Yeah, I’m sure what these people expect. Either they are explicitly supporting attacks on civilians and hostage taking as a fine way of warfare, or they are deluded as hell that either side will stop. Hamas could at any time end the war, but they’d rather use innocent Palestinian lives as a shield.

And for what? To try to get a bunch of their hamas friend terrorists released? It’s pretty clear where hamas’ values lay, and it’s not with the Palestinian people. In fact, this whole thing happened precisely because this hostage tactic worked previously. That’s how the current leader of hamas was freed in the first place.

I’m 100% Isreal minimizing civilian Palestinian damage, and I think they need to do way better, but I also want to see hamas and their ilk shutdown.

Modern China is in no way communist. It’s more of an autocratic socialism. I mean come on, people own businesses, buy and sell things their businesses make, even their healthcare has significant private components!

Also, while Cuba’s medical system is good for what it is, the rest of the country is not very functional. If communism were so great everything in the country would be at least as functional as their healthcare despite trade.

Communism was a nice idea that doesn’t work in practice.

I’ve always paid >50% of my income when I rented. Sounds good!

At least they aren’t communist lemmy posters who spend all their days shitting on good deeds.

There is also Soviet communism, Cuban communism, and North Korean communism. I’m sure one of those countries will happily welcome you with lovely high quality public housing.

The geniuses on this site think that if the government is your landlord then you don’t have a landlord. Basically they want a form of communism. Public housing has it’s place but as someone who has rented in the past it’s not the sort of housing I’d choose unless it’s a last resort.

In any case, VERY STRONG DISAGREE that the only rentals should be government run or co-ops.

No it wouldn’t. Here is a comparable: https://www.realtor.com/rentals/details/166-Amsterdam-Ave_New-York_NY_10023_M33265-52776?property_id=3326552776&from=ab_mixed_view_card

A three bedroom would go for $12k a month, but we don’t even have three bedroom units here. Assuming this is a two bedroom it would probably be in the middle of the range given. So 7k-8k USD. But Toronto shouldn’t be as expensive as Manhattan, NYC.

No, we don’t end up in the same place. While the liberals are not great, neither the liberals or the NDP will erode our social progress like the conservatives will. Both would also probably be better for the environment if that’s your jam.

Literally the only reason to vote for the conservatives is if you agree with their campaign of hate and intolerance. If you want social regression go vote for them, but you wont’ get anything else out of them.

Even if he was hypothetically not lying about wanting to address housing in the way he suggests, I still wouldn’t be able to support him because eroding our social protections and freedoms is not worth it.

But I also think the likely hood that he upsets his rich suburban supporters and friends by allowing condos to be built next to their nice houses is close to zero. So it’s probably one of those bullshit planks like the liberals saying they were going to potentially get rid of first past the post. There are zero consequences for our politicians lying like this.

It would be nice if our elections laws defined a class of promises where if they are broken an election is forcibly triggered.

Prices are already down over 20% and it IS a buyers market at the moment. The problem is that people don’t have the funds so even though prices are down significantly there are now fewer buyers because people can’t borrow. The elephant in the room is that wages need to come up.

The other way to make things more affordable is to raise wages for the lower 90% of earners.

Someone has to own the building genius. That person is the landord. The only alternative to having a corporation or individual as the landlord, is having the government or a coop as a landlord. There is a place for those, but sorry I’m not for communism, that can’t be the only option as otherwise we run into the well known problems with communism, no competition leads to shit quality, which is generally what you get from government run housing.

So in your mind all those new grads out getting their first jobs should just be homeless for 30 years until they can afford to buy a house? That’s a pretty harmful idea.

The idea that landlords shouldn’t exist is one of the most ignorant and thoughtless rage memes going around right now. There are many many many situations where people need to rent rather than purchase, and without landlords there is no renting.

I think it’s easy to rage about NIMBYs, but it shouldn’t be any surprise that someone with a nice house and pool is going to be upset with a sky scraper going up next to them. It would ruin their land value and enjoyment of their property.

While we shouldn’t be prioritizing individuals over the needs of the many, if you want support from the NIMBYs you’ll need to do something for them. For example, if you’re going to be ruining the value of people’s houses with billion dollar projects, perhaps there should be some compensation for those people included. It wouldn’t fully convince the NIMBYs, but it would soften the bitter pill they have to swallow and might win over the moderates in those areas.

But that aside, regarding PP I think you’re incredibly naive if you really think he’s going to implement policies that upset his rich friends. It might be in his platform, but he’s a divisive lying shit and I wouldn’t trust a word he says. The only thing I’m confident of is that PP will pass laws funnelling more money to his rich friends, just like Ford, and he’ll likely attempt to weaken our democracy to ensure his minority party continues to get majorities.

Because they’ve built the production systems and talent to do it. Once you ramp up those systems then you can build quicker. We can’t anymore because of decades of anti-nuclear advocacy.

Not against foreign owned companies they cannot. As much as they would love to force these companies to both carry and pay for news, those companies can choose not to carry the news and thus not pay for it. Canada can not force them to do so.

Yes, key word here is “make deals,” which is what Australia ended up doing. They didn’t just dictate terms like Canada seems to want to. The entire point of these companies banning news is to remind our government that no, you can’t just dictate your terms, you actually have to negotiate. Maybe they will, we’ll have to wait and see.

Just make a bot that reposts CBC rss feeds. I guess you might need to filter ads if they put those in-between stories, some rss feeds do.

The whole point of the bill that caused this is that they want money. They won’t get money out of the fediverse. It was never about exposure.