you can't even sponsor a kid in africa for $5/month.

i'm actually poor and actually getting pinched by inflation in rent right now.

unless somebody gave it to me, or i won it in a law suit, or i had some urgent expense, it would take me well over a year to spend $2000 on things that aren't food, bills and rent.

over an average two month period, i'd be likely to spend maybe $100 on the items cited and probably closer to half of that.

that would be a tax cut of roughly $2-$5.

thanks for the free coffee, guys.

When asked about the impact his recently announced affordability measures could have on provincial budgets, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he expects his provincial counterparts to recognize the financial challenges Canadians are experiencing.

is the disease that doug ford has contagious? is that it?

you'd have to spend $2000 on beer and popcorn to save $100.

if you have $2000 to spend, what kind of challenges are you experiencing?

meanwhile, the handout actually isn't going to anybody that actually is experiencing financial challenges, and is going to people making $50,000-$150,000/yr.

the premiers should sue his stupid ass in federal court.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-asking-reimbursement-hst-tax-holiday-1.7391116

Gillian Petit, a senior research associate at the University of Calgary's economics department, said that while the policy will help people save money at the checkout, it might actually go further for those with higher household incomes.

"They have more income, so they consume more," she said. "Persons with lower incomes are also going to save on the GST, but they're not going to save as much in dollar values. They have less income, so they consume less."

With the $250 rebate reserved for people who were employed in 2023, those who might need it most are excluded, Petit said. "If we really wanted to address affordability, we would target persons who are struggling with affordability [or] persons who are spending a large amount of their incomes on basic necessities."

that's right. this is economically stupid and it's also small-minded and petty. stupid, small-minded and petty is doug ford and doug ford's base, but liberal voters are going to be....confused....by this policy.

the fact that this benefits high income earners, however, is exactly why the ndp is supporting it.

let's see if the ndp tries to expand the gst credit to people on disability, oas and welfare or if they go along with this fascist message of producerism being pushed by the capitalist parties.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/gst-holiday-what-you-need-to-know-1.7390054

this is the senate map, with pennsylvania shifted to uncallable.

the difference, the deciding factor, was harris herself.

the fact that the democrats won senate seats in nevada, arizona, wisconsin and michigan indicates that the states were winnable and could have been won with a better presidential candidate.

forget about trans people.

forget about wokeness.

forget about inflation.

the candidate was not liked. she was unpopular. it's not the electorate, it's her.

what should the democrats do about this attack on trans rights?

nothing.

basic polling has demonstrated that it had little actual effect. given the amount of money spent on it, that suggests it will backfire in key states, if they keep doing this.

you'll note that democrats won senate seats in wisconsin, michigan, arizona and nevada, all states that the republicans won, and also that the margin of victory in minnesota and new mexico was greater for the senate candidate than the electoral college pickup. the margin in the senate race in ohio was also closer than the presidential margin, but ohio was a seat the democrats were bound to lose. the margin in pennsylvania was also closer in the senate than the president.

this suggests that support for harris was weaker across the board, everywhere, and substantively, than support for the party. she substantively underperformed her party everywhere. she is probably directly responsible for losing the seat in pennsylvania.

the problem was her; individually, personally, as an unusually poor candidate.

let the republicans speak freely on the trans issue and make asses of themselves to the electorate; it will hurt them in the long run, as nobody actually supports attacking us.

i am no fan of netanyahu. if i thought there were grounds to arrest him for war crimes, i would support it.

i don't think there are grounds to charge netanyahu with war crimes, and i think this "warrant", which is from an extra-legal body, is clearly political rather than legal. the timing of the announcement, which was clearly delayed quite a long time to be announced after the election, is also clearly political.

i would like for their to be a serious world court but the reality is that this body is a politicized one and that every trial it's ever conducted has been strictly political in scope and this doesn't appear to be different. that this is unfolding in the context of anti-semitic mobs roaming through european capitals is cause of serious concern. the order itself is not anti-semitic in scope, it's just specious in content, which does give accusations of anti-semitism some validity, in context.

the united states has frequently been criticized for not participating in the court under grounds that it thinks it's above the law, and i have participated in those criticisms, but the conduct of this court over the last several decades has frequently been suspect and the united states' criticisms of the court, which once seemed hollow, have increasingly been upheld by the facts. it is still a better idea for the united states to try to influence the direction of the court than ignore it, but it's longstanding concerns that it's a political rather than a legal body have been exposed as fully valid.

given the court's actual jurisdiction and composition, the body should rename itself to the european court and seek to limit it's jurisdiction to the european union, of which israel is not yet a part and may never be a part, even if it should be a part for historical and cultural reasons. likewise, while the idea of palestinian statehood is widely (if incoherently) recognized, palestine is not recognized as a state by the un and is, empirically speaking, not a state under any rigorously applied definition of the term that makes any sense. the court does not have jurisdiction for this arrest.

the canadian government's position is incoherent. canada does not recognize palestine as a state, and should therefore not recognize the jurisdiction of the court in the state of the region it does recognize, which is israel, which is not a party to the rome statute. nor do most countries in europe recognize palestine as a state, and they should not be recognizing the jurisdiction of the court, either.