I live on Vancouver Island so I probably could ride an ebike 11-12 months a year, but I also live in a small town and work significantly further away than ebike range. So the only trips I could replace my car with an ebike would be in town, less than 10km round trip which is less than 1L of gas for even inefficient cars. Even if I went on one of those small rides every day off, best case scenario I’d save $350/yr. That would take a long time to pay off an ebike, not to mention the trailer I’d have to have for my kid and/or groceries to actually effectively replace a car trip.

I wonder how many current university students were old enough to vote nearly 20 years ago? It would be surprising if there was even 1.

Same on podcasts. I don’t even listen to anything related to sports.

It shouldn’t make a difference, and I think this would set a terrible precedent, but I have much less of an issue with special treatment for players than for “VIPs”. The only way I’d truly be ok with this is if FIFA paid to have increased capacity and/or some kind of lasting improvement to the hospital. But we all know with FIFA’s track record their more likely to demand the hospital pay them for the privilege to and publicity from treating their executives.

Yeah, if someone can’t afford a toy at $56, they’re not going to be able to afford it at $53.50 even one of the most expensive exempt items I can think of, a PS5 Pro ($1075.20 after tax, not including electronic eco waste fees or whatever), only goes down by $48. Not nothing, but hardly a meaningful impact. Someone on fulltime minimum wage who spent 100% of there income on newly tax exempt stuff would save about $200 over the 2 months, but that’s not even including the necessities that don’t get any cheaper like rent and other bills.

I see where you’re coming from, but that’s kind of a lazy excuse (on a wider scale, not you personally). If candidate 2 is the crappy incumbent ABC people will vote for them to keep out candidate 3 because they think they have a shot, even if they all would’ve preferred candidate 1. And then the cycle repeats and gets more entrenched.

Finally we can agree on something.

Clearly I’m not good at articulating my point so I’m going to stop trying. I don’t know what I’m saying that would benefit the Conservatives in any way. My riding is NDP with the cons playing catch up and the Greens have a better chance than the Liberals. So maybe we’re just coming from different perspectives. Voting for Liberals here is a vote for conservative.

No, I was speaking more generally. When I said center/left I meant it in the way the ABC people use it. I don’t like the Liberals, but I also do not want the Conservatives to win. Unfortunately that looks like where we’re headed. I just hope that if the Cons do win (which once again I do not want but I have just 1 vote), the Liberals lose big and take it as a wakeup call to change or be relegated to the perpetual 3rd place party. None of those other posts were trying to say what party I would like, sorry for the confusion.

I think you may be misunderstanding my point, but it would be great if the Liberal party dropped off and the NDP (or something new) completely replaced them as the counter to the Cons. Right now they seem to keep seats because they’re not the Cons and I think the leadership confuses that with people liking them for what they do.

Anything but. My comment would apply for the Conservatives too, although I wish they’d come last everywhere. It’s just so frustrating seeing the map flip back and forth between red and blue when we have other viable parties.

Once again, I do not like any conservative party, can’t overstate that enough, but look at the BC Cons. After decades of obscurity they sucked so much support from the other conservative party (BCUPs/Liberals) they just gave up and all but dissolved themselves. We need something like that for the center/left federally.

Ehhh, it probably wouldn’t actually inspire change, but it would be nice if the Liberals came in a very distant last in every riding they didn’t have a chance at winning.

Back to work orders need to be paired with firing the entire leadership for failing to negotiate if it’s a crown corp or government entity, or crippling fines if it’s a private company. The way things have been going there’s absolutely no incentive for an “essential service” employer to negotiate at all, let alone in good faith.

And in case there are any small time CEOs reading this, you could argue the status quo is unfair to any business that isn’t massive enough for the government to step in.

Reading the list it looks like they just looked up Call of Duty and Battlefield and copied everything into alphabetical order. I wouldn’t be surprised if the next round includes some fictional guns.

I don’t admire leeching at all, I don’t understand how me comparing landlords to murderers would give you that impression.

I will say I do know quite a few small time landlords and they are good people, but to try and say they’re not leeching is disingenuous. In fact, I’d argue some of the big corporations are actually less of a drain on society because they generally build housing that wasn’t already there. The worst are the large “mom + pop” landlords who own multiple properties but don’t have the competence or will to take care of them. Slumlord behavior.

As much as that would be satisfying to the postal workers, I don’t think it would really solve a whole lot.

I am completely against back to work legislation but I do assume that’s where we’re headed, I think the best case scenario there is that it’s paired with the entire top level leadership being fired for letting it get to this point. General public gets their service back, cupw gets a deal sooner, and it makes the union membership at large confident that back to work legislation comes with consequences for the employer.

The way I understood his point was more like saying that serial killers are the best and most efficient murderers, and all other murderers just went good at their “job”. It doesn’t mean they’re good for society, infact the better they are the worse it is for everyone else. But being a societal leech is inherently part of being a landlord and some are better at leeching than others.

Public unions are important. Every employer has to follow the laws, but one of those employers has the power to make those laws suit itself.

I’d hope this would make an impact in their reelection chances, but I don’t think they were doing great with the union crowd to begin with and the Conservatives won’t be very good on these issues either.

If these “richies” were actually investing their money in making the country better, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.