thomas

joined 2 years ago
[–] thomas@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

While the second one is hilarious, it doesn't sound lesbiany enough. So my vote is on "I like your mom".

[–] thomas@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I meant the other white shirt, the one that the lady in a grey hat wears.

[–] thomas@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Black shirt in the back clearly says "Titties sucker", but I can't guess what the white shirt says.

[–] thomas@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And a felon, don't forget that part.

[–] thomas@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago

It's a law, every employer must allow voters 3h of time to vote : https://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=faq&document=faqtimo&lang=e

[–] thomas@lemmy.ca 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] thomas@lemmy.ca 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Innocent until a jury decides otherwise.

[–] thomas@lemmy.ca 48 points 3 months ago

This is the good old time that the MAGA folk want to bring back.

[–] thomas@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So,I hate to admit it, but let me go against the pack here. Tariffs unfortunately work as Trump is claiming they work, but not for the reason he thinks. You see, while the US customers are the ones that will fit the bill, this isn't the whole story.

Canadian businesses will try to lower their prices to stay competitive. And our governments (federal and provincials) have already stated that they will help businesses and workers as much as they can, probably with subsidies.

Every time a Canadian businesses lower it's price to stay competitive with the tariffs and every time our governments pay subsidies to help with that, Canadians are effectively paying for Trump's tariffs. (Note that this will have been 100% true with a small tariff, but 25% is too much to absorb, so part of the cost will go towards US customers).

With that in mind, counter-tarrifs makes perfect sense, but the assumption here is that US and states governments will help US businesses hit by the tariffs. We may be wrong on this part

[–] thomas@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

I can't see how this would work. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part refers to the children born in the US, not their parents. But don't quote me on this, I'm not a lawyer.

view more: next ›