It’s so frustrating. There isn’t a single situation where Ontario needs this change. If people are unhappy with alcohol access and want less alcohol revenue, we could easily open more stores and allow them to be less profitable per store.

There is absolutely no reason to route money away from the LCBO as it is (at least I’ve you’ve actually looked at the financials, I can understand how people who haven’t might be convinced otherwise)

deleted by creator

most of it…

• didn’t/doesn’t address housing shortage.

Not sure what to say about this. This is a failure of every level of government, some levels are more willing to try to address part of this while other levels are actively trying to make it worse. To me this statement feels like it comes from someone who is frustrated but hasn’t taken the time to understand the problem that they are frustrated with.

• didn’t/doesn’t address inflation.

Inflation is being dealt with… Things are nearly back to normal levels of inflation. You can’t say that it’s not being addressed.

• increases taxation as a means to get more income flow to the government

This is normal and a good thing? I’m also not sure which taxes you’re referring to? Our taxes haven’t really changed much recently.

• spends crazy(milions and bilions) on S.D.G ideals

Unless you have meaningful examples there isn’t anything I can say here.

• makes it impossible for farmers to meet (Co2 etc)regulations
  • and government buys them out…
  • and Schiphol etc buying that land for extra CO2 credit.

Once again I need some sources on this, this sounds like something you heard and are repeating without taking the time to understand what was being talked about and now you’re trying to pass it off as fact.

• has crazy ‘sustainability’ demains, which makes international production business move elsewhere

Not sure what you’re talking about here. Is this referring to businesses “offshoring” the production of goods? This has been happening for a long time and I hope that we can start bring more manufacturing back “onshore”

• increasing poverty. People requiring food-bank support is increasing, but because of increasingly harsh business environment the food-bank actually obtains less from industrie.

Yes poverty is up, but not for the reasons you’re suggesting(unless you have some new data I haven’t seen). food inflation is going to be the new norm until the world gets the climate crisis under control. Our global agriculture system is not built to handle the rapidly changing climate we’ve created. droughts, floods and war are likely going to continue to cause price instability.

• many small/medium businesses are going bust because they can’t repay the corona-loan. (which many have warned is a slow death trap)

This is also normal? Many economists believe that economic downswings every 7-15 years is good for an economy because it helps wipe out under preforming businesses. if a company took out 60k in loans, and after 4 years hasn’t been able to pay back the 40k they owe (20k was already forgiving), and also can’t find a bank to move that loan to, they are likely not running a very good business.

I’m glad that we gave these businesses a lifeline during covid, but at some point they need to prove that they can adapt to the new market conditions. No one forced them to take these loans…

So ya, to me most of this was a mix of unsubstantiated opinion and vague concepts, which I feel is acceptable to call nonsense

All of those things are recyclable today with wind turbines being the hardest and batteries being the easiest. But the quantity of materials that needs recycling is still low so there are only a handful of companies doing it.

Solar in some cases can actually address the [over exaggerated] concerns regarding EV charging. By bringing power generation closer to where the power is being used, there can be less load on the long distance transmission lines. In some cases it can also reduce the load on local transformers.

But all of that is mostly irrelevant, the transition to EVs will happen over the next 30 years. Even if we weren’t looking to move to EVs if we ignored the current grid we would be in trouble. But like anything we’ll upgrade parts slowly as needed.

What a load of nonsense.

Publish date “2019” ya that makes sense. If this was the case before the pandemic it certainly isn’t anymore.

The methodology of this study isn’t very convincing IMO. Study 1 is irrelevant (self reported subjective data). Study 2 implys that a small sample size picking to use stairs instead of an elevator to go up one floor means one group is more healthy, this is meaningless IMO,. Study 3 just looks at which groups intend on quitting smoking, with the conservative group being more likely to be wanting to quit. I could jump to a number of conclusions from this that have nothing to do with “personal responsibility”.

Overall what a waste of my time.

Edit: I just went and looked at the Reddit comments on this post, they also tore it apart with some decent numbers showing how wrong the this is.

It’s frustrating because this government didn’t make up the name. This is a well understood system. By calling it by the typical name it should be easier for people to look into it understand it.

But so many people lack the ability to look into things and instead just listen to what politicians say.

But of course none of that matters these days. 😞

Sounds like a good incentive for them to implement the carbon capture they are so obsessed with.

I also hate every part of this and will turn it off as soon as it shows up.

But in terms of who actually wants this. If an AI assistant were to exist, and if it was actually going to be useful to someone, it would need to know just about everything in your life. At least in theory… In order for an assistant to be useful you would want to be able to ask it “what was Italian restaurant I was thinking of trying” and you would want a response.

I’m not sure this privacy nightmare of an implementation is the correct path to that, but that’s roughly what I suspect the desired outcome is.

There already aren’t gas stations in these remote locations. Why would there need to be EV chargers??

The thought of having rail service small campsites is comical.

If we did move to a world where cities are dense enough that public transit did replace cars for most people, cars would still be a viable rental for when leaving the city.

My experience is that vacant land does have property tax collected on it. But that may be unique to Ontario.

Are there places that only collect property tax once a building is built on it? As far as I understand, empty land is typically taxed via property tax

I’m always confused by these criticisms, do I misunderstand how they work?

Reading this article, this 1.7million is an interest free loan, so taxpayers are only covering the lost potential of that money being used elsewhere, unless something happens whichs exempts them paying back.

For the various EV related plants, the majority of the subsidies are tax rebates. Which means the company needs to setup and actively operating in Canada such that they are making enough revenue in Canada that their paying enough taxes to be able to untalize any rebate. As Canadian taxpayers the tax revenue were missing is purely net-new revenue that wouldn’t exist if the company didn’t setup here. It’s not like we’re writing a blank check, we’re just saying that if they setup here and start making money, they can pay us less money for the first while.

Neither of those feel like obvious bad deals for Canadians. Am I missing something?

Ok I’ll bite. How does Canadian policy cause global inflation?

The only angle that I can think of is that we’ve had a larger impact on carbon production than most other countries, and at least when it comes to global food inflation, climate change is having a noticable impact. So one might be able to argue that our role in climate change is causing food inflation. But I doubt anyone has actually done any peer reviewed studies on that so it’s likely just assumptions at best.

CBC responded to this https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/editor-blog-gaza-breach-1.7189987

adding that she “generally” doesn’t attend flag raising events.

Feels like the most relevant part of the article.

Even with everything said, wikipedia is generally a better single source than anything else.

At the very least, it’s always an acceptable starting point for understanding the concepts in a space.

Yep, being aware of that is part of being able to read anything objectively. Every single thing you read has a political slant.

Wikipedia is great because it does reference out to sources, so you can easily find multiple sources and using critical thinking skills you can distill common themes across multiple different sources.

If you’re savvy, you can even look at the page edit history and the “talk” happening behind the article to get a better idea of what parts are disputed and which are generally accepted.

I’ll go back to my earlier point. Wikipedia is a fine place to start to get a summary of all the different aspects of defunding the police, you’re focused on a single source when there isn’t a single definition of the movement overall.