prodigalsorcerer @ prodigalsorcerer @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

153

Joined

2 yr. ago

Also, don't concentrate people in a single place. It's wrong to have a 4% population growth in Toronto and 0.5% elsewhere.

Is there a mechanism for anchoring immigrants in a specific location? My understanding is that our charter right of freedom of movement means that if everyone wants to go to Toronto, we can't stop them once they're in the country.

Agreed. If the liberals put forth a bill for electoral reform, then I'll believe it.

Alternatively, they could let one of the NDP members create the bill and still vote in favour. That would be a great show of cooperation and good faith between parties, while also showing how minority governments could continue to work well.

You may have voted because of a party, but you still voted for a specific representative. If that representative decides to vote differently than the rest of the party, it's still the same person you voted for.

People shouldn't have to agree. They voted for a candidate, not a party.

With the current state of politics, I think crossing the floor is going to be increasingly unlikely until we get electoral reform, but crossing the floor is much more a symbolic act, sending the message that you no longer agree with your previous party's policies.

If they just stopped voting in line with the party (and got kicked out, and became an independent), would that be fine with you?

Crossing the floor should be fine, possibly even encouraged if you no longer agree with your party's direction. Unless you're saying that all MPs should just follow the party line and not have any original thoughts of their own.

Whatever he does next, it's entirely on name recognition - he won't need to submit a resume.

Which is good for him, because like you said, his resume wouldn't even land him an interview.

Racism as a tourist is very different than racism as a citizen. And racism presents very differently depending on your race. You're not white, but the racists in England and Canada (and probably France, but I don't have experience with that) will treat East Asians, South Asians, brown people, and black people very differently. They might even like you if you're a tourist - they just don't want you to live in their country.

You might be unexpectedly sick, hospitalized, dead, in jail, or otherwise unable to vote on election day. Early voting lets you avoid unexpected issues.

For some added context, this has been going on for years from all parties. Maybe this year was not the most amicable environment to do this in, and maybe these particular slogans were in bad taste, but I don't think this is as egregious as everyone is saying.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/political-party-convention-gimmicks-1.2530848

It doesn't really though. The only problem it outlines is that it doesn't pay a living wage. It says nothing about why it's a problem that people with high incomes also get this (other than it's unfair). It then suggests making it more complicated (increasing overhead) so that poor people can get more.

But it's much simpler than that. Just pay everyone more. Make it an actual basic income at living wage, and adjust the tax brackets appropriately.

Then expand it to include everyone instead of just seniors.

Why is that a problem? OAS is taxable income. It's essentially what a basic income program should look like. If the problem is that rich people exist, tax reform is the issue you should be looking at.

Small group of extremists? One third of Americans voted for this, and another third didn't hate the idea of this enough to vote against it.

I can't wait for the companion articles:

The global network that ties Mark Carney to the Bank of Canada

and

The global network that ties Justin Trudeau to Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Thanks for the links.

The IISD report is talking about a specific period (February 2021 to June 2022) where 33% of inflation can be attributed to oil prices. Outside of that 16 month period though (which was during the absolute peak of oil prices), oil would contribute much less to inflation.

I disagree with the methodology of the False Profits report. A big part of their 43% cost of living increase is attributed to interest rate hikes by BoC and associated job losses. They are also benchmarking to 2019 oil prices (to avoid the effects of the pandemic), but are ignoring the fact that oil prices had been artificially depressed by OPEC overproduction since 2014. If you look at historic oil prices, we're still significantly below the 2004-2014 inflation-adjusted average.

Overall though, I think both of these reports are looking at specific moments in time, and oil prices aren't nearly as impactful on our cost of living as they want us to believe.

Do you have a source for this? I struggle to see how most Canadians use enough oil products to account for anywhere near 45% of the cost of living.

Obviously there are secondary uses (shipping fuel), oil by-products (plastic), and people who still heat their homes with oil,, but it really doesn't seem like it could be approaching 45% Canada wide.

Since I wasn't clear at all in my first comment: I'm referring to the fact that people can also get away with murder, as long as they're driving a car at the time. Very rarely is it much more than a slap on the wrist, but it's always significantly less than any other form of negligent homicide.

"Corporations are people driving cars"

But now it's easy. If something that looks like news is posted on Facebook, it's misinformation.

These contributions are so small. I wouldn't mind if my own country increased their contributions to WHO by 20% to make up for this shortfall.

The biggest problem is that the WHO is a worldwide health organization. Without cooperation from the States, there could be huge health impacts elsewhere that could have been otherwise averted. Will other countries also pull out?

Probably nothing of consequence. I would be very surprised if the relevant agencies haven't already done 99% of the background check already, and the only thing left to do is for him to agree.