Quebec votes for first conservative majority in 50 years

[bobgeese]

Nice.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Enough is enough and it’s time for a change

 

[luckyshot]

This brings a tear to my eye. The left one.

"- secular charter: certain government employees (e.g. police, teachers) can't wear any sort of religious symbols, e.g. a teacher couldn't wear a Hijab while teaching"

I've been preaching this for years. The anti-far left movement is also encouraging.

This sounds so foreign to Americans. “Far Left” here means, hey, maybe we should have guaranteed healthcare... if not for everyone, at least for old people and kids.

 

[dontsnitch]

This sounds so foreign to Americans. “Far Left” here means, hey, maybe we should have guaranteed healthcare... if not for everyone, at least for old people and kids.

Far Left = free healthcare for seniors and children.

Now do the Far Right for funsies.

 

[Bald1]

Anyone who groans whenever they hear a politician swear something "in the name of God", with their hand on the Bible, should be all aboard such laws.

A lot of modern progressives seem awfully hesitant to pull the trigger on that, though. Perhaps because it would interfere with some of their other, seemingly more important pet projects (such as bringing in dudes with medieval religious beliefs).

I've debated this point with Panamaican and Kafir (not tagging them as I don't feel like getting into it right now) and they at least have skin in the game being religiously affiliated.

It's the atheists who are against it that baffle me. While I don't buy into the pet project of populating the west with Muslims I absolutely think there's a disconnect from reality as far as their coddling of a "minority" that is infact a majority.

 

[luckyshot]

Far Left = free healthcare for seniors and children.

Now do the Far Right for funsies.

I’d say far right in America is: as long as I have my guns and we can overturn Roe, I don’t care if there is absolutely no social safety net whatsoever... in fact, it would probably be a good thing since most people on welfare are cheating the system anyways.

How’d I do?

 

[Scheme]

Far Left = free healthcare for seniors and children.

Now do the Far Right for funsies.

We elect a government to handle the things we cannot as individuals. Things that are too far out of the scope of an individual or small group of individuals to effectively manage. Things like military, roads, street lights, patents, etc. and to regulate the effects of negative externalities like pollution, traffic, etc.

Providing healthcare to a family should be the responsibility of the individuals who have kids, along with other more important essentials such as providing shelter, food, clothes, etc. Unless you also want to make those free. At which point, we are basically at communism.

 

[Bald1]

This sounds so foreign to Americans. “Far Left” here means, hey, maybe we should have guaranteed healthcare... if not for everyone, at least for old people and kids.

We have an actual open border policy, a motion to investigate unicorns...pardon me Islamaphobia, and mandatory pronoun use in some work environments. Hell, the leader of our conservative party has no interest in the same sex marriage or abortion debate as he thinks them settled.

Our left is different from yours, that is true.

 

[irish_thug]

I think the majority of conservative votes in QC in 2019 will go to Bernier. A lot of Quebec conservatives are pretty hardcore French, and if they'd have to choose between Scheer and Bernier, they'dd go with Bernier simply because Bernier's French (unless they're dairy farmers). However, even if the conservative vote goes to Bernier, but with a large enough number of votes to beat out the liberals, it;s a much bigger loss to the Libs, since they traditionally rely on Quebec and the Conservatives almost don't bother trying to get any votes here anymore. That's a huge number of voters the Liberals would lose in a province where the Conservatives have literally nothing to lose.

Dividing the right never works. But at least in Quebec it keeps votes away from the Liberals.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Far Left = free healthcare for seniors and children.

Now do the Far Right for funsies.

Two tier health care? Or is that the Far Ultra Right in Canuckland?

 

[dontsnitch]

I’d say far right in America is: as long as I have my guns and we can overturn Roe, I don’t care if there is absolutely no social safety net whatsoever... in fact, it would probably be a good thing since most people on welfare are cheating the system anyways.

How’d I do?

Ha ha, good but I can't help but feel like I influence your answer

Though by your definitions I'm far Left!

 

[dontsnitch]

We elect a government to handle the things we cannot as individuals. Things that are too far out of the scope of an individual or small group of individuals to effectively manage. Things like military, roads, street lights, patents, etc. and to regulate the effects of negative externalities like pollution, traffic, etc.

Providing healthcare to a family should be the responsibility of the individuals who have kids, along with other more important essentials such as providing shelter, food, clothes, etc. Unless you also want to make those free. At which point, we are basically at communism.

I hear ya, but being born in Canada and having lived here most of my life, I can't imagine a world without free healthcare. And I have a phobia of doctors...

Two tier health care? Or is that the Far Ultra Right in Canuckland?

I think our two-tier system includes our own healthcare, and then driving across the border to the US.

 

[TheGreatA]

I've debated this point with Panamaican and Kafir (not tagging them as I don't feel like getting into it right now) and they at least have skin in the game being religiously affiliated.

It's the atheists who are against it that baffle me. While I don't buy into the pet project of populating the west with Muslims I absolutely think there's a disconnect from reality as far as their coddling of a "minority" that is infact a majority.

The harsh reality is that you cannot successfully integrate large groups of Muslims into the West, unless you extend "religious freedoms" to concern their practises (which are quite fundamental and more demanding compared to the average Christian of today). This is going to inevitably mean wearing religious garb to offices, as otherwise you run the risk of Muslims staying at home, choosing to remain religiously devout, at the expense of financial opportunities.

The cost of this integration, is sacrificing secularism as we know it (particularly in Europe).

I personally do not see it as a compromise worth making, but many progressive-types do.

I subscribe, perhaps unexpectedly to some, to Marx's model of thinking in this regard, believing that the state is best kept as a secular, "atheist" structure, void of religious displays or dogma, to avoid its interference into the natural development of people's spiritual beliefs.

 

[Tiny]

Quebec, Canada's only primarily French speaking province and second most populous, has voted for a Conservative government tonight for the first time in 50 years. The CAQs priorities are:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-election-result-1.4846201

- smaller government
- more privatized healthcare
- extend child benefit (2,400 per year per child, right now you only get it for the first)
- decrease immigration
- secular charter: certain government employees (e.g. police, teachers) can't wear any sort of religious symbols, e.g. a teacher couldn't wear a Hijab while teaching

During the last 50 years, Quebec has only ever had the Liberals or the Parti Quebecois (French separatists with just a smidgen of fascism thrown in) in power. The government sector here is bloated as fuck, we pay money for ridiculous shit like yearly driver's license renewal ($80, increases with accrued demerit points) and we pay the highest income tax in Canada (while also being the largest recipient of transfer payments). Let these guys have a go at it, see how it goes.

boom!

Expect Trudeau's ass out the door next year. Liberals went full libtard these past few years.

never go full libtard.

 

[Bald1]

The harsh reality is that you cannot successfully integrate large groups of Muslims into the West, unless you extend "religious freedoms" to concern their practises (which are quite fundamental and more demanding compared to the average Christian of today). This is going to inevitably mean wearing religious garb to offices, as otherwise you run the risk of Muslims staying at home, choosing to remain religiously devout, at the expense of financial opportunities.

The cost of this integration, is sacrificing secularism as we know it (particularly in Europe).

I personally do not see it as a compromise worth making, but many progressive-types do.

I subscribe, perhaps unexpectedly to some, to Marx's model of thinking in this regard, believing that the state is best kept as a secular, "atheist" structure, void of religious dogma, to avoid its interference into the natural development of people's spiritual beliefs.

You're preaching to the choir here. While I think faith is a beneficial thing I also believe organized, structured faith to be the opposite and am a self described hard core secularist. The more socially tolerant a society the more government needs to adhere to secularism as any support of any faith will inevitably influence policy otherwise.

As for Muslims staying at home in the west if such things come to pass? Hell we see similar conflict in Israel with the orthodox followers of the state (close enough, anyways) religion doing their best to live in a parallel society.

 

[TheGreatA]

You're preaching to the choir here. While I think faith is a beneficial thing I also believe organized, structured faith to be the opposite and am a self described hard core secularist. The more socially tolerant a society the more government needs to adhere to secularism as any support of any faith will inevitably influence policy otherwise.

As for Muslims staying at home in the west if such things come to pass? Hell we see similar conflict in Israel with the orthodox followers of the state (close enough, anyways) religion doing their best to live in a parallel society.

When it comes to fundamentally devout Muslims I have long since acknowledged that there exists too large of a gap between their ideals and mine, both of which cannot co-exist together in any sort of a meaningful manner, without compromising too much of what is deemed valuable by either side.

They are better off amongst their own, as I am with mine. You will not see me in any great hurry to move into Muslim countries, as rich as some of them may be. Not even if the Russians decided to bomb me to smithereens.

The problem with this sort of a parallel society of Muslims in the West, is that it would most likely be enabled and funded by the state (or worse, foreign Muslim countries), collapsing the moment that such funding seizes. Not a chance in hell that it could stand on its own weight, under modern circumstances. There are no long-term projections for such a society, and I do not really see the need to assist in the founding of one.

 

[Seaside]

Sounds like a pretty reasonable conservative government.

Secularism is starting to increasingly become a conservative agenda, except perhaps in America for the time being (Trump still represents a shift towards that from the previous Republicans, though). It is the "libs" who are all aboard the freedom of religion train, these days, in order to have all that exotic religious diversity on display.

I do think so. On other topic It also seems republicans in US are open to idea of nationalizing certain areas like coal or communication giants. That is something the left would jump at in their quest to get get more centralization andidrally socilization. At times i wonder if excessive privatize chaos is indeed a long term plan to call into need the need for wider government oversight in light of failures of mass laisez faire or privitization.

Anyone who groans whenever they hear a politician swear something "in the name of God", with their hand on the Bible, should be all aboard such laws.

A lot of modern progressives seem awfully hesitant to pull the trigger on that, though. Perhaps because it would interfere with some of their other, seemingly more important pet projects (such as bringing in dudes with medieval religious beliefs).

Soviet union got some things right.

 

[TheGreatA]

Soviet union got some things right.

Not really. They fucked up by trying to turn the people secular by gun-point, going after people's individual spiritual beliefs, even purging people based on their religion. Before Hitler ever purged the Jewish population, Stalin had already done so to his own.

That was not truly Marx's interpretation of it. He figured that the people would simply be given more room to develop their own spiritual ideas as long as the state stayed out of it.

Stalin obviously had other plans until he figured that his suppression of religion, was not really practical at all, particularly during WW2.

 

[Seaside]

We have an actual open border policy, a motion to investigate unicorns...pardon me Islamaphobia, and mandatory pronoun use in some work environments. Hell, the leader of our conservative party has no interest in the same sex marriage or abortion debate as he thinks them settled.

Our left is different from yours, that is true.

In not american. But the far left in bssically all western or english speaking countries and german are like yours. The little i see on here has american far left politicians and base wanting that stuff. That horrible abig poster posted something shocked me other day and it was like half of democrats in US congress of house voted against making it illegal for non citizens to vote. That is the definition of stupidity and far left position.

Not really. They fucked up by trying to turn the people secular by gun-point, going after people's individual spiritual beliefs, even purging people based on their religion. Before Hitler ever purged the Jewish population, Stalin had already done so to his own.

That was not truly Marx's interpretation of it. He figured that the people would simply be given more room to develop their own spiritual ideas as long as the state stayed out of it.

Stalin obviously had other plans until he figured that his suppression of religion, was not really practical at all, particularly during WW2.

Stalin morphed into a person who wanted Russian domination of key areas. Despite his non russian heritage. And yeah ww2 loosened restrictions.

By force is not nice but it did work. Especially post stalin there was more of a soft power or hand at doing things compared to stalins days.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

I think the majority of conservative votes in QC in 2019 will go to Bernier. A lot of Quebec conservatives are pretty hardcore French, and if they'd have to choose between Scheer and Bernier, they'dd go with Bernier simply because Bernier's French (unless they're dairy farmers). However, even if the conservative vote goes to Bernier, but with a large enough number of votes to beat out the liberals, it;s a much bigger loss to the Libs, since they traditionally rely on Quebec and the Conservatives almost don't bother trying to get any votes here anymore. That's a huge number of voters the Liberals would lose in a province where the Conservatives have literally nothing to lose.

that split still came at a terrible time.