Funderpants @ FunderPants @lemmy.ca

Posts

14

Comments

989

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is how fascists win, by being free from consequences.

Facists love the law, as a tool to absolve themselves and make their facism legal, while lending legitimacy to their attacks on opponents.

This is a good read: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/22/america-fascism-legal-phase

Excerpt:

For a far-right party to become viable in a democracy, it must present a face it can defend as moderate, and cultivate an ambiguous relationship to the extreme views and statements of its most explicit members. It must maintain a pretense of the rule of law, characteristically by projecting its own violations of it on to its opponents. In the case of the takeover of the mainstream rightwing party by a far-right anti-democratic movement, the pretense must be stronger. The movement must contend with members of that party who are faithful to procedural elements of democracy, such as the principle of one voter one vote, or that the loser of a fair election give up power – in the United States today, figures such as Adam Kinzinger and Elizabeth Cheney. A fascist social and political party faces pressure both to mask its connection to and to cultivate violent racist supporters, as well as its inherently anti-democratic agenda.

Well, if you're worried about affordability just consider how the climate crisis is, and will continue, to drive up the cost of almost everything and that it will be worse if we do not adopt green solutions.

And because there weren't consequences on Trump, he'll do it again. Trump is working on it right now, soft or violent, legal or extra legal, he's working on it.

Will this stand up to the death of Chevron deference? Or are we 3 weeks away from a judge throwing the rule out unless congress passes a specific law.

Not weird at all.

I'm not so sure about that. Federal donation rules are pretty strict. Now, in the provinces and the states this is a totally different story.

I think it's more difficult than you imagine to persuade provinces to go along with them, almost anything that might infringe on provincial jurisdiction is going to be challenged by at least Quebec and Alberta. I also don't believe we, here in 2024 with the benefit of hindsight, can fairly criticize the government for not foreseeing how the last few years have gone.

I disagree with the idea there are no affordable EVs in Canada, based on the numbers and purchasing habits of new car buyers anyway. If the average price of a new vehicle in Canada is $66,8XX , and EVs can be had for below that, then for the new car buying market the EVs are affordable, but just not what people want to buy (for whatever reason).

For me, I traded my ICE vehicle for an EV in 2019 and I save money every single month when you add the financing to the price of gas I used to buy. I traded a Mazda 3 Sport for a Chevy Bolt EV, and even though the Mazda was about $15,000 cheaper, and even though it got about 7.7 l/100km real world fuel economy, it is cheaper to drive the EV because ICE operating costs are so much higher.

I was in the market for a second used EV as well, and there are right now recent year model EVs in the mid 20/low 30s for sale. Now these are not large vehicles, but they are affordable especially after operating costs are included. The prices for the most affordable new and used EVs right now are actually at or around the average price for a new and used vehicle in 2019.

I think though, what is really going on with new car buyers, is that people compare a Fiat 500e, or a Chevy Bolt EV, or another small EV, to larger ICE vehicles costing $10 or $15 thousand dollars less and then conflate their desire for the larger vehicle with affordability. The EV is not affordable because I must have a certain ride height, or certain features. They want the larger vehicle, the larger vehicle is cheaper out the door, therefore the EV is not affordable. This is a calculation done without considering fuel economy, changing fuel prices. In reality, they could afford it, just through the shifting of operating costs onto capital costs, but they don't want it.

I generally agree with you on oil subsidies though.

I know that my opinion on all this is not popular, and I usually keep it to myself especially where immigration and students are concerned since, lets face it, the hate for them can be unreal, but in this case I feel compelled to say I feel like this criticism is unfair.

The government is dealing with many real problems at once, and federal government policy impacts often have incredible lag time , meaning you can't just keep making changes every quarter without risking a lot.

With immigration, the Fed was (and in some cases still is) responding to real worker shortages, slowing population growth, and generational change and retirement. Real problems that need to be solved, and immigration is a solution to it. Some of the changes were actually humanitarian changes to reduce TFW exploitation and abuse. Meanwhile, the fed have no control over interest rates, little to no control over global inflation, and we exist in a federal system that separates powers and responsibilities which not only limits what the federal government can do but guarantees any perceived overstep will be challenged in court by at least 2, if not more provinces.

They've been governing, you don't have to like it and many people don't consider all the factors that go into these decisions, but it isn't fair to say they've been absent.

You should rule out donations, Canada's federal donation rules are pretty strict.

Huh, I figured this was Trump looking to pull his usual antics, but it's Kamala looking to get him to pull his antics.

Bingo

A liar telling lies for his favorite liar, who would have though dishonest people would pull this kind of dishonest stunt for Trump.

Well damage done, just like they wanted.

Yea, I know this, just venting because it just seems that benefit of the doubt is reserved almost exclusively for Trump and fascists.

My god the media is rubbish, "Trump came under fire in 2015 after he appeared to mock a New York Times reporter with a disability". Like, are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? Appeared my ass, he did mock a man with a disability, it isn't a debate, or a perception, or the appearance, he did that shit.

What is this 1988?

Yes but Canadian mortgages have renewals on a schedule. 1,2,3,4,5,7,and 10 years are typical. Rates are fixed for that time period, then reset to market rate.

Jesus, lol.

Seems like a bad idea to me, but I'd rather be wrong and see people helped than be right and "told ya so" when the money just lines private pockets, so good luck to them.