Canadian Politics Mega-thread - Page 57

On March 20 2019 06:56 Rebs wrote:
yeah how that is evidence of anything other than douchey behaviour irrespective of gender is beyond me.

On March 20 2019 06:56 SK.Testie wrote:
The complete lack of ability to answer straightforward questions has done far more damage to the discourse. A leading question? Of course, what's wrong with a leading question? All conversations have leading questions because no conversation is just one paragraph or two of the 'correct' opinion. You must stand for your ideas and see them put into practice. Does the person in that video belong in a women's shelter if "she" says she has been raped.

Yes or no.



Because a trans "woman" is far more likely to be have those male patterns of aggression than a common female. Despite the narrative that all people are equal and blank slates it's very clear there is a biological imprint on each and every person. These are indicative in the differences between men and women. Personality traits such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, etc. The biggest difference we know of being that men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people.

Should rape shelters be allowed to discriminate based on personality traits then instead, such as aggressiveness? Is any form of discrimination allowed. And if not, why can't men enter that same shelter instead?

On March 20 2019 06:56 SK.Testie wrote:
The complete lack of ability to answer straightforward questions has done far more damage to the discourse. A leading question? Of course, what's wrong with a leading question? All conversations have leading questions because no conversation is just one paragraph or two of the 'correct' opinion. You must stand for your ideas and see them put into practice. Does the person in that video belong in a women's shelter if "she" says she has been raped.

Yes or no.

Canada’s housing agency will spend up to C$1.25 billion ($943 million) over three years to take equity positions in homes bought by first-time buyers, part of a plan by Justin Trudeau’s government to make housing more affordable for the youngest voters.

According to federal budget documents released Tuesday in Ottawa, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. will provide up to 10 percent funding for new homes and 5 percent for existing homes to reduce mortgage costs for low- to middle-income buyers. The financing would apply to insured mortgages, which are required if the buyer puts less than a 20 percent down payment on the property.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau is seeking to ease affordability concerns after price gains and rule changes in recent years pushed home ownership out of reach for many Canadians, in particular millennials who may be just starting out in the labor market. Though prices and sales slumped in most cities in 2018, prices are still up 64 percent in Vancouver over the past five years, topping C$1 million on average, and up 56 percent in Toronto over the same period, Canadian Real Estate Association data show.

This new program -- which the government expects to be used by 100,000 home-buyers over three years -- may provide a shot in the arm to a market that has been a vital contributor to growth amid signs the Canadian economy is slowing.

“Sales should be boosted by this, so should prices,’’ said Brian DePratto, an economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank. “At the margin, there is more upside to demand.’’

September Launch
The equity plan borrows a page from smaller non-profit groups in Canada that already offer similar loans for low-income people. The new program, called the ‘First-Time Home Buyer Incentive,’ will be launched in September and be available to first-time buyers with annual household incomes of as much as C$120,000. The amount of the insured mortgage would be capped at four times income, or up to C$480,000.

A buyer purchasing a new C$400,000 home with a 5 percent down payment of C$20,000 may qualify for a 10 percent, or C$40,000 contribution from CMHC. That would lower the monthly payment to C$1,745, from C$1,973, assuming a 25-year amortization and a mortgage rate of 3.5 percent, according to an example in the budget documents.

Mind-Blowing
The move is “mind-blowing,” and will only fuel demand in the segment of the market that is already the most competitive, said John Pasalis, president of the Toronto-based firm Realosophy Realty Inc.

“Why is the federal government playing mom and dad and buying everyone homes?” he said. “This is not the solution to high house prices, this is trying to treat the symptom by just throwing money at it, throwing taxpayers dollars to buy homes for people.”

On March 20 2019 13:31 CorsairHero wrote:
The government taking an equity position in real estate seems to be a bad idea because it's only going to raise the cost of housing at the bottom and it increases exposure to tax payers when the gravy train ends.

On March 20 2019 13:42 OmniEulogy wrote:
yeah, it may be a little too early to tell but I feel like this doesn't actually help the millennial's which is who they tried to suggest this would help the most. I'm not too surprised but disappointed all the same.

On March 20 2019 07:09 Plansix wrote:


There is no discourse here. You are a bad faith actor who is attempting to extract effort out of others in the discussion through your low effort posting and use of a youtube video to make a substantive argument.

You also employ the typical leading rhetorical structure of a bad faith actor while skipping key parts of a discussion to jump to your conclusion. You question posits that all transgender individuals are mentally ill to the point of needing to be place in an institution and then demands I agree or disagree. You skipped the part where I agreed that being transgender was a mental illness or even making an argument that it was. This is because you know that is the weakest part of you argument and one you have no ability to prove. So you skip it and attempt to simply assume it is fact, and challenge me to defendant that seriously mentally ill people shouldn't be institutionalized(you also skip any argument about institutionalization, but that is another discussion).

So before you whine about the discourse, understand that folks here are on to these bullshit tactics and won't put up with them. So argue in good faith or continue to be treated like the troll from that 2009 video by Hotbid.

Projection is the psychological phenomenon where someone denies some aspect of their behavior or attitudes and assumes instead that others are doing or thinking so. It is usually seen as the externalisation of a person's negative traits, placing blame on an outside force such as the environment, a government, a society or other people.
Projection can also extend to philosophy and knowledge. This occurs when a person or small group of people assume that everyone else is working with the same ideas and/or information that they are. .

On March 20 2019 13:59 CorsairHero wrote:
They also increased the Home buyer plan limit to 35K from 25K in an RRSP so now folks can take 35K of funds marked for retirement and get a home.

On March 21 2019 00:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Regarding the Vancouver Rape Crisis Shelter: the City of Vancouver's decision runs counter to several BC provincial court decisions in the 2000s. These decisions backed the Crisis Centre's definition/criteria of who could enter the Crisis Centre and who could not.
https://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/learn/resources/discrimination-against-women-name-inclusion-statement-vancouver-rape-relief-and-wome
"our entitlement to serve women who are born female was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2003, by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 2005 and by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007"

WARNING: Vague Generality Incoming: We are seeing the "sanctuary cities" that openly flaunt federal and provincial//state laws. We are seeing "Gun Sanctuary" areas that again openly flaunt/ignore federal or state laws. Now we have the City of Vancouver making a decision that runs counter to provincial court decisions.

This is an interesting, growing trend in both the US and Canadian political landscape. That is , Cities/Local areas acting like "City-States". I'll need more time to think about these things to figure out whether i think the trend is "good' or "bad" though.

The government taking an equity position in real estate seems to be a bad idea because it's only going to raise the cost of housing at the bottom and it increases exposure to tax payers when the gravy train ends.

On March 21 2019 14:22 RvB wrote:

Mortgage interest rate deduction is an aweful idea. People will simply take a higher mortgage. You'll have more money chasing the same supply which increases prices. It's what blew up the Dutch housing market. In addition it's extremely regressive since rich people have more income against which to deduct and buy more expensive houses. Like falling said the only real solution is to build more houses.

On March 21 2019 22:16 JimmiC wrote:


Zoning is municipal. And it is shitty because every (most) city knows they need more densification. But every time you try to zone for it the public gets mad and city counselors back down. So you get more a more sprawl, which is bad for house prices but also way more expensive for all the city services including things like transit which with more densification you could provide a better service at less cost.

I'm like you outside of some rule from the Feds on minimum desnification so that it would just happen, but I think the feds are also to scared of the vote implications. Trying to do things that everyone knows is good, but they don't want in their neighborhood is a pain.

On March 21 2019 14:22 RvB wrote:

Mortgage interest rate deduction is an aweful idea. People will simply take a higher mortgage. You'll have more money chasing the same supply which increases prices. It's what blew up the Dutch housing market. In addition it's extremely regressive since rich people have more income against which to deduct and buy more expensive houses. Like falling said the only real solution is to build more houses.