has an adult discussing how gay conversion therapy made him suicidal. It's a bit heavy subject and off schoolground. I think we should get consent from parents if they will allow their children to attend.
GSA Liaison: Cool, I'll send out a waiver for parents to sign. Those who don't bring it back, either because they don't want to attend, parents don't want them to attend, or don't want their parents to know they are in a GSA will not attend.

And even this:

GSA Liaison: We want to watch Brokeback Mountain as one of the first critically acclaimed LGBT movies to be made.
Principal: The sexual content and nudity is too extreme, I'm not allowing that. Sorry.
GSA Liaison: Aw chucks, but thanks for considering it.

Bill 24 only makes it mandatory for principals to allow GSA organizations if requested by a student and doesn't allow them to out the students involved. That's it. If you want to remove Bill 24, then that's what you want to remove.

[OMG!WTF!]

I would assume there are studies showing involved and active parents (most parents who want the best for their kids), in their kids lives helping them through all kinds of tough life situations is also a major factor of reducing suicide risk. I also assume that this is the major concern of most of the parents that object it being absolutely illegal to inform them.

I don’t think you can say definitively that there are not valid arguments on both sides of the issue.

Let me add though that it is a bit of fresh air to have this type of dialogue on a hockey forum. The political space just doesn’t allow it anymore.

Yes there are lots of studies showing kids with good parental relationships have much better outcomes in all aspects of life. But there are also studies showing the damage that can happen when parents do not accept their kid's lifestyle. Why in the world would you take that choice away from a kid? Or at very least a kid and a professional psychologist/counselor? Why would you just assume every outcome is going to be positive when you know nothing about the situation with the parents? That's just cruel. Teachers are not psychologists. They're not qualified to do that work.



I still don't understand why a conversation about a student's well being needs to include facts about their sexuality. Like why can't the conversation be "I think your kid is struggling and would benefit from professional help. Here's a number...." How does adding "And also your kid is gay and hangs around with other gay kids" add anything of value?



Kids really do get kicked out for being gay. I know one. It blows the mind but some parents are just terrible people. Allowing teachers to tell parents would effectively remove the existence of GSA's from, for sure the 28 religious schools who currently don't allow them, but likely from several more. It would affirm what so many kids already feel, that they're not free to be who they want.



It breaks my heart when my friend's kid tells me all the BS she and her girlfriend have already experienced at the age of 16. It's super easy to write about how Canada is the most accepting place on earth for LGBTQ people. But that's a straight person's reality. There is still a great deal of acceptance lacking in our world. I will not one single time in my life feel threatened for holding my girlfriend's hand. These 16 year olds have already written three police reports detailing hate crimes against them. We're good for sure. We're actually great. But it's not all good.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Yet when its racist grafitti, its automatically UCP, funny how that double standard works.

I can’t say I have a perfect memory for every post in this thread but I can’t remember the one where racist graffiti by a random person was attributed to the UCP. Maybe you can help me?

Not that it matters: both are wrong. The political parties in Alberta are not using random acts of vandalism to get their messages out there, and neither is responsible for petty property crimes committed by unknown random people.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

A litany of constitutional experts says Kenney will lose every one of his fights.

This is why it's hard to stomach claims that Kenney is the leader of choice for hard-headed practical voters. The various fights he intends to pick are emotion-driven rhetorical gestures with little likelihood of achieving anything tangible. They're Trumpian sops to the frustrated and angry. I'm surprised we haven't seen Kenney standing at a podium and shouting that he'll make B.C. pay for the pipeline expansion.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm surprised we haven't seen Kenney standing at a podium and shouting that he'll make B.C. pay for the pipeline expansion.

Build TMX and make BC pay for it?

[Calgary14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I must be getting old, and before I explain why, let me say that I'm entirely in favour of social programs, the social safety net and all that sort of thing. But the sheer entitlement of people not much younger than I am is just shocking.

I follow someone on twitter (whose account I will not be linking as they evidently get off on the interaction), and they're trying to garner support for subsidized childcare. She makes 6 figures, and somehow thinks that it's cool for taxpayers to foot the bill for childcare because it will make life easier for her (essentially), and she'll have more money. It's one thing to suggest that an income tested version of childcare is beneficial and that there's a public good as a result, but subsidized childcare for people who could otherwise afford it but would rather not spend the money is just mind-numbing.

Who are these people who just think that the government, (or other taxpayers), should subsidize their choices? The government we have in power at this point can't pay for their operations without borrowing money as it is, never mind them subsidizing childcare for people who have incomes that are above the median! I probably should have posted this in the gear grinder thread, because I don't know if it's really related to the election, but the attitude is just frustrating.

For what it's worth I recently reached out to our local (NDP) MLA about the campaign pitch of universal childcare. He admitted that when the $25/day childcare was rolled out there was very little notice given to the daycares and it was a bit of a mess for months sorting out who got a spot, given that essentially all parents wanted one and the $25/day childcare only covered about 10% of total daycare spots. I asked why the program wasn't linked to family income (didn't get a response).

Going forward I asked how this would be rolled out to all daycares; there would be specific documents and approvals that each daycare would need in order to be approved for the $25/day program. I asked which specific documents, what the timeline is and how exactly this would be rolled out in a timely/reasonable manner. I got a somewhat vague response - there is no timeline and not sure what approvals are needed.

As you mentioned above having children is a choice, and I don't think the government should subsidize that choice especially when it's not tied to income.

TLDR - $25/day childcare sounds like a great idea in theory but the reality is anyone who would be interested in taking advantage of it might have to wait years, making it irrelevant for most who could use it. Based on my chat with the MLA the government doesn't really have a specific plan and isn't sure how long it would take to implement.

[Lubicon]

Both my wife and myself voted at the advance polls on Monday. Different locations but we were in and out in under 5 minutes. My kids attend U of C and lineups there have been very long all week. My daughter voted (first time for her) and waited about 30 minutes - they fast tracked people who had the voter cards with them so she was expedited. My son abandoned the idea when they told him the line was 1 1/2 hours long, he could not spare the time over the day. Hopefully he will try again or hit the polling station that is right next door to the train station on the way home.

[OMG!WTF!]

Jason Kenney on 770 right now. Danielle Smith Show so it won't be a Charles Alder slaughter.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is why it's hard to stomach claims that Kenney is the leader of choice for hard-headed practical voters. The various fights he intends to pick are emotion-driven rhetorical gestures with little likelihood of achieving anything tangible. They're Trumpian sops to the frustrated and angry. I'm surprised we haven't seen Kenney standing at a podium and shouting that he'll make B.C. pay for the pipeline expansion.

Is there an actual link to 'a litany of constitutional lawyers' who don't agree with the lawsuits?

MBates did a great summary on why what he might do could work and I have read other lawyers comments with similar opinions.

[Flamenspiel]

Yea, a lot people are pulling out the "not constitutional" argument. Its not really necessary for it to agree with the constitution, they could use the "notwithstanding clause", certainly if it's something where the GOA holds all the levers of power, it should be employed.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I, for one, am readying myself for the Great Quacking of the Placebo Premier.

This is gold. Hope you don't mind me putting it in my signature.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by woob

This is gold. Hope you don't mind me putting it in my signature.

Have at 'er! Every bit of that punchline will resonate true in short order, happy to spread the word

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is why it's hard to stomach claims that Kenney is the leader of choice for hard-headed practical voters. The various fights he intends to pick are emotion-driven rhetorical gestures with little likelihood of achieving anything tangible. They're Trumpian sops to the frustrated and angry. I'm surprised we haven't seen Kenney standing at a podium and shouting that he'll make B.C. pay for the pipeline expansion.

The strategy is more around identifying points of leverage and creating turmoil with the Federal government and other provinces. Basically what Quebec has been doing forever and what the BC New Democrats have been doing since they got elected. Standing by quietly while other Provinces have wiped their asses with the constitution with the Feds shrugging their shoulders hasn't worked. The point isn't changing the constitution itself, it's telling the Feds that all these headaches go away if you do the right thing and get the pipeline going. Right now they're only feeling pressure from one side.

But I can definitely agree that Kenney is riding hard along that populist line right now. Those commercials with the triumphant "strong and free" chorus in the background are a little much.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Jason Kenney on 770 right now. Danielle Smith Show so it won't be a Charles Alder slaughter.

She'll ask the real gotcha questions:



'Mr. Kenney, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?'

[Slava]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yes there are lots of studies showing kids with good parental relationships have much better outcomes in all aspects of life. But there are also studies showing the damage that can happen when parents do not accept their kid's lifestyle. Why in the world would you take that choice away from a kid? Or at very least a kid and a professional psychologist/counselor? Why would you just assume every outcome is going to be positive when you know nothing about the situation with the parents? That's just cruel. Teachers are not psychologists. They're not qualified to do that work.



I still don't understand why a conversation about a student's well being needs to include facts about their sexuality. Like why can't the conversation be "I think your kid is struggling and would benefit from professional help. Here's a number...." How does adding "And also your kid is gay and hangs around with other gay kids" add anything of value?



Kids really do get kicked out for being gay. I know one. It blows the mind but some parents are just terrible people. Allowing teachers to tell parents would effectively remove the existence of GSA's from, for sure the 28 religious schools who currently don't allow them, but likely from several more. It would affirm what so many kids already feel, that they're not free to be who they want.



It breaks my heart when my friend's kid tells me all the BS she and her girlfriend have already experienced at the age of 16. It's super easy to write about how Canada is the most accepting place on earth for LGBTQ people. But that's a straight person's reality. There is still a great deal of acceptance lacking in our world. I will not one single time in my life feel threatened for holding my girlfriend's hand. These 16 year olds have already written three police reports detailing hate crimes against them. We're good for sure. We're actually great. But it's not all good.

First of all, this is a great post.

But one of the disappointing issues in this election is that we're essentially begin given the choice between economic mismanagement and these social issues. It puts voters in an uncomfortable position as we're making a poor decision either way.

And yeah, there are other parties out there, but the harsh reality is that (a) they're not likely to even be official party status at this point, if you believe the polls and (b) I'm not sure that they've really provided adequate financial policies here either.

So, I'm lost. I really wanted to vote already so that I could just stop paying attention and enjoy the playoffs and spring. But instead I keep going back and forth and can't decide what to do.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

The strategy is more around identifying points of leverage and creating turmoil with the Federal government and other provinces. Basically what Quebec has been doing forever and what the BC New Democrats have been doing since they got elected. Standing by quietly while other Provinces have wiped their asses with the constitution with the Feds shrugging their shoulders hasn't worked. The point isn't changing the constitution itself, it's telling the Feds that all these headaches go away if you do the right thing and get the pipeline going. Right now they're only feeling pressure from one side.

Put pressure on the federal government to overstep into the judicial process...hasn't caused any problems before.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Slava

First of all, this is a great post.

But one of the disappointing issues in this election is that we're essentially begin given the choice between economic mismanagement and these social issues. It puts voters in an uncomfortable position as we're making a poor decision either way.

Yes that's exactly it. Kenney actually made some sense on the radio. Like I can't imagine voting for him or any of his goons but I kind of hope he wins? That makes no sense but here we are. And on the other hand the most satisfying thing ever would be if he lost.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

None at all? It seems to me that no matter what your politics, it matters a great deal what the deficit was incurred for.

I mean, even taking your point about Klein, it's not like the NDP got into office and said, "wow, we really need to borrow a bunch of money to catch up on infrastructure that's lagging behind", and went on to spend money to achieve that end. They were borrowing to cover operating expenses. And that's leaving aside the $2.2 billion borrowed on behalf of the balancing pool to address a payable incurred through sheer incompetence.

It just doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable stance to take, unless you can explain why the source of these astronomical debt figures seems to you like good money to spend.

It can be equally as unreasonable as a citizen and voter to be ok with indiscriminately slashing budgets just so you can say you are balancing things out earlier than the next guy. Which we have all seen ad nasuea with previous Conservative regimes.

The UCP are going to find out the hard way that without oil royalties rolling in like they used to, running a balanced budget is going to be near impossible, especially when you're cutting the corporate tax rate by 4% right off the bat. I'm still sitting on the fence in terms of where to cast my vote, however, I do know that voting for a party who is blindly picking fights with Ottawa that will not be won, is a complete insult to every voters intelligence. Making up for this lost tax revenue is going to come squarely off the backs of every one of the average joe's that are currently all wound up about the carbon tax in the first place. Either directly through new taxes the UCP needs to bring in or indirectly through slashed programs, services and infrastructure.

A party that still thinks the creation of a multi million dollar Alberta "oil sands war room" will change public perception, tells me just about everything I need to know in terms of where not to vote....which may be the best I can hope for this time around.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

It can be equally as unreasonable as a citizen and voter to be ok with indiscriminately slashing budgets just so you can say you are balancing things out earlier than the next guy.

The UCP are going to find out the hard way that without oil royalties rolling in like they used to, running a balanced budget is going to be near impossible, especially when you're cutting the corporate tax rate by 4% right off the bat. I'm still sitting on the fence in terms of where to cast my vote, however, I do know that voting for a party who is blindly picking fights with Ottawa that will not be won, is a complete insult to every voters intelligence. Making up for this lost tax revenue is going to come squarely off the backs of the average joe that is all wound up about the carbon tax in the first place. Either directly through new taxes or indirectly through slashed programs.

A party that still thinks the creation of a multi million dollar Alberta "oil sands war room" will change public perception, tells me just about everything I need to know in terms of where not to vote.