I was going to post this but you beat me to it.

Hehe loves to argue about things he has little knowledge on, but alas.

Wait... What? :lol

LOL leave it up to hehe to turn a women's rights - nay HUMAN rights - issue into an Ayn Randian rant about how people don't deserve a living wage. Jesus fucking christ.

The Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to create law. It merely interprets and enforce it to the letters.

I find it almost comical for people, especially legislators to blame Supreme Court for hurting human rights. If they are so serious about it, they can change laws to whatever so that there will only be one way for SCOTUS to interpret it. Even amend the constitution to have abortion and whatever else they want to add to.

But no… it’s the SCOTUS, it’s them messing things up when they are just doing their job.

Oh, I forgot. The speciality of lefties. Blame the riches, the society, and the SCOTUS, it’s never them the problem.

If you know a thing or two about RE market, you know the problem why our market is so out of touch with average income is because of speculation.

There are laws in countries like Germany and Norway to limit speculation in the form of taxes. So if our government is truly serious about making housing affordable, why not outlaw speculation? Make it so that any property owned less than 5yrs would have 100% capital gain tax. You kill any profit in speculation, you kill speculation itself.

But no. It’s always something else. It’s the foreigners. It’s Airbnb. Blah blah blah. Why not just say the real reason out loud? You suckers should stop profiting from the RE market.

I’ll tell you why, because they will lose a lot of votes. That’s why.

Again, it’s the majority’s decision. Not the right decision. If it were up to me, I’ll kill all speculation at once.

Comparing expensive houses to controlling a woman’s body is fucking hilarious.
You get to vote on policy, not human rights. It’s honestly impressive that the comparison got even dumber than the vaccine argument.
On another note, there is rumblings of capital punishment in Texas for abortions with a recent bill that was tabled. So fucking pro life that you will kill someone over a clump of cells that is not sentient.

No one was asking them to make this decision at this time. There was no current petition or case before the court. They literally just came out of left field with this. Not to mention the ones who outright LIED in their confirmation hearings, saying that they considered the matter settled precedent:


This is just straight up right-wing politics playing out what is supposed to be an impartial institution. Fucking joke.

Thank fuck we live in Canada.

We're begrudgingly talking about why the majority vote isn't even a concept in most US states due to unfair access to voting... but somehow we're also talking about Vancouver RE prices and minimum wage laws? With massive assumptions being taken on where people advocating for abortions stand on both those issues?

My head is spinning lol

I suppose you've never heard of lobbying have you?

Do you not see what the NDP government in BC are attempting to do to curb prices on RE? Even the federal Liberals are attempting to put forward initiatives to address these market issues. The majority of Canadians support such changes, even the Conservative party has been pandering the idea, the problem is lobbying and inherent corruption, not public opinion.

It's the same idea that the majority of Americans support the opening of generic drugs and regulations on drug pricing -- yet not a single elected government has been able to address these problems through legislation.

Very rarely does the court of public opinion match what government can and will do.

How you don't understand that baffles me.

You're still wrong.

The constitution contains a number of provisions of unenumerated rights that aren't explicitly stated.

Specific to the Roe v Wade opinion it should be found within the Due Process Clause -- which says no one should be denied liberty without due process.

You can't simply parrot the constitution as it's written with ambiguities that are still being argued to this day, it carries rights in which we accept today, but are not explicitly stated. The Second Amendment never explicitly indicates that you can buy a bazooka or machine gun, but here we are, it has been an accepted basis.

You're parroting bullshit rightwing garbage about the constitution that is completely facetious in its intent.

A bad faith argument, plain and simple.

If that's the case then if the pregnancy is from a rape then they have nothing to lose by killing their rapist.

I'm so sick of crime, dirty streets, traffic and dumb bitches getting all up in my face. Why can't the government do anything about that?

Damn I guess it's cause the majority wants it that way!

It’s personal freedom. It’s their choice to be on the street. We shouldn’t force people to go work hard, be a contributing part of the society. It should be a right for illegal immigrants to do nothing. We should take care of them. They should be able to make their own choices.

That’s California or any liberal dominant states for you right now.

And yes, that’s what the majority wants. They just never thought about the consequences. Which are the ones you just complained about

Luckily I’m not pro life so you can start killing rapists by the droves and I’ll be throwing parties about it.

But can you suggest att what point should the SCOTUS draw a line? I agree that the constitution is written with ambiguity and purposely so. And it’s up to the SCOTUS to determine the final say on how far the ambiguity goes and clarify what exactly The constitution cover. And today, they are doing exactly that.

They determined (at least from Justice Alito’s draft) that the original Roe vs Wade brought more questions than it tried to answer. And the fact that the original constitution never intended to cover a topic that at the time, they had no way to even comprehend. So, they found that it’s not explicitly covered by the constitution, and is therefore not a part of constitution problem but each state or federal legislature should bring forward their own version of laws governing abortion. Just like we have laws governing narcotics and whatnot. You can’t simply say that using drugs is your personal freedom and prohibiting such is a breach of constitutional right. Using drugs were never covered by the constitution. And thus, if federal or state legislature passed laws to regulate it. It’s ok because use of drugs is not a constitutional right and it’s up to finer laws to govern its usage. They are doing exactly that with abortion. It’s not part of constitution. So, if anyone (state in this case) wants to write laws to govern it, it’s ok and it’s not a SCOTUS problem.

Again, I’m pro abortion. I’m just arguing that the SCOTUS is doing nothing wrong for the purpose that they want the SCOTUS to function. If anything, it’sa great time to be bringing appropriate laws for abortion. So there’s no more ambiguity with it. But the Dems would never do that. They will just use this as a topic to attack the Republican.

Shelter is basic human needs. I don’t get where you are coming with this. So you think it’s ok for the RE market to go out of control, zero rent control and RTB regulations because it’s nothing personal?

No I don’t think it’s ok, but it’s not comparable to body autonomy. Besides you’ve clearly stated that poor people don’t deserve things anyways so what fucking point are you trying to make?
One post you’ll say poor people don’t deserve help because it doesn’t align with capitalism, but the next you would smash any possible profitability in the housing market?
I’m down with any and all measures to absolutely crush real estate profits, but arguments about the economy aren’t to do with this.

I didn't say they don't deserve help. I said they too need to make the effort when seeking for help by actually taking the proactive role in becoming better.

Whenever it comes to social assistance, I've always maintained a single approach: teach them how to fish, not give them fish.

But many of the poor want none of that... show me the benjamins or nothing.

So, I only ask one thing for Social programs for the poor... teach them how to fish or have programs that fish would only be provided if certain criteria of improvements are met... if they only want the fish and none of the hassle? I'm sorry... they need to do better.

Now, back to the original discussion. How is it not comparable to body autonomy? By having a skyhigh RE market, we basically pushed many away from our city (freedom of mobility, you can't stay here if you got no money). And of those who stayed, they either benefited from this market or industry, or they are scared shitless to ever lose their job because they are pushed to the limit financially.

People don't realize it... but so much freedom is lost and sacrifices are made to live in Vancouver except for the super-wealthy. There is absolutely no reason why a waterfront house in South America costs 500k when here is 5M (if you could find one for that much). If anything, their beaches and weather are better than ours.

so teach us wise one.

I’m somewhat onboard with the incentivized benefits idea…

But this part of what you said? This is wild haha

I mean really?? No reason at all? I’ve argued myself why not, say, Hawaii for $3M instead of East Van… but there’s a severe drop off in safety, opportunity, right to due process and life expectancy in South America. If I remember correctly you know this full well I think you have either lived in or have experience in Brazil. Unless you’re talking about having already made massive $ here and flexing it down there to buy a quality of life and rights as a person that comes automatically just by existing here?

Nothing needs to be taught... just the policies need to be promoting long lasting improvements.

If someone needs a clean place to stay so he/she can clean up and get a job, gov't should do like capsule hotels like in Japan so they can have a base for a fresh start.

If someone has disability/other problems that makes it hard to find a job, gov't should organize programs that require basic skills with subsidize wage. This way, the person can either become better at that job and grow into something else, or if everything fails, have a dignified living that he/she is working to maintain themselves.

For those who can't work at all, provide basic housing (again, capsule hotel?) with some basic support assuming they can meet certain requirements (stay sober, drug free, learning opportunities that give them educational credits... etc)

Again... nothing out of the ordinary and just throwing ideas. The concept is simple, just provide incentives or assistance for private/public sector to get these people in need back on track with life. Let them understand nothing is free in life. They are free to choose the lifestyle they live in, but if they want gov't assistance, they need to get on a program that either improves them or makes sure they stay out of trouble.

Right now, we are basically just giving out money with no expectation for any improvement from them. This has to change. For the better of themselves and society.

I do commercial RE research and development for a living and have been in the field for almost 3 decades as I started out with my parents when they didn't speak the language very well and I handled many aspects with them.

So, I know a thing or two about how to value a property. And no... taking everything into consideration, there's no reason that's enough to justify a waterfront house in Van is 10x or more of a waterfront house in a very nice area in central/south America.

Unfortunately, I'd have to disagree with Great68's suggestion that the anti-abortion movement in the US came out of the left field. The Texas abortion laws that sparked the current controlversy has been going on for a least a few months. More importantly, there has always been a pretty strong anti-abortion movement in the US that seems to be very well organized, and they have been consistently chipping away at Roe v. Wade, or at least trying their hardest to do so.

On the note about confirmation hearings, if you pay careful attention to the way these sleazebag justices were wording their sentences (from the YouTube video you showed), they deliberately chose their words to basically mean absolutely nothing, and offered no guarantees to the continued enshrining of Roe v. Wade. All they said at best was Roe w. Wade will be used as a precedence just like another other precedence. Kavanaugh merely mentioned an established fact -- that Roe has been re-affirmed many times over the past 45 years -- he was stating a fact that was true at the time, and that should never have been interpreted as his own personal opinion or what he has planned on doing. Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that there was a lot of questions about Roe, and that indicated Roe was not something that has been settled.

I'm going to say that I lean more towards pro-life than pro-choice, but with the way Roe is heading in the US, you are damn right that thank fuck we live in Canada...

(though I do wonder whether / how long the same stupidity will make its way up to Canada here... FailFish )

Well... I mean no disrespect... but literally the entire world disagrees with you then? They voted with their $... if they all thought it was so great down there, RE prices would be just as high as here

I agree with the teach to fish not give them fish analogy. But it won’t happen because of lazy human nature. The majority is going to vote for who gives them the most free stuff without realizing that it’s an overall loss to them. Look back to when COVID first started. It was less than 1 week before people were asking for handouts and the government started opening the taps. Look where that got us with massive inflation. This is the reason not everyone is a millionaire with a six pack. We aren’t taught basic finance in school. School is just prepping you to become a corporate slave for 40 years to feed the government.

I disagree that the real estate market is where it is at due to flipping. I think the root cause is due to lax financing rules. I am single income and banks will give me millions of dollars. This is not good but I am going to make the most of it, if it’s being offered to me. As an example if you bought a house for 500k (5% down 25k) and it increased to 1 million. You can then refinance and take out ~$325,000. You can then buy 3 more $500,000 homes with 20% down in lower cost cities. So effectively you now own 4 homes all for $25,000.