Some Liberal MPs are mounting a new effort to oust Justin Trudeau

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Well, nobody is going to deny that was part of it.  Lots of feminist ideas were picked up by the mainstream, including presumably you, and lots weren't.

2.  What good points ?  You seem to be attributing some other ills to feminism.

3.  I don't know if I agree with your point.   Agrarian societies like to have kids because they can help  But lots of poor countries like aforementioned Bangladesh have plunging birth rates.  And having kids is expensive and stressful too because with an uncertain economy, you don't want to be responsible for more than you can handle.  My theory anyway.

4. You are actually describing a global problem - declining birthrates are everywhere not just in the west.

5.  A death cult because we have come to believe that the 'growth economy' is mandatory.   So maybe that has to go if we don't want immigration and we don't want to force births on people ?  Listen, declining population growth is a global proble as I said.  I have followed stories in The Economist on S. Korea and China trying to fix it via policy.  Good luck with that.

1.  Do you agree or disagree that declining birth rates are an existential threat to western civilization?  And sure in other countries too who believe as we do.  If you disagree, explain.  Because the trends are clear.  Unless birthrates reverse western civilization will cease to exist.  We're importing people from other civilizations and cultures to replace us.  We're on the path towards literal extinction and I see no reason why the trends would reverse.  In fact they're getting worse.  I don't hate immigrants, I have many immigrant friends, this is not their fault, this is a self-made problem.  Lowering immigration won't fix declining birth rates.  If immigration was lowered to zero the population of Canada would become zero after several generations unless trends reversed.  Do you deny this fact?

2.  Christian bible-thumpers warned us of the dangers of divorce rates, the dangers of birth control.  They told us birth control was immoral and unnatural.  There's certain cases where divorce and birth control is appropriate obviously, but they were right.  We went too far, we didn't listen.  We wanted our sex and our freedom and look at society now.  Broken families and lonely people.  If you don't have children who is going to look after you when you're old?  The state?  The state doesn't love you.  Some PSW's might care, but they don't love you.  And they won't look after your finances.  You go to a poor country and the elderly live with their children, everyone looks after each other.  They don't send kids to daycare, they stay home and raise them, the elderly live with them and help look after the kids.  We live in a sick, selfish society.  We send our parents to retirement homes and our children to daycare and go to work so we can make more money and go on our vacations and "live out our career dreams".  Our selfishness has eroded the family unit.  Capitalism existed before the 1960's.  Feminism caused this.  The sexual revolution caused this.  Progressives caused this.  The Christian conservative bible-thumpers were right.  Or at least more right than the swinging 60's and 70's progressives like yourself.  We've been sold a poorly thought-out ideology focused on short-term selfishness and completely oblivious to the longterm consequences and how it would affect our children, our parents, and our society.

3.  Do you think having kids was any more stressful or expensive during the 1930's.  It's nonsense.  It's an excuse.  People did what they can and got buy.  Now people would rather drive a new car than pay for a child?  It's called love.  it's priceless, and we're deficient in it.  There's like 8 total people at my largest family get-togethers.  It's depressing.

4.  If every country in the world followed our lead on birth rates the human race would go extinct eventually.  You realize this right?  Suicidal death cult.  Free abortions for Africa.

5.  You can't fix it with policy.  It wasn't caused by policy (well, in China it was).  You can't force people to have children, that's immoral and something akin to The Handmaid's Tale.  This is an ideology.  A way of thinking.  This is a choice individuals and families make by free will.  They have been sold these ideas by feminists.  They've been told that having a career is as or more important than raising a family.  It isn't.  NOTHING is more important than family.  You're right that capitalism plays a role here, but it still comes down to choice.

It now takes 2 incomes to own a house and raise a family when it used to take 1 income.  Did anyone think about this 40-50 years ago when we were telling women they should enter the workforce and stop staying at home to raise a family?  Progressives can be quite foolish, because social change has consequences.  You need to look before you leap or you could dive into some rocks.

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. Maybe it was bad policy ?  I brought up NAFTA policy to show that we indeed open the door to Mexicans sometimes, and sometimes not.  As we did with Harper.  Harper saw some conditions and changed policy, ok got it.  But it doesn't mean that it's not worth changing back if there's a reason.  If I missed some details on the Trudeau rationale for changing it I apologize.  If Trudeau didn't provide rationale then he should have.

3. Moving the bar.  So a little woke is ok sometimes ?  Confusing...
 

I'm trying to save our country from those that wish to harm us.  Bad actors both foreign and domestic.  This includes some of our politicians.  I'm trying to save our society, our culture, our civilization from the threats that endanger it.  This includes some of our politicians, whether they even realize it or not.  Why are you getting in my way?  Forget all the bullsh!t you've been brainwashed with for your entire life and grab a keyboard and join the fight my brother.  If you don't want to fine, then just move out of my way and make way for someone who will.  You're definitely not going to stop me from trying.  You're a submissive person.  You do not rebel.  You don't like upsetting anyone, and everyone likes you.  You've drank the progressive and woke kool-aid.  I don't care if that hurts your feelings.  I'm not submissive.  I fight.  And i'm ready to offend a lot of people if that means they're told the truth.  Our society depends on it.

[PIK]

Most agree with immigration.Vetting is where money needs to be spent. But family unification needs to end. Can't be bringing in elderly to clog up the heath system. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  Do you agree or disagree that declining birth rates are an existential threat to western civilization?  And sure in other countries too who believe as we do.  If you disagree, explain. 

2.  We live in a sick, selfish society.  We send our parents to retirement homes and our children to daycare and go to work so we can make more money and go on our vacations and "live out our career dreams".  Our selfishness has eroded the family unit.  Capitalism existed before the 1960's.  Feminism caused this.  The sexual revolution caused this.  Progressives caused this.  The Christian conservative bible-thumpers were right.  Or at least more right than the swinging 60's and 70's progressives like yourself.  We've been sold a poorly thought-out ideology focused on short-term selfishness and completely oblivious to the longterm consequences and how it would affect our children, our parents, and our society.

3.  Do you think having kids was any more stressful or expensive during the 1930's.  It's nonsense.  It's an excuse.  People did what they can and got buy.  Now people would rather drive a new car than pay for a child?  It's called love.  it's priceless, and we're deficient in it.  There's like 8 total people at my largest family get-togethers.  It's depressing.

4.  You can't fix it with policy.  It wasn't caused by policy (well, in China it was).  You can't force people to have children, that's immoral and something akin to The Handmaid's Tale.  This is an ideology.  A way of thinking.  This is a choice individuals and families make by free will. 

5. You're right that capitalism plays a role here, but it still comes down to choice.

6. It now takes 2 incomes to own a house and raise a family when it used to take 1 income.  Did anyone think about this 40-50 years ago when we were telling women they should enter the workforce and stop staying at home to raise a family? 

7. Progressives can be quite foolish, because social change has consequences.  You need to look before you leap or you could dive into some rocks.

8. They have been sold these ideas by feminists.  They've been told that having a career is as or more important than raising a family.  It isn't.  NOTHING is more important than family. 

 

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I'm trying to save our country from those that wish to harm us.  Bad actors both foreign and domestic.  This includes some of our politicians.  I'm trying to save our society, our culture, our civilization from the threats that endanger it.  This includes some of our politicians, whether they even realize it or not.  Why are you getting in my way?  Forget all the bullsh!t you've been brainwashed with for your entire life and grab a keyboard and join the fight my brother.  If you don't want to fine, then just move out of my way and make way for someone who will.  You're definitely not going to stop me from trying.  You're a submissive person.  You do not rebel.  You don't like upsetting anyone, and everyone likes you.  You've drank the progressive and woke kool-aid.  I don't care if that hurts your feelings.  I'm not submissive.  I fight.  And i'm ready to offend a lot of people if that means they're told the truth.  Our society depends on it.

1. It's a threat to all countries, so global civilization I suppose.  No civilization is going to conquer us because of low birthrates.  It's happening everywhere, not jus tthe west.
2. 3. Selfishness is one angle.  But it's a lot more complicated than you let on.  I would have had more kids if we could afford it and we're not spending money on vacations and toys.  My whole neighbourhood is full of people making 100-200-300 K just scraping by.  So the economy is part of it.  Life was brutally hard in the 1930s.  Why not compare to the 1960s ?  It was a lot easier then, with families IMO.  I was alive then so I have some impressions.
4.  They do try to incentivise it.
5. Yes, but who would choose to have a much harder life ?  It simply wasn't this way in the past.
6. The difficulty in making a living has zero to do with feminism IMO but has a lot to do with why people aren't having children.
7. No one can see the future.  Saying progressives are foolish because they fought for women's rights 60 years ago and now families have to have 2 workers to get by... it kind of bonkers.
8.The answer is in the US constitution - which is the blueprint for our western blueprint for society... our DNA... it's "the pursuit of happiness" NOT "the pursuit of doing what is righteous and wholesome"

----------------------------------------

So, society has a deep "malaise" to quote Jimmy Carter.  Why then ?  It's lots of ideologies that thrived in our framework: individualism, consumerism, selfishness, liberation ideology for groups ... all of it.  And all political stripes are to blame.  How to fix it ?  

 

Well...

How have we fixed major problems in the past ?  We had leaders - not just political ones - who led dialogue and soul searching and we had social mores values.  We still have those but they're not as common to all as they used to be.  We have parallel cultural lives that live in the same cities and streets.  

It's not sustainable.  Eventually there will be Balkanization and then separation.

If you want to lead a revolution, be a Jordan Peterson... but a smart one, and one for all political stripes.

Edited October 28, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[NAME REMOVED]

On 10/13/2024 at 4:17 PM, Old Guy said:

It doesn't mater this year or next the Liberals are going to go down in flames. The only thing to be determined is which party will sit in opposition, the NDP or the Bloc.  Funny if it turns out to be the Bloc - imagine an opposition party that will have run candidates in only one province.

It's already happened. The Bloc were the official opposition from 1993-97.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's a threat to all countries, so global civilization I suppose.  No civilization is going to conquer us because of low birthrates.  It's happening everywhere, not jus tthe west.
2. 3. Selfishness is one angle.  But it's a lot more complicated than you let on.  I would have had more kids if we could afford it and we're not spending money on vacations and toys.  My whole neighbourhood is full of people making 100-200-300 K just scraping by.  So the economy is part of it.  Life was brutally hard in the 1930s.  Why not compare to the 1960s ?  It was a lot easier then, with families IMO.  I was alive then so I have some impressions.
4.  They do try to incentivise it.
5. Yes, but who would choose to have a much harder life ?  It simply wasn't this way in the past.
6. The difficulty in making a living has zero to do with feminism IMO but has a lot to do with why people aren't having children.
7. No one can see the future.  Saying progressives are foolish because they fought for women's rights 60 years ago and now families have to have 2 workers to get by... it kind of bonkers.
8.The answer is in the US constitution - which is the blueprint for our western blueprint for society... our DNA... it's "the pursuit of happiness" NOT "the pursuit of doing what is righteous and wholesome"

----------------------------------------

9.  So, society has a deep "malaise" to quote Jimmy Carter.  Why then ?  It's lots of ideologies that thrived in our framework: individualism, consumerism, selfishness, liberation ideology for groups ... all of it.  And all political stripes are to blame.  How to fix it ?  

 

Well...

10.  How have we fixed major problems in the past ?  We had leaders - not just political ones - who led dialogue and soul searching and we had social mores values.  We still have those but they're not as common to all as they used to be.  We have parallel cultural lives that live in the same cities and streets.  

It's not sustainable.  Eventually there will be Balkanization and then separation.

If you want to lead a revolution, be a Jordan Peterson... but a smart one, and one for all political stripes.

1.  Roughly half of all countries have birth rates above replacement levels.  We're the global leaders and thought leaders of this problem.  If the problem isn't solved the human race will go extinct.

2.  You work for a bank and I think your wife is a teacher.  You could make sacrifices necessary if you wanted to have more kids.  Move cities, live in a cheaper area and have a longer commute, buy a used car, buy used everything.  People used to do this.  Economics is an excuse.  People in sub-saharan Africa are poor, but their societies will outlive ours a the current rate.  Darwinism:  adapt or die.  People want to have 1 or 2 kids max, or none at all.  That makes sense.  But having 2 kids isn't enough to sustain any society or species on the planet now or through history.  We need to have these conversations.  Adapt or die.

4.  Sure, but don't and shouldn't force anyone.

5.  Cops and soldiers choose hard lives out of a sense of duty to their societies.  Nobody thinks like this now.  No sense of honour and duty.  Military recruitment in Canada is at crisis low levels.  "What's in it for me?".  Softy parents have raised spoiled and entitled adults.  It's also another consequence of low birth rates.

6.  Bullsh!t.  People want to maintain a certain standard of living and aren't willing to make the sacrifices.

7.  Bonkers is fighting for massive unprecedented changes in society and not bothering to think of the consequences of those changes.  We've done this with a lot of technology.  You can't un-invent social media, but people can stop using it so much.

8.  Yes its all Thomas Jefferson's fault even though the trends only started in the 1960's.

9.  You're right, there's lots of blame to go around.  And solutions are better than blame.  The first step is reject bad ideas.

10.  Our moral leadership used to come from the church.  Then the 1960's came and we all wanted to have sex before marriage, birth control, abortions, divorces, so we rejected the morals of the church and forged our own path into the great unknown, rejecting thousands of years of morals that weren't perfect but worked well enough to help us become the most successful societies in the world.  Oops.

Christianity has been replaced by progressivism.  Be kind to everyone, help the weak and the poor, non-violence, social justice etc.  But now with more premarital sex and abortions!  If we rejected the "bad ideas" contained in Christianity we can reject the bad ideas contained in progressive ideology (including woke nonsense hehe).  Join the choir.  I'm the new Martin Luther, a pariah who will be scorned by the dogmatic progressive/feminist zealots, the pro-choicers etc, and will get fired from my job for speaking publicly about this or that.  Nailed to a cross.  I don't want to ban abortion.  I want people to stop choosing abortions and take responsibility for their actions.  Women have done well the last 60 years.  Has anyone bothered to ask how the children have been doing?

I'm also not saying reject all progressive ideas and values, just the specific ideas i've laid out that are harmful.  We did the same with Christianity.  I don't want to roll back civil rights for ethnic minorities or stop giving the poor free dental care.  Live with compassion, with both rights and responsibilities, with a sense of duty and honour (including among our politicians), and prioritizing love and family over material comforts.

[Old Guy]

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

The Bloc were the official opposition from 1993-97

Right you are. 

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

It's already happened. The Bloc were the official opposition from 1993-97.

In 1993 - 97 the Bloc wasn't the opposition against a party filled with people who'd be thrilled to see Quebec leave.

[NAME REMOVED]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

In 1993 - 97 the Bloc wasn't the opposition against a party filled with people who'd be thrilled to see Quebec leave.

No idea what you are talking about. Elaborate please.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  Roughly half of all countries have birth rates above replacement levels.  We're the global leaders and thought leaders of this problem.  If the problem isn't solved the human race will go extinct.

2.  You work for a bank and I think your wife is a teacher.  You could make sacrifices necessary if you wanted to have more kids.  Move cities, live in a cheaper area and have a longer commute, buy a used car, buy used everything.  People used to do this.  Economics is an excuse. 

3. People in sub-saharan Africa are poor, but their societies will outlive ours a the current rate.  Darwinism:  adapt or die. 

4. People want to have 1 or 2 kids max, or none at all.  That makes sense.  But having 2 kids isn't enough to sustain any society or species on the planet now or through history.  We need to have these conversations.  Adapt or die.

5.  Cops and soldiers choose hard lives out of a sense of duty to their societies.  Nobody thinks like this now.  No sense of honour and duty.  Military recruitment in Canada is at crisis low levels.  "What's in it for me?".  Softy parents have raised spoiled and entitled adults.  It's also another consequence of low birth rates.

6.  Bullsh!t.  People want to maintain a certain standard of living and aren't willing to make the sacrifices.

7.  Bonkers is fighting for massive unprecedented changes in society and not bothering to think of the consequences of those changes.  We've done this with a lot of technology.  You can't un-invent social media, but people can stop using it so much.

8.  Yes its all Thomas Jefferson's fault even though the trends only started in the 1960's. 

9.  Our moral leadership used to come from the church.  Then the 1960's came and we all wanted to have sex before marriage, birth control, abortions, divorces, so we rejected the morals of the church and forged our own path into the great unknown, rejecting thousands of years of morals that weren't perfect but worked well enough to help us become the most successful societies in the world.  Oops.

10. Christianity has been replaced by progressivism.  Be kind to everyone, help the weak and the poor, non-violence, social justice etc.  But now with more premarital sex and abortions! 

11.  If we rejected the "bad ideas" contained in Christianity we can reject the bad ideas contained in progressive ideology (including woke nonsense hehe).  Join the choir.  I'm the new Martin Luther, a pariah who will be scorned by the dogmatic progressive/feminist zealots, the pro-choicers etc, and will get fired from my job for speaking publicly about this or that.  Nailed to a cross.  I don't want to ban abortion.  I want people to stop choosing abortions and take responsibility for their actions.  Women have done well the last 60 years.  Has anyone bothered to ask how the children have been doing?

I'm also not saying reject all progressive ideas and values, just the specific ideas i've laid out that are harmful.  We did the same with Christianity.  I don't want to roll back civil rights for ethnic minorities or stop giving the poor free dental care.  Live with compassion, with both rights and responsibilities, with a sense of duty and honour (including among our politicians), and prioritizing love and family over material comforts.

1. True but they're all declining, which is why world population will start to decline in 40 years.  I have been talking about this for years and people have been ignoring or disputing it.   I don't think that the human race will go extinct, but human history and our trajectory will change in ways we can't yet understand.  So - threat to humanity maybe but not to the west.

2. I work in "corporate".  While there are SOME options for corporate away from high prices they are far away from all of our friends and family.  Those factors, as well as economic, drive where people live.  I would have to live in the north and work for a government outfit.  Could I do it ?  I suppose.  But it's not our choice, as you say.  Economics includes something called BEHAVIOURAL economics, which is at play here.  More on this later i the post.

3. And the sub-saharans are better at dying, if you go by... life expectancy, infant mortality and so on.  They're poor and their economies are un-developed.  Their fertility patterns are simply another example of regressive cultural and economic practices of the regions.

4. I like that you are saying "we".  "We" need to have conversations.  This reveals a concern for the collective.  Not that I think you don't have this innately.  But the "we" type conversations have been rejected by a lot of people in a culture that elevates "individualism".

5. With behavioural economics, you have to use carrot AND stick.  The people I know in public professions - teachers, cops, military, medical - have followed in the footsteps of their families.  If you want to think that cops and soldiers are just better than the rest of us, fine.  But when you are talking about policy you have to think about carrot and sticks.  And for the record, having a gold plated pension, six figures not including overtime, and minimal schooling to get there is pretty sweet.  The soldiers I know don't have it quite that nice, but lots of other perks.  I don't have anything against these folks but in practical terms, it's carrots and sticks. 

6.  People don't want to make sacrifices, it's true.  But having children is an expensive nightmare... buying a house vs a 1-bedroom apartment ?  Daycare ?  Finding a doctor ?  Please.

7.  Yes, we make huge decisions constantly - you've hit the mark with this.  Technology is the biggest example but there are lots of other examples.  On the flip side, huge problems are reported for decades and are left unsolved.  Climate change, doctor shortages... 

8. Ok, how about Nietzsche ?  Mr. "God is dead" ?  Rock n Roll ?  People were complaining about "kids these days" in the 1950s for sure... and you can track it back through history to forever ago.  I maintain that "happiness" above responsibility is the driving force behind our western philosophy.  You seem to agree here.

9. So... HOW do we forget a new morality ?   WHAT will it be ?  WHO will lead the conversation ?   These are questions to ponder.

10. Sure but... Christianity also accepted the sinner and eschewed judgement.  But ok.

11. OK... you're veering in Rant territory.   You are looking for the emergence of a moral centre once again.  You notice that from time to time I express past hopes for Jordan Peterson to be this kind of figure.  His failings were his ego and his inability to be universal in his morality.  In short -> all types suffer from this ailment. 

You have to fix it, either the people, the environment - including the public sphere, or fix reality.  Of the 3, I think maybe the public sphere is the most realistically open to repair  

Good convo, long posts, I don't have as much time to edit so please forgive errors.

"To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" amiright ?

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

No idea what you are talking about. Elaborate please.

I can't make it any clearer than that. For years huge numbers of Conservative supporters have made it clear they could care less if Quebec separated - many would even happily hold the door for and slam it shut behind them.

We'll have two opposing forces in Parliament that will be less constrained from expressing and playing up to their baser feelings 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I can't make it any clearer than that. For years huge numbers of Conservative supporters have made it clear they could care less if Quebec separated - many would even happily hold the door for and slam it shut behind them.

We'll have two opposing forces in Parliament that will be less constrained from expressing and playing up to their baser feelings 

To a point. Actually this has happened before and conservatives and the block tend to get along fairly well.

It's quite true that most conservatives would rather see Quebec leave than pander to them. And they know that. So they're a lot less quick to threaten.

The reason they keep bringing up the specter of separation with the liberals is because they know that the liberals will cave and give them things if they threaten. But they don't really want to go. If they wanted to go they'd be gone.

With the conservatives they know the conservatives will as you say hold the door open and kick their asses out if they ask for too much. So it tends to be more of a negotiation and quite frankly the views are not terribly opposed

Conservatives tend to be in favor of giving more powers to the provinces and focusing on core federal responsibilities. Quebec wants more power for the province. These two views are completely compatible. There will be areas of incompatibility of course but not to such a degree that the conflict becomes unmanageable.

Are conservative majority with a bloc Opposition probably actually works fairly well

[NAME REMOVED]

46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I can't make it any clearer than that. For years huge numbers of Conservative supporters have made it clear they could care less if Quebec separated - many would even happily hold the door for and slam it shut behind them.

The position of the Conservative Party says nothing about "wanting or encouraging Quebec to leave Canada." There may have been rogue MP's that have stated that in the past, but to my knowledge, there is no major political party in Canada that would like to see Quebec leave the Confederation.

It's like WEXIT. In 2019 immediately after the election, people on social media were talking about WEXIT or  Alberta separating from Canada.  However, that would never happen, as the vast majority of Albertans have no desire to separate. 

 

Edited October 28, 2024 by DUI_Offender

[NAME REMOVED]

48 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

It's quite true that most conservatives would rather see Quebec leave than pander to them. And they know that. So they're a lot less quick to threaten.

This is completely false. Most Conservative do not want Quebec to leave Confederation.  

48 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The reason they keep bringing up the specter of separation with the liberals is because they know that the liberals will cave and give them things if they threaten. But they don't really want to go. If they wanted to go they'd be gone.

This is untrue as well. I was alive during the Mulroney years, and Quebec was far more vocal in regards to separation in the 80s/early 90s than anytime in the last 20 years. Support for separation in Quebec is at an all time low. 

48 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

With the conservatives they know the conservatives will as you say hold the door open and kick their asses out if they ask for too much. So it tends to be more of a negotiation and quite frankly the views are not terribly opposed

This is strange, considering that during the Harper years 2006-15, at no time was there threats about separation, or the Conservative Party tell Quebec to "leave Canada" if they were unhappy. In fact, it was the PC Party from 1984-93, who were, by far, the greatest appeasers of Quebec, and ultimately, led to the creation of the Reform Party in 1987. 

If anything, it was the United States extremely negative opinion of Quebec Separatists, that may have influenced Quebec to rethink their position. I know that in the aftermath of the Quebec Soverignty Referendum in 1995, the movement was mocked in America by numerous people, and the province probably lost business dealing with American companies, since they were uneasy about an independant Quebec, without Canada.

The main reason Quebec was bypassed for an NHL team, in spite of building a new 18,000 seat arena, was because the league was not receptive of the owner of Quebecor's political views (he was a separatist). It's far more likely Quebec has come to the realisation that they may be punished by the US, if they ever broke off from Canada. America would definitely side with Canada in any trade disputes. 

Edited October 28, 2024 by DUI_Offender

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

This is completely false. Most Conservative do not want Quebec to leave Confederation.  

Let me be more clear. The vast majority of conservatives are happy to have Quebec stay in Canada if that's what they want. But the vast majority would also be the first to kick to back out the door rather than pander to its constant demands for special treatment and it's constant threats of a referendums to separate. I absolutely guarantee you if Quebec had another referendum to separate and the west was given a choice they would happily kick them to the curb for bringing it up again.

Conservatives would happily and gleefully show Quebec the door rather than pander to them any further. And that is 100% true

18 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

This is untrue as well. I was alive during the Mulroney years, and Quebec was far more vocal in regards to separation in the 80s/early 90s than anytime in the last 20 years.

And Mulroney got absolutely kicked to the curb. Where is that PC party now?

Sorry but it is absolutely 100% true

19 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

This is strange, considering that during the Harper years 2006-15, at no time was there threats about separation, or the Conservative Party tell Quebec to "leave Canada" if they were unhappy.

Nope. Your entirely wrong. The parti quebecquois was badly beaten up, quebec seperatism sentiment reached an all time low.  Under harper the issue all but disappeared. Nobody threatened to have a referendum that's for sure.

Now that's exactly what's happening and Quebec separatist sentiment is strongly on the rise

The other thing that went down under harper was western separation anxieties. Both BC and Alberta were polling extremely close to the amount necessary to vote to separate and that completely went into the toilet once harper got in

Your revisionist history is just plain silly.

[NAME REMOVED]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

Nope. Your entirely wrong. The parti quebecquois was badly beaten up, quebec seperatism sentiment reached an all time low.  Under harper the issue all but disappeared. Nobody threatened to have a referendum that's for sure.

This had absolutely nothing to do with Harper. The last time I heard Quebec make noise about separating, was in the late 90s. 

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Now that's exactly what's happening and Quebec separatist sentiment is strongly on the rise

Source?

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The other thing that went down under harper was western separation anxieties. Both BC and Alberta were polling extremely close to the amount necessary to vote to separate and that completely went into the toilet once harper got in

Polling at 40%, is much different than actually going through with Seperation.  Look at how that played out, once there was a legitimate political movement to seperate (WEXIT). Nobody took them seriously.

[NAME REMOVED]

Is Quebec independence on the march?

Does the growing support for the PQ signal a resurgence of support for sovereignty in the province?

In a word: no.

The proportion of francophone Quebecers who identify as “mainly a sovereigntist” has changed little over the six years covered by the annual Confederation of Tomorrow survey.

In 2024, only 23 per cent of respondents described themselves as mainly a sovereigntist – which is more than those who said they were mainly a federalist (18 per cent), but not much different from previous years. A slightly greater share (29 per cent) placed themselves in between the two options, while another 23 per cent said they were neither one nor the other.

The same pattern held when Quebecers were asked if they agreed that Quebec sovereignty is an idea whose time has passed. In 2024, 51 per cent of Quebec francophones agreed, which is unchanged not only compared to when this current series of surveys began in 2019 but also to when the question was asked more than 20 years ago.

To the extent that there has been some change, it is that the proportion disagreeing has dropped off somewhat, while the share that is unsure has increased.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

Most Conservative do not want Quebec to leave Confederation.  

And they represent plenty of conservatives who do and more who could care less if they did.

This will lend itself to an edgier divisiveness in Canada that didn't exist the last time the Bloc was in opposition.

It's the sort of thing that could divide the right wing if to many people started looking at Poilievre as being soft on Quebec.

You know how some conservatives can be - the right wing is a direction towards a destination that's always just up ahead somewhere.

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

This had absolutely nothing to do with Harper. The last time I heard Quebec make noise about separating, was in the late 90s. 

it had everything to do with harper. 

Quote

Source?

Here we go again? Making sense of the PQ’s rise in the polls

Quebec separation re-enters political debate thanks to TikTok-friendly leader | Canada | The Guardian

338Canada: Why Quebec sovereigntists are looking up - POLITICO

There's a bunch more if you're going to continue to pretend ignorance

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

Polling at 40%, is much different than actually going through with Seperation

What a stupid thing to say. How is that remotely relevant?

People in British Columbia and Alberta were pulling with a great deal of dissatisfaction in the government and very close to the amount necessary to separate. Under harper that all but vanished. In other words people were considerably happier with confederation under the conservatives then under the liberals and certainly that problem is becoming serious again

 

Conservatives believe that provinces should have power and that appeals to quebec as well as British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan.

It will be fairly easy for a conservative government to work relatively well with quebec in opposition. There will still be lots of fights but they will be manageable and probably more productive than it would be with a liberal or NDP opposition who sole purpose in life is to whine and cry

[NAME REMOVED]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

it had everything to do with harper. 

Here we go again? Making sense of the PQ’s rise in the polls

You should READ the article, rather than just post, considering I had made a post about this link. It clearly states that Quebec separatism is very unpopular in Quebec.  This should be a lesson for everyone. Read the links that you post, so you will not look like a fool. 

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

People in British Columbia and Alberta were pulling with a great deal of dissatisfaction in the government and very close to the amount necessary to separate. Under harper that all but vanished. In other words people were considerably happier with confederation under the conservatives then under the liberals and certainly that problem is becoming serious again

There was never a credible movement for BC or Alberta to separate from Canada. You are making things up. Even in 2005, when it achieved its highest percentage, I was in Alberta, and absolutely nobody talked about separating. When there finally was a WEXIT seperatist group, they were not taken seriously. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, DUI_Offender said:

You should READ the article, rather than just post, considering I had made a post about this link. It clearly states that Quebec separatism is very unpopular in Quebec. 

But on the rise. That was the point.

You're not drinking again today are you?

[NAME REMOVED]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But on the rise. That was the point.

You're not drinking again today are you?

From your link:  It has become so easy to disprove your lies, that I rarely put effort into it.

 

Is Quebec independence on the march?

Does the growing support for the PQ signal a resurgence of support for sovereignty in the province?

In a word: no.

The proportion of francophone Quebecers who identify as “mainly a sovereigntist” has changed little over the six years covered by the annual Confederation of Tomorrow survey.

In 2024, only 23 per cent of respondents described themselves as mainly a sovereigntist – which is more than those who said they were mainly a federalist (18 per cent), but not much different from previous years. A slightly greater share (29 per cent) placed themselves in between the two options, while another 23 per cent said they were neither one nor the other.

The same pattern held when Quebecers were asked if they agreed that Quebec sovereignty is an idea whose time has passed. In 2024, 51 per cent of Quebec francophones agreed, which is unchanged not only compared to when this current series of surveys began in 2019 but also to when the question was asked more than 20 years ago.

To the extent that there has been some change, it is that the proportion disagreeing has dropped off somewhat, while the share that is unsure has increased.

•  

 

• 
   

Edited October 28, 2024 by DUI_Offender

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, DUI_Offender said:

From your link:

 

Is Quebec independence on the march?

Does the growing support for the PQ signal a resurgence of support for sovereignty in the province?

In a word: no.

The proportion of francophone Quebecers who identify as “mainly a sovereigntist” has changed little over the six years covered by the annual Confederation of Tomorrow survey.

In 2024, only 23 per cent of respondents described themselves as mainly a sovereigntist – which is more than those who said they were mainly a federalist (18 per cent), but not much different from previous years. A slightly greater share (29 per cent) placed themselves in between the two options, while another 23 per cent said they were neither one nor the other.

The same pattern held when Quebecers were asked if they agreed that Quebec sovereignty is an idea whose time has passed. In 2024, 51 per cent of Quebec francophones agreed, which is unchanged not only compared to when this current series of surveys began in 2019 but also to when the question was asked more than 20 years ago.

To the extent that there has been some change, it is that the proportion disagreeing has dropped off somewhat, while the share that is unsure has increased.

•  

 

• 
   

The block is pitching sovereignty association not sovereignty. So asking if they're mainly a sovereign test isn't going to address the issue.

And the party quebecqois is out and out saying that they're going to be doing a referendum and they're gaining support. 

Quebec isolationist and separation in one form or another is on the rise. 

I noticed that you only looked at the one article dealing with the federal party and completely ignored the other two which focused on the inside of Quebec specifically  

Sorry kid swing in a miss. No more NyQuil for you

[NAME REMOVED]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

The block is pitching sovereignty association not sovereignty. So asking if they're mainly a sovereign test isn't going to address the issue.

This is a debate technique commonly known as "moving the goalposts," I have already schooled CdnFox, and he now insists he was referring to something completely different.

Edited October 28, 2024 by DUI_Offender

[CdnFox]

Just now, DUI_Offender said:

This is a debate technique commonly known as "moving the goalposts," 

No, this is the debate technique commonly known as "you're wrong and now you're bitter about it". 

I posted three articles showing that quebec independence movements and seperationist sentiment is on the rise. one of them only said that support for the national seperatist party doesnt' NECESSARILY mean they want to seperate more  but that does not negate the fact that people are supporting a quebec isolationist movement and it DOES NOT negate the other articles which you ignored because they proved you wrong. 

Sooorrreeeeeey kiddo.  That's what hapens when  you drink before you post