Jump to content

2022 Provincial Election in Quebec


Recommended Posts

On 9/8/2022 at 5:07 AM, August1991 said:

Obama took Massachusetts RomneyCare and wanted to make it a federal system.

Why not leave it for each State?

Trudeau Jnr wants to make Quebec's daycare system a federal system.

Biden wants to make Canada's pharmaceutical purchases a US system.

====

I reckon that Leftists want to control.

Yes exactly.  They want to create their utopia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2022 at 7:33 AM, Michael Hardner said:

I think that it's because leftists think Economics is a hard science like physics.  

They think they can DESIGN a market system.  They think that the surplus value of labour is a number they can calculate and pay to each worker. And they believed that the Soviet system was redeemable.

They abhor the chaos that is part of every vital and living system.

They are critics and analysts.  They're not interested in the mundane details of economics and management.  That's the stuff of petit bourgeoisie.

Leftists want to control society in order to create their ideal utopia.  In their naive idealism they underestimate the complexity of very complex systems like economics and international politics.

They are mainly interested in eliminating hierarchies.  Equality.  But hierarchies are based on competition - winners and losers.  The natural world is literally based on competition.  So it is not desirable to eliminate all hierarchies, since it is the force that drives literally the entire living world forward and makes it better.  So sometimes the leftists go too far in eliminating hierarchies, and it results in participation trophies.

Hierarchies are desirable.  The right's job is to show the left the beauty & utility in hierarchy.  And this is why they always disagree.  But hierarchies become corrupt when the top of the hierarchy uses its power to behave tyrannically to those lower in the hierarchy.  The left's job is to point this out and try to fix it when it happens, without going too far and eliminating hierarchies completely or unnecessarily, which is the right's job to prevent.  So democracy is a self-regulating system of left vs right, and why dictatorships often fail.

Ironically, sometimes the left reaches the top of the hierarchy and uses their power to create their utopia, and in order to do so they institute systems or laws which are tyrannical, and so the left themselves corrupts the hierarchy.  Lenin.  Stalin.  Trudeau? ?

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Leftists want to control society in order to create their ideal utopia.  In their naive idealism they underestimate the complexity of very complex systems like economics and international politics.

2. They are mainly interested in eliminating hierarchies.  Equality. 

3. But hierarchies are based on competition - winners and losers. 

4. The natural world is literally based on competition.  So it is not desirable to eliminate all hierarchies, since it is the force that drives literally the entire living world forward and makes it better. 

5. So sometimes the leftists go too far in eliminating hierarchies, and it results in participation trophies.

6. Hierarchies are desirable.  

 

1. No.  This is everybody, especially elected leaders.  You don't think the anti-work, the religious, the right want to control society in order to create their own utopias ?  The difference is THEIR utopias are much closer to what we are living in now: no taxes on the wealthy, abortion banned, etc., books they don't like banned, schools not allowed to teach things they don't like.  There's "bothsides"-ism in that.
2. They don't want a hierarchy and yet they want to control everything ?  Seems odd.
3.  Where was the 'competition' in monarchies and Chinese Dynasties ?
4. Hierarchies and competition are different things.  You want a meritocracy and of course most would agree.  
5. They haven't even come close to success in the area you describe.  It's been failure on failure since the 1970s.
6.  And yet even the Republican politician will ridiculously rail on about "the elite"
 
I'm picking at your post but I do *get* what you are saying.  I think I could agree more if you posted it without the words left/right in there because those terms have absolutely no relatioship to the bizarre politics we have been having lately.

It's just tribalism - with any ostensible "policy" discussions simply added to the conversation to reverse engineer another rationale for why my "tribe" is right and the other is an odious clan of rapey mongrels.

We have a PM who was elected because of his hair, who promised some kind of "change" based on that and didn't change anything of note... now challenged by a so-called "conservative" who poses in Lumber Shirts despite having spent his whol life wearing pocket protectors and "working" in the house of commons....

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No.  This is everybody, especially elected leaders.  You don't think the anti-work, the religious, the right want to control society in order to create their own utopias ?  The difference is THEIR utopias are much closer to what we are living in now: no taxes on the wealthy, abortion banned, etc., books they don't like banned, schools not allowed to teach things they don't like.  There's "bothsides"-ism in that.
2. They don't want a hierarchy and yet they want to control everything ?  Seems odd.
3.  Where was the 'competition' in monarchies and Chinese Dynasties ?
4. Hierarchies and competition are different things.  You want a meritocracy and of course most would agree.  
5. They haven't even come close to success in the area you describe.  It's been failure on failure since the 1970s.
6.  And yet even the Republican politician will ridiculously rail on about "the elite"
 
7. I'm picking at your post but I do *get* what you are saying.  I think I could agree more if you posted it without the words left/right in there because those terms have absolutely no relatioship to the bizarre politics we have been having lately.

It's just tribalism - with any ostensible "policy" discussions simply added to the conversation to reverse engineer another rationale for why my "tribe" is right and the other is an odious clan of rapey mongrels.

8. We have a PM who was elected because of his hair, who promised some kind of "change" based on that and didn't change anything of note... now challenged by a so-called "conservative" who poses in Lumber Shirts despite having spent his whol life wearing pocket protectors and "working" in the house of commons....

1. Right wants control, but not to create a utopia.  They want to control the social sphere as you say (moral police), and control the rules of the economic sphere so that they can't be controlled (they want to be left alone - low taxes, free speech, small government, right to own guns...freedom).  But "freedom" creates hierarchies.  A lot of lefties don't like freedom for this reason, hence something like communism.  A communist country can't allow people to be able to freely leave their country because people with the talent to make money will leave.  And "free speech" is now dangerous to the left, it makes it free for people to hurt other's feelings and spread ideas they don't like, especially those that will harm the oppressed (anti-trans, racist speech etc).  "Free speech" used to be dangerous to the right 30 years ago because it offended their Christian morals (Twisted Sister, Mortal Kombat, Marilyn Manson).

The problem with the right is that their freedom can go so far as to also create hierarchies which are cruel & tyrannical.  I'm not saying the right is any better or worse than the left, just better and worse in different ways.  Living under an oppressive communist state or in a libertarian dog-eat-dog rightwing state are both bad.  Both result in tyrannical hierarchies.  The irony is that the left can't create the equality that they want without tyranny, because when people are left to their own devices hierarchies naturally develop.  A libertarian state of freedom with no rules is the state of nature, and nobody wants to go back to dog-eat-dog.  Nature is brutal and cruel (Hobbes).  So the answer is something centrist between these 2 extremes:  capitalism (freedom, hierarchy) with some social programs & redistribution & regulation (government control, equality).  So yes, an economic meritocracy with a helping hand at the bottom paid for by the top.

2.  Yes it's odd.  Because the only way you can have equality of outcome is through tyranny.  Equality of opportunity is more desirable IMO.

3.  Monarchies were established through competition.  Different factions fought for power (Game of Thrones style).  The person that won the competition became "king" and solidified their rule.  But they inevitably become tyrannical, so they are overthrown.

4.  Well I didn't say they are the same, just related.  You generally can't have competition without hierarchies.

7.  It's self-regulating.  The left won't let the right go too far, and vice versa.

8.  Ying and yang.  Both needed to reach balance, unfortunately.  Male & female, night & day, Justin & Pierre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Right wants control, but not to create a utopia. 

2.  "Free speech" used to be dangerous to the right 30 years ago because it offended their Christian morals (Twisted Sister, Mortal Kombat, Marilyn Manson).

3.  So the answer is something centrist between these 2 extremes:  capitalism (freedom, hierarchy) with some social programs & redistribution & regulation (government control, equality).  So yes, an economic meritocracy with a helping hand at the bottom paid for by the top.

4.  Monarchies were established through competition.  Different factions fought for power (Game of Thrones style).  The person that won the competition became "king" and solidified their rule.  But they inevitably become tyrannical, so they are overthrown.

 

1. Ok, my bad.  I missed the 'utopia' part of your earlier statement.  While we can debate with facts whether "right?left" want "control" it's harder to examine a subjective word like 'utopia'.  If you use subjective words then it's like saying "the difference between right and left is one is good and one is bad".  And that's fine, as an opinion, but I can't engage with that statement other than to say "I agree" or "I disagree".  There's no discussion to be had.

I would say that 'utopia' is a subjective word because a leftist would likely say, as a rightist would, that they are just working towards a better world.

2. Well there are more recent examples than that of "right" trying to shut down points of view but ok.

3. Yes, of course.  The bigger question is why can't we agree on that balance ?  

4. Monarchies evolved from feudal states, which I agree were initially more meritocracy based.  But it wasn't long before hereditary and 'divine right of kings' forces created the tyrannies that weren't overthrown until France's Louis.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/marie-claude-nichols-expelled-from-que-liberal-caucus-will-sit-as-independent-1.6127743

Marie-Claude Nichols expelled from Que. Liberal caucus, will sit as independent

The Quebec Liberal Party may be in the midst of self-destruction here. One can only imagine the toxicity inside a party where MLAs are expulsed from or leave the party before the legislature even re-convenes after an election. August1991, you stated the Liberals are now the "Anglo party" and of course that is true, but unfortunately for the Anglade Liberals that is only true because their support comes solely from the most Anglo ridings of Quebec. The Anglade Liberals cannot expand their base beyond this by being the "Anglo party" because they have already won all the Anglo ridings. Anglade is not Anglo and does not market herself as an Anglo rights activist whatsoever. The MPs elected are also largely non-Anglo and largely not necessarily Anglo-rights. Anglo voters need only the chance to jump ship to another party that has a chance at some power and they will change their votes in droves. Remember the Equality Party? 

-------

In the recent Quebec election apparently the Québecois decided en masse they simply wanted a French-language nationalist who has demonstrated himself as largely non-ideological, capable of shifting policy with the wind, and has come off looking good from the pandemic, only comparatively (against Covid-disaster associated politicians).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Dominique Anglade has resigned her seat, and there will be a bi-election called this winter or spring by Premier Francois Legault in her Montreal riding.

If the Quebec Liberals do not show strong leadership, this could be a gain for QS, or even Legault's CAQ. Bi-election turnout is normally abysmal, so this will be a test of loyalty for all parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...