CdnFox

If you can't communicate properly, don't blame the others around you. I have no interest in taking into account your conversations with OTHER people when we're talking (unless i was at least party to that as well so i get the reference) You can do TONNES about housing. You absolutely can encourage and entice builders to build more. You absolutely can work with banks (or start a national real estate development bank if you have to) in order to make more money available and building apartments is fine, just build more homes. Obviously it would be nice to see some thought go into an apartment/townhouse/detached ratio that makes the most sense but whatever. And you absolutely could afford it - it's the land cost that drives up prices so badly as a rule. I'm not sure why you would think those particular things are not possible. In fact they're relatively easy. Most people aren't that dumb. Most people would be quite happy if they could pay 3 grand a month and have a home. Rent in vancouver is about 2700 now for a one bedroom. So lets not take the lowest denominator and pretend it's the average. Well sure. In fact - 65 grand at 18 percent interest would have run just about 1 grand a month in costs to own that home. So you spent 1/3 of your income on the house with your dual income. If we could get housing prices down to 1/3 of hte average two person income i think the kids today would be pretty happy.

Well if NOBODY can then the gov't will build them and control where people live. Which the libs would love But lots of people can afford them. Homes are selling right now. We're in a serious low and there were still 35 k homes sold in January - the worst month of the year for homes sales. It's just the lower end of the economic scale that can't afford them so they'll build for the top end. Pretty easy. You're missing the problem entirely. And the fact is the way our system is designed and operating right now developers will ALWAYS build behind demand, never in front of it. I mean - what's your excuse for why we weren't building enough homes for since 2016, when prices were increasing year after year and homes were being sold as fast as they were finished? You are correct that we have to make a number of changes in order to get developers to catch up right now. The system is designed to punish developers for building homes ahead of need. The interest rate issue will resolve itself in the next 3 or 4 years max and possibly much sooner, and then those buyers who have been waiting will come into the market and home prices will go up again, but we still won't be building enough homes. And if your point is that it's going to take real work to solve that, along with a fair bit of time, then yes. That's kind of my point

Some of the takeaways: This is unchanged since the January poll The libs are falling hard in quebec. It's a close race in ontario but the CPC is still ahead. Aside from the occasional blip right around an announcement the liberals are continuing to stay in pretty negative territory. The polling suggests that the CPC would win a strong minority. It's not unusual for the incumbent to take a bit of a dip in the middle of a term but it does look like there's a lot of fatigue for the liberal brand and more interesting the NDP are also down, and there's not likely a lot of votes to steal from them. Obviously with 3 years to go (theoretically) anything can change but it's looking like the cpc will be in a strong position to take the next one. The question will be can they do a majority? PP will have to continue to build on his successes so far and break into the older voting block that so far hasn't been as strong for him

Social crisis and civil unrest go hand in hand. We've had demonstrations and worse over some of the issues you mentioned. Nonsense. You cannot make houses affordable without building more. If we build enough for our needs then they become affordable, you absolutely cannot do it the other way around. There is no way to make homes affordable if there isn't enough homes. The rich can afford them so no problem. There's no point buying a home as a foreigner if they can;'t be sold or rented either is there. So that's not the issue. Housing starts are down due to instabilities in the market. Remember, developers borrow money too in order to build homes and they're just as worried those rates may go up. You can't say how much you should play for the land today if you don't know what your interest rates will be till you sell, which is usually about 3 years later. If we have enough homes then prices fall, same as with any product. If we have enough homes then rents also go down. If we have enough homes it really doesn't matter how many are owned by foreigners, there's still enough for people to live. If we don't have enough then you can't fix anything. Rents continue to go up and owning a home continues to go up. People haven't realized this much but the cost of OWNING a home has STILL been going up for everyone except those who can afford to pay cash. You still pay a higher mortgage now that rates are higher even if prices are down. Everything comes back to the number of houses. Sure. Unfortunately Canadians made the wrong choices there and now the damage is being done. There is no way to 'quickly' fix the problem, it will be generational. By the time Justin leaves office even if he is voted out in the next election the developers will be focused mostly on producing higher end homes for the upper half of the income scale and there simply won't be enough build to go around. People just don't realize how bad of a problem that is going to be

Sure, it's hardly surprising that i can't give a full account on a small forum But it is more accurate than not. And for canada that would be even more so. It doesn't need to be absolute to be real. But individual countries ignored it. It was recognized that while the vote was a little hokey, there was a legit vote and there did seem to be strong feelings in that region to side with russia. And there were reasons for that historically. Compare that with the recent 'votes' which were obvious shams, which NOBODY has taken seriously and every country condemns. Different story. There can be no dobut that if Alberata wanted to try it as a seperate nation it would happen. And other countries would recognize it. But i don't think it would last long without at least some of the other provinces getitng involved. Unless we're talking about some hybrid sovereignty-association crap.

Sure, good examples. but they do. And they have no practical way of making it terribly hard. It's an issue if it's just alberta - but there's only so far they would go either. Alberta could likewise make things more challenging. But at the end of the day for alberta to go it alone without at least a few other provinces - even if Canada remained friendly and the terms were good, i don't think they'd make it. Mind you if they did split there's a very good chance that in short order bc and sask would as well. And that would change things quite a bit.

As a general rule of thumb, the more self reliant you are then the more you'll tend to be right wing. People are more self reliant in the country away from services. The easier you have things and the more things are done FOR you the more you will tend to be socialist or left wing. And that is definitely more to be found in teh cities. Also the more money you have the more you tend to be on the left leaning side of the spectrum historically. People in the country want to be left alone to do their own thing. They use firearms to hunt and protect themselves and their property and animals against all sorts of threats, and they don't appreciate being told they are evil people for that. They are less interested in funding health care for drug addicts while they don't even have a doctor or medical emergency room in their entire community for people who DON"T make horrible life choices. They tend to be focused on actual solutions, not just lip service and virtue signalling. You can't talk a fence into repairing itself. The left tends to focus on issues where their talk and what action they do take doesnt' fix anything. The carbon tax for example hasn't reduced pollution but it has driven up costs especially in places where there IS no public transit. And because left wing people tend to congregate in cities for various reasons it is common for the left to ignore or even hurt those outside those regions IF they feel it will win them votes IN those vote rich areas. The 'us vs them' tactic is prevalent in today's politics but it's always been there somewhat. Also people in cities tend to be more formally educated - and our colleges and universities are extremely left wing focused. They work VERY hard to repress right wing viewpoints of any kind and highlight left wing thinking. This is not as bad in Canada as it is in the states yet, but it is bad. Anyway, those are some of the main reasons. Obviously that's making simple of a complex issue.

You make a compelling case Exactly - the correct answer isn't whether or not HE should quit - it's that they ALL should ? Well there was a day when that happened a lot more but sadly these days the politicians who break the rules tend to say "i take full responsibility", give everyone the middle finger, and then just to back to whatever scams they feel like without condequence

Thanks! There are many worldwide, it has essentially been recognized by the global community that if a region votes to leave a larger body then that should be respected and recognized. This is why many countries had to bite their tounge in 2014 over crimea. Getting closer to home all of this was addressed during the constitutional crises of the 80's and 90's. The Clarity act in article 3 outlines when the feds are required to negotiate a secession resulting from a vote. We are a confederation of provinces after all, and if a province can opt into that confederation then there must be a mechanism for it to leace as well. oF course that creates some of it's own problems - if a province can secede then why not a smaller section? Could upper quebec choose to stay in canada even if there was a vote where a majority in quebec chose to leave? What about first nations communities? Could a reserve vote to stay or form it's own country? If you allow the province you pretty much have to allow for that as well. So it can get sticky But there can be no doubt in the end - if a "clear majority' of albertans want to seperate, then the feds are required to entertain that process and the international community will recognize that right. And the feds would have a very weak position to try to 'force' them to stay.

Well if you mean you don't think it could happen because it wouldn't be allowed, i would have to disagree and there is much history to show that it absolutely could and would if that's what the people wanted. For sure its "possible" to do If you mean you don't think it would go well and couldn't be successfully managed, that's probably more accurate. Alberta by itself would not have the population and economic diversity to support itself as a land locked small nation for long. To have a successful 'breakaway' that would stand the test of time you'd really need bc, alberta AND sask as a minimum and tossing manitoba in would greatly improve the chances of success. Anything less than that would be a pretty hard go.

This is canadian politics, where literally anything can happen and often does. So i'm not going to say you're wrong. But so far the evidence is leaning towards a UPC victory, albeit not as strong as ones in the past and that does seem very likely. As is often the case it will come down to calgary

The banks do. https://financialpost.com/news/economy/cibc-dodig-canada-risks-social-crisis-housing-immigration and we've seen that before many times in europe. The thing that has always set canada apart and allowed us to have massive immigration per capita vs other countries is our ability to provide the integration and infrastructure needed. When that isn't there, it tends to be 'new' and 'young' canadians who suffer the most, in that order. And that always begins to lead to unrest. Honestly that's pretty much meaningless. There is one issue which is the source of ALL issues - we are not building enough homes for our population. We havent been for decades. Reports suggest we've fallen short 100 thousand homes per year just to prevent things from getting worse since 2016. And that's when they started looking, i guarantee it predates that. If you build enough homes, foreign investment (which we've always had), rental prices, immigtation, everything else becomes a null issue. And if you DON"T address that absolutely nothing else will resolve the problem. They absolutely could. The gov't has many many tools it could use to address Canadian inflation which the banks have already noted are at least 1.5 -2 percent higher than they need to be due specifically to carbon tax and monetary policy. But that's almost another topic entirely. Interest rates low or high, we have the same housing issues. Well technically that's true regardless of what the interest rate is. And a lot of the people complaining did not buy 'more home than they need' although this story certainly seems like an example of one who did. As to their right to complain however - Trudeau AND the BOC were shouting to the heavens just a year and a half ago that interest rates would stay low for the foreseeable future and woudln't go up. That's why it's ok we were borrowing all that money if you'll recall. So. some might say they have a LITTLE right to be a titch annoyed that the gov't made a promise, then the gov't actions made breaking that promise inevitable. Having said that you're correct, people should plan for a little volitility. Young kids today don't remember the 80's and think that inflation stays at 2 percent forever and interest rates are at about 1.5 because they have been as long as they can remember, and that has lead many to make a serious mistake that they are now paying for.

Well i'm confident she's looking forward to you losing anyway and becoming an elected premier for the next 4 years. So it's great you both have something to look forward to Jests aside it will be interesting to see how she actually runs the province once no election is pending. It's a little hard to say at this point who the 'real' smith is. Obviously a lot of it is spinning for the base, but so far her actions and her rhetoric aren't lining up.

There's nothing puritanical about it - it shows a serious lapse in judgement. If nothing else it violates the code of ethics he was to uphold. The theory is that a person with that poor judgement cannot be trusted with the public helm. And it CERTAINLY isn't an 'american' idea, until recently Canadian politicians have stepped down for far less. "Bingogate" in bc comes to mind as an extreme example. As to "Outraged by a politician that got a blowjob, accepting of a con man that led a coup... ", well.... hopefully i don't need to explain why it's the same thing. Neither are crimes of office, both are indicators the person is unfit to be in office.

No, they are 'out of controll'ing housing prices Controlling them would require a great deal more skill and effort. It's always easier to break something. The gov'ts incompetence is what prevents them from managing passports and ei cheques and now infrastructure to population ratios. This is about a failure to manage, not a management. You're not making much sense there. Are you suggesting you believe the federal gov't increased the property tax assessment on your home? That's not quite how it works actually. And as to inflation the over all inflation rate may very well be different for various items or even catagories. Porkchops can double and anchovy paste and mustard stay the same - so they say 'food' went up by 33%. For you personally it may seem like more because you're more likely to buy a pork chop than anchovy paste. Reading that reminds me that they've somehow managed to screw up making dope sales profitable as well despite the number of users out there There really isn't anything useful to be said about that part of your post.

Historically when a significant portion of the public cannot find or afford housing on their own and the market forces have been stifled to the point where they cannot correct it naturally, and civil unrest threatens. With the current lack of construction vs the current and planned population increases i would say probably not that far down the road. Work for the betterment of the gov't of course. Which those in power will use to live the good life. You'll notice putin for example is not a poor person Nor is the chinese leader, and even Castro always had good food. It's the same as it always is - they used to be called plebeians, then surfs, then peasants and now 'the working class'. It's not terribly new.

Your problem is that correlation is not causation. You've tried to suggest there's some figures and there was covid (and vaccines specifically) and therefore the one is a result of the other. And that's just not how causality works. You would have to show a connection. Further there is a fundimental flaw in your argument. The stats you quote are for "covid deaths" - but as we know it was necessary for various reasons for countries to attribute the death of anyone who died with covid as a 'covid death' even tho covid may have had nothing to do with the death. So all you're REALLY quoting is how many children who died had covid, without showing any connection between covid, the shot, or the deaths. Nobody's going to take that seriously. It's the old "hilter chewed gum, his officers chewed gum, so chewing gum makes you hate jews" argument. That's why nobody's biting and getting upset and anxious to 'do' anything. So far you've provided nothing to get worked up about. Which isn't to say there isn't anything. But you would have to make that case.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-interference-concerning-analyst-1.6752577 And that's it in a nutshell. He's known for years about it - he KNOWS it gave him a few seats that he wouldn't have had and he likes that.

This is true of course. But - politicians must be held to a higher moral code by the nature of their work. To a degree it's nonsense - just because he cheats on his wife in a moment of weakness doesn't mean he's scamming money from the tax payer or selling influence. And just because he's not cheating doesn't mean he isn't But it's the nature of things. A lapse in judgement that large, regardless of how understandable it might be as a human being, unfortunately does make him unfit to continue in that position and he did the right thing and resigned On the plus side, he will go down in history as having been forced out of office because he was still able to talk younger women into bed at age 68. So there's that.

Looks like the whole 'Interference" thing was nonsense at this point. No sign of the emails, no witnesses, and the newspapers have admitted they didn't see any of that before posting the story either. Which is HORRIBLE journalism, it's one thing to protect a source, but if you do you have to be pretty damn sure the source is accurate and at least verify things like these emails exist. This isn't the first time we've seen allegations from the CBC which turned out to be false and unsubstantiated.

Well i'm not religious but as an outsider looking in the bible was intended to be a PERSONAL moral document, not a societal one. In other words it was intended to change YOUR behavior, not correct the flaws in society at large. Of course one would argue that theoretically if everyone believed in the bible then the country would tend to follow suit over time. And in fact that is why our society is modeled on christian values more or less. I"m afraid that's not accurate. First off that phrase is not a biblical commandment. Nor does it actually work well in real life. How do I know that you want to be treated the way I want to be treated? What if I firmly believe that biological males should be referred to as male or men and their pronouns should be he and his, and that I insist others treat me that way. Does that mean i should treat trans individuals the way I want to be treated? You see - it becomes problematic. It only works in a society where everyone shares the same values. That way what i think is the right way to treat people is the same as you and we can agree. Otherwise it's a broken idea. The phrase probably should have been do unto others as they would like you to do unto them provided they do unto you as you prefer. Even then it doesn't work well but it's at least more functional. Again - simply not true. It's a case of reductum ad absurdium. (and no i don't feel like looking up the spelling for that ) People are never that simple. And trying to make things that simple is Awesome - if you work for Hallmark. But has no value outside of that. Pretending humans are simple and they're all of the same mind is a fast way to war historically.

The Challenge is not that Roxham road exists. There will always be illegal border crossings and if you shut one down another will appear. The problem is it's being actively encouraged by OUR gov't. and exploited by the US. There are agencies in the us who specifically provide bus services to Roxham road for "refugees" to get them out of the us both as policy and as informal practice https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/us-border-agents-lifts-to-roxham-road-1.6743768 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/migrants-roxham-road-new-york-city-bus-1.6738824 Meanwhile Justin either ignores or actively encourages it (it varies). If we clamped down on it then this kind of thing would drop back to manageable levels.

You were wrong in fact, but perhaps less so in substance. And certainly in comparison. The Russian interference in both elections was found to be fairly minor and generalized. It is widely agreed by neutral sources that it had little impact and what impact it might have had would likely have been to push people in directions they were already going. For example: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/09/russian-trolls-twitter-had-little-influence-2016-voters/ In short, the 'interference' was things like POSSIBLY orchastrating the timing of the wikileaks documents. But - those were REAL documents, the info was real. Russians frequently reinforced negative impressions of Clinton and strongly promoted them, but they were based in real things the Clintons had done or were accused of. And the effect was minimal. They did it in a broad way rather than a particularly targeted way and while it certainly will have had some effect it almost certainly made no difference in the election In the Canadian case, the Chinese out and out lied to Canadian Chinese voters and spread disinformation in a very organized fashion targeting vulnerable ridings. And according to the CSIS reports, they were successful in turning a few ridings with their efforts - in other words there are more liberal seats and fewer CPC seats right now directly because of their efforts. The Richmond riding in greater vancouver is an example. So - it would be relatively accurate to say the Russians did not interfere effectively in US campaigns while the Chinese absolutely did in Canadian ones.

Because then the gov't can step in, buy up housing and "provide" it to the people at an "affordable" rate. Communism sells based on the idea that you personally will no longer have risk or be denied the things you like. "If you just allow communism, you'll have your nice house no matter what happens in the market - EVERYONE will have a nice house". If the markets collapse and the gov't can step in (as we saw in other countries such as England just after ww2) then the gov't gains more control over people and people get used to the gov't handling all their affairs. Pretty soon people become afraid to do anything on their own and become entirely dependent on the gov't. Remember - there is no more effective way to enslave people than to provide for their every need.

Full Democracy is not a desirable thing. Full democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. It is the tyranny of the majority. A representative democracy is a good thing, provided what's in place is a solid constitutional protection of the rights of the individual. Liberty - the ability to conduct your life without unreasonable interference from the gov't - and freedom come from having a central authority that is effectively and strongly restricted from overreach, not from voting.