MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Ozy_Flame]

I had to explain to my neighbor that although I'm from Alberta, I don't drive a pickup truck. He looked at me kind of funny, like 'why not' (he's Torontonian and he has one). I told him I'm not like your typical Albertan.

The old stock stereotype of Calgary = conservative is decaying. That demographic is withering away. And people assuming those who don't agree with classic Albertan culture are 'left' or 'socialist' are just telling on themselves. It's time to acknowledge that moderate politics has gone out the window, and what we were used to for so many years (progressive centrism) is gone. The 'left' is just back to what the PCs used to advocate for - social freedoms, healthy social services, and pragmatic governance.

It might be time for some on CP to finally accept that reality. Even if it's inconvenient to what they're comfortable with.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by pylon

And we see it in this very thread. The biggest A-holes on this site, tend to be left leaning.

If what you're saying above is true about Calgarypuck today (and I'm not sure that it is), then surely you must realize it's because most of the truly deplorable right-wing a-holes have been banned over the years. Go dig up a contentious political thread from, say, 2008-2012 and count how many of the people with ultra repugnant conservative views have "Lifetime Suspension" under their usernames.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by edslunch

For every PR who contributes economically to the community I’ll give you an international student, TFW, or Canadian who doesn’t to any significant degree. (And don’t read xenophobia into that sentence, they’re just ready examples of more transient residents)

Do you think these more transient PR's are more likely to vote than current citizens? Because if only 46.8% of eligible Calgarians could be bothered to vote in the last election I'm really curious what portion of PR's who give an insufficient amount of #### about this city will turnout...

Originally Posted by pylon

I'll paraphrase what one of these past members recently said "Unless you have your Hasan Piker T-shirt, your Young Turks Patreon membership, and your Purple Nenshi covid mask on full display the Socialist CPCP army will eat you alive."

I recognize the words Purple and Nenshi.

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...igibility.html

I must have missed the Y chromosome genetic test and the melatonin test. Apparently all genders and melatonin shades can apply!

Can the next topic on here or in the provincial politics thread or in the Federal politics thread or in the US politics thread have discussion and debate free of baseless racism claims and character assassinatons?

You said the current line in the sand is the bellwether of democracy. I'm sure some other cowboy said the same thing in early 1960. Before Indigenous Canadians could vote [without losing their treaty status]. But current line in the sand = perfect...the base principle was absolutely infallible and we have only had to iron out some really really minor kinks and we definitely got all of them so of course it is ludicrous to consider it further https://electionsanddemocracy.ca/vot...-rights-canada

If you took that as a personal insinuation of racism I don't know what to tell you

[btimbit]

I just think people need to be less entrenched in their opinions. You're allowed to have nuanced views, you can think left on one subject and right on another, that's fine. Also realize that things change and what made someone conservative 10 or 20 years ago may not apply today, these are just meaningless labels anyway. The common example is that a true Laugheed PC would be a staunch Alberta NDP supporter today. I'm sure some here think I'm some left-wing hippie, and yet left wing hippies that read the gun control thread would think I'm some right wing nutjob.

The biggest thing to me is that if you can't have your views challenged without crying about being suppressed or bullied, then maybe your views suck and you shouldn't share them. If you can't back up your position then your position is weak. Yes, there are many examples of posters that are dickheads about it, that doesn't erode an entire side of the political spectrum. If your response is just to get your back up and dig in, I say grow up.

But if I say something dumb, and someone calls me out for being dumb (believe me, it's not an unusual oocurance), I'm not going to cry about an echo-chamber. If you're consistently being presented well-thought-out arguments on why what you're saying is silly, then maybe, just maybe, what you're saying is silly.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Do you think these more transient PR's are more likely to vote than current citizens? Because if only 46.8% of eligible Calgarians could be bothered to vote in the last election I'm really curious what portion of PR's who give an insufficient amount of #### about this city will turnout...



I recognize the words Purple and Nenshi.



You said the current line in the sand is the bellwether of democracy. I'm sure some other cowboy said the same thing in early 1960. Before Indigenous Canadians could vote [without losing their treaty status]. But current line in the sand = perfect...the base principle was absolutely infallible and we have only had to iron out some really really minor kinks and we definitely got all of them so of course it is ludicrous to consider it further https://electionsanddemocracy.ca/vot...-rights-canada

If you took that as a personal insinuation of racism I don't know what to tell you

I don't care what a Cowboy said in 1960 or that historically the bars for citizenship were racist, sexist or otherwise. They objectively are not today. It's completely irrelevant for this discussion.

The current standards for citizenship are pretty universal and having somewhat of a higher barrier than PR status implies a permanence that makes a lot of sense to consider for alignment of interests with making decisions in the best interest for the city, province or country. The onus should rather be on city council and those that support that viewpoint to demonstrate that they aren't and what problems they aim to address when they propose a motion such as they did yesterday.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Do you think these more transient PR's are more likely to vote than current citizens? Because if only 46.8% of eligible Calgarians could be bothered to vote in the last election I'm really curious what portion of PR's who give an insufficient amount of #### about this city will turnout...

That paragraph was in response to suggestions that people who pay taxes and contribute to the economy should be allowed to vote and there was an example given of a 20 year PR who has been very successful here. I’m just saying that many people, citizens or not, don’t fit that profile so it doesn’t seem to justify a change.

As to whether temporary residents would vote in higher percentages, I don’t know. Anecdotally, the people I know who have become citizens are eager to vote. I could see the same being true for people coming from less open (or more open) societies. To me that’s a moot point though. If the problem is an apathetic electorate then we should be addressing the apathy, not just adding keen voters to the rolls to get the numbers up.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I just think people need to be less entrenched in their opinions. You're allowed to have nuanced views, you can think left on one subject and right on another, that's fine. Also realize that things change and what made someone conservative 10 or 20 years ago may not apply today, these are just meaningless labels anyway. The common example is that a true Laugheed PC would be a staunch Alberta NDP supporter today. I'm sure some here think I'm some left-wing hippie, and yet left wing hippies that read the gun control thread would think I'm some right wing nutjob.

The biggest thing to me is that if you can't have your views challenged without crying about being suppressed or bullied, then maybe your views suck and you shouldn't share them. If you can't back up your position then your position is weak. Yes, there are many examples of posters that are dickheads about it, that doesn't erode an entire side of the political spectrum. If your response is just to get your back up and dig in, I say grow up.

But if I say something dumb, and someone calls me out for being dumb (believe me, it's not an unusual oocurance), I'm not going to cry about an echo-chamber. If you're consistently being presented well-thought-out arguments on why what you're saying is silly, then maybe, just maybe, what you're saying is silly.

When I first saw the headline on this my first thoughts were: 1. that's stupid and 2. why is the city dealing with this?

Posts in this thread made me rethink #1. I've had to think through #2 on my own and I can appreciate it as a valid position, I'd also ask 'why not?'. If the people driving this motion didn't do it then they would definitely 100% apply their efforts to the things I think are more important. Just like I'd go exercise right now if only I weren't wasting my time on this discussion. Because that's totally how it works.

And maybe the idea actually just makes more sense at a civic level.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

What is the case for extending municipal voting rights to PR? I'm not seeing one. Is it because some people who live in cities are PR status? Because they want to?

Feels like we are in if it ain't broke don't fix it territory here. Having just citizens vote works fine. You want to vote? Become a citizen. The whole proposal feels like a solution in search of a problem.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I don't care what a Cowboy said in 1960 or that historically the bars for citizenship were racist, sexist or otherwise. They objectively are not today. It's completely irrelevant for this discussion.

The current standards for citizenship are pretty universal and having somewhat of a higher barrier than PR status implies a permanence that makes a lot of sense to consider for alignment with making decisions in the best interest for the city, province or country. The onus should rather be on city council and those that support that viewpoint to demonstrate that they aren't and what problems they aim to address when they propose a motion such as they did yesterday.

Did you ready anything on it? Walcott explains some points in the article.

“Usually people will become permanent residents on their journey to becoming a citizen,” Walcott said on Saturday. “Sometimes the citizenship process takes a while. It can be several years.

“People can be in Canada, contributing, paying taxes — literally building the country — but not able to participate in the most local form of democracy. I think that’s something that should be recognized.”

https://calgaryherald.com/news/counc...nent-residents

And nothing is even changing at this point. This is the start of a discussion.

If ultimately approved, council would forward a resolution to AB Munis’ next annual conference in September. If it passes there, AB Munis (which advocates on behalf of Alberta’s municipalities) would lobby the Alberta government to amend the Local Authorities Election Act (LAEA) to expand voter eligibility to include individuals who have been granted Canadian permanent resident status.

But then, you don't need to worry at all if this is the process

But differing opinions appear to already be arising among some councillors, and even Municipal Affairs Minister Ric McIver weighed in on social media, suggesting there would be little appetite for the proposal among the Alberta government.

“I’ll save us all some time,” McIver wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, on Saturday. “Only citizens of Canada can vote in municipal elections. That will not be changing.”

Which brings us up to date on our current discussion...

“Nothing says gate keeping like being unwilling to even entertain the conversation,” she wrote, pointing out that permanent residents can already serve in the military, pay taxes and own property.

It'd be really nice if people did even a touch of research(google.ca), and then argued their point.

Hope I didn't scare any posters off.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

And maybe the idea actually just makes more sense at a civic level.

It isn't even that they're wasting time on this when they could be doing something more important.

It's that they don't have the jurisdiction to change this - it's a provincial decision. Given their relationship with the UCP they don't even plausibly have influence on this.

If they want to try and make the UCP look bad to try and get change to happen (which would be a reasonable strategy) this issue is probably ineffective. Taking free money from the feds and issuing press releases about how the UCP is stopping us from getting our fair share would be better.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I don't care what a Cowboy said in 1960 or that historically the bars for citizenship were racist, sexist or otherwise. They objectively are not today. It's completely irrelevant for this discussion.

The current standards for citizenship are pretty universal and having somewhat of a higher barrier than PR status implies a permanence that makes a lot of sense to consider for alignment with making decisions in the best interest for the city, province or country. The onus should rather be on city council and those that support that viewpoint to demonstrate that they aren't and what problems they aim to address when they propose a motion such as they did yesterday.

It takes quite a bit of hubris to recognize that things in the past were obviously racist or sexist when viewed from today's lens, but then also claim that they are objectively not today.

The discussion is who should be allowed to vote.

6570 days old = eligible.
6569 days old = ineligible

Gotta draw the line somewhere...maybe that is optimal, maybe it isn't. Same thing goes for TFW vs work visa vs PR vs full citizen.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

It isn't even that they're wasting time on this when they could be doing something more important.

It's that they don't have the jurisdiction to change this - it's a provincial decision. Given their relationship with the UCP they don't even plausibly have influence on this.

If they want to try and make the UCP look bad to try and get change to happen (which would be a reasonable strategy) this issue is probably ineffective. Taking free money from the feds and issuing press releases about how the UCP is stopping us from getting our fair share would be better.

Over the last ten years a number of cities across Canada have passed motions on PR voting rights or have asked the provincial governments to change requirements including Vancouver, Victoria, Toronto and Halifax (maybe more as well.) It hasn't gone anywhere but maybe Calgary/Alberta are different and we can set a precedent. Or it's just Calgary's turn to virtue signal.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I just think people need to be less entrenched in their opinions. You're allowed to have nuanced views, you can think left on one subject and right on another, that's fine. Also realize that things change and what made someone conservative 10 or 20 years ago may not apply today, these are just meaningless labels anyway. The common example is that a true Laugheed PC would be a staunch Alberta NDP supporter today. I'm sure some here think I'm some left-wing hippie, and yet left wing hippies that read the gun control thread would think I'm some right wing nutjob.

The biggest thing to me is that if you can't have your views challenged without crying about being suppressed or bullied, then maybe your views suck and you shouldn't share them. If you can't back up your position then your position is weak. Yes, there are many examples of posters that are dickheads about it, that doesn't erode an entire side of the political spectrum. If your response is just to get your back up and dig in, I say grow up.

But if I say something dumb, and someone calls me out for being dumb (believe me, it's not an unusual oocurance), I'm not going to cry about an echo-chamber. If you're consistently being presented well-thought-out arguments on why what you're saying is silly, then maybe, just maybe, what you're saying is silly.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Pepsifree has certainly been unduly antagonistic by sprinkling a dash of snark in each of his well researched and reasoned posts. It's too bad that perennially online people who feel the need to point out that perennially online people are not a representative sample of humanity or in-person interactions also seem to be really thin skinned and revert to pointing out that perennially online people are not a representative sample of humanity whenever a topic challenges their preconceived notions. Because complaining about how other people engage in a topic is way more fun that engaging in a topic. Or something.

The saddest part about these two posts is that, on a forum where:
- middle aged men who have been members for decades talk about people “terminally online”
- “echo chamber” gets trotted out in response to one guy presenting actual points on a topic and a handful of guys saying “it is how it is and that’s how it should be”… and the echo chamber comment is actually directed to the one guy
- someone complains about antagonism, despite having told trans kids to take bullying on the chin and mocking someone because they were told to kill themselves
- a COVID denier complains about how everyone hates CP and his only reference are lunatics who call it SOCIALIST LEFTIST MARXISM CCCP (but hey, there are dozens of us!), yet those are the people he’s decided have a point

…they stand out as so astonishing logical and adult that it’s almost surprising. I mean, it’s not like you guys are presenting earth shattering stuff here, but on a forum where a few guys make it about how wronged they are and how everything just ain’t like it used to be, they stand out.

I mean, who would’ve thought, the secret to someone pushing back on your opinion ISNT whining about antagonism, group think, and echo chambers… it’s using your brain and giving it another consideration!

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

2024. What a time to be alive. Called racist for insisting that only actual citizens should be able to vote in elections.

If you choose to take the objectively hilarious meme as personally hurtful, you do you. That seems a bit ... fragile.

Also the roll call of conservatives hurt on your behalf thanking this post is funny to me. New immigrants overwhelmingly vote conservatively, so you think there'd be more support for changing the arbitrary criteria for which people living permanently in the same city as the rest of us are allowed to vote.

[Weitz]

These threads are insufferable. I’m not sure how y’all do it anymore.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Weitz

These threads are insufferable. I’m not sure how y’all do it anymore.

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

[Weitz]

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

Not gonna lie this made me laugh more than it should have.

[btimbit]

That's the spirit!

[fotze2]

My wife was a permanent for the past twenty years. Had dual danish/american. Every civic election she could have voted. Got the voter card, was always eligible. Like the databases aren’t connected, so wouldn’t be surprised PRs have been “able” to vote for a long time already. She never even considered that she should be allowed to vote until she got the citizenship. I don’t think it makes any sort of difference either way.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by btimbit

People just don't like when their wacky views get challenged and they can't back them up, so instead they claim they're bullied and go peddle their nonsense elsewhere.

Except that it’s often perfectly normal, middle-of-the-road opinions that get dogpiled here. If you don’t recognize how out of step many of the commonly-held attitudes expressed here are, you should get out and talk to more people IRL. Or for a more empirical context, look at opinion polls and election results.

Any community where someone like Slava is cast as a conservative with whacky views is comically out of touch with mainstream opinions. He’s about as milquetoast, middle of the road Calgarian as you get.

The real problem isn’t the disagreement. It’s the fact certain highly active posters have proven they cannot disagree without making things personal. Back when these forums were moderated, they were suspended again and again. But now they run rampant, spitting snark and taking personal shots, because members who agree with them politically are happy to give virtual high-fives to antagonistic d-bags so long as they’re being antagonistic d-bags for the right team.

It’s tribalism all the way down. How often do you see someone in these threads thank a well-supported post by someone who holds different political views, or call out a low-effort, antagonistic ####-post by someone who’s on the same team?