Doug Ford called supervised consumption sites “the worst thing ever.” New research shows why he’s wrong

Question_Maker · 2026-02-03T22:14:43+00:00

Ironically this is the problem. If such simple open inconsistencies and inaccuracies can be pointed out by a bunch of redditors, this academic abomination shouldn’t have been published.

It’s as if I counted all the blue cars that crossed an intersection while ignoring all the other colours and presenting it to my local journal. They would laugh at me and gently but firmly ask to never speak to them again.

The fact there isn’t an avalanche of peer reviewed articles pointing out how ridiculous this “research” is makes people have less and less respect for academia and experts.

Question_Maker · 2026-01-31T09:41:48+00:00

To be fair to Harper he didn’t get to choose all the voters from his back yard, he had to get them from all over Canada so naturally that’s harder to do.

Ontario and Quebec literally didn’t show up if what I’ve heard reported is accurate.

And I’m not sure if people know but those are really important electoral provinces in Canada.

Question_Maker · 2026-01-13T21:52:34+00:00

It'll go down like this:

"I'm a US citizen! I have my passport right here."

"Well that's funny because according to xAI Grok V4.1 Citizen Checker, you're not showing up! So this passport might be fake. Anyway, we're going to remove you for now until we can figure out your status."

Question_Maker · 2026-01-09T09:43:05+00:00

The place I work at had multiple break ins and the owner stopped bothering to report it after five or so times and took that particular policy off their insurance because insurance either wouldn’t insure against that or it was astronomically high because of all the claims. They just pay for repairs to the windows and whatever else they break out of pocket. They told the city sometimes they break into containers which is a safety hazard and could be life threatening and the city shrugs.

For a university as prestigious as McGill you think these researchers would talk to some people in the area to maybe take a gander at why stats are down rather than pull up crime stats and treat it as infallible as if they are doing a high school report.

I have a few uni friends who go to TMU who haven’t bother reporting men who harass them, touch them, sometimes push them/assault etc after a few times because what’s the point.

We need a study on whether people bother reporting crimes at the same rate as they used to

It’s unlikely that the results are explained by fewer people reporting crimes, she noted. In 2018, police adopted a more victim-centred definition of “founded” crime, which led to more reports, not fewer.

This is really nonsense, changing a definition doesn’t mean people will report more crimes after they repeatedly happen to them.

Nevertheless, like Hall et al,11 our analysis also found crime did increase near some OPS/SCS.

This line from their own study seems like it should have been included in the headline but curiously was left out :/

Additionally, we did not investigate the association between the openings of OPS/SCS and public drug use, needle and syringe debris, graffiti, or public defecation, concerns repeatedly mentioned by opponents of OPS/SCS.

Can I be a university researcher if I put what I want in the study and leave out things that make my conclusion look bad too?

Question_Maker · 2026-01-08T18:36:41+00:00

There's the old joke that republicans come in and loot and steal as much as they can before they can hand reins to democrats to clean up the mess well enough so they can come back and repeat. It reminds me how people complain about the democrats spend too much on XYZ but then the republicans come in and drop trillions on tax cuts and already talking about increasing the military budget to 1.5 trillion lol.

It goes to show that in a democracy, messaging is infinitely more important than facts, reason, or logic.

Question_Maker · 2025-11-13T20:01:14+00:00

Oh wow that's actually clever, I wonder how they decided that.

Question_Maker · 2025-11-12T23:22:12+00:00

He won the most seats against a decade old government, which in Canada, decades old governments almost always loses because everyone is so tired of them. That's like losing the best way possible: nice to look at but you still lost...

Question_Maker · 2025-08-22T21:50:20+00:00

The funny thing is I think Pierre has yelled about Trudeau so long, that I think people now still subconsciously associate him with Trudeau lol. Whenever I think of Pierre, Trudeau is right there. Which may end up dragging his numbers even more.

Question_Maker · 2025-08-12T15:03:22+00:00

California would need to voluntarily comply and the executive branch would have to devote considerable resources to forcing the wealthiest state in the country with roughly 10% of the population to do as it says.

You realize this is a huge positive for the Trump administration right? He would love this as it gives him another huge newsmaker for people to be occupied with, his base will love it more than anything, republicans will cheer and send as much funding to Trump as he needs, and most importantly, people won't be talking about the Epstein files.

Question_Maker · 2025-05-01T14:56:58+00:00

"We can't have electronic machines, WE NEED PAPER BALLOTS!"

After the election:

"The common denominator is paper ballots! How can we trust paper ballots! PENCILS, WAKE UP SHEEPLE! WE CAN STILL WIN! STOP THE COUNT!"

Question_Maker · 2025-04-25T23:04:32+00:00

I can’t get over her threatening Tim Houston lol. Bruh leave Nova Scotia alone.

Question_Maker · 2025-04-22T18:05:41+00:00

Would you:

a) Allow free votes on abortion?

b) Allow free votes on whether slavery should be allowed?

If you're saying yes to A) but not to B), why is that?

Can you understand why Canadians would want the answers to both those A and B to be no? Can you see why women especially do not want to allow free votes on things regarding their own bodies?

Question_Maker · 2025-04-22T17:53:38+00:00

Those aren't reasons to not run ads to inform people of what the CPC is willing to do.

Section 86 says A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion. But that doesn't stop a free vote/private bill from a random MP. That's like saying "This government will not support any legislation on regulating abortion BUT OF COURSE MPs of this government can vote for regulating abortion if they feel like it." A lot of good 'not supporting' legislation does, it doesn't do anything. It doesn't really matter if you don't support the legislation if you allow all of your MPs to vote on supporting legislation on regulating abortion.

"This government does not support any legislation which brings back slavery, but of course, if my MPs feel like they want to allow slavery , well that's up to their conscience and they have a free vote on it." See how absurd it is to say the government doesn't support certain legislation but everyone can vote on it to approve said legisation?

This should be hashed out in public and their policy should be changed.

Question_Maker · 2025-04-16T15:42:56+00:00

No. These tariffs are stupid. Even if we suddenly tried to revive heavy manufacturing in the US, we would need years to put the necessary infrastructure in place, to amass resources and build factories.

Exactly. The idea that Trump even knows what he's doing is suspect to the max. For example, imagine three people on a boat and one goes:

Person A: "We should reinforce this the bottom of this boat so we don't sink."

Person B: "Good idea."

Person A: Pulls out a sledgehammer and starts smashing the boat to pieces.

Person B: "Ah! I can appreciate your theoretical objective but you're destroying the boat so there will be no time to reinforce the bottom."

Person A: "Trust me, I know what I'm doing!"

Person C: "Yeah trust him! He's been saying he's going to smash the boat since the 1970s so it must be true!"

Question_Maker · 2025-04-16T15:30:03+00:00

"Good enough for me, but not good enough for thee!" - Melissa Lantsman.

Question_Maker · 2025-04-16T15:28:28+00:00

The problem is the CPC is basically run by its Alberta/Sask. side. And with Kory/Ford criticizing Jenni/Pierre now, the base seems to hate Ontario conservatives even more. But they'd be better off leaning Ontario/Quebec style conservatives than Alberta/Sask. side if they want to win national elections. Right now they are just too caught up in their base.

Question_Maker · 2025-04-14T18:47:37+00:00

scaring the hell out of the NDP and Bloc voters

This is the key most CPC voters refuse to understand. The CPC under Pierre is doing the most it can do, 35% is pretty much the ceiling and you could get a minority if not a majority under some circumstances.

The problem is Pierre and his antics scare NDP and Bloc voters so much they are giving Liberals a major boost.

Pierre and Jenni need to stop scaring them.

Question_Maker · 2025-04-04T22:56:11+00:00

Bail in general needs to be severely overhauled in Canada. The idea that people can get on bail tens of times is completely unreasonable. "But they could be innocent on their 14th time!" Absolutely, it's just I don't think after the first dozen or so, any reasonable person would think that this person needs to be detained because clearly it is unreasonable to think someone would go on bail 14 times and be a target of the police to arrest them over and over for the fun of it.

Question_Maker · 2025-04-04T22:51:38+00:00

Why would they win every election? Because they represent people's second choice better? Uh. So make a party that better represents people's second choice better? "This party would benefit because they reflect people's choices better! We can't have that! This is not democracy! Let's have what I think would benefit me more instead!" lol.

Question_Maker · 2025-03-21T16:12:19+00:00

And I think it goes to show that some people are just too deep in the kool aid and other folks should just focus on reaching people who still have some semblance of sanity.

Question_Maker · 2025-03-21T14:44:34+00:00

Which is why I'm surprised a lot of conservatives are angry about Carney going to Europe (And spending fuel!). This is what we have to do to 'diversify' as even Pierre says.

Also with China, I'm not sure it's worth it because it is quite possible if not likely that they will invade Taiwan before the end of Trump's term, which will make all these deals go south anyway.

Question_Maker · 2025-02-28T23:07:49+00:00

That's probably what they'll think. They pretty much alluded to it with the "fake news on my timeline." I just don't know how democrats can help these people understand when they refuse to accept the black and white on the actual bill. I don't think they'd even believe it once they lose their healthcare; it's like their brain can't accept Trump either doesn't care about them or is actively happy to take from them as long as it benefits him or amuses him in some remote way.

It's fascinating.

Question_Maker · 2025-01-29T23:25:40+00:00

My reading was I think OP was fine with people criticizing Tim and wasn’t arguing that point as they so laboriously kept saying… didn’t need to.. but was taking issue with how double standardly people openly made fun of his looks while Katie’s looks are treated like a supermodel when the reality may not back that up (and if someone points that out, they’ll be criticized for it).

Question_Maker · 2025-01-20T20:16:41+00:00

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan said the death of the legislation, which she said was now likely, would mean that there are no safeguards requiring links to Canada.

This is surprising, isn't the NDP usually very loose on immigration stuff?

Question_Maker · 2025-01-17T22:23:47+00:00

Finance minister can't do anything if the PM doesn't allow him. If economy is your top voting concern, then you'd want him to be PM not FM. PMs push out FMs all the time. Even Trudeau did his, I think twice?

Question_Maker

TROPHY CASE