Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The Sponsorship program ended before Trudeau was elected as an MP.  Do you have some new dirt on Justin that says someone offered him ad scam money and he took it? 

I can't figure out those partisan Liberals and Conservatives who would say anything to smear the leader of the NDP.  Laughing

NorthReport

Actually Mulcair defenders, Unionist is doing the NDP a favour.

Or would you rather wait until the federal election is in full swing, and the Conservative/Liberal right-wing complex run attack ads about "the envelope" and completely destroy the NDP chances, the same way the BC Liberals destroyed Dix's credibility over "the memo". My hunch is the right-wing is already designing ads based on the issue and will be submitting it to focus groups for their feedback. They have more than 2 years to work on it and get it right. 

Can't we learn from our mistakes? "The envelope" issue obviously needs a full airing now, because who can trust an NDP campaign manager to deal with it appropriately during an election campaign.

autoworker autoworker's picture

I wonder if Mulcair might be called before the Charbonneau Commission over this. What else might he know, if asked the right questions?

Unionist

Brachina wrote:
  I have no answers, all I know for fact is Mulcair sad no to a bribe and is cooperating with police for the last two years. Everything else is speculation.

No, Brachina, we also know that Mulcair said nothing to anyone for 17 years, and nothing at all to the public until two days ago when the whole thing was leaked by La Presse. That's not speculation, Brachina. That's a fact. It doesn't mean Mulcair is corrupt. It doesn't mean he's the least qualified of the party leaders in the House to be prime minister (actually, my friend, I believe he is the VERY BEST of all those leaders, which is why I campaign and vote for him).

You're not helping him with your speculation (i.e. that he was afraid he'd be rubbed out by the mob, etc.). You're not helping him by not even trying to understand the issue - which is, that silence about corruption doesn't look good, it needs an explanation.

I'm sure there's an explanation. He had better give it, fast, and put this behind him.

You don't agree? Then I question your support for him and the party.

Quote:
What exactly are you looking to accomplish and what do you want from us Unionist?

I already explained that I am paid large sums of cash to discredit the NDP and Tom Mulcair personally. What I want from you is to stop discrediting the NDP and its leader for free, as you do so frequently. There's a fortune to be made - just PM me and details will follow.

 

Unionist

autoworker wrote:
I wonder if Mulcair might be called before the Charbonneau Commission over this. What else might he know, if asked the right questions?

That's just gratuitous innuendo and unwarranted speculation about Mulcair. He is without a doubt the most honest and principled of the party leaders. What you meant, perhaps, is what else might HARPER know if dragged before a Commission and asked the right questions?

NorthReport wrote:
Actually Mulcair defenders, Unionist is doing the NDP a favour.

Thanks for getting the point, NR - and welcome back, you've been sorely missed around here!

 

NorthReport

--

NorthReport

NDPers, the post below is an example of what is coming down the pipes. 

Think about the NDP opposition. Conservatives are a bit, or perhaps a lot smarter, than the Liberals.

Liberals will attack now, but Conservatives may hold their fire until the election writ is dropped.

autoworker wrote:
I wonder if Mulcair might be called before the Charbonneau Commission over this. What else might he know, if asked the right questions?

jerrym

NorthReport wrote:

Actually Mulcair defenders, Unionist is doing the NDP a favour.

Or would you rather wait until the federal election is in full swing, and the Conservative/Liberal right-wing complex run attack ads about "the envelope" and completely destroy the NDP chances, the same way the BC Liberals destroyed Dix's credibility over "the memo". My hunch is the right-wing is already designing ads based on the issue and will be submitting it to focus groups for their feedback. They have more than 2 years to work on it and get it right. 

Can't we learn from our mistakes? "The envelope" issue obviously needs a full airing now, because who can trust an NDP campaign manager to deal with it appropriately during an election campaign.

Ordinarily, I would agree that that the Cons might wait until the election or just before it to run attack ads on this. However, if the Senators-Harper-Chief-of-Staff scandal continues to grow, as well it might, they might counterattack with a big ad buy on Mulcair's remaining quiet about the bribe offer in order to deflect attention from their own scandal and to blow Mulcair out of the water as a potential threat to their keeping power. Then they could turn most of their attention on destroying Trudeau during the election run-up and campaign. This strategy might not work if the NDP is prepared to respond effectively, but it will work if they have no answer or a weak one, like Dix's "I was 35" (when he backdated the Clark memo) in BC, that was turned into another attack ad itself. Afterall, the Con strategy every time a whistleblower or scandal happened has been to attack the reputation of the person providing the evidence.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

NorthReport wrote:

NDPers, the post below is an example of what is coming down the pipes. 

Think about the NDP opposition. Conservatives are a bit, or perhaps a lot smarter, than the Liberals.

Liberals will attack now, but Conservatives may hold their fire until the election writ is dropped.

autoworker wrote:
I wonder if Mulcair might be called before the Charbonneau Commission over this. What else might he know, if asked the right questions?

Autoworker, you "Union Man", stop salivating like that, your slobber is getting on my keyboard.

knownothing knownothing's picture

autoworker wrote:
I wonder if Mulcair might be called before the Charbonneau Commission over this. What else might he know, if asked the right questions?

If Mulcair is, then they would have to call every person who was handed an envelope at one time or another by Mr. Vaillancourt. That would be impossible.

 

NorthReport

Arthur,

What per cent of union members do you think actually vote NDP?   

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

NorthReport wrote:

"The envelope" has the potential to be so serious the NDP might have to consider changing leaders within the next year if it does not get resolved soon. And before anyone calls BS, I supported Mulcair for the leadership including financially as well. And I still support him but am concerned. My objective remains the same: an NDP federal government.

I was a Mulcair supporter in the leadership, and I still think he has an excellent chance to be Prime Minister. However, I also agree with you and Unionist that he must deal with this "envelope" matter effectively and soon. It is a potentially lethal problem. I think you are quite right that in the worst case, it might be necessary to replace Mulcair before the 2015 election with someone less talented, but also less tainted.

 

jjuares

Michael Moriarity wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

"The envelope" has the potential to be so serious the NDP might have to consider changing leaders within the next year if it does not get resolved soon. And before anyone calls BS, I supported Mulcair for the leadership including financially as well. And I still support him but am concerned. My objective remains the same: an NDP federal government.

I was a Mulcair supporter in the leadership, and I still think he has an excellent chance to be Prime Minister. However, I also agree with you and Unionist that he must deal with this "envelope" matter effectively and soon. It is a potentially lethal problem. I think you are quite right that in the worst case, it might be necessary to replace Mulcair before the 2015 election with someone less talented, but also less tainted.

 

I absolutely agree.Refusing to talk about it, ain't going to cut it.

NorthReport

"The envelope"issue needs to be vetted now, and thoroughly. 

Remember how election campaigns work: it is all about the Leader. Dr Jane Shin survived her "chinkasaurus" comment and won election as a MLA for the BC NDP, which in some ways surprised me, but you had to know the previous BC Liberal MLA in Burnaby-Lougheed. Had Adrian made that remark, no way.

"The envelope" has the potential to be so serious the NDP might have to consider changing leaders within the next year if it does not get resolved soon. And before anyone calls BS, I supported Mulcair for the leadership including financially as well. And I still support him but am concerned. My objective remains the same: an NDP federal government.

BoredToTheCore

I'm generally agreeing with Unionist and NR, but:

No, Brachina, we also know that Mulcair said nothing to anyone for 17 years

 

I'm not sure we know who he talked to about this, if anyone, over 17 years, so this is also just speculation. I think this is a potential timebomb, and the silence is puzzling. But, perhaps, legally, he is treading carefully on commenting further, because it is an ongoing investigation. But, this could be neutralized by being clearer to the public if Mulcair is able at this time.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Arthur,

What per cent of union members do you think actually vote NDP?   

NR, I have no illusions over how many Union members today vote NDP. I have written this elsewhere, but my former English Labour/Pre CCF/CCF Grandfather told my father that "given the opportunity, working men and women will instinctively vote aganst their own interests, every single time", saying, "they aren't smart enough to know what they are doing". He was a Cabinet Making Business, and during the Depression cut his wages to the minimum so he could keep all of his workers employed. He NEVER laid off anyone the whole of the Depression. But, that wasn't my point. I have NO illusions that probaly a large majority of working people can't tell their enemies from their friends. If that makes me an elitist, "wine and cheese socialist", so be it.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I wasn't blaming the victim, well, at least not intentionally, though you when come to think of it, maybe they do have it coming to them. The problem is in the process, I get screwed too. I was responding to you comment. I am very familiar with how a lot of workng men and women vote. It explains a lot of things, like hatred of taxes, scepticism over climate change, anger at minorities, silly pre-occupation with deficits, etc. But on the other hand, I am smart enough to know who my friends and my enemies are, and if working people aren't able to tell the difference, then I am not going to be all that sympathetic. This sounds very arrogant on my part, but its how I feel. How you have to do is look at ths Trudeaumania stuff to realize how uniformed and easily duped people are. Its a good thing I am not a spokesman for anyone and no one important. I'm just a middle aged cynic posting my opinin on one of 100s of millions of interent boards all over this planet. Yep, blaming the voter is blaming the vicitim, and althoug I will readily admit I am no kind of a genius in any way, I'm at least smart enough to know when and how to not stick sharp objects in my eyes.

NorthReport

 Art,

To suggest blue collar folks are dumb I think is the wrong lesson to have learned from the recent BC NDP election campaign. It is also not true.

I cringed as I saw Christy Clark campaign in a hard hat and said yes to jobs, and Adrian Dix come across as saying no to jobs. Construction workers were "instictively" voting for their own interests. Yes of course there are many other issues involved such as wage rates, job training, job safety, labour code, lrb, etc., but in an election camapign to have to keep it simple. Liberals did and the NDP did not.

The BC NDP leadership, all of them, need to own up and take responsibility for what happened, and allow some others a kick at the can.

Blaming the voters is blaming the victim.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Unionist wrote:

autoworker wrote:
I wonder if Mulcair might be called before the Charbonneau Commission over this. What else might he know, if asked the right questions?

That's just gratuitous innuendo and unwarranted speculation about Mulcair. He is without a doubt the most honest and principled of the party leaders. What you meant, perhaps, is what else might HARPER know if dragged before a Commission and asked the right questions?

NorthReport wrote:
Actually Mulcair defenders, Unionist is doing the NDP a favour.

Thanks for getting the point, NR - and welcome back, you've been sorely missed around here!

 

All else aside, I can't imagine anyone presuming to offer Harper an envelope.

NorthReport

Do you think someone in the PMO would bail out Duffy without first consulting with Harper?

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

Which political party has the history of providing leaks to the press, and stands to gain by the leak?

I think the answer is relatively easy. 

Hint: Think red and being "entitled to their entitlements"

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"All else aside, I can't imagine anyone presuming to offer Harper an envelope."

What does that mean, exactly?

autoworker autoworker's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Do you think someone in the PMO would bail out Duffy without first consulting with Harper?

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

Which political party has the history of providing leaks to the press, and stands to gain by the leak?

I think the answer is relatively easy. 

Hint: Think red and being "entitled to their entitlements"

At the risk of further thread drift: What offends you more: Nigel Wright bailing out his pal, Duffy, or his ability to cut a personal cheque for $90k?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"All else aside, I can't imagine anyone presuming to offer Harper an envelope."

What does that mean, exactly?

Well, Arthur, I don't know what AW means, but here is my version. If you were going to bribe Harper, you wouldn't give him an envelope stuffed with cash. You would finance his campaigns, play golf and have dinner with him, put your arm around him, and make it very clear that there is a great future waiting for him in big oil after his political career ends. Provided, of course, that he follows instructions faithfully while he is P.M. And so far, he has been performing flawlessly, so I presume he will receive his reward, not in unmarked bills, but in board memberships and consulting fees.

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"All else aside, I can't imagine anyone presuming to offer Harper an envelope."

What does that mean, exactly?

It means exactly that, Arthur.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"All else aside, I can't imagine anyone presuming to offer Harper an envelope."

What does that mean, exactly?

Well, Arthur, I don't know what AW means, but here is my version. If you were going to bribe Harper, you wouldn't give him an envelope stuffed with cash. You would finance his campaigns, play golf and have dinner with him, put your arm around him, and make it very clear that there is a great future waiting for him in big oil after his political career ends. Provided, of course, that he follows instructions faithfully while he is P.M. And so far, he has been performing flawlessly, so I presume he will receive his reward, not in unmarked bills, but in board memberships and consulting fees.

 

Indeed.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

autoworker wrote:
Michael Moriarity wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"All else aside, I can't imagine anyone presuming to offer Harper an envelope."

What does that mean, exactly?

Well, Arthur, I don't know what AW means, but here is my version. If you were going to bribe Harper, you wouldn't give him an envelope stuffed with cash. You would finance his campaigns, play golf and have dinner with him, put your arm around him, and make it very clear that there is a great future waiting for him in big oil after his political career ends. Provided, of course, that he follows instructions faithfully while he is P.M. And so far, he has been performing flawlessly, so I presume he will receive his reward, not in unmarked bills, but in board memberships and consulting fees.

 

Indeed.

OK. Fair enough. I was just asking. Unionist and the rest of you make vaild points about how Tom should handle this, if he even has to. I don't know. I trust him so whatever he does is fine with me; I voted for him for Leader, so why wouldn't I? My only point was I wasn't sure about motiviations of some posters, rightly or wrongly. That's all. I'm a cynic. If anyone here has been reading anything I post at all, you know I always come out and say what I mean. So fair enough, I was just asking.

And as an aside, I am pretty dissapointed with the lack of comment on Tom's email to me. You tell me what other major political figure in Canada would write an emial like that today? I'll answer it for you, no one! I get really tired with all this Tom Mulcair is an angry, aloof 1 percenter stuff. I dont' think my party right or wrong without thinking, but when its all said and done, I'll always vote NDP. I've seen what the other guys always have to sell, and I ain't buying!

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I'll always vote NDP. I've seen what the other guys always have to sell, and I ain't buying!

I'm glad to read that.  It saddens me that I don't see more of that spirit here.  Instead, it seems some go out of their way to try to discourage others from supporting the NDP.  What is the point of that? 

Stockholm

So far this whole "envelope issue" seems to be a topic of conversation among THREE individuals on babble, plus a couple of hosts on Sun News who are desperately trying to divert attention from the Mike Duffy and Rob Ford story that threaten immolate two men who are the heart and soul of conservatism in Canada

Unionist

Sure, it's only babblers talking about this. We made the whole thing up.

The National Post has dedicated an editorial to this:

[url=http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/17/national-post-editorial-b... Mulcair's shameful, hypocritical silence[/url]

Quote:
Perhaps we have no reason to expect better from politicians in this day and age. But it is most unfortunate that a man of such self-professed moral rectitude, a lawyer no less, would fire at will on separatist politicians and “crap journalists,” yet hold his tongue for 16 long years on the activities of a mayor who just so happened to be very friendly with the provincial Liberals he then represented. [...]

It makes his earlier statements look foolish, partisan and hypocritical, and it draws the leader of the New Democrats — albeit tangentially — into the corruption story at its zenith, and just as new Liberal leader Justin Trudeau threatens to eat away at the party’s support in the province. This is particularly ironic considering that with Conservative popularity stagnant in Quebec, the NDP probably does offer voters the cleanest break from corruption at the federal level (if only because its presence in the province is so new).

In the catalogue of sins we are learning about from the Charbonneau Commission, Mr. Mulcair’s are of course minor. But he deserves to be held to account for them, not just for his hypocrisy. If Mr. Vaillancourt was literally a gangster, as is alleged, he was aided not just by those who took his envelopes but by those who turned up their noses, shook their heads in disgust and went on about their daily business. Instead of screaming at separatists and journalists, Mr. Mulcair could have helped get the anti-corruption ball rolling many years before it finally did, and it is to his discredit that he did not. As the saying goes, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Oh, and I apologize for this link to an obscene website, but this is the Conservative Party of Canada:

Quote:

This presents some difficult questions for Mr. Mulcair:

    1. Why did he protect Gilles Vaillancourt and cover up this alleged criminal activity for 17 years?
    2. Why did it take a public inquiry into the biggest corruption scandal in Canadian history for Thomas Mulcair to finally come clean with Canadians?
    3. Why did Thomas Mulcair lie and say he was never offered any money by Gilles Vaillancourt?
    4. Will he agree to appear if called to testify under oath before the Charbonneau Commission?

      Stockholm

      Whoop-dee-doo the Conservative Party and the National Post and Sun News are trying to pretend that this is even one millionth of one percent as much as an issue as what's happening to their icons - Mike Duffy and Rob Ford.

      NeedToVote101

      Unionist: Wanna know what my response was to that National Post article?

      Here it is:

      "This commentary... and I repeat commentary, is coming from the National Post editorial board? Seriously? If this does not raise alarm bells on the National Post's inability to remain non-partisan when delivering the news I don't know what can!

      You're beating up on a politician for saying no to what might have been an envelop full of cash!? Seriously? What are you guys conservative ad makers? This along with a convicted criminal making his commentary on the NDP on the front page of this newspaper's website screams to me that this paper fears non-partisan reporting. Get a life! It's a sad day in journalism when stories like these come out, regardless of the what political party is involved! Get us some real news. Some real opinions based on real fact as opposed to indoctrinated opinions based on other ill-founded opinions.

      Notice how they try to point out other past events that Mulcair seems to have made an error yet doesn't cover the notion that he may have been correct? Mr. Duhaime was sued and Mulcair was forced to pay $95,000 because he failed to prove anything. Does that mean Mr. Duhaime didn't commit the act he was being accused of? Was Mr. Duhaime investigated by others? If this was real commentary based on real journalism all of this would have been included in this article. I'm getting really sick at how newspapers in this country are hiding behind freedom of press to try and drum up support and/or to dismiss political parties.

      How about you start giving us real facts on people and political parties then opinionated pieces of information that you apparently don't know all of the details to? It would certainly be much appreciated coming from the freakin' editoral board of a newspaper!"

      LOL, unionist, do you see my comments posted on their webiste under that artlcle? I guess it didn't meet the moderator's criteria! LOL

      So much for the idea of freedom of the press, huh!? LMFAO! Yay! Canada!

      Brian Glennie

      Unionist wrote:

      Why did it take a public inquiry into the biggest corruption scandal  in Canadian history for Thomas Mulcair to finally come clean with  Canadians?

    1. Why did Thomas Mulcair lie and say he was never offered any money by Gilles Vaillancourt?
    2. I must admit I am kind of wondering what motivated Tom to change his story.

       

      Tough, tough week for the NDP. We suffered a setback in BC which presented the perfect opportunity to unleash the full-on character assasination we all knew was coming. Mulcair's $95,000 libel settlement even lines up with what Wright/Duffy/RBC had to pay. 

       It hasn't been all bad, though. Andrea Horwath's doing really well in Ontario.

       

         

         

        janfromthebruce

        Yes, we know how well "whistleblowers" have done in Canada. And that is now and not 1994. Once again, the NDP is not allowed to play by the same rules applied to the 2 corporate parties.

        knownothing knownothing's picture

        I say our position is:

        You have a choice between a party that turns down bribes and two parties that accept them.

        When asked why he didn't report the bribe, Mulcair should say he feared for his life and the lives of his family members.

        mark_alfred

        I don't think anyone really cares that he refused a potential bribe 17 years ago w/out reporting it.  This came out in the news on the 16th of May, right?  I was checking Google Trends, and there was some search interest in Mulcair in mid-April, but nothing in mid-May.  If the Cons try to make a deal of it in 2015, they'll likely get the same response they're getting now, which is people really don't care about it.  The Cons right now look like they're close to imploding, so I anticipate other issues in 2015

         

         

        Brachina

        janfromthebruce wrote:

        Yes, we know how well "whistleblowers" have done in Canada. And that is now and not 1994. Once again, the NDP is not allowed to play by the same rules applied to the 2 corporate parties.

        People are agitated hear because of the BC results. The brief whinning of a few rigk'htwng columnists who fail to hold thier allies to the same standards. This isn't even clark's red light, which was a crime she was guilty, were as Mulcair refused to be bribed.

        janfromthebruce

        I had a liberal moron on tweeter suggest that Mulcair's behavior has been disgraceful for a long time, and this is just the latest example. Yeah, Muclair is so corrupt for refusing a bribe from a corrupt Liberal politician. It doesn't get any richer than that.

        Unionist

        janfromthebruce wrote:

        I had a liberal moron on tweeter suggest that Mulcair's behavior has been disgraceful for a long time, and this is just the latest example. Yeah, Muclair is so corrupt for refusing a bribe from a corrupt Liberal politician. It doesn't get any richer than that.

        LOL, you think Gilles Vaillancourt is a Liberal politician? That's pretty rich all right. Do some reading, then weigh in.

         

         

        Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

        Unionist wrote:

        janfromthebruce wrote:

        I had a liberal moron on tweeter suggest that Mulcair's behavior has been disgraceful for a long time, and this is just the latest example. Yeah, Muclair is so corrupt for refusing a bribe from a corrupt Liberal politician. It doesn't get any richer than that.

        LOL, you think Gilles Vaillancourt is a Liberal politician? That's pretty rich all right. Do some reading, then weigh in.

         

         

        That's not very nice. What is it with you guys sometimes? I hate to say it but Jan seems to be everybody's moving target. Why is that?

        janfromthebruce

        Because Mulcair is so corrupt he left the provincial Liberals and joined the 4th place federal party.

        NorthReport

        Anyone seen the new NDP/Mulcair ad yet?

        Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

        No. Got a link?

        Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

        janfromthebruce wrote:

        Because Mulcair is so corrupt he left the provincial Liberals and joined the 4th place federal party.

        Now, that is funny! Kind of puts a point on it Jan. Thanks!

        NorthReport

        No Art, but perhaps try the ndp website

        Arthur Cramer wrote:

        No. Got a link?

        Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

        I can't find it. And it doesn't look like it is on the NDP website.

        nicky
        Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

        Here is the link to the new Tom Mulcair ad, http://links.ndp.ca/a/l.x?t=jkmhajbklhhbhnkbolmoccgp&M=12&v=4

        Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

        I liked the ad

        Brachina

        Yeah its good, it exposes more of Mulcair the man and that snippet of his speech at the end was the emotional pinacle of his montreal speech which honestly was one of the best speeches I've ever heard.

        mark_alfred

        I liked the end statement about voting for change and actually getting it.  That's a good theme.  But I felt the ad was a bit crowded.  I had to watch it a couple of times to get what his kid was saying and what his wife said near the end.  Initially I thought, "oh, his kid says he still sees him even though he's a busy politician [IE, he's still the family man], but then his wife later says they miss him."  I think though that she says "he will miss them when they leave."  I don't know.  The two statements were so quick it was hard to discern what was said.

        However, in spite of that, I thought it was good.  Hopefully the focus on parenting and on reliable change will lead to a campaign where national childcare takes a greater focus.

        Pages

        Topic locked