Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brian Glennie

Fidel wrote:

Hey this thread is fun. An' then we could fantasize about the way things should be whenever we finish cutting the NDP off at the knees before the race even gets underway.

Agreed.

I just don't like seeing Tom go out of his way to provide the script for a Tory attack ad.

Maybe he's using reverse psychology.Smile

Fidel

Tom sounds suspiciously nationalistic to me and especially when he starts talking about a national energy policy. I think national energy policy has to begin with not allowing the Yanks to construct anymore pipelines for Texas to siphon-off the oil. Our two old line parties carried through on an idioitc trade deal which treats Canadian oil as belonging to market gods. We all know that market gods don't exist only people and international borders.

knownothing wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I find it a bit difficult to reconcile the environment claim with the claim of how it's preferable to have the pipeline be east-west within Canada.  Can anyone help me out here?

Although there would be environmental benefits to east-west pipelines such as they are already built, there would be more environmental damage from refining our own oil.

However, I still support the idea. It is an economic nationalist argument.

We need to go Chavez on the oil industry and take control of our economy as much as we can in the face of imperialist domination. Once we do that we have more leeway for renewables, which would be great!

 

Except that Canada today has nothing in common with Venezuela's economic and social conditions leading up to Chavez' election.

We can still have nationalized energy policy without "going Chavez" on foreign oil companies that own all of the modern oil drilling technologies subsidized by U.S. and Canadian taxpayers over the years.

Norway is a good example for nationalization of oil revenues. Norway is actually a net creditor nation with well funded socialized medicine, national daycare,  free post-secondary education for all Norwegians,  and a sovereign oil fund worth more than CPP and Oilberta's "Heritage" Fund combined.

And the CIA hasn't even tried to overthrow the leader of that country. Why not?

Because it's harder to orchestrate a "colour revolution" against a democratically elected leader and government elected by a fairer voting system than they can only pretend to have in the USSA.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Fidel wrote:

You want Ubermaus!

Get real.

ferfuxakes

Go fux yourself. You have sunk to a new low by saying I want a nazi anything.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I'm quite pleased that Mulcair is getting under the Con's skin these past few weeks. I hope he keeps it up.

Jacob Two-Two

Keeps it up and steps it up. With all the scandals popping up lately, we should be hearing more from the NDP. The Conservatives would be howling for blood if the shoe were on the other foot.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

The Conservatives would be howling for blood if the shoe were on the other foot.

Oh, for sure. This is why I could never be in politics - I'm an introvert, this kind of childish behaviour turns me off. Doesn't matter which party I joined - I could never get up in my seat and join others in howling for blood.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Fidel wrote:

Except that Canada today has nothing in common with Venezuela's economic and social conditions leading up to Chavez' election.

We can still have nationalized energy policy without "going Chavez" on foreign oil companies that own all of the modern oil drilling technologies subsidized by U.S. and Canadian taxpayers over the years.

Norway is a good example for nationalization of oil revenues. Norway is actually a net creditor nation with well funded socialized medicine, national daycare,  free post-secondary education for all Norwegians,  and a sovereign oil fund worth more than CPP and Oilberta's "Heritage" Fund combined.

And the CIA hasn't even tried to overthrow the leader of that country. Why not?

Because it's harder to orchestrate a "colour revolution" against a democratically elected leader and government elected by a fairer voting system than they can only pretend to have in the USSA.

I am not saying we should nationalize oil, or even start a public oil company. When I am saying we should go "Chavez" on the oil industry I simply mean to regain some sovereignty by raising royalties, corporate taxes, and stopping subsidies.

I am well aware that we are not in the right political or social environment to have a CCF-style government in Ottawa or any Canadian province.

But that still doesn't excuse what Broten said. Hopefully he will reverse his position on the pipeline and chalk it up to a rookie mistake or he could be at risk of alienating Saskatchewan lefties even moreso.

socialdemocrati...

Exactly, knownothing and Fidel. We can have a nationalistic policy on the oil sands without actually Nationalizing it. If anything, Nationalization isn't even the most progressive feature, as state ownership might ultimately replace private capitalism with state capitalism.

The key features of a just oil sands policy:

- End oil subsidies.

- Raise corporate taxes.

- Account for the actual cost of pollution, and force companies to pay for it.

- Use Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund as a model for what to do with the profits.

Now the Canadian public is benefiting from the oil sands (Chavez-lite, if you prefer) without owning the risk or the costs (anti - bailout style).

Why won't Mulcair promise to do these things?!

knownothing knownothing's picture

Well Mulcair has promised to make polluters pay.

As for raising corp taxes and ending oil subsidies I haven't heard him speak about these issues specifically.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

If you end tax subsidies and make the polluter pay then you will shut down the tar sands projects because they become losing enterprises.  A great outcome from my perspective but the reality none the less. The companies don't mind digging big holes to throw taxpayers' money into if they can skim enough off of the top but they will not throw their own money down a black hole.

If that is the backdoor way that the NDP wants to shut down the industry that is fine by me but it does not square well with the idea of pumping the bitumen anywhere. Allowing any expansion of pipelines to carry bitumen in any direction on the compass is bad economic policy and far worse environmental policy especially if the new policy of ending subsidies and making the current companies pay for the pollution they have already caused isn't in place first.

knownothing knownothing's picture

I think you make a good point, however, I don't think that polluter pay is a backdoor way to shut down the oil sands

 

I think that Mulcair is offering the companies a friendlier PR image. If they can operate under the Mulcair NDP banner they would be safe from environmentalist criticism as it would be focused on Mulcair and us.

It could be economically in their favour to pay more for pollution and have an NDP govt in Ottawa.

If that is a possiblilty then the question becomes, "how much can the NDP negotiate for the country?"

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I do have other issues with Mulcair, but I love seeing him piss off Joe Oliver and Brad Wall.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think KN that you are underestimating the actual destruction already caused and the price tag to fix that and ensure it doesn't happen in the future. The worst case scenario would be weak regulations introduced by a supposedly progressive government that would give the tar sands operators a green wash.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think KN that you are underestimating the actual destruction already caused and the price tag to fix that and ensure it doesn't happen in the future. The worst case scenario would be weak regulations introduced by a supposedly progressive government that would give the tar sands operators a green wash.

Reading this, Krop, I was thinking about Joe Oliver's comment on P&P last year that the waste water in the tar sands pools would be cleaned up and made safe to drink. Evan Solomon kept pushing him on this because obviously he knew Oliver was bullshitting him, but Oliver kept repeating that tar sands water will be safe to drink.

 

socialdemocrati...

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Exactly, knownothing and Fidel. We can have a nationalistic policy on the oil sands without actually Nationalizing it. If anything, Nationalization isn't even the most progressive feature, as state ownership might ultimately replace private capitalism with state capitalism.

The key features of a just oil sands policy:

- End oil subsidies.

- Raise corporate taxes.

- Account for the actual cost of pollution, and force companies to pay for it.

- Use Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund as a model for what to do with the profits.

Now the Canadian public is benefiting from the oil sands (Chavez-lite, if you prefer) without owning the risk or the costs (anti - bailout style).

Why won't Mulcair promise to do these things?!

knownothing wrote:

Well Mulcair has promised to make polluters pay.

As for raising corp taxes and ending oil subsidies I haven't heard him speak about these issues specifically.

Check the links.

knownothing knownothing's picture

That's what I get for not reading every link

 

Thanks

mark_alfred

I did a search for stuff about "Keystone" on the NDP domain, and found a few articles (none, curiously, on their main site).  I think the whole east-west rather than north-south statements are a bit of a ruse intended to cloud the reality that the NDP just don't want serious expansion of the the oilsands.  I've seen no proposals for building an alternative pipeline (IE, the east-west stuff that Mulcair occasionally mentions).  Frankly, I'm fine with not wishing to drastically expand the oilsands, but the odd double-talk is irritating.  There was a post on freedominion that actually summed up my own confusion on it: 

poster on freedominion wrote:
So Bullcair tells Americans we do not have a good enviroment record and that he supports a cross Canada pipeline but is against a Keystone extension. So how does a cross Canada pipeline help our "bad enviro record" as opposed to the Keystone extension? I also support a cross Canada pipeline, but I don't understand Bullcair supporting one and not the other based on enviroment issues.

Anyway, one interesting site I found on the NDP domain is here, where the history of Keystone is given.  Apparently an Enbridge pipeline spilt into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, costing them millions of dollars.  So, many in the States oppose pipelines and are lobbying Obama to reject it, whereas Big Oil is lobbying Obama to accept it.  So Mulcair seems to be trying to strengthen Obama's resolve to reject Keystone while simultaneously trying to not alienate too many people here with fears of not obtaining the expected jobs of Keystone.  Interesting, but it does lead to really weird mixed messaging, in my opinion.

NorthReport

Mulcair said he would not be signing any trade agreements that do not protect Canadian jobs which I am very happy to hear but what does that actually mean? How do you protect Canadian jobs in a trade agreement?

 

Mulcair rallies labour support for next election at union conference

 

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair

 

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mulcair-rallies-labour-support-for-next-ele...

Jacob Two-Two

I'm sure you interpret it in the context of his whole "dutch-disease value-added" perspective. He's saying he'll fight trade deals that lock in massive exports of raw materials.

NorthReport

Good.

This sell-off of all our raw national resources with no manufacturing nor secondary jobs, with no heritage fund, with little or no corporate taxes nor royalties, and with no concern for protecting the environment nor reducing global warming, has got to be stopped.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Apparently an Enbridge pipeline spilt into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, costing them millions of dollars.

The Kalamazoo spill has been discussed in numerous threads.  Here is a link to a NPR series on it.  They are not the oil sands they are tar sands. Bitumen in nasty stuff and the chemicals that are needed to make it flow through the pipelines is even nastier.  The idea of shipping this shit in pipelines to any where is absurd.  The chemicals they use erode the pipes far quicker and the tar sands gunk sinks and the chemicals rise as toxic fumes.

The clean up is not even close to done. Last week a judge ordered them to start dredging to remove the tar that sank in the river.  Enbridge told the locals in Michigan that the submerged oil is not harmful.  Enbridge told the Northern Gateway committee that their gunk doesn't sink.

http://environmentreport.org/enbridge_oil_spill.php

janfromthebruce

Mulcair asserts party's progressive credentials at home, abroad

Mulcair will first flaunt his title as Leader of the Opposition on Thursday at the Progressive Governance conference in Copenhagen, a meeting of the world's centre-left political movements.

snip

The Progressive Governance conference beforehand is being touted as a bit of coup by the NDP, who note it was Liberals who used to be invited as marquee speakers. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was one of the highlighted invitees at the 2008 conference, but since then Canadians have been thin on the agenda.

Mulcair will speak at a panel discussion Thursday that includes American, Swedish, Danish and British politicians and strategists, discussing how social democrats can find their post-recession footing.

snip

Mulcair's response is to suggest the Liberals are only progressive when it's politically expedient, and that the NDP will actually deliver on what it promises.

"We are about getting results. For the first time in Canadian history, people will be able to vote for the change they want and actually get it," Mulcair said.

"We've seen that sort of disappointment in the past with some of the governments."

snip (rising above the cheap shots shows Tom is classy)

If people are hoping for a few swipes at Trudeau or any other Liberal contender, Mulcair says they'll be disappointed — at least for now.

Trudeau said last week that Mulcair crossed a line when he went to Washington and criticized Canada's environmental record, and shared doubts about the XL Keystone pipeline project.

"I didn't appreciate it when I was going through my leadership last year when Stephen Harper stuck his nose in our leadership campaign," said Mulcair.

"I didn't find it appropriate and even though I intend to form a government, which means we'll go up against the Liberals and defeat them as much as we're going to defeat the Conservatives, we know there's still a lot of work to do for everyone."

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"Mulcair's response is to suggest the Liberals are only progressive  when it's politically expedient, and that the NDP will actually deliver  on what it promises.

"We are about getting results. For the first  time in Canadian history, people will be able to vote for the change  they want and actually get it," Mulcair said.

"We've seen that sort of disappointment in the past with some of the governments."

Great post Jan!

If this is what Mulcari intends to do then I say, now that's what I'm talkin' about!

socialdemocrati...

Mulcair is ardently anti-austerity. He's been repeating it a lot at many different venues. That's been a crucial issue for me. Makes me very happy, and pretty much makes all the TONY BLAIR panic attacks seem pretty silly.

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
Mulcair is ardently anti-austerity. He's been repeating it a lot at many different venues. That's been a crucial issue for me. Makes me very happy, and pretty much makes all the TONY BLAIR panic attacks seem pretty silly.

As was Obama before he was elected, and now Obama is going along with austerity proposals that the Republicans would never dream of.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

It all comes down to trust.  I don't trust an ex Liberal Cabinet Minister who served in a Charest government while it gutted many programs in Quebec. i can't say what he will be like as a PM but I believe that he is highly susceptible to the austerity propaganda that he will get from his Deputy Ministers and the ubiquitous business lobby in Ottawa.

I sincerely hope I am wrong and his supporters are correct in their assessment of his potential mettle when faced with the bare cupboard and rampant MSM bullshit that he will inherit when he takes office.

socialdemocrati...

I'm actually surprised to see you guys concede that it really is about trust. Because that's what I've been saying all along. That on numerous policy issues, Mulcair was backing up Jack, and he's carried that forward. We often hear him support the party platform -- with a lot of specificity on many issues -- in public too. So it comes down to whether he'll actually follow through. I concede trust is a huge issue.

But I don't think that every social democratic government who ever caved on a promise did so because their leader wasn't "ballsy" enough, or was secretly lying. A lot of it comes down to the political environment. We are a democracy after all.

A lot of people use that as an excuse to justify whatever caving in. "The voters are against us! We have to tack right!" Not me. I keep fighting. What I'm actually justifying is that we need to keep working OUTSIDE the party to change the political environment. We full on 100% expect that the media will beat the drum for austerity. So we need to explain to politically disengaged people what austerity is and why it doesn't work. A surprising number of politically disengaged people are easily convinced that "balancing the budget" will help them. We have to innoculate the population a bit at a time. And look for ways to build mass movements, by tapping into NEW strains of resistance.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I'm actually surprised to see you guys concede that it really is about trust. Because that's what I've been saying all along. That on numerous policy issues, Mulcair was backing up Jack, and he's carried that forward. We often hear him support the party platform -- with a lot of specificity on many issues -- in public too. So it comes down to whether he'll actually follow through. I concede trust is a huge issue.

I may make many posts but trust me when I assure you I am only one person. I agree that Tom talks very much like Jack or any of the other leadership candidates that he beat. I look for context in spoken words from things like the history of the person making the statements. I am not impressed with his background and thus distrust his rhetoric.

NorthReport

And why did Mulcair resign from the Liberals again?

Stop distorting things.

 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It all comes down to trust.  I don't trust an ex Liberal Cabinet Minister who served in a Charest government while it gutted many programs in Quebec. i can't say what he will be like as a PM but I believe that he is highly susceptible to the austerity propaganda that he will get from his Deputy Ministers and the ubiquitous business lobby in Ottawa.

I sincerely hope I am wrong and his supporters are correct in their assessment of his potential mettle when faced with the bare cupboard and rampant MSM bullshit that he will inherit when he takes office.

Centrist

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
I'm actually surprised to see you guys concede that it really is about trust. Because that's what I've been saying all along.

The latest Ipsos poll shows some ominous signs in that regard though. In all leadership categories, Mulcair is in 3rd place - even behind the NDP's party level of support. OTOH, Trudunce leads the pack with high scores and Harper consistently places 2nd.

These categories include: Best PM, Trust, Getting Things Done, Has What it Takes to Lead Canada, Manage Tough Economic Times, Wants to be PM for Right Reasons, Has a Vision to Support, Open/Responsible/Ethical, Leadership on World Stage, Values Best Represent My Own, etc.

That's the public perception and it's imperative that those numbers don't become entrenched over time. Hopefully Trudunce's numbers deflate over time and move back in favour of Mulcair.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/134088182/2013-Federal-Vote-Support

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

NorthReport wrote:

And why did Mulcair resign from the Liberals again?

Stop distorting things.

Nice personal attack North Report. Do you dispute the fact that he is an ex Liberal Cabinet Minister and that the Quebec Liberals acted much like the BC Liberals. If not then what do you think is distorted about my post.  Not being fawning is not the same as distorting the facts.

Mulcair claims he resigned over the privatization of some parks in Quebec but in fact he hung in until he was "demoted" in a Cabinet shuffle. Personally I suspect he was running from a sinking ship in 2007 but being demoted might have played a part in it as well. As an aside the LPQ did not lose government in the subsequent election but were merely reduced to a minority government. When he quit on principle it appears he had already spoken to the NDP because almost immediately he announced he would be running for the federal NDP in the next election. He then won in a by election. 

socialdemocrati...

Centrist, that poll is going to be useless not just because of the methodology, but because of the number of polls showing that people largely don't know who he is. The biggest problem right now is still introducing Mulcair, as the standard bearer for the party.

kropotkin1951, there were easier paths to power than joining the national third party who had never won (more than) one seat in his province. I think that counts a lot in his favor. I agree with you that the Charest stint is a strike against him, although his role on the environment there is very much to his credit.

Like I said, far more important than whether you trust Mulcair is going to be the political environment in 2015. If you want to avoid austerity in Canada, slamming the NDP leader as a sellout probably won't lead to a magical anti-austerity unicorn being born out of ideologically pure socialist fairy dust. The best thing you could do is take the anti austerity argument outside of party politics. Because if you succeed, in 2015, we'll elect an anti-austerity party -- whether that's the NDP or someone else -- and they'll actually have a mandate against austerity.

 

Ippurigakko

i guess everybody forgot about tom on ndp leadership convention and he says liberal is always failed he said it repeatedly....

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Holding the NDP's feet to the fire is a tough job but someone has to do it. Like I said above I really hope your assessment of Tom is correct but I am entitled to my opinion and am entitled to express it on babble even though we disagree. 

Tom's statement about the Iron Lady does nothing to change my opinion of him. I don't dispute the factual nature of the content but I do think the tone is indicative of his world view. I also think it is very telling that there were no similar condolences on the NDP site for Hugo Chavez. Tom commented about his death when he was questioned by the media. Quick question who do you think was more admired by NDP members, Hugo or the Iron Lady.

Quote:

On behalf of all New Democrats, I express my sincere condolences to Mrs. Thatcher's loved ones and the people of Great Britain.

Lady Thatcher was one of the most influential British politicians and world leaders of the 20th century.

Not only was she Britain's first and only woman Prime Minister, but she is also the country’s only leader to win three consecutive terms.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I don`t know, I thought Tom`s words were as neutral as could be without saying what he really thought of her. You can bet Justin Trudeau would have called her a great leader, much respected in the world, blah, blah, blah!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

You know, other then his Captain Canada schtick, and his last name, is there anything else upon which people are basing their assessment of Trudeau. What else could it be. I hope you guys are right his not being able to live up to his PR, because if he does even half way decently, the NDP could be in trouble. If he became PM, it would just confirm to me that Canadians are as dumb, if not dumber then Americans. I don`t think the issue is that Trudeau came along when he did, its that Harper came along when he did. The Libs may do the old bait-and-switch one more time and get away with it again.

knownothing knownothing's picture

If Trudeau wins, big deal.

If the NDP doesn't win the next election, so what?

That means the NDP still represents a threat to the status quo.

Mulcair at Progressive Governance Conference

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/08/this-is-our-time-mulcair-slams-l...

Stockholm

I have news for you. If Jack Layton were alive and leading the NDP today, I am about 99% certain that the NDP would be putting out a virtual identical statement. Its standard good form that on the day that a major world figure dies parties and leaders try to take the high road and express condolences and leave the criticism of the person's politics for another day. You may not like that custom, but it goes back loooong before Mulcair was leader, in fact i seem to recall the Layton-led NDP expressing similar anodyne condolences in 2004 when Ronald Reagan died.

 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Tom's statement about the Iron Lady does nothing to change my opinion of him.

Quote:

On behalf of all New Democrats, I express my sincere condolences to Mrs. Thatcher's loved ones and the people of Great Britain.

Lady Thatcher was one of the most influential British politicians and world leaders of the 20th century.

Not only was she Britain's first and only woman Prime Minister, but she is also the country’s only leader to win three consecutive terms.

 

nicky

Didn't Blair win 3 consecutive terms?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Its standard good form that on the day that a major world figure dies parties and leaders try to take the high road and express condolences and leave the criticism of the person's politics for another day. You may not like that custom, but it goes back loooong before Mulcair was leader, in fact i seem to recall the Layton-led NDP expressing similar anodyne condolences in 2004 when Ronald Reagan died.

Please post the NDP condolences on the death of Hugo Chavez. I looked on the NDP site and was unable to find it.

Stockholm

Sounds like your issue has nothing to do with Thatcher, you just think the NDP should have put out a formal statement on the death of Chavez. The NDP also put out no statement on the death today of Annette Funicello...boo-hoo-hoo

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Hugo Chavez was not a world leader but someone to be compared to a mouseketeer. I think that might be a new low for you.

If the NDP was consistent then that would be one thing. When they mourn the architect of the UK peoples demise and destroyer of unions and ignore a democratic socialist it says a lot about its world view.

Brachina

I know Mulcair himself gave condolence over Hugo. Don't know where, no I'm not doing a search, you care that much kropto you can do it yourself.

Honestly petty arguements over stuff like this is a waste of energy and distracts from the important battles.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Mulcair said nice things about Chavez on P and P; much nicer than any other Canadian leader.

As for his statement about Thatcher (which was nicely done I thought), he has to make them because Britain is our official cultural motherland and Venezuela isn't.

mark_alfred

If Mulcair didn't issue a formal statement on Hugo Chavez, then I agree with kropotkin1951 that that's unfortunate.  I did a search, and found that Megan Leslie had an acknowledgement on her site, but I couldn't find anything on the main ndp site.  However, I also think that we have a lot more in common with Britain (historically and culturally) than with Venezuela, so it makes sense to acknowledge the passing of one of their former prime ministers regardless of the political party.  If Blair passed away, I'd expect Conservatives to acknowledge this.  Certainly when Layton passed away Harper did acknowledge this.  So, it's always best to show good form, which in the case of Thatcher Mulcair did.

 

ETA:  Here's a site that has some responses of political leaders in Canada (including Mulcair) to Chavez's death. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I notice not of the concerned Dippers took Stockholm to task for comparing Hugo to a mousketeer/beach blanket starlet. It is obvious we share different concerns and world views. But since this is an open forum I get to express myself as long as I follow the rules. Whether you think my concerns over the way an ex-liberal leads the party that I spent decades supporting are petty is for you to deal with.  Frankly I think it is a personal insult but I am getting used to that kind of behaviour from the NDP stalwarts who want babble to be a rah rah echo chamber for the blessed Mulcair, savior of the universe. Like Arthur I have learned to distrust liberals and therefore I don't trust Tom because of his liberal past.  When faced with the tough decisions he will act like a left liberal at best.

socialdemocrati...

That's your smoking gun proving Mulcair is a closet conservative?

When Thatcher died, Mulcair didn't take a huge shit on her grave. Instead he revealed his fondness for the Conservative agenda, like "being a prime minister", and "re-election". And of course, he personally crafted this statement and ordered that it be proclaimed forthwith, because he was a Liberal.

Sometimes people do such a great job discrediting themselves that I don't even need to make sure anyone agrees with them.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K, you wrote, "I don't trust Tom because of his liberal past.  When faced with the tough decisions he will act like a left liberal at best.È

I really hope you are wrong. But as I have written so many times, if the NDP turn out to be a bunch of Libs, I give up.

Brachina

Stop letting people mess with your head AC. Mulcair may not be as extreme as some would like, but he's an honourable man which is why he never fit in in the Quebec Liberal Party.

Brachina

Maybe she had alot of fans on rabble, how can you hate on a mousekettre? ;p

Pages

Topic locked