Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
Slumberjack

Quote:
Therein lies the problem. You don't understand gender inequity.

No, probably not.  I'm just labouring under a sneaking suspicion that abolishing inequity is not likely to be realized as people have every right to expect, by adopting similar phraseology to that which is being struggled against.

Kara

Brachina wrote:
You guys are wasting your time, Kara hates Mulcair for the sake of hating him, no matter what facts you put forward she'll just rationalize it away, lets move on.

You do realize that comment can very easily be turned back towards you.  "Brachina loves Mulcair for the sake of loving him no matter what facts you put forward she / he will rationalize it away."

Kara

radiorahim wrote:

Quote:
One of my primary objections to Mulcair is his pro-Israel bias.  In the midst of Israeli agression towards Palestinians, his first statements tend to be supportive towards Israel, then perhaps a few days later he might actually deign to mention the Palestinians that are being slaughtered and their right to a state.  He has pretty consistently shown a pro-Israel bias with little regard for the suffering of the Palestinians.

It's one of the reasons I have for not supporting him too.    Having actually seen and to some tiny degree experienced Israeli apartheid it isn't "just one of those issues" to me.

My husband lived in Israel for a few years in his youth and that definitely shaped his views on Israeli apartheid, even though being from a family of Hassidic Jews, he was not on the receiving end of that treatment.  However, he saw and heard enough to decide that the systemic discrimination and brutality that he witnessed was inexcusable and unforgiveable.

My mother was raised in South Africa under the apartheid system.  Somewhat similarly to my husband's experience, she was not on the receiving end of the discrimination as a blonde Scots girl.  However, her experiences definitely shaped her views of systemic discrimination and, through her, shaped the views of my siblings and me that issues like this can not be ignored.

So, I most definitely agree with you that Israeli apartheid is not "just one of those issues".

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

radiorahim wrote:

AC you can engage in self-censorship if you want to.

But for some of us, defeating Harper isn't enough.

The UK exchanged Thatcherism for Blairism.    It wasn't much of an improvement.   In some ways it was worse (weapons of mass destruction anyone?)

We see those same Blairite trends happening in the NDP.

Look, lets assume you are bang on everything you said, and that you are 100% right. What is the alternative. Even at its worst, a "Blairite" NDP is going to be better then Libs and Tories, period. But, I just don't believe that is the directioin in which the NDP is moving, because I don't think your read of Tom is absolutely correct. I could be wrong, and as I have said over and over, the only way to find out is elect as PM. And, as I have also said over and over, if the NDP governs like Liberals, I am done. I simply won't vote. Period. End of story. Full stop.

Slumberjack

radiorahim is correct.  As to whether the NDP embodies the principles of decency and respect for human beings domestically, better than Liberals, this is something we can debate over, but in any event it's not acceptable that decency with respect to the human condition only applies within the borders of our own existence, and everyone else outside can go fuck themselves, depending on their popularity as judged by the corporate media.  For one thing, this is a racist position to be announcing in public, as Mulcair has done with his support for Israel in any and all circumstances.  I don't believe anyone should be supporting racists in this day and age.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

AC, I think there's a position to take electorally that is somewhere between "whole hearted enthusiastic support" and "I'm not voting at all".

Will I vote for my NDP candidate in the next election?    Of course I will.   There isn't at present another reasonable option.    But it's a case of "hold my nose" and pick the best of the options on offer.   It's a choice between an increasingly Blairite NDP and two corporate parties...so I'll pick the Blairites.

I don't expect miracles from a Mulcair led NDP government.   At best I expect that a Prime Minister Muclair government will stop the bleeding...or at least slow it down.

But stopping or slowing down the bleeding isn't good enough.    We need to move our society in some new and progressive directions.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

RR: I agree that half measures are half measures. My fear is we are spinning into a potentially VERY dangerous period economically. The Tories and Libs have no answers to deal with the current stagnation occuring at every level of the economy, including globally. These two parties are completely unprepared to deal with this situaton of today; they are bound to a power structure that has been responsible for keeping them in power, and will in way endanger that, especially the Libs. The fact that they picked Trudeau as leader shows for the Libs, it is ENTIRELY about power, and nothing else. The NDP absolutely has to win the next election. We are running out of time to stave off decades or real suffering. So, from my standpoint, I just can't see any other alternative. 2015 is REALLY going to be about the future of Canada. If either of the old line parties win, we are screwed, and frankly with Trudeau, because he's like Obama, deceptive and hard to concieve as duplicitous and conniving, even more dangerous. With those two, the greater danger is really that they are the enemy unseen. Its terrifying from my standpoint. As for not voting, I am standing by it. EVERY election since I can recall, and when I wasn't at Sea, I dropped between 20 and 30 polls over a campaign, scrutineered and donated money. I have gone to every convention I could, local meetings and even served on local consitutency associations. Frankly, I have earned the right to walk away from this; I will if I decide I have been wasting my time. Yeah, I guess I am saying, "let the Devil take the hindmost".

socialdemocrati...

There's a lot of things I would push Mulcair on. He supports marijuana decriminalization, but came out against legalization. He supports raising taxes on corporations, but not on millionaires.

There's lots of things I would have pushed Layton on too. He was also too focused on corporate taxes, instead of personal taxes. And I appreciate the optics of attacking bank fees, but we had to wait until the leadership race before candidates started talking about a financial transaction tax on stock market trading.

But some of the leftward criticism is such a parody of itself, and so baseless, and so evidence-free, that they sound like Jim Flaherty's conception of the NDP.

If National Post editorials now count as citations for what the NDP is going to do, then the leftward dissent has become so ineffective as to actually prop up the right.

There IS no effective leftward criticism of the NDP.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"There IS no effective leftward criticism of the NDP." This is as True in Canada as it is in the US. Great observation SD. You nailed it again!

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

jjuares wrote:

This looks like nothing less than an effort on your part to de-legitamize the views of others.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

There IS no effective leftward criticism of the NDP.

That is the norm on babble so whats yout point JJ.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"There IS no effective leftward criticism of the NDP." This is as True in Canada as it is in the US. Great observation SD. You nailed it again!

This is of course not a posse only a high fiving of like minded people, as they diss others on this board.

Thanks AC for highlighting the point I was making.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"There IS no effective leftward criticism of the NDP." This is as True in Canada as it is in the US. Great observation SD. You nailed it again!

This is of course not a posse only a high fiving of like minded people, as they diss others on this board.

Thanks AC for highlighting the point I was making.

OK, but there is nothing to celebrate in this either. On top of that, it doesn't change the fact that a NDP, Tom Mulcair led government would be vastly better the ANY of the alternatives. And not withstanding all the negative, cited by others, I maintain that there is no reason to believe Tom would be in any way close to acting like Blair at any time. There are negatives, but I'd take a "bad" NDP goverment, over a horrible and terrible LPC/Tory goverment any time.

socialdemocrati...

My point is I'd like to see an effective left countermovement. Not reaching for the "hidden agenda" argument to undermine any leftward policy proposals. Not putting more weight on misquotes than on repeat policy statements from the past 10 years. Not a so-called "Socialist Caucus" that's overwhelmingly white and 55+. Not holding up the 1930s as the last time we had any good ideas about government, and then wondering why young people won't join their movement.

There are a ton of issues where there is the potential for leftward movement. If you want to find potential, look for NDP MPs who are ready to stick their neck out, Canadian movements that have emerged in the past few years, or other developed countries that have implemented successful leftward programs.

Criminalization of drugs is one issue. Portugal has shown how decriminalizing all drugs may actually help more people get off drugs AND undermine the profits of organized crime. You also have a few NDP MPs who have staked out ground on legalizing marijuana, not just decriminalizing it.

Taxation is another one. If Obama can raise taxes on millionaires, then surely it can't be THAT radical. Jack copped out on this issue by focusing just on corporate taxes, and it looks like Tom will take the same tact. But at least a few NDP MPs jumped in on this one too. We can push them.

And then there are targetted national programs. You'd be hard pressed to find a successful economic model that nationalized everything, so advocating for that isn't just pointless, it's also wrong. But there are dozens of other industrialized countries with better health care than we have that all have public models, and we have MPs who stuck their neck out for national pharmacare (instead of incremental improvements to the existing health care system). Australia is making national highspeed internet project. High speed rail is another big one. God knows we could do more for public post-secondary education. There's huge opportinities for movement here, if you get concrete about specific market failures.

But I'm sure a lot of people tuned out right now, having seized on any small part of what I said that might sound like something that some conservative said somewhere at sometime. You know, the kind of activism that really makes a difference.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

There are a ton of issues where there is the potential for leftward movement. If you want to find potential, look for NDP MPs who are ready to stick their neck out,

Did that and he was marginalized and quit because of it.

Quote:

Criminalization of drugs is one issue. Portugal has shown how decriminalizing all drugs may actually help more people get off drugs AND undermine the profits of organized crime. You also have a few NDP MPs who have staked out ground on legalizing marijuana, not just decriminalizing it.

Lots of good resolutions from conventions on that very point and your leader is still firmly committed to a minor reform that would still send people to jail if they want to grow their own for recreational use.

Quote:

Taxation is another one. If Obama can raise taxes on millionaires, then surely it can't be THAT radical. Jack copped out on this issue by focusing just on corporate taxes, and it looks like Tom will take the same tact. But at least a few NDP MPs jumped in on this one too. We can push them.

But there are dozens of other industrialized countries with better health care than we have that all have public models, and we have MPs who stuck their neck out for national pharmacare (instead of incremental improvements to the existing health care system). Australia is making national highspeed internet project. High speed rail is another big one. God knows we could do more for public post-secondary education. There's huge opportinities for movement here, if you get concrete about specific market failures.

Great ideas let me know when you find a party that will fight for them.

Quote:

And then there are targetted national programs. You'd be hard pressed to find a successful economic model that nationalized everything, so advocating for that isn't just pointless, it's also wrong.

You would do better if you stopped making absurd straw person arguments. I have been on this board a long time and I can't think of anyone advocating for nationalizing everything. Nationalization is not something I normally advocate for because I don't like central planning no matter whether it is done in a Cabinet room or a Board room on Wall Street.

The Analyst The Analyst's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

My point is I'd like to see an effective left countermovement. Not reaching for the "hidden agenda" argument to undermine any leftward policy proposals. Not putting more weight on misquotes than on repeat policy statements from the past 10 years. Not a so-called "Socialist Caucus" that's overwhelmingly white and 55+. Not holding up the 1930s as the last time we had any good ideas about government, and then wondering why young people won't join their movement.

There are a ton of issues where there is the potential for leftward movement. If you want to find potential, look for NDP MPs who are ready to stick their neck out, Canadian movements that have emerged in the past few years, or other developed countries that have implemented successful leftward programs.

Criminalization of drugs is one issue. Portugal has shown how decriminalizing all drugs may actually help more people get off drugs AND undermine the profits of organized crime. You also have a few NDP MPs who have staked out ground on legalizing marijuana, not just decriminalizing it.

Taxation is another one. If Obama can raise taxes on millionaires, then surely it can't be THAT radical. Jack copped out on this issue by focusing just on corporate taxes, and it looks like Tom will take the same tact. But at least a few NDP MPs jumped in on this one too. We can push them.

And then there are targetted national programs. You'd be hard pressed to find a successful economic model that nationalized everything, so advocating for that isn't just pointless, it's also wrong. But there are dozens of other industrialized countries with better health care than we have that all have public models, and we have MPs who stuck their neck out for national pharmacare (instead of incremental improvements to the existing health care system). Australia is making national highspeed internet project. High speed rail is another big one. God knows we could do more for public post-secondary education. There's huge opportinities for movement here, if you get concrete about specific market failures.

But I'm sure a lot of people tuned out right now, having seized on any small part of what I said that might sound like something that some conservative said somewhere at sometime. You know, the kind of activism that really makes a difference.

 

Would supporting an expansion of cooperative housing be one such pragmatic issue the left could press Mulcair one? Also, what about codetermination

Fidel

So in summing up the left sectarian argument against supporting social democrats, we have the following :

1. Mulcair is not Emma Goldman, Karl Marx, and not even close to Groucho Marx.

2. They voted for a "no-fly zone" over Libya, and which for anyone who who knows anything knows that's tantamount to being in league with the Gladio Gang. And, we can stop talking conspiracy theory just long enough to jump to conclusions about the NDP. After that it's talk to the hand because imperialists don't do false flag terror. No reason to, rilly. hahaha (Pee Wee Herman's laff track)

3. Sweden? Where is that?

4. Because the NDP REFUSES to promise to undo inside one four-year term in government what took two wings of the big business party 30-35 years to break, mangle, and fuck-up so badly we don't recognize the place.

5. The colour orange is so tacky.

6. Neoliberalism? Puh! If we can fly to the moon, we can surely take a train to Toronto and have a good smoked meat sandwich. Er, make that Montreal,

7.  If the Cubans can do it, so can we.

Viva la revolucion!

Slumberjack

In other words as Fidel paints it, once you withhold all expectation, or abandon all hope, things begin to take on quite the rosy hue, with a semi-gloss finish.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

J-2-2

You make a very strong argument for PR being the most important issue.  Whether people on this board like it or not the centrist vote is the largest block in the country.  They like the status quo and merely want to tweak it a bit to get more for themselves.  No fundamental chance will occur under any government because of that dynamic. With PR then there will be voices in the House proposing the rationale policies that we need to address climate change and homelessness and failing infrastructure etc. The NDP as a third party was the voice that proposed things that pushed the discourse to the left. Now that it has its sights firmly set on power above all else there are no voices left  that are not geared to getting the votes of the status quo favouring middle class.

The NDP cannot afford to propose left wing ideas because the majority of Canadian's are not left wing. That is the problem and PR is the answer.

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

This looks like nothing less than an effort on your part to de-legitamize the views of others.

 

 

That is the norm on babble so whats yout point JJ.

 

Interesting. You include the last line but not the first ones where I mention your snide innuendos.

Hey, if you think it is alright to attempt to silence the voices of others with these demeaning comments-go for it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

jjuares wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

This looks like nothing less than an effort on your part to de-legitamize the views of others.

That is the norm on babble so whats yout point JJ.

Interesting. You include the last line but not the first ones where I mention your snide innuendos.

Hey, if you think it is alright to attempt to silence the voices of others with these demeaning comments-go for it.

Cry

Wilf Day

JKR wrote:
What's stopping the NDP from supporting the establishment of another Carter Commission? Wouldn't that be a vote getter?

Why not just implement the Carter Commission Report? Good as new, never been used.

Brachina

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I think people are thinking about this all backward. The NDP is a political party. It's reason for existing is to get itself elected and all else comes second. A better electoral system would produce better dynamics but the one we've got practically ensures shallow, polarised politics. You need to stop expecting the party to be something it isn't, and start thinking about how its flaws can be strategically utilised.

In terms of these issues you'd like to press Mulcair on, Mulcair is a politician and he'll go where the votes are. If you try to push the party on something that the public has shown no interest in, no matter how awesome the idea is or how principled, the NDP still won't care because no votes. What needs to be done is not so much to press the party but moreso to press the public. If the center-left voters in Canada can be made to see the sense in higher income taxes or whatever, then the NDP will follow suit. That is the only pressure they care about. Not to say that it's pointless to apply pressure on the party, but if it isn't part of a larger swell of support that makes the vote-getting calculus obvious for Mulcair and crew, you will be wasting your time.

Someone finally gets it!

Look if you want the NDP to take a more radical position say on naturalizing industies or whatever advocate for it in the public domain till the people are demanding it. The NDP is trying to do the best it can, but it still has to contend for office and win to do anything and they only have so much room to move within the current political habitable zone (a term I prefer to the centre as I believe the term to be misleading).

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

In other words as Fidel paints it, once you withhold all expectation, or abandon all hope, things begin to take on quite the rosy hue, with a semi-gloss finish.

My expectations for a first NDP government are realistic. The two big business parties have had a stranglehold on federal power since, well, 1867.

Jacob Two-Two

I think people are thinking about this all backward. The NDP is a political party. Its reason for existing is to get itself elected and all else comes second. A better electoral system would produce better dynamics but the one we've got practically ensures shallow, polarised politics. You need to stop expecting the party to be something it isn't, and start thinking about how its flaws can be strategically utilised.

In terms of these issues you'd like to press Mulcair on, Mulcair is a politician and he'll go where the votes are. If you try to push the party on something that the public has shown no interest in, no matter how awesome the idea is or how principled, the NDP still won't care because no votes. What needs to be done is not so much to press the party but moreso to press the public. If the center-left voters in Canada can be made to see the sense in higher income taxes or whatever, then the NDP will follow suit. That is the only pressure they care about. Not to say that it's pointless to apply pressure on the party, but if it isn't part of a larger swell of support that makes the vote-getting calculus obvious for Mulcair and crew, you will be wasting your time.

Jacob Two-Two

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The NDP cannot afford to propose left wing ideas because the majority of Canadian's are not left wing. That is the problem and PR is the answer.

Totally agree. Once we have an NDP government, PR would be my first choice for a broad-based activist campaign from the left. But really, I'd get behind any left initiative that was popular. Can't be too choosy about these things.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Senate

socialdemocrati...

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Lots of good resolutions from conventions on that very point and your leader is still firmly committed to a minor reform that would still send people to jail if they want to grow their own for recreational use.

...

Great ideas let me know when you find a party that will fight for them.

And this is my point. I'm not waiting around for anyone to let me know. But other people on this forum seem to think that's what activism is: complaining that nobody is doing anything, and then waiting for someone to do something.

As much as I've found myself in the position of defending Mulcair, he's not "my leader", anymore than the NDP is "my party". I've voted for Jack Layton 4 times. I disagree with the party on a ton of things. But you wouldn't know that, because I end up having to fight fictitious battles about the supposedly Blair-ite policies that nobody actually advocated, and explain to the occasional "activist" still living in the 1800s that maybe we need a better reform than a centrally planned economy.

I would LOVE to see a party more committed to "co-determination", profit sharing, co-ops, and anything that achieves more workplace democracy. I love unions, but part of the reason we're losing the war on labor is because we're in a reactionary footing. Brasil is doing some amazing stuff here.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"I would LOVE to see a party more committed to "co-determination", profit sharing, co-ops, and anything that achieves more workplace democracy. I love unions, but part of the reason we're losing the war on labor is because we're in a reactionary footing. Brasil is doing some amazing stuff here"

I agree completely with this. Jim Stafford has written on this extensively as well as the idea that workers and communities should be involved in planning on what kind of industries should be encouraged. He argues that local conditions should influence choices and that the people in the communities could make helpful contributions due to their knowledge of the locality.

Jacob Two-Two

Personally, I'd love to see what would happen if the NDP ran a campaign promising to take all the subsidies formerly put into private industry and use the money to promote the creation of co-operative industries, openly stating that the co-operative economic model is superior due to it being democratic. The right would go absolutely apeshit, but it would be awesome to see the logic of the "free market" challenged so directly and put to the voters as a real option instead of a foregone conclusion.

The thing is, it probably wouldn't work. Such grand gestures and bold moves are not appreciated in this fuddy-duddy country of ours. If the last ten years of federal politics has shown me anything, it's that despite being rather liberal, Canadians are a reeeally conservative bunch. 

JKR

Wilf Day wrote:

JKR wrote:
What's stopping the NDP from supporting the establishment of another Carter Commission? Wouldn't that be a vote getter?

Why not just implement the Carter Commission Report? Good as new, never been used.

The Carter Commission recommendations are exactly what we need today which is amazing considering they were made almost half a century ago and initiated by a conservative government.

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The NDP cannot afford to propose left wing ideas because the majority of Canadian's are not left wing. That is the problem and PR is the answer.

Well said.

I hope the BC NDP puts fair voting on their election platform.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

JKR wrote:
Wilf Day wrote:

JKR wrote:
What's stopping the NDP from supporting the establishment of another Carter Commission? Wouldn't that be a vote getter?

Why not just implement the Carter Commission Report? Good as new, never been used.

The Carter Commission recommendations are exactly what we need today which is amazing considering they were made almost half a century ago and initiated by a conservative government.

I am  all in on this. We should make it part of our election platform. It is such a good and fair idea.

JKR

Arthur Cramer wrote:

JKR wrote:
Wilf Day wrote:

JKR wrote:
What's stopping the NDP from supporting the establishment of another Carter Commission? Wouldn't that be a vote getter?

Why not just implement the Carter Commission Report? Good as new, never been used.

The Carter Commission recommendations are exactly what we need today which is amazing considering they were made almost half a century ago and initiated by a conservative government.

I am  all in on this. We should make it part of our election platform. It is such a good and fair idea.

Supporting establishing another Carter Commission would also be a smart political move as it would allow the NDP to run on "tax fairness" instead of "increased taxation."

Michelle

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

And this is my point. I'm not waiting around for anyone to let me know. But other people on this forum seem to think that's what activism is: complaining that nobody is doing anything, and then waiting for someone to do something.

Sorry, but that's bullshit, and extremely disrespectful to those on this forum who have been active for years on various issues and are disillusioned about the NDP backing up any of their activism.

Nobody here is "waiting for someone to do something" - what I see here are a lot of people who are active on social justice and political causes and are pissed off because they're not getting much back-up from the party that claims to hold the same values because the NDP is too engrossed with becoming the new Liberal Party so they can win power.

Believe it or not, party politics isn't the only way to "be an activist".  A bunch of navel-gazing and rubbing elbows at conventions that are too expensive for the average Canadian to afford to attend, and figuring out how much you can sell out to get into power without alienating too much of a critical mass of your base or too many of your principles isn't even close to the best way of "being an activist" if you ask me.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Admit you're just trying to rationalize voting for Justin Bieber

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

knownothing wrote:

Admit you're just trying to rationalize voting for Justin Bieber

Michelle voting Liberal.

 

socialdemocrati...

Michelle wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

And this is my point. I'm not waiting around for anyone to let me know. But other people on this forum seem to think that's what activism is: complaining that nobody is doing anything, and then waiting for someone to do something.

Sorry, but that's bullshit, and extremely disrespectful to those on this forum who have been active for years on various issues and are disillusioned about the NDP backing up any of their activism.

Nobody here is "waiting for someone to do something" - what I see here are a lot of people who are active on social justice and political causes and are pissed off because they're not getting much back-up from the party that claims to hold the same values because the NDP is too engrossed with becoming the new Liberal Party so they can win power.

Believe it or not, party politics isn't the only way to "be an activist".  A bunch of navel-gazing and rubbing elbows at conventions that are too expensive for the average Canadian to afford to attend, and figuring out how much you can sell out to get into power without alienating too much of a critical mass of your base or too many of your principles isn't even close to the best way of "being an activist" if you ask me.

It's not bullshit.

And again, another anti-NDP critic putting words in peoples' mouths to make a point that no one disagrees with.

I'd LOVE to hear some of the anti-NDP critics talk about the great activism they're doing outside of the party to move the goalposts on federal political issues, put pressure on the system to change, or even just make life a bit easier for people marginalized by federal politics. There's a long list of organizations, even if you filter it down to those with the most leverage. It would be a refreshing change from repeatedly wondering why nobody in the NDP is listening to their fictitious "citations" where Tom Mulcair dropped a secret code word that "proves" he will replace the NDP platform with 1994 Clinton.

It's fine if there are a lot of people who have given up on the NDP. I keep saying repeatedly (and just yesterday) that party politics isn't everything, and real change requires people working on all fronts. But anti-NDP critics keep talking about the NDP like it's the only game in town. Foreign policy is the most eggregious example. As if complaining about the official opposition in Canada not doing something in a particular is going to achieve more than working with organizations working in said country? Even if you're not particularly mobile, you should at least be able to figure out how to use the internet.

Nah, I'm calling bullshit. A lot of these activists aren't particularly active. Or are so ineffective that they ought to deeply rethink their strategy.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Tongue out

I'd love to hear about your personal live go ahead regale us with your superiority as an activist. This is one of the nastiest posts I have read on this board in a very long time. To totally dismiss every non NDP poster and demand they prove their activist credentials is just disgusting.

Kara

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Tongue out

I'd love to hear about your personal live go ahead regale us with your superiority as an activist. This is one of the nastiest posts I have read on this board in a very long time. To totally dismiss every non NDP poster and demand they prove their activist credentials is just disgusting.

Totally agree.  Especially because the target of that post was Michelle, who might be the last person on this board who deserves to be disrespected like that.  Nothing whatsoever in her post deserved such an insulting, dismissive, disrespectful response.  The previous posts by sd about non-NDP supporters supposed ignorance, etc. were just general mud-slinging but really quite laughable.

Brachina

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Michelle wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

And this is my point. I'm not waiting around for anyone to let me know. But other people on this forum seem to think that's what activism is: complaining that nobody is doing anything, and then waiting for someone to do something.

Sorry, but that's bullshit, and extremely disrespectful to those on this forum who have been active for years on various issues and are disillusioned about the NDP backing up any of their activism.

Nobody here is "waiting for someone to do something" - what I see here are a lot of people who are active on social justice and political causes and are pissed off because they're not getting much back-up from the party that claims to hold the same values because the NDP is too engrossed with becoming the new Liberal Party so they can win power.

Believe it or not, party politics isn't the only way to "be an activist".  A bunch of navel-gazing and rubbing elbows at conventions that are too expensive for the average Canadian to afford to attend, and figuring out how much you can sell out to get into power without alienating too much of a critical mass of your base or too many of your principles isn't even close to the best way of "being an activist" if you ask me.

It's not bullshit.

And again, another anti-NDP critic putting words in peoples' mouths to make a point that no one disagrees with.

I'd LOVE to hear some of the anti-NDP critics talk about the great activism they're doing outside of the party to move the goalposts on federal political issues, put pressure on the system to change, or even just make life a bit easier for people marginalized by federal politics. There's a long list of organizations, even if you filter it down to those with the most leverage. It would be a refreshing change from repeatedly wondering why nobody in the NDP is listening to their fictitious "citations" where Tom Mulcair dropped a secret code word that "proves" he will replace the NDP platform with 1994 Clinton.

It's fine if there are a lot of people who have given up on the NDP. I keep saying repeatedly (and just yesterday) that party politics isn't everything, and real change requires people working on all fronts. But anti-NDP critics keep talking about the NDP like it's the only game in town. Foreign policy is the most eggregious example. As if complaining about the official opposition in Canada not doing something in a particular is going to achieve more than working with organizations working in said country? Even if you're not particularly mobile, you should at least be able to figure out how to use the internet.

Nah, I'm calling bullshit. A lot of these activists aren't particularly active. Or are so ineffective that they ought to deeply rethink their strategy.

SD has slung no mud, he's being honest and saying what these people need to hear, not that they won't brush it off and ignore it.

All this anti NDP cliche contributes to on most Rabble threads is thread derailment when they inevidibly make the thread about THEM.

josh

Quote:

All this anti NDP cliche contributes to on most Rabble threads is thread derailment when they inevidibly make the thread about THEM.

 

 Yes, how dare anyone derail recitation of the party line and praise for the dear leader.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Well some of my responses may be tad cliched but of course praise for the leader is insightful.

I like that you did not use the cliched term posse but attempted instead to say clique.

Brachina

josh wrote:

Quote:

All this anti NDP cliche contributes to on most Rabble threads is thread derailment when they inevidibly make the thread about THEM.

 

 Yes, how dare anyone derail recitation of the party line and praise for the dear leader.

 

 

 

 

 Your sarcasm doesn't negate my point.

 Anyway its to the point where I wish Rabble had an ignore button so that those of us who wish to have a serious discussion wouldn't have every thread derailed.

 And SD is far from a cheerleader and has critized Mulcair at times. he's the one people are being nasty to not the other way around.

socialdemocrati...

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Tongue out

I'd love to hear about your personal live go ahead regale us with your superiority as an activist. This is one of the nastiest posts I have read on this board in a very long time. To totally dismiss every non NDP poster and demand they prove their activist credentials is just disgusting.

Because the anti-NDP critics have been SO respectful. Never content to be "non NDP". No, it's not enough to just abstain from voting for (let alone working with) the NDP. You have to slam and attack every deluded neoliberal sellout who does. (How else are we going to achieve real change if we don't shit on the slightest sign of good from the NDP?)

Because those of us who believe in a national child care program, or making corporations pay their fair share of taxes, or proportional freaking representation... We're not committed to REAL CHANGE because we don't care enough about the freaking preamble.

Yeah, you're so respectful as to cram things into peoples' mouths that they didn't actually say -- both MPs and volunteers -- and then whenever they say something that sounds remotely like reform, you have to insinuate some kind of hidden agenda. So respectful as to take the National Post as an authority on what the NDP is going to do. As long as they're wishing the NDP would cave into the right, so it would prove that doing nothing but slamming the NDP is actually incredibly principled activism.

Disrepect is your entire strategy. Disrespect every politician in the NDP, and every volunteer dumb enough to believe them. Maybe if you keep disrespecting them enough, they'll suddenly come around to your incredibly brave and brilliant positions.

Next time you call someone disgusting, pause for a moment and see if you can find the irony.

socialdemocrati...

Brachina wrote:
And SD is far from a cheerleader and has critized Mulcair at times.

Thanks for recognizing that. There were other candidates far better on issues like taxes and foreign policy, let alone bold economic reforms. But we're a long way from the fights during the leadership race.

If I'm a partisan for anything, it's honesty. There's honest criticism, and then there's dishonest smears. I've given up trying to mediate and persuade. I'm now calling bullshit, and letting the remaining intelligent people make up their mind.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Blah blah blah

That is how much I respect your last post.  You didn't attack one of my posts you attacked Michelle.  Go ahead diss me all you want I expect to be attacked because I state my believes forcibly and that includes my believe that the NDP is headed by an ex Liberal Cabinet Minister and is almost indistinguishable from the party I have opposed for decades.

You have great ideas and we agree on many things that need to be done in this country. The difference is that you have faith that the Mulcair NDP will provide some of them if elected government. I just don't share that faith. If elected the NDP will find that the cupboard is bare and they will have tough choices to make.  I am entitled to believe that when push comes to shove the NDP will listen to the right wing Deputy Ministers and introduce austerity "lite" programs. I base that on Mulcair's actual history in government.

socialdemocrati...

You state your beliefs forcibly, yes. I only wish you had even a FRACTION of that gusto for facts.

Pressed for actual evidence, the only fact at the core of your beliefs is that before Mulcair was a Federal NDP MP, he was an MPP for the Quebec Liberals. I'm sure the rest of the party would be shocked that you've revealed his sordid and distasteful past. Breaking news!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes indeed, more of the "respectful" sarcasm I've come to expect from our resident NDP acolytes.  Testify bother testify.

Jacob Two-Two

Oh, I'm sorry, I must be in the wrong place. I thought this was a thread about Mulcair. I think this board needs a "petty squabbles" forum.

Brachina

OMFG enough all ready, Kropotkin you sound like your seven, SD continuing to reply to this silliness is just feeding the Trolls at this point. I have nothing more to say to the antimulcair forces its a waste of my time.

Hopefully we can back to the subject at hand.

Did anyone see the Panel that Mulcair was a part of at the Progressive Conference?

Pages

Topic locked