IF Mulcair's envelope situation makes him unmarketable, what has to be done..................

173 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Thank you Catchfire, sometimes your interventions are quite helpful. Wink

Seriously though, well said.

 

Catchfire wrote:

Can we ice the speculation, even im the service of an example, that Trudeau is a pedophile? Apart from being in general bad taste, it invites the worst sort of attention to this site. Thanks.

NorthReport

 What part of "I have expressed concern" do you not understand? 

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I am expressing serious concern - is that not allowed?

Well sure. But if you are going to talk as if some of us will be to blame because the next campaign is going to go sideways, it seems a bit disingenuous if you don't ante up with where you stand.

This dancing between hypotheticals and projecting blame on those of us who have taken a clear position is kind of annoying.

I think this is nonsense and that it will pass. I also think any opposition leader is going to face some sort of attack, and unless there is real substance to it it is a test of leadership and solidarity to challenge that and get onto the real issues - not just cave because we're still in shock over some other fucked up campaign. Remember the doom and gloom about the NDP losing all support in Quebec over Layton's decision to not whip the gun vote three years ago? How did that doomsday scenario pan out?

6079_Smith_W

Fine, express concern.

But how about backing off with the snarks at post #7, #18, and elsewhere.

Some of us think your concerns are an unfounded. That is also perfectly valid, and there is no reason to claim we are driving the party to electoral suicide by not sharing your concerns.

And as I said, leaping to replace a leader (if you won't say it, I will) is itself a risky decision.

 

NorthReport

Mulcair already stated he thought it was money so what is the point of this post, if not to just try and stir the pot?

autoworker wrote:
Geez, what might have been offered in that envelope: discount coupons for Carrefour Laval?

autoworker autoworker's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Mulcair already stated he thought it was money so what is the point of this post, if not to just try and stir the pot?

autoworker wrote:
Geez, what might have been offered in that envelope: discount coupons for Carrefour Laval?

Well, nobody has a perfect memory, but it apparently took him 17 years to be sure.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

autoworker wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

Mulcair already stated he thought it was money so what is the point of this post, if not to just try and stir the pot?

autoworker wrote:
Geez, what might have been offered in that envelope: discount coupons for Carrefour Laval?

Well, nobody has a perfect memory, but it apparently took him 17 years to be sure.

Think you're pretty clever don't you Autoworker?

Jacob Two-Two

I dunno. That was kinda funny. :)

I wouldn't get worked up. This will probably go right down the memory hole in short order. Not that it will never be brought up again, but the public will continue not to care, or pay attention. 

The rule with scandals is that your accusation has to be simpler than the defense. The one who ends up trying to explain too much is the one who gets tuned out. It takes a whole conversation to make clear exactly what Mulcair's supposed to have done wrong. If the NDP just finds a nice short script on this and sticks to it every time, people will forget about it.

socialdemocrati...

Wait, people actually care about this?

Brachina

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Wait, people actually care about this?

Even the msm has moved on, no body cares.

socialdemocrati...

I often hear babblers complain that the left has trouble building movements and connecting with actual voters on the issues that matter. They ought to look in the mirror. Only on rabble could a handfull of people focus on a local scandal about a local politician, and turn it into a question of whether the federal NDP leader (who was uninvolved in the scandal) is fit for office -- as if it wasn't mostly the same people who thought he was unfit from the beginning.

I mean, free speech and all, go ahead. But for the number of threads the moderators close around here, you'd wonder why we need ANOTHER Mulcair thread about a non-scandal.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I mean, free speech and all, go ahead. But for the number of threads the moderators close around here, you'd wonder why we need ANOTHER Mulcair thread about a non-scandal.

I too think this thread was over the top from the beginning. Much like ALL the fawning threads about the BC NDP started by the same person when it looked like they were cruising to a win.  Do you remember  the Christy is Toast thread and its multiple incarnations. Strange you never complained about them.

NorthReport

I see we have learned our lessons well from the BC election to not question anything. NOT!

 

http://therealstory.ca/2013-05-21/bc-liberals/what-is-to-be-done

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

La Presse broke the story. We know: who, what, where, and when. There remain some questions about 'why'. The Commissions' mandate has been extended. There is plenty of time for the curious.

Brachina

NorthReport wrote:

I see we have learned our lessons well from the BC election to not question anything. NOT!

 

http://therealstory.ca/2013-05-21/bc-liberals/what-is-to-be-done

 

Crap, I really like Brian Topp, but his post seemed to make the commenters even anger, which I don't think is fair after reading his clarifying comment. He said he took full responsiblity. And the attacks from people who supported his leadership campaign were the cruelist. At least Jan has compassion and a sense of Loyalty.

I do look forward to Brian Topp's side of things after Dix speaks on the matter. Which will hopefully be soon if he wants to stop the growing mutiny on his hands, I've never seen New Democracts this upset at one of thier own, this is worse then Dwain in Sask.

I do understand that the peolpe of BC are hurt and scared right now.

janfromthebruce

Or a bigger more transtential understanding of life and the thought that we are all interconnected and you are me and me are you. So I see it has self-hate.

Aristotleded24

So for all the questions about this, say this scandal were to rear its head during the next election. Would Mulcair be able to diffuse it by saying something like, "only the Conservatvies, with all their scandals, would have the audacity to smear a politician who refused a bribe as corrupt"?

autoworker autoworker's picture

He'd still have to deal with the fact that he didn't report the attempt to bribe him, for 17 years. He's playing in the big league now, and a large part of that is being held to the highest standard.

janfromthebruce

Wrong aw - only in your mind.

Brachina

 Probably.

autoworker autoworker's picture

We'll see.

nicky

There is no evidence it was a "bribe," except in the warped perception of Sun Media.

Tom was merely a candidate at the time, not an official who might be bought. Vaillancourt pushed an envelope across the table and said " I'd like to help you," apprently in his campaign. There was no quid pro quo mentioned.

Tom said something to the effect, "no thank you, my campaign is going just fine," and immediately left without touching or opening the envelope.

Why do some of you persist in calling this a bribe rather than an offer of a campaign contribution? How can it be a bribe if nothing is asked in return?

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

Why would he turn down a campaign contribution?

6079_Smith_W

FYI, here's the National Post calling out the Harperites on this.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/22/kelly-mcparland-when-tori...

CBC The Current reported this morning that when Van Loen started shilling this during a scrum and was asked about Harper's press conference, he turned tail and fled.

Feel free to continue knocking yourselves out on this, though. They need all the help they can get.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

FYI, here's the National Post calling out the Harperites on this.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/22/kelly-mcparland-when-tori...

CBC The Current reported this morning that when Van Loen started shilling this during a scrum and was asked about Harper's press conference, he turned tail and fled.

Feel free to continue knocking yourselves out on this, though. They need all the help they can get.

 

Well, I'd say you pretty much wrapped this up nicely. And in the National Post. Who woulda thunk it?

Brachina

6079_Smith_W wrote:

FYI, here's the National Post calling out the Harperites on this.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/22/kelly-mcparland-when-tori...

CBC The Current reported this morning that when Van Loen started shilling this during a scrum and was asked about Harper's press conference, he turned tail and fled.

Feel free to continue knocking yourselves out on this, though. They need all the help they can get.

 

LMFAO went to attack the NDP and had to tuck his tail between his legs and flee. The upside to this whole envelope story is the fact that Tories went after it and all it did is contrast Mulcair with Duffy/Nigel with the Tories looking stupid and more corrupt.

This week is going much, much, much better then the last one.

I will disagree with one thing Kelly said at the end and that nothing is stopping the NDP from going full bore at the Tories and in fact the NDP is. Its the NDP that called the RCMP in and its the NDP that calls for the Senate to be Abolished, its the NDP that asked the Ethics Commishioner to look into the scandal and its Mulcair who went on to Power and Politics to go on the Offensive. The Liberals have a Senator who is implicated as well in Scandal as well, plus Justin wants to keep the corrupt Senate around.

I also did finally see that interview Evan did of Mulcair and how Mulcair not only cleared the air, but used it as an opportunity to brag about how he stood up to the Mayor of Laval time and again, and he was able to do that because he owe the man NOTHING.

Side note thier was a weird distortion as I watched the interiew, the mouths and the words were out if synch, so it was like watching a badly dubbed Kung-Fu movie. Awesome.

Much better week for the NDP, not perfect, but an improvement.

Jacob Two-Two

The NDP line on this is fine. Far from doing damage, I think this will end up contrasting the parties in a positive light. "We don't take the envelope. They hand them out." is a great line, and will end up becoming the one impression the public takes away from all this. It's actually pretty funny. At a time when allegations of dirty money changing hands is dragging down the Conservative party, they try to attack someone else for NOT taking a bribe 17 years ago. They're calling attention to their own corruption.

Brachina

autoworker wrote:
Why would he turn down a campaign contribution?

Because the Mayor of Laval gave him the creeps. Anyway that just one of many hypotheticals I offered and even Mulcair doesn't know.

Jacob Two-Two

I think the envelope had a joint in it. "Campaign bumming you out, man? I'd like to help..."

onlinediscountanvils

edit: somehow missed that Smith had already posted the National Post piece

nicky

Why wd Tom turn down a campaign contribution?

Maybe because it's illegal in Quebec to accept cash for your campaign?

Maybe because he knew something of Vallaincourt"s repution and did not want to be beholden to him.

Does anyone have a link to the Evan Solomon interview with Tom?

Brachina
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

nicky wrote:

Maybe because it's illegal in Quebec to accept cash for your campaign?

Maybe because he knew something of Vallaincourt"s repution and did not want to be beholden to him.

Both of those sound plausible. I think the applicable ceiling on private donations was $3,000 but I'm not sure. The second reason must have played into Mulcair's reaction of walking away othewise he would have looked in the envelope. I think that most people in Quebec had a good idea that corruption was part of the norm. I think the fact that he refused it is a positive for Tom and the not saying anything just highlights his pragmatic nature when it comes to stirring up the status quo.

NorthReport

This smacks of smear and inuendo.

Report what?

 

autoworker wrote:
He'd still have to deal with the fact that he didn't report the attempt to bribe him, for 17 years. He's playing in the big league now, and a large part of that is being held to the highest standard.

NorthReport

Are you talking about Trudeau?

autoworker wrote:
Why would he turn down a campaign contribution?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

NorthReport wrote:

This smacks of smear and inuendo.

Report what?

 

autoworker wrote:
He'd still have to deal with the fact that he didn't report the attempt to bribe him, for 17 years. He's playing in the big league now, and a large part of that is being held to the highest standard.

Don't pay any attention to the postive campaign stuff coming out of the mouth of Le Dauphin; expect more of this kind of smear from the Libs. As Jolson used to say, "you ain't heard nothing yet".

They can't win on issues and substance, and heaven knows, they aren't about to run on their record.

Brachina

NorthReport wrote:

Are you talking about Trudeau?

autoworker wrote:
Why would he turn down a campaign contribution?

LMAO. We all know Trudeau doesn't turn money down.

autoworker autoworker's picture

nicky wrote:

Why wd Tom turn down a campaign contribution?

Maybe because it's illegal in Quebec to accept cash for your campaign?

Maybe because he knew something of Vallaincourt"s repution and did not want to be beholden to him.

Does anyone have a link to the Evan Solomon interview with Tom?

So, if, as you say, it's illegal to accept cash contributions, then why did he wait 17 years to report it as an attempted bribe? Also, if he "knew something" of Vallaincourt's reputation, how did he allow himself to be caught in a potentially compromising situation?

autoworker autoworker's picture

Brachina wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Are you talking about Trudeau?

autoworker wrote:
Why would he turn down a campaign contribution?

LMAO. We all know Trudeau doesn't turn money down.

I haven't heard of Justin being offered envelopes of cash.

Stockholm

autoworker wrote:
I haven't heard of Justin being offered envelopes of cash.

No he demands vast sums of money from struggling not for profit organizations while an MP - just so they can hear him mouth a few platitudes.

Brachina

Stockholm wrote:

autoworker wrote:
I haven't heard of Justin being offered envelopes of cash.

No he demands vast sums of money from struggling not for profit organizations while an MP - just so they can hear him mouth a few platitudes.

+1,000,000.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Brachina wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

autoworker wrote:
I haven't heard of Justin being offered envelopes of cash.

No he demands vast sums of money from struggling not for profit organizations while an MP - just so they can hear him mouth a few platitudes.

+1,000,000.

If they're struggling, then how do they manage the fee?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

autoworker wrote:
If they're struggling, then how do they manage the fee?

As I understand it, these were mostly fund raising events. So, some local non-profit would sell tickets to a speech by Justin, and he would demand that he be given a rake-off of $10K to $20K. Funds that would have gone to the non-profit if Justin were not so greedy.

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

autoworker wrote:
If they're struggling, then how do they manage the fee?

As I understand it, these were mostly fund raising events. So, some local non-profit would sell tickets to a speech by Justin, and he would demand that he be given a rake-off of $10K to $20K. Funds that would have gone to the non-profit if Justin were not so greedy.

 

So, the non-profit NGO still rakes in proceeds from his celebrity.

Jacob Two-Two

And Justin takes his cut. A true Liberal! No good deed goes without some pork attached.

Brachina

autoworker wrote:
Michael Moriarity wrote:

autoworker wrote:
If they're struggling, then how do they manage the fee?

As I understand it, these were mostly fund raising events. So, some local non-profit would sell tickets to a speech by Justin, and he would demand that he be given a rake-off of $10K to $20K. Funds that would have gone to the non-profit if Justin were not so greedy.

 

So, the non-profit NGO still rakes in proceeds from his celebrity.

Other MPs don't ask for a cut, even other Liberal MPs don't do that, its an expected part of the job and the fact is no one in Parliament needs the money less, Justin's already rich, family money. Greed pure fucking greed.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

And Justin takes his cut. A true Liberal! No good deed goes without some pork attached.

Yep, as always, "entitled to their entitlements"!

autoworker autoworker's picture

Brachina wrote:

autoworker wrote:
Michael Moriarity wrote:

autoworker wrote:
If they're struggling, then how do they manage the fee?

As I understand it, these were mostly fund raising events. So, some local non-profit would sell tickets to a speech by Justin, and he would demand that he be given a rake-off of $10K to $20K. Funds that would have gone to the non-profit if Justin were not so greedy.

 

So, the non-profit NGO still rakes in proceeds from his celebrity.

Other MPs don't ask for a cut, even other Liberal MPs don't do that, its an expected part of the job and the fact is no one in Parliament needs the money less, Justin's already rich, family money. Greed pure fucking greed.

Does he charge for speaking engagements in Papineau?

jjuares

What little  respect  I had for Trudeau I lost when his paid  speaking engagements were revealed.

jjuares

I would hope not! He shouldn't be charging anywhere.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Sigh!

Pages