Who did you vote for?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Out of the 5 main prairie cities, Calgary is the only one that won't regularly vote in left wing parties.

But see the votes and opinions of city dwellers are to be discounted because they voted for the wrong party, and are deficient as citizens on account of them not having real jobs, like farmers and rig pigs.

This is actually what the troglodytes think about their fellow citizens.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Well, unless you're trying to reduce your energy and pollution footprint. Then it's about as "good" as having a convenient pack of cigs in the drawer when you're trying to quit smoking.

But yes point taken about the fixed costs. You are definitely saving some money by using your car less, but there are some costs that more or less are like spoiled milk. For instance, the savings you get on your insurance by driving slightly less is negligible, and when you have to pay for parking at your home you save zero. Not to mention that cars depreciate not just by usage, but also by age. Although if your car is more than say 5 years old, the age depreciation slows considerably. The only point I was making is that not owning a car absolutely does not mean being trapped in an "urban island" without freedom.

Reducing your energy and pollution footprint is a conscious decision that you have to make, and reducing your car usage is something you do because you want to. Don't see the analogy to cigarettes, because that's a physical drug addiction - using a car is not. The convenience is such that if I have to go somewhere quickly and it's pouring rain outside, the car is there. If friends in another town invite you to dinner that evening, you can accept and drive there, rather than having to try to get a rental car on a weekend (I've heard that can be virtually impossible at times). If you need to take an aging parent to a doctor's appointment, it's there when you need it. That sort of thing.

Costs are like anything in life, you prioritize and minimize when possible. If it's not important to be mobile past 10 or 20 km from your home, or if you don't have a busy life and you can afford the time to take a bus, walk, or cycle, then you don't need a car or at least can choose not to have one.

If you decide that you want or need one, you can minimize the depreciation by buying a 3+ year old car and avoid the big depreciation hit. You can learn to do your own maintenance and reduce maintenance/repair costs. Or, you can amortize the costs over a long period of time and keep the car until the end of its life (like I do... I've had one car for 20 years and still going strong - the other one is 12 years old and looks like new). You can learn how to preserve your car so it doesn't suffer degradation from the elements (i.e. rust, etc.).

Other costs, i.e. insurance, etc. are necessities of life and come with the program. But, you're looking at the costs very one-sidedly. The money you save by not having a car would likely be spent somewhere else anyhow, and would not get a return unless you are very disciplined and invest every cent that you would not spend on a car (not many people can do that). Then, you are just choosing where you spend your money, and there's nothing wrong with that - but it's unfair to put somebody down for choosing to spend their money on a car rather than somewhere else.

And, to be clear, the people who I'm talking about in the 'urban island' scenario are clearly virtue signalling, and my statement is in defence of those who choose to live different lives, and don't want to (or can't afford to) live in a downtown condo - it's not for everybody, and Canada is a vast, spread out land (unlike most of Europe) that has different requirements for different people.

Now, back to 'who did you vote for'...

[OldDartmouthMark]

I have to say this whole deal of 'the west' being angry at other regions of Canada because they did not vote the same is utter hogwash. It's a friggin' democracy after all. That's how the whole damn system works - you vote for whomever you want to, whomever get the most seats runs the country (but only for 4 years) and it all falls into place from there. If you're not happy you get another shot at it in 4 years time.

Life's tough, guys, you don't always get your way. Get over it. If you want to live in a communist society there are places you can go for that, but I'm sure you wouldn't like it once you got there.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I have to say this whole deal of 'the west' being angry at other regions of Canada because they did not vote the same is utter hogwash. It's a friggin' democracy after all. That's how the whole damn system works - you vote for whomever you want to, whomever get the most seats runs the country (but only for 4 years) and it all falls into place from there. If you're not happy you get another shot at it in 4 years time.

Life's tough, guys, you don't always get your way. Get over it.

Ontario and Quebec didn't threaten separate over three Harper terms. Atlantic Canada never throws childish tantrums like this. It's a Prairie thing.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If you want to live in a communist society there are places you can go for that, but I'm sure you wouldn't like it once you got there.

If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy. - David Frum

And another example of the state of conservatism from south of the border, seeping north:

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/statu...271143936?s=09

We're dealing here with people who think democracy means you should vote their way or you're doing it wrong, or that democracy is flawed.

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I have to say this whole deal of 'the west' being angry at other regions of Canada because they did not vote the same is utter hogwash. It's a friggin' democracy after all. That's how the whole damn system works - you vote for whomever you want to, whomever get the most seats runs the country (but only for 4 years) and it all falls into place from there. If you're not happy you get another shot at it in 4 years time.

Life's tough, guys, you don't always get your way. Get over it. If you want to live in a communist society there are places you can go for that, but I'm sure you wouldn't like it once you got there.

Couldn't agree more.

I think the issue with Alberta is that they were used to being the shining star of Canada, making insane amounts of money, lots of prosperity, no sales tax, etc. High school graduates would be making $100,000+ per year and buying ATV's, RV's, blowing it at expensive restaurants, big lavish oil parties, etc. Then the price of oil plunged and the lifestyle changed. All of a sudden it was back to reality, people lost their job, and the anger came out. They needed a scapegoat, why not blame Trudeau Jr? He's Liberal, from Quebec... the son of Pierre Trudeau who already has a bad name out there.

The truth is that Trudeau will never be liked out there, he could figuratively speaking, approve 5 massive pipelines and give each Albertan $5000 in cash and they would still vote him out.

It's time to realize that nothing lasts forever, what goes up must come down. And in this new world, oil prices will be lower. That's no one persons fault, so instead of complaining about a 6.5% unemployment rate and an improving economy, try to just look at the glass half full. Alberta is still doing well and the economy has been improving there recently. Everyone I talk to out there is doing well. My cousin has a great teaching job, her husband just got a raise at a big oil company (he's an environmental engineer). And my aunt and uncle are making lots of money in their smoked meat and cheese business. Alberta is still delivering great opportunities to people, but don't be angry at the east because your insane party times have ended.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by travis3000

Couldn't agree more.

I think the issue with Alberta is that they were used to being the shining star of Canada, making insane amounts of money, lots of prosperity, no sales tax, etc. High school graduates would be making $100,000+ per year and buying ATV's, RV's, blowing it at expensive restaurants, big lavish oil parties, etc. Then the price of oil plunged and the lifestyle changed. All of a sudden it was back to reality, people lost their job, and the anger came out. They needed a scapegoat, why not blame Trudeau Jr? He's Liberal, from Quebec... the son of Pierre Trudeau who already has a bad name out there.

Aren't they blaming Trudeau because, in their opinion, Trudeau has instituted policies that are undermining Alberta's ability to get its valuable resources to markets that are more than willing to pay for them? Your post sounds like schoolyard gloating about how the big bully got his comeuppance. I think there's a little more to it than that.

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by travis3000

Couldn't agree more.

I think the issue with Alberta is that they were used to being the shining star of Canada, making insane amounts of money, lots of prosperity, no sales tax, etc. High school graduates would be making $100,000+ per year and buying ATV's, RV's, blowing it at expensive restaurants, big lavish oil parties, etc. Then the price of oil plunged and the lifestyle changed. All of a sudden it was back to reality, people lost their job, and the anger came out. They needed a scapegoat, why not blame Trudeau Jr? He's Liberal, from Quebec... the son of Pierre Trudeau who already has a bad name out there.

The truth is that Trudeau will never be liked out there, he could figuratively speaking, approve 5 massive pipelines and give each Albertan $5000 in cash and they would still vote him out.

It's time to realize that nothing lasts forever, what goes up must come down. And in this new world, oil prices will be lower. That's no one persons fault, so instead of complaining about a 6.5% unemployment rate and an improving economy, try to just look at the glass half full. Alberta is still doing well and the economy has been improving there recently. Everyone I talk to out there is doing well. My cousin has a great teaching job, her husband just got a raise at a big oil company (he's an environmental engineer). And my aunt and uncle are making lots of money in their smoked meat and cheese business. Alberta is still delivering great opportunities to people, but don't be angry at the east because your insane party times have ended.

I have always hated how Alberta pretends to represent all of Western Canada and how somehow they are better than other provinces simply because they were blessed to have oil underneath their soil and had to pay into equalization as a result. Provinces who lack the resources Alberta had such as Manitoba or New Brunswick are actually far more Conservative having to make do with far less.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Reducing your energy and pollution footprint is a conscious decision that you have to make, and reducing your car usage is something you do because you want to. Don't see the analogy to cigarettes, because that's a physical drug addiction - using a car is not. The convenience is such that if I have to go somewhere quickly and it's pouring rain outside, the car is there. If friends in another town invite you to dinner that evening, you can accept and drive there, rather than having to try to get a rental car on a weekend (I've heard that can be virtually impossible at times). If you need to take an aging parent to a doctor's appointment, it's there when you need it. That sort of thing.

I don't actually think we disagree since that was the exact point I was making. A big part of my decision not to make a car easily accessible to myself was because i knew that if accessing it was convenient, it would be hard for me to resist that temptation. The examples you provided are the exact sort of thing I was referring to. There are many times when my parents had their car at my place last year when if it was raining I would take it. When the car isn't here, obviously I won't. I remember the day after they left with the car it poured raining and I had to bike to work. I survived and it wasn't a big deal. But it was inconvenient and I hated it. That experience is what really galvanized my decision.

Nobody is saying that having a car on hand isn't convenient or that people don't enjoy that convenience. But if something creates pollution, it creates it whether or not it's enjoyable or convenient. The part I disagree with is that if I have to make a concious decision each time that relies solely on my willpower, well, I'm weak and will likely give in. I know myself well enough to admit that and that's why I'm in no position to judge others.

And those examples are exactly what I was referring to when I challenged LakeLocker's idea that being car free doesn't really involve much hardship or sacrifice. It often does and that's why I can't really condemn anyone for having one. Especially in the places most of live where everything is designed around them and when many people have special needs and circumstances such as the elderly.

[Nouvellecosse]

Actually.... I hate to sound conspiratorial, but I'm actually not sure if LakeLocker's ideas were being presented in good faith. It seems his insistence that the left needs to have this type of behaviour purity in order to advocate for policy change is a great way to get a minority of people (the truly committed) to put all their effort into their own lifestyle and into policing their peers for their personal decisions. This would turn off huge numbers of people who would feel judged and attacked and prompt them to give up because it's too difficult, and for society in general to basically abandon strategies that will make real systemic change. It makes me wonder if some segments of the right has graduated from climate denial to solutions denial and are now diverting and distracting from actual known/proven economic solutions as a way to sabotage progress. If they were able to get people to actually buy that narrative, I think it would be a very effective in quelling the movement and would be huge blow to any sort of actual progress.

Not saying that this was his actual intent; just makes me wonder since that would be a great strategy for a naysayer were they to manage to pull it off.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by travis3000

Couldn't agree more.

I think the issue with Alberta is that they were used to being the shining star of Canada, making insane amounts of money, lots of prosperity, no sales tax, etc. High school graduates would be making $100,000+ per year and buying ATV's, RV's, blowing it at expensive restaurants, big lavish oil parties, etc. Then the price of oil plunged and the lifestyle changed. All of a sudden it was back to reality, people lost their job, and the anger came out. They needed a scapegoat, why not blame Trudeau Jr? He's Liberal, from Quebec... the son of Pierre Trudeau who already has a bad name out there.

The truth is that Trudeau will never be liked out there, he could figuratively speaking, approve 5 massive pipelines and give each Albertan $5000 in cash and they would still vote him out.

It's time to realize that nothing lasts forever, what goes up must come down. And in this new world, oil prices will be lower. That's no one persons fault, so instead of complaining about a 6.5% unemployment rate and an improving economy, try to just look at the glass half full. Alberta is still doing well and the economy has been improving there recently. Everyone I talk to out there is doing well. My cousin has a great teaching job, her husband just got a raise at a big oil company (he's an environmental engineer). And my aunt and uncle are making lots of money in their smoked meat and cheese business. Alberta is still delivering great opportunities to people, but don't be angry at the east because your insane party times have ended.

I agree with you. I live in a mining city where there are both good and bad times. Luckily with the price of gold being high for the last 15 years things have been okay but it's the big mining companies that are benefiting and not so much our municipality.

I was in Alberta for awhile during the Summer and the economy there is much better than what I thought it would be. Bad times in Timmins and much of Northern Ontario were far worse and we are much more ignored by BOTH federal and provincial governments.

As for the Albertan arrogance we hear about, I see examples of it here as well. Some guys in mining who make tons of money and go spending crazy on lifted trucks, on ATVs, boats, snowmobiles, etc. and don't invest a cent and have no work pension. They bitch about paying too much in taxes when they are making a lot but later cry that the government should be paying more for CPP and OAS when they have to retire and are in deep debt because they didn't get the bonuses that they thought they would continuously get or the mine closed.

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Aren't they blaming Trudeau because, in their opinion, Trudeau has instituted policies that are undermining Alberta's ability to get its valuable resources to markets that are more than willing to pay for them? Your post sounds like schoolyard gloating about how the big bully got his comeuppance. I think there's a little more to it than that.

They blame him for everything. The pipeline that was supposed to go south into the US (a US judge stalled it), the one going through BC (BC doesn't want it), and Energy East (Quebec doesn't want anything to do with it).

So let's all take off our partisan coloured glasses and admit this has nothing to do with Trudeau. Heck, the guy spent 4.5 BILLION of public dollars to buy the pipeline , a move that yielded zero dividends to him.

The B-69 bill has instilled anger as well, but all the bill really does is say that future pipeline projects will be evaluated on a one by one basis based on their impact to the environment, local communities, and to human health. It doesn't ban pipelines.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5416659/w...c69-pipelines/

So no Im not trying to be some little schoolyard nerd gloating about the bully being punished. Im simply putting things into reality. The way Albertans go on you'd swear half of them are living on the streets with a 20% Spain style unemployment rate. That's nowhere near the case. Albertans still have some of the best opportunities in the entire world.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I have to say this whole deal of 'the west' being angry at other regions of Canada because they did not vote the same is utter hogwash. It's a friggin' democracy after all. That's how the whole damn system works - you vote for whomever you want to, whomever get the most seats runs the country (but only for 4 years) and it all falls into place from there. If you're not happy you get another shot at it in 4 years time.

Life's tough, guys, you don't always get your way. Get over it. If you want to live in a communist society there are places you can go for that, but I'm sure you wouldn't like it once you got there.

Exactly.

And as someone else pointed out recently (Acajack?), when Quebec chooses to vote for its own bloc (Bloc and/or Layton protest vote) at least it does not expect the delegation it sends to Ottawa to have total power. If we're lucky we have the balance of power, if not then not even that. That's understood and normal.

AB/SK with the Scheer Tories, that's almost the same concept, except that for some reason they aren't happy with their Prairie Bloc / Oil Bloc just being the official opposition / having the balance of power. But how would it be fair for them to have more power than that? Two-thirds of Canadians didn't vote for the Tories, so their current power is somewhat in line with their level of popular support. Anything both they and the Libs want to make happen, will happen.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ontario and Quebec didn't threaten separate over three Harper terms. Atlantic Canada never throws childish tantrums like this. It's a Prairie thing.

Actually, the threat of Quebec separating has always been there and much more real than the threat of a landlocked, culturally Canadian, federally-created province leaving ever was (even now).

It peaked under Chrétien. Harper was actually less bad for national unity (his policies were disliked, but at least he generally let Quebec do its thing).

[someone123]

I thought this was interesting. Jonathan Kay interviews David Frum about the election: https://quillette.com/2019/10/25/pod...ection-result/

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

To be honest Pinus, the only swing ridings are within the Perimeter Highway of Winnipeg. The Agricultural area of southern Manitoba is pretty hard blue. The massive Churchill riding in the north is mainly NDP Orange. In BC, its the lower mainland and Vancouver Island that is similar to Winnipeg where the eastern border ridings of BC are pretty hard blue as well.

Granted, those swing ridings have a majority of the populations of MB and BC.

I'm well aware of everything you said since its my province, but the point still stands. Manitoba is not hard-core Tory blue like Saskatchewan or Alberta. Same for BC, regardless of where the votes come from.

[Nouvellecosse]

What are the popular vote stats for each? I'm guessing Alberta probably over 70% blue and BC less than 50% but not sure of the other two.

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ontario and Quebec didn't threaten separate over three Harper terms. Atlantic Canada never throws childish tantrums like this. It's a Prairie thing.

Please don't lump all prairie regions together in this regard. The whole separatist rhetoric is basically coming straight out of Alberta, and maybe some parts of Saskatchewan.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

Exactly.

And as someone else pointed out recently (Acajack?), when Quebec chooses to vote for its own bloc (Bloc and/or Layton protest vote) at least it does not expect the delegation it sends to Ottawa to have total power. If we're lucky we have the balance of power, if not then not even that. That's understood and normal.

AB/SK with the Scheer Tories, that's almost the same concept, except that for some reason they aren't happy with their Prairie Bloc / Oil Bloc just being the official opposition / having the balance of power. But how would it be fair for them to have more power than that? Two-thirds of Canadians didn't vote for the Tories, so their current power is somewhat in line with their level of popular support. Anything both they and the Libs want to make happen, will happen.

I'm not sure the Prairie folk think that the conservatives should rule despite having fewer seats, but they seem to think anyone who voted anyone other than Conservative hates Canada and genuinely think that only the Conservative Party is capable of bringing prosperity.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

What are the popular vote stats for each? I'm guessing Alberta probably over 70% blue and BC less than 50% but not sure of the other two.

BC was 34% I believe, not 50. So yes BC has a conservative minority and any awareness of our provincial politics where the Libs are the only conservative option clearly supports that.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Actually.... I hate to sound conspiratorial, but I'm actually not sure if LakeLocker's ideas were being presented in good faith. It seems his insistence that the left needs to have this type of behaviour purity in order to advocate for policy change is a great way to get a minority of people (the truly committed) to put all their effort into their own lifestyle and into policing their peers for their personal decisions. This would turn off huge numbers of people who would feel judged and attacked and prompt them to give up because it's too difficult, and for society in general to basically abandon strategies that will make real systemic change. It makes me wonder if some segments of the right has graduated from climate denial to solutions denial and are now diverting and distracting from actual known/proven economic solutions as a way to sabotage progress. If they were able to get people to actually buy that narrative, I think it would be a very effective in quelling the movement and would be huge blow to any sort of actual progress.

Not saying that this was his actual intent; just makes me wonder since that would be a great strategy for a naysayer were they to manage to pull it off.

It’s a very effective strategy and you see evidence of it everywhere on social media. Conservatives shame, frustrate, and confuse people on this and similar issues to stall progress and pollute communal enthusiasm. When you get tired and give up, they have reached their goal.