Moonbox

The editorial stance of a news outlet is not just its "editorials". It's the ideological "stance" of the newspaper - how they frame the news they report, or how much they pay attention and promote certain topics and ideas. What they choose to report (or omit) is also part of that stance.

That's their editorial stance, as I mentioned. Some people are better at recognizing it than others, and sometimes how much you notice it (or it bothers you) is based on how closely your viewpoints align. The better news outlets focus more on delivering real news, and clearly label (and focus less on) the editorials. The difference between, say, a Globe and Mail vs a National Post is clear as soon as you land on their homepage. Right now, the former has the stock market indexes listed right at the top, with mostly neutral news stories and two small (and clearly marked "opinion" pieces at the very bottom. The National Post, on the other hand has devoted half of its front page to editorials, with the most attention and space devoted to how young Canadians "HATE" Trudeau. Both of these newspapers dunk on Trudeau regularly. One is just more serious about it. Radical left woke radical left woke radical left woke...

Most of the bigger networks/media groups are relatively "honest", insofar as their factual reporting is concerned. Whether people call them honest or dishonest has more to do with how they feel about their editorial stance. They (generally) don't allow made-up balogna to be broadcasted. That says very little. Are we going to say that CNN is right-wing when they regularly drag Republican pundits on the air? Hardly.

Unlikely. They were never friendly to the Harper Conservatives, and gushed for Trudeau in the early days. The CBC is not the same sort of leftwing hackjob that the Toronto Star is, but they still do far too much editorializing and pro-Liberal coverage than they should for a public broadcaster. You mean it says more things that you LIKE, and less things that you DON'T LIKE. 🙄

True enough, but making it easier for them doesn't help anyone but them. 🤷‍♂️

If anything, you're making it seem more complicated than it is. A corporate tax floor is the definition of simple. MNC profit shifting and tax arbitrage is an absurdity. The only complicated thing about it is getting large-scale buy-in, which they appear to be getting.

North American public transit is deficient because of wokeness? What can't you people bogeyman with that? 🤣

It wouldn't, because underwriters use gross (pre-tax) income to qualify borrowers. That's true for both the lenders, and even more so for the insurers who underwrite high-ratio mortgages. It's kind of a non-choice. The math on this would be so bad that it'd be nothing but a latent tax trap that would keep lower income families perpetually poor. Unfortunately you're wrong. Lack of supply is definitely one of the biggest problems, but real-estate speculation has driven up prices dramatically as well. There was something like 1.3M vacant homes in Canada in 2022 - airbnbs, foreign students whose parents needed somewhere safe to park cash etc. 25 years ago, investment companies didn't play this game at all. Now, over 20% of purpose-built rentals are owned by large financial landlords (think REITs, fund companies etc) that make their money by turning over tenants any way they can and jacking the rents. No, but it will discourage speculative investing. I suspect we're going to see a lot of these airbnbs etc hit the market before the new rules take effect.

If the priority is to actually make it easier for first time homebuyers to get homes, the policy needs to have a surgical focus on that. This does far more for the wealthy than it does for renters trying to break into the market, and wouldn't help them qualify. It would be a devil's bargain - pay a little bit less now so you can pay orders of magnitude more later and leave nothing for your kids. You'd be crazy to take that deal. The $250,000 threshold means that 99% of people will never encounter it, outside of real-estate speculation. Real-estate speculation is something that's poisoned Canada's allocation of capital since the turn of the century, and discouraging that is good policy (IMO). The collateral damage is the real problem. Small business owners (like doctors) who want to sell their business will now either eat shit when they sell their practices, or they'll have to set up complicated, clunky and expensive succession plans where they sell the practice off over years to stay under the threshold. Dumb.

That's not what's being debated, donkey. Nobody, anywhere, ever argued that population density doesn't help spread viruses, which in turns leads to more deaths. Once again, you're just debating yourself. The point of contention is that the USA's horrendously bad COVID performance wasn't because of population density. There are 185 countries in the world with higher population densities than the US, but only 13 that did worse with COVID. 🙃 Obviously, other factors were at play...

It must be hard to have spent the last several years angrily shouting at people, whilst getting laughed at. I have the intelligence to understand that the scientific and medical consensus is worth more than the bitter ranting of buffoons doing their own research on Facebook etc. You're a real Karen's Karen.

Do you need to speak to the manager, Karen? It's always a good laugh to see you pretending you're the adult here. 😆

and you're a great judge of credibility, as you parrot Tucker Carlson at every turn. 🙄 The made-up ones that don't exist?

Biological research facilities =/ bioweapon labs. Anyone who lives near a university lives near biological research facilities. He should ask Putin if this is baby is for sale: 🙄

One other person replied, but nobody read your post.