Are you talking about protecting american monopolies that shouldn’t exist? Or are you buying/spewing heritage talking points?

So you’re saying you think it’s a good idea, you just are unable to think of viable funding sources?

I am going to need some explanations. First, they say there are 510 dwellings per 1000 adults, and then they say there are 1017 dwellings per 1000 households. In the first number, that requires more than two adults per dwelling. That deems like we haven’t hit demand yet, let alone surplus. The second numbers are only possible if there are hundreds of thousands of extra adults beyond a couple in most households. Or hundreds of thousands of homeless adults. None of those imply to me any kind of surplus. So I don’t see a source of downward pressure based on over supply. If those 17 dwellings per thousand households are sitting empty, and we have homeless people, then either those 17 are uninhabitable, or they are unaffordable relative to the mode or median incomes.

Why doesn’t increasing affordable supply help solve that issue?

The solution suggestions do make sense, it is the argument that there isn’t a supply shortage that has missing pieces.

I also grew up in Saskatchewan, and I make the exact same arbitrary distinction.

Job creation idea: farms of propaganda specialists flooding the standard social media algorithms with messaging to help people think more critically, move off of techbro propaganda streams, and counter the bullshit that will be coming through. Make part of elections Canada, and track for possible recruits to CSE and CSIS, as well as for public affairs officers.

Could be linked to extended living under a corrupt conservative government, too. Constantly being told to ignore evidence, a sense of learned helplessness, and rising corporate authoritarianism could lead to psychotic symptoms. It would also lead to an increased desure to escape the stresses reality through cannabis.

On a less facetious note, did diagnostic criteria change?

I remember reading (relatively recently) research showing conservatives literally believe badvthingscdo not happen to good people. If they know someone personally who they know is good, and something bad happens to them, they either think it is a rare example of bad luck and they will help out, or they will decide that person must not have been a good person.

It allows them to justify the mental gymnastics of being anti-abortion but paying for their daughter’s “procedure” at the same time. A “good” family member who gets cancer deserves help, but why should they fund cancer care for those morally bankrupt <fill in the “other”> people?

Apparently they have overactive amygdalas, among other issues, and a reduced ability to engage critical thinking towards their own beliefs.

So, yes, they kind of are cult members. But they can’t be easily deprogrammed, and even if we purged this lot, we would still end up with some cropping up again.

We did do some of our training in New Brunswick

I wonder if his handlers have a pool going for who can get him to say the most deranged thing.

Canadian Law Enforcement Officer internet?

Instead of fining giant corporations, punish them by requiring them to provide a fixed percentage (not dollar amount) of voting shares to the judging government per violation. Too many violations and the corporation ends up a wholly owned subsidiary of whatever nations punish them. Shareholders will fight to make sure the corporations are compliant. Or, we end up with nationalized corporations, reduced shareholder capitalism, and fewer oligarchs.