Why is Thomas Mulcair trying to undermine Jagmeet Singh?

158 posts / 0 new
Last post
montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Stephen LeDrew has not been an MP since 2003. I'm assuming he hates Trudeau because he's to the left of Chrétien.

He has never been an MP - he was the former President of the Liberal Party

Whatever. The point is he has been out of politics and out of the Liberal Party since 2003. A coward who jumped ship as Harper's Conservatives were gaining in popularity and the Liberals had no answers. I'm sure people remember when during the campaign in 2005, Martin decided to roll through (sorry I don't remeber the town) in a moving sleigh of some sort and a wheel went flat. It was symbolic of his campaign . But I digress

LeDrew is a Paul Martin/Jean Chrétien loyalist. He was President of the party before they veered to the left. He doesn't like the fact that the party is no longer at the centre right. He's just a miserable bastard.

I thought he was there until 2011 but turns out he was there till 2015. Still he was not leader and criticizing Trudeau is not his only vocation either.

Btw, what did Mulcair say about Jagmeet that was so offensive? I take it that it had to be pretty nasty to have it be the cause of so much dislike for Mulcair?

Unionist

montgomery wrote:

Btw, what did Mulcair say about Jagmeet that was so offensive? I take it that it had to be pretty nasty to have it be the cause of so much dislike for Mulcair?

I asked this question on Jan. 25, got some answers, you then asked it on Jan. 26, I replied with this. I think it's clear that Mulcair didn't say anything nasty at all, but that doesn't seem to be what people are criticizing him for. Maybe disloyalty, or self-aggrandizement, or something.

Anyway, now that everyone seems to agree that Mulcair said nothing offensive per se about Jagmeet, do you really mean to revive this topic? 

Sean in Ottawa

Mulcair is criticizing Singh's decision to wait longer to get a seat, questionning his ability to stay leader depending on the result, speculating about NDP MPs not staying on to run. I think there are two parts of this:

1) the NDP is on the ropes in the polls and sensitive to comments like this that make it harder. The anger is understandable, if not justified, any time these types of comments come from a former leader. In some respects the NDP may be accused of being too sensitive.

I do not think all respects which leads me to the second issue.

2) Mulcair, you could argue, has a right to his new career as a pundit. However, he is doing this really too soon, and this is a fair argument. Mulcair is getting a package as MP, that he got from being MP for the party and this package is at least six months salary. While earning this, he is making life difficult for the party. This seems a little poor taste especially when the byelection has not even been held yet. Mulcair as leader had developed access, internal contacts, trust to hear things within the party. To be open about what is not yet public uses this access (like MPs who confided about not running). This is likely where some of the betrayal is coming from. Had he waited, say about a year after leaving politics, it would be easier to accept the reality that he no longer has any loyalty to the party and is willing to use his knowledge to profit himself as a pundit.

The second reason is why I raised the question of comparison of a person who was elected, was as senior as leader, and did this as soon as Mulcair. I see nobody who has done this all like that. Usually, they let their successor get into the job, before they do this unless the animosity is the point. New Democrats tend to feel that they gave him a chance, that he did not perform well and that he does not really have a moral right to shit the bed now -- so soon, after the position he held AND with the party in such bad shape.

Sure what he did is legal. It may not be the first time, although I have no comparison of the extend of this. But the party is not unjustified in screaming betrayal.

Frankly, I think Mulcair's poor judgment is showing here. He is not instantly going to be trusted by the other parties as an unbiased pundit. His main claim to fame as a pundit would be his connection and knowledge of the NDP. His behaviour at this point looks like it will shut him out of most NDP contacts so he might end up being a bright pundit without any useful contacts. He may not even be a reasonable choice to balance pro Conservative and Liberal pundits as he is coming off as one with anger and animosity to the NDP due to the speed of doing this.

Pundits without contacts are a dime a dozen. You can get a dozen on this site for free.

I think he could have been a great pundit had he waited a year. It was not necessary to rush. The time for him to surface as a pundit could have been the writ period of the 2019 election a few months from now. By starting now, before his succesor wins or loses his seat, before the party has a platform, before his replacement for his seat is taken, while receiving money from his position as MP, while holding still relevant private conversations within the party (because it is so soon), he is betraying the party. By waiting, the party might grumble but they would have no case to make.

What he is doing is controversial. Those here who hate the NDP may defend him and slam the party for being angry. Party loyalists might never accept his right to become a pundit. I do not expect him never to become a commentator as some may feel he should never be, but I think the party has a point given the way he did this.

The usual pro and anti NDP choruses from babble will come at me from each side on this I expect. That may illustrate the problem. There are NDP supporters here who have shown anger at me (a nobody, who has claimed to support the NDP) for criticizing the NDP, imagine how they feel about a former leader. The other side will pick anything to tear a strip off the NDP supporters here. This is an example where both extremes would be wrong in my estimation.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Stephen LeDrew has not been an MP since 2003. I'm assuming he hates Trudeau because he's to the left of Chrétien.

He has never been an MP - he was the former President of the Liberal Party

Whatever. The point is he has been out of politics and out of the Liberal Party since 2003. A coward who jumped ship as Harper's Conservatives were gaining in popularity and the Liberals had no answers. I'm sure people remember when during the campaign in 2005, Martin decided to roll through (sorry I don't remeber the town) in a moving sleigh of some sort and a wheel went flat. It was symbolic of his campaign . But I digress

LeDrew is a Paul Martin/Jean Chrétien loyalist. He was President of the party before they veered to the left. He doesn't like the fact that the party is no longer at the centre right. He's just a miserable bastard.

I thought he was there until 2011 but turns out he was there till 2015. Still he was not leader and criticizing Trudeau is not his only vocation either.

Btw, what did Mulcair say about Jagmeet that was so offensive? I take it that it had to be pretty nasty to have it be the cause of so much dislike for Mulcair?

Thanks for clearing that up. LeDrew left the party the year they were elected. I am certain it was because of the left ward turn the party took in 2015. I'm sure Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien are more relatable to him.

He's now a columnist at a private news outlet. He's going to go after every party and leader. Unless he's biased. Which is not his job to be.

Mulcair is now a pundit. A pundit's job is to explain what is going on with all the parties, not to promote any party. That would make him a complete hack.

People are going to go after Trudeau and Singh....Not sure about Scheer. The Conservatives get a free ride for the most part and a lot of good press even though they are bigoted and economic nazis.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The usual pro and anti NDP choruses from babble will come at me from each side on this I expect. That may illustrate the problem. There are NDP supporters here who have shown anger at me (a nobody, who has claimed to support the NDP) for criticizing the NDP, imagine how they feel about a former leader. The other side will pick anything to tear a strip off the NDP supporters here. This is an example where both extremes would be wrong in my estimation.

Sean, while I always appreciate your posts and your analysis, I strongly suggest that you not paint others here as "choruses" or "extremes". It's condescending.

Next point: I try to judge Mulcair, Singh, Trudeau, Scheer, everyone, by what they say and do. Not by what party label they wear. That's why I voted for Mulcair every time - even though I disagreed with him on many issues, even though I had no use for the party he left, and little use for the party he joined. Today, I will try once again to judge him on words and deeds.

I read everything you wrote. It's not typical of you. Saying that what he's doing isn't in good taste? That it's unseemly for him to become a pundit so soon after collecting his MP's severance? Seriously? He was never elected because of the NDP. He was elected despite the fact that no one around these parts knew or cared about the NDP. Jack Layton showed vision by inviting him to join. So he may owe that overture to Jack Layton.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The usual pro and anti NDP choruses from babble will come at me from each side on this I expect. That may illustrate the problem. There are NDP supporters here who have shown anger at me (a nobody, who has claimed to support the NDP) for criticizing the NDP, imagine how they feel about a former leader. The other side will pick anything to tear a strip off the NDP supporters here. This is an example where both extremes would be wrong in my estimation.

Sean, while I always appreciate your posts and your analysis, I strongly suggest that you not paint others here as "choruses" or "extremes". It's condescending.

Next point: I try to judge Mulcair, Singh, Trudeau, Scheer, everyone, but what they say and do. Not by what party label they wear. That's why I voted for Mulcair every time - even though I disagreed with him on many issues, even though I had no use for the party he left, and little use for the party he joined. Today, I will try once again to judge him on words and deeds.

I read everything you wrote. It's not typical of you. Saying that what he's doing isn't in good taste? That it's unseemly for him to become a pundit so soon after collecting his MP's severance? Seriously? He was never elected because of the NDP. He was elected despite the fact that no one around these parts knew or cared about the NDP. Jack Layton showed vision by inviting him to join. So he may owe that overture to Jack Layton.

There is a chorus here against anything the NDP do and there is another in favour of everything they do. I did not accuse you of being part of either. I certainly will not apologize for saying this. In the last decade I have taken enough flac, without any logical support from both of those. I would prefer not to name names becuase that is unnecessary and would only cause needless fights. These two sides will take polar opposite views on things like the Mulcair punditry.

Second point is that I really think that Mulcair did get the support of the party and was part of it so yes he owes it some respect. By speaking about MPs not running again, he is using connections within the party that came from his position. I think a few months of letting his successor be settled in would have been reasonable. I do not think anyone has a right to respect loyalty to the NDP over the long term from Mulcair but a longer period than this before speaking about what he has heard in confidence would seem reasonable. As I say, I have never seen this speed from a person who held such a position.

If you were employed anywhere, you would be expected to allow a little time before making your former employer the subject of conversations you will have for profit. All I said was this could have waited for the upcoming election. I also said that by burning his NDP contacts now Mulcair is not making life as a pundit as good as it could be.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Mulcair is criticizing Singh's decision to wait longer to get a seat, questionning his ability to stay leader depending on the result, speculating about NDP MPs not staying on to run.

Interestingly, all things that have also been discussed at length here -- and if I'm not mistaken, the general consensus pretty much agreed with what little he said.

I wonder if the reaction would be the same if Mulcair-the-pundit had said "Singh cannot hope to inspire voters by trying to take the centre away from the Liberals... he'll need to present a bold, progressive vision of a better Canada!"

montgomery

So about all I get out of all that as an answer to the question of what did Mulcair do that was so bad:

It sounds like Mulcair is one of the NDP'ers who doesn't like Jagmeet for the leader of the party. It could be that Mulcair is saying that which he supposes is for the good of the party? So the next question is on how much support does Jagmeet have? Probably very little until he wins his election. 

Much ado about nothing at this point in time.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

So about all I get out of all that as an answer to the question of what did Mulcair do that was so bad:

It sounds like Mulcair is one of the NDP'ers who doesn't like Jagmeet for the leader of the party. It could be that Mulcair is saying that which he supposes is for the good of the party? So the next question is on how much support does Jagmeet have? Probably very little until he wins his election. 

Much ado about nothing at this point in time.

Love the straw man tactic: ignore what is said, make up something and then argue with that. If you are into self pleasure it might be worth it.

I actually laid out specifically more.

One of the things included not punditry but him speaking about conversations internal to the party. That is not being a pundit: that is taking advantage of confidences from a former position for profit.

But sure you can ignore what I say, make some bullshit up, and argue against that.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Mulcair is criticizing Singh's decision to wait longer to get a seat, questionning his ability to stay leader depending on the result, speculating about NDP MPs not staying on to run.

Interestingly, all things that have also been discussed at length here -- and if I'm not mistaken, the general consensus pretty much agreed with what little he said.

I wonder if the reaction would be the same if Mulcair-the-pundit had said "Singh cannot hope to inspire voters by trying to take the centre away from the Liberals... he'll need to present a bold, progressive vision of a better Canada!"

Nobody here was basing their speculations on private unverifiable conversations with anonymous NDP MPs that would be leveraging for profit as a pundit conversations internal to the party.

Sure, it is not illegal and he can do that but why do so many here want to pretend that NDP members and MPs should not be a little pissed about that?

Again -- nobody has provided really comparable examples of a former leader doing this beofre their seat is even filled.

This was unseemly becuase it was so close in time and based not on his punditry (ideas in his head) but on conversations he claims to have had.

Let's be blunt here: Mulcair's conversations with NDP MPs were not those of a pundit -- they were those of a leader, MP and former leader and former MP. This is why even a few months wait would have been the decent thing to do.

This is not becuase I really give a shit about either Singh or Mulcair right now. It is not even becuase I care that much for the NDP -- I am okay if the Greens take on the NDP positions socially and economically. It is not becuase I don't think he should become a pundit - I would find that interesting. This is becuase this has an unpleasant odour to it.

Mighty Middle

alan smithee wrote:

He's now a columnist at a private news outlet. He's going to go after every party and leader. Unless he's biased. Which is not his job to be.

He is biased because he is a Doug Ford supporter and pretty much praises the Conservatives. When he used to host CP24 he had Doug Ford on almost every week, and let him go off on Trudeau every chance he got. Same with Conservatives. I don't think he has ever written a negative piece about the Conservatives or Andrew Scheer.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

He's now a columnist at a private news outlet. He's going to go after every party and leader. Unless he's biased. Which is not his job to be.

He is biased because he is a Doug Ford supporter and pretty much praises the Conservatives. When he used to host CP24 he had Doug Ford on almost every week, and let him go off on Trudeau every chance he got. Same with Conservatives. I don't think he has ever written a negative piece about the Conservatives or Andrew Scheer.

Sounds right. The Conservatives always get a free ride from the media. I think we can both agree that he's an asshole.

He's a hack. A real political commentator has no dog in the fight of politics.

It's unbelievable that this cretin was part of the Liberal Party until 2015. It sort of proves my point that he is or was a Blue Liberal who did not like the leftward turn the party went in 2015.

Seems to me he needs another job. He'll have a friendly political party in either the Ford government or the CPC. To make a long story short,the man has no principles. I wouldn't read anything he writes.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

I actually laid out specifically more.

One of the things included not punditry but him speaking about conversations internal to the party. That is not being a pundit: that is taking advantage of confidences from a former position for profit.

I got that point about him going further than a pundit should, as your opinion, but there was nothing specific in it. Nobody is forcing you to say anything you know. If you choose to not talk about some specifics then I'm good with that.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

I actually laid out specifically more.

One of the things included not punditry but him speaking about conversations internal to the party. That is not being a pundit: that is taking advantage of confidences from a former position for profit.

I got that point about him going further than a pundit should, as your opinion, but there was nothing specific in it. Nobody is forcing you to say anything you know. If you choose to not talk about some specifics then I'm good with that.

Everything you say here is also just your opnion. This is a place of opinions -- calling out a statement for being an opinion is being a jerk here considering that nobody other than you is pretending that these are not opinions. Calling out an opinion for being an opinion rather than engage in the logic of the opinion is trolling and a waste of time. Hence why I said you were becoming a waste of time.

Also, you can see I have a short fuse when people want to make up both sides of a conversation.

I said that he was using his previous position with the NDP and the conversations in that role rather than being a pundit. He was marketing to his profit what was inside information. Not illegal but people in the NDP have a right to be angry. You do not need to minimize my point by reframing it to your pleasure. This is a tactic some people use here -- I never respond well to it.

I also stated that if he had let a little more time go by then the conversations he had as MP and leader would no longer have the same currency and he would really be a pundit and worthy of respect rather than the reaction you give when someone is marketing information they clearly had from a previous position of trust.

You do not have to agree with me. But I might call you an asshole if you insist on pretending I was saying something different from what I was saying. When I get up to the fifth time of having to restate my opinion and you still make it into something else, you won't get politeness as you are clearly playing a game. Clear?

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

I actually laid out specifically more.

One of the things included not punditry but him speaking about conversations internal to the party. That is not being a pundit: that is taking advantage of confidences from a former position for profit.

I got that point about him going further than a pundit should, as your opinion, but there was nothing specific in it. Nobody is forcing you to say anything you know. If you choose to not talk about some specifics then I'm good with that.

Everything you say here is also just your opnion. This is a place of opinions -- calling out a statement for being an opinion is being a jerk here considering that nobody other than you is pretending that these are not opinions. Calling out an opinion for being an opinion rather than engage in the logic of the opinion is trolling and a waste of time. Hence why I said you were becoming a waste of time.

Also, you can see I have a short fuse when people want to make up both sides of a conversation.

I said that he was using his previous position with the NDP and the conversations in that role rather than being a pundit. He was marketing to his profit what was inside information. Not illegal but people in the NDP have a right to be angry. You do not need to minimize my point by reframing it to your pleasure. This is a tactic some people use here -- I never respond well to it.

I also stated that if he had let a little more time go by then the conversations he had as MP and leader would no longer have the same currency and he would really be a pundit and worthy of respect rather than the reaction you give when someone is marketing information they clearly had from a previous position of trust.

You do not have to agree with me. But I might call you an asshole if you insist on pretending I was saying something different from what I was saying. When I get up to the fifth time of having to restate my opinion and you still make it into something else, you won't get politeness as you are clearly playing a game. Clear?

I read your opinion and understood it completely. And I don't dispute it in the least, but I still didn't get anything specific out of it. So he went further than a pundit should go. Fine! I may be able to agree with that if you get into some specific instance?

Give it a rest for a day or two, or just forget it completely if you like. I'm getting really tired of your snark.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

I actually laid out specifically more.

One of the things included not punditry but him speaking about conversations internal to the party. That is not being a pundit: that is taking advantage of confidences from a former position for profit.

I got that point about him going further than a pundit should, as your opinion, but there was nothing specific in it. Nobody is forcing you to say anything you know. If you choose to not talk about some specifics then I'm good with that.

Everything you say here is also just your opnion. This is a place of opinions -- calling out a statement for being an opinion is being a jerk here considering that nobody other than you is pretending that these are not opinions. Calling out an opinion for being an opinion rather than engage in the logic of the opinion is trolling and a waste of time. Hence why I said you were becoming a waste of time.

Also, you can see I have a short fuse when people want to make up both sides of a conversation.

I said that he was using his previous position with the NDP and the conversations in that role rather than being a pundit. He was marketing to his profit what was inside information. Not illegal but people in the NDP have a right to be angry. You do not need to minimize my point by reframing it to your pleasure. This is a tactic some people use here -- I never respond well to it.

I also stated that if he had let a little more time go by then the conversations he had as MP and leader would no longer have the same currency and he would really be a pundit and worthy of respect rather than the reaction you give when someone is marketing information they clearly had from a previous position of trust.

You do not have to agree with me. But I might call you an asshole if you insist on pretending I was saying something different from what I was saying. When I get up to the fifth time of having to restate my opinion and you still make it into something else, you won't get politeness as you are clearly playing a game. Clear?

I read your opinion and understood it completely. And I don't dispute it in the least, but I still didn't get anything specific out of it. So he went further than a pundit should go. Fine! I may be able to agree with that if you get into some specific instance?

Give it a rest for a day or two, or just forget it completely if you like. I'm getting really tired of your snark.

You are earning that snark. Why the hell should I have to argue with someone about what the hell I am saying? Engage with what I said or screw off troll. It is a lot more than going further than a pundit should.

It is leveraging conversations of trust for personal gain. This is something that will make just about anyone angry.

Disagree if you want but that is my opinion. Saying I am saying anything else makes you an asshole and troll.

Not everyone agrees with me here. That is okay. The difference is that they are not repeatedly engaging me to argue that I am not saying what I clearly am saying.

When you become a mod then you can decide if I should take a break for a couple days. You get to decide this for yourself not for me and I do not get to decide for you.

montgomery

No doubt Mulcair said something really naughty about Jagmeet. I'll probably never find out because it looks like it's something that won't be easy to search out with google. 

If there's anybody who can be of some assistance, other than Sean, it will be appreciated? Thanks! 

montgomery

Aha, found two links myself for Sean, this one by HP which is probably the best.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/01/14/jagmeet-singh-mulcair-byelectio...

And one by the NP, which is always suspicious. Now I have some homework to do.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

No doubt Mulcair said something really naughty about Jagmeet. I'll probably never find out because it looks like it's something that won't be easy to search out with google. 

If there's anybody who can be of some assistance, other than Sean, it will be appreciated? Thanks! 

You don't like the answer that you got but ignore but you continue the conversation trying to avoid me. Makes sense of course as you decloaked as a Liberal in another thread where you made it clear that the NDP should consider beating Conservatives by electing Liberals is more important than anything. Of course the anything includes its own survival. Really shows the stake you have in the leadership of the NDP.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So tell me Monto how many doors have you knocked on in the by-election being held today or have you been working the phone banks? I'm surprised you are posting on E-day in such an important race for your party. When I was involved in the party E-day was always a 12 to 16 hour day for the key players.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is leveraging conversations of trust for personal gain. This is something that will make just about anyone angry.

Sean, I honestly haven't been following this thing about Mulcair mentioning that some NDP MPs won't run again. If you have any references to that, I'd appreciate it.

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So tell me Monto how many doors have you knocked on in the by-election being held today or have you been working the phone banks? I'm surprised you are posting on E-day in such an important race for your party. When I was involved in the party E-day was always a 12 to 16 hour day for the key players.

None at all kropot. I'm not even a party member right now. And I guess I'm feeling more alienated than I did when I first came to this board. I can't break through to being accepted and am continually being labelled a Liberal. 

I guess the only thing I can reassure you on is that I'm going to vote NDP a little later today, then hang around the polls a bit and see how it looks like it's going.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

LMAO what a self righteous twit .

montgomery

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is leveraging conversations of trust for personal gain. This is something that will make just about anyone angry.

Sean, I honestly haven't been following this thing about Mulcair mentioning that some NDP MPs won't run again. If you have any references to that, I'd appreciate it.

Check out the two links I mentioned. Asking Sean just makes him more angry. 

Unionist

montgomery wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is leveraging conversations of trust for personal gain. This is something that will make just about anyone angry.

Sean, I honestly haven't been following this thing about Mulcair mentioning that some NDP MPs won't run again. If you have any references to that, I'd appreciate it.

Check out the two links I mentioned. Asking Sean just makes him more angry. 

1. I only saw one link, not two.

2. That link said nothing about Mulcair talking about NDP MPs who won't run again.

So if you actually do have any references on that point, or if Sean or anyone else does, I'd appreciate if someone could just calmly provide them, without accusations, shouting, snark, and everything else that makes this thread virtually unreadable. And others.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is leveraging conversations of trust for personal gain. This is something that will make just about anyone angry.

Sean, I honestly haven't been following this thing about Mulcair mentioning that some NDP MPs won't run again. If you have any references to that, I'd appreciate it.

Check out the two links I mentioned. Asking Sean just makes him more angry. 

I do answer direct questions unlike you.

As someone actually interested in the NDP of course I saw the many media stories on this.

As a person who knows how to use google I can bring them up.

As a person who has written in this thread I bothered to read the link in the opening post.

Begs the question, even as a Liberal, why would you write so many words in these threads and not read this. Maybe you write more than you read?

 In the opening post link:

"And then, this week, Mulcair told Power Play he knows of “several” NDP MPs who are not planning to run in the 2019 election, aside from those who have already made their intentions public. “I think that’s an obvious problem,” he said."

Here are some links -- mostly ctv since this is where he said it but heavily covered by them

1 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mps-have-told-h...

2 https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/01/23/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mp...

3 https://www.njus.me/ca/news/news/0/2725622/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mps-...

4 https://www.facebook.com/CTVLethbridge/posts/several-current-ndp-mps-wil...

5 https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/aj5idy/mulcair_says_sev...

6 https://twitter.com/CTV_PowerPlay/status/1088201521601413121

7 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-continues-election-style-swing-t...

8 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-ndp-mp-worried-about-state-of-the...

9 https://www.ctvnews.ca/5things/5-things-to-know-for-thursday-january-24-...

10 https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/recent-comments-by-thomas-mulcair...

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is leveraging conversations of trust for personal gain. This is something that will make just about anyone angry.

Sean, I honestly haven't been following this thing about Mulcair mentioning that some NDP MPs won't run again. If you have any references to that, I'd appreciate it.

Check out the two links I mentioned. Asking Sean just makes him more angry. 

1. I only saw one link, not two.

2. That link said nothing about Mulcair talking about NDP MPs who won't run again.

So if you actually do have any references on that point, or if Sean or anyone else does, I'd appreciate if someone could just calmly provide them, without accusations, shouting, snark, and everything else that makes this thread virtually unreadable. And others.

I guess you too missed the link in the opening post that we have all been talking about?

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I guess you too missed the link in the opening post that we have all been talking about?

Thanks for answering my question, Sean. I saw the post, but I didn't click through to the link which actually refers to what you're talking about. I appreciate your reply.

And yes, I confess I have little patience these days for people shouting and screaming at and ridiculing and accusing each other, so I've made the mistake of trying to skim and skip.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is leveraging conversations of trust for personal gain. This is something that will make just about anyone angry.

Sean, I honestly haven't been following this thing about Mulcair mentioning that some NDP MPs won't run again. If you have any references to that, I'd appreciate it.

Check out the two links I mentioned. Asking Sean just makes him more angry. 

I do answer direct questions unlike you.

As someone actually interested in the NDP of course I saw the many media stories on this.

As a person who knows how to use google I can bring them up.

As a person who has written in this thread I bothered to read the link in the opening post.

Begs the question, even as a Liberal, why would you write so many words in these threads and not read this. Maybe you write more than you read?

 In the opening post link:

"And then, this week, Mulcair told Power Play he knows of “several” NDP MPs who are not planning to run in the 2019 election, aside from those who have already made their intentions public. “I think that’s an obvious problem,” he said."

Here are some links -- mostly ctv since this is where he said it but heavily covered by them

1 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mps-have-told-h...

2 https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/01/23/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mp...

3 https://www.njus.me/ca/news/news/0/2725622/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mps-...

4 https://www.facebook.com/CTVLethbridge/posts/several-current-ndp-mps-wil...

5 https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/aj5idy/mulcair_says_sev...

6 https://twitter.com/CTV_PowerPlay/status/1088201521601413121

7 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-continues-election-style-swing-t...

8 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-ndp-mp-worried-about-state-of-the...

9 https://www.ctvnews.ca/5things/5-things-to-know-for-thursday-january-24-...

10 https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/recent-comments-by-thomas-mulcair...

I read the OP. 

That's it??

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is leveraging conversations of trust for personal gain. This is something that will make just about anyone angry.

Sean, I honestly haven't been following this thing about Mulcair mentioning that some NDP MPs won't run again. If you have any references to that, I'd appreciate it.

Check out the two links I mentioned. Asking Sean just makes him more angry. 

I do answer direct questions unlike you.

As someone actually interested in the NDP of course I saw the many media stories on this.

As a person who knows how to use google I can bring them up.

As a person who has written in this thread I bothered to read the link in the opening post.

Begs the question, even as a Liberal, why would you write so many words in these threads and not read this. Maybe you write more than you read?

 In the opening post link:

"And then, this week, Mulcair told Power Play he knows of “several” NDP MPs who are not planning to run in the 2019 election, aside from those who have already made their intentions public. “I think that’s an obvious problem,” he said."

Here are some links -- mostly ctv since this is where he said it but heavily covered by them

1 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mps-have-told-h...

2 https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/01/23/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mp...

3 https://www.njus.me/ca/news/news/0/2725622/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mps-...

4 https://www.facebook.com/CTVLethbridge/posts/several-current-ndp-mps-wil...

5 https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/aj5idy/mulcair_says_sev...

6 https://twitter.com/CTV_PowerPlay/status/1088201521601413121

7 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-continues-election-style-swing-t...

8 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-ndp-mp-worried-about-state-of-the...

9 https://www.ctvnews.ca/5things/5-things-to-know-for-thursday-january-24-...

10 https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/recent-comments-by-thomas-mulcair...

I read the OP. 

That's it??

A lot of people around here are pissed at you, considering your short tenure of three weeks. Maybe you should spend some time figuring out why. You mischaracterized what I was saying until I wrote it several times and then you asked for a link for me to prove Mulcair was referencing conversations with MPs and not just being a pundit. I provided some even though the Opening Post already had one. You could have seen that your question was answered in the opening post and apologized. You also had the option to say that using these conversations IN YOUR OPINION is not a big deal. Instead, you attacked my opinion on the basis that it was an opinion and then when that did not work you questioned if the fact I presented was real (even though it was in the opening post from a public interview).

You don't need to agree with a point someone is making to show respect. You can disagree strongly, some times with anger and passion. Respect means that you recieve the opinion rather than attack the legitimacy of the opinion and instead, if you choose, challenge its logical or factual foundation or just plain disagree without having to delegitimize the person's right to present that opinion. You have come here and are fighting with people becuase you refuse to engage with opinions and instead try to delegitimize them.

I imagine a good many people will disengage with you now becuase you are a problem that probably won't be here long.

 

 

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is leveraging conversations of trust for personal gain. This is something that will make just about anyone angry.

Sean, I honestly haven't been following this thing about Mulcair mentioning that some NDP MPs won't run again. If you have any references to that, I'd appreciate it.

Check out the two links I mentioned. Asking Sean just makes him more angry. 

I do answer direct questions unlike you.

As someone actually interested in the NDP of course I saw the many media stories on this.

As a person who knows how to use google I can bring them up.

As a person who has written in this thread I bothered to read the link in the opening post.

Begs the question, even as a Liberal, why would you write so many words in these threads and not read this. Maybe you write more than you read?

 In the opening post link:

"And then, this week, Mulcair told Power Play he knows of “several” NDP MPs who are not planning to run in the 2019 election, aside from those who have already made their intentions public. “I think that’s an obvious problem,” he said."

Here are some links -- mostly ctv since this is where he said it but heavily covered by them

1 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mps-have-told-h...

2 https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/01/23/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mp...

3 https://www.njus.me/ca/news/news/0/2725622/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mps-...

4 https://www.facebook.com/CTVLethbridge/posts/several-current-ndp-mps-wil...

5 https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/aj5idy/mulcair_says_sev...

6 https://twitter.com/CTV_PowerPlay/status/1088201521601413121

7 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-continues-election-style-swing-t...

8 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-ndp-mp-worried-about-state-of-the...

9 https://www.ctvnews.ca/5things/5-things-to-know-for-thursday-january-24-...

10 https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/recent-comments-by-thomas-mulcair...

I read the OP. 

That's it??

A lot of people around here are pissed at you, considering your short tenure of three weeks. Maybe you should spend some time figuring out why. You mischaracterized what I was saying until I wrote it several times and then you asked for a link for me to prove Mulcair was referencing conversations with MPs and not just being a pundit. I provided some even though the Opening Post already had one. You could have seen that your question was answered in the opening post and apologized. You also had the option to say that using these conversations IN YOUR OPINION is not a big deal. Instead, you attacked my opinion on the basis that it was an opinion and then when that did not work you questioned if the fact I presented was real (even though it was in the opening post from a public interview).

You don't need to agree with a point someone is making to show respect. You can disagree strongly, some times with anger and passion. Respect means that you recieve the opinion rather than attack the legitimacy of the opinion and instead, if you choose, challenge its logical or factual foundation or just plain disagree without having to delegitimize the person's right to present that opinion. You have come here and are fighting with people becuase you refuse to engage with opinions and instead try to delegitimize them.

I imagine a good many people will disengage with you now becuase you are a problem that probably won't be here long.

 

 

Sean, the only problem is that you can't be more inclusie of the opinions of others and so your only resort is to attempt to censor voices that don't fit your dogma. Stop making up shit that shows you to be the captain of the "Ban the Liberal" team. The NDP party can't allow that to continue to happen Sean, it's too divisive. 

Fwiw, I was behind the curve on national politics when I started on this forum but I think I'm close enough to being caught up by now. But I'm ahead of the curve on international politics and so I have something to teach even the most avid NDP'ers on this board. You and some of the others need to accept that and learn from it. 

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is leveraging conversations of trust for personal gain. This is something that will make just about anyone angry.

Sean, I honestly haven't been following this thing about Mulcair mentioning that some NDP MPs won't run again. If you have any references to that, I'd appreciate it.

Check out the two links I mentioned. Asking Sean just makes him more angry. 

I do answer direct questions unlike you.

As someone actually interested in the NDP of course I saw the many media stories on this.

As a person who knows how to use google I can bring them up.

As a person who has written in this thread I bothered to read the link in the opening post.

Begs the question, even as a Liberal, why would you write so many words in these threads and not read this. Maybe you write more than you read?

 In the opening post link:

"And then, this week, Mulcair told Power Play he knows of “several” NDP MPs who are not planning to run in the 2019 election, aside from those who have already made their intentions public. “I think that’s an obvious problem,” he said."

Here are some links -- mostly ctv since this is where he said it but heavily covered by them

1 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mps-have-told-h...

2 https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/01/23/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mp...

3 https://www.njus.me/ca/news/news/0/2725622/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mps-...

4 https://www.facebook.com/CTVLethbridge/posts/several-current-ndp-mps-wil...

5 https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/aj5idy/mulcair_says_sev...

6 https://twitter.com/CTV_PowerPlay/status/1088201521601413121

7 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-continues-election-style-swing-t...

8 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-ndp-mp-worried-about-state-of-the...

9 https://www.ctvnews.ca/5things/5-things-to-know-for-thursday-january-24-...

10 https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/recent-comments-by-thomas-mulcair...

I read the OP. 

That's it??

A lot of people around here are pissed at you, considering your short tenure of three weeks. Maybe you should spend some time figuring out why. You mischaracterized what I was saying until I wrote it several times and then you asked for a link for me to prove Mulcair was referencing conversations with MPs and not just being a pundit. I provided some even though the Opening Post already had one. You could have seen that your question was answered in the opening post and apologized. You also had the option to say that using these conversations IN YOUR OPINION is not a big deal. Instead, you attacked my opinion on the basis that it was an opinion and then when that did not work you questioned if the fact I presented was real (even though it was in the opening post from a public interview).

You don't need to agree with a point someone is making to show respect. You can disagree strongly, some times with anger and passion. Respect means that you recieve the opinion rather than attack the legitimacy of the opinion and instead, if you choose, challenge its logical or factual foundation or just plain disagree without having to delegitimize the person's right to present that opinion. You have come here and are fighting with people becuase you refuse to engage with opinions and instead try to delegitimize them.

I imagine a good many people will disengage with you now becuase you are a problem that probably won't be here long.

 

 

Sean, the only problem is that you ...

Classic. No point engaging with a person like you.

montgomery

Being so far ahead of the curve on international politics, my most important priority is to be anti-conservative. And the consequence of that is being sometimes sympathetic of the Libeal stand on some issues because that stand has to also be the NDP stand. 

For instance, I'm simply appalled at the support being voiced on this board with the support of Nato and the US! 

If anybody thinks that's not consistent with what the NDP's message must be, send me a p.m. explaining why? I'll take off the block of Ken now because I value his opinions too.

Sean in Ottawa

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is leveraging conversations of trust for personal gain. This is something that will make just about anyone angry.

Sean, I honestly haven't been following this thing about Mulcair mentioning that some NDP MPs won't run again. If you have any references to that, I'd appreciate it.

Check out the two links I mentioned. Asking Sean just makes him more angry. 

I do answer direct questions unlike you.

As someone actually interested in the NDP of course I saw the many media stories on this.

As a person who knows how to use google I can bring them up.

As a person who has written in this thread I bothered to read the link in the opening post.

Begs the question, even as a Liberal, why would you write so many words in these threads and not read this. Maybe you write more than you read?

 In the opening post link:

"And then, this week, Mulcair told Power Play he knows of “several” NDP MPs who are not planning to run in the 2019 election, aside from those who have already made their intentions public. “I think that’s an obvious problem,” he said."

Here are some links -- mostly ctv since this is where he said it but heavily covered by them

1 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mps-have-told-h...

2 https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/01/23/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mp...

3 https://www.njus.me/ca/news/news/0/2725622/mulcair-says-several-ndp-mps-...

4 https://www.facebook.com/CTVLethbridge/posts/several-current-ndp-mps-wil...

5 https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/aj5idy/mulcair_says_sev...

6 https://twitter.com/CTV_PowerPlay/status/1088201521601413121

7 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-continues-election-style-swing-t...

8 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-ndp-mp-worried-about-state-of-the...

9 https://www.ctvnews.ca/5things/5-things-to-know-for-thursday-january-24-...

10 https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/recent-comments-by-thomas-mulcair...

I read the OP. 

That's it??

A lot of people around here are pissed at you, considering your short tenure of three weeks. Maybe you should spend some time figuring out why. You mischaracterized what I was saying until I wrote it several times and then you asked for a link for me to prove Mulcair was referencing conversations with MPs and not just being a pundit. I provided some even though the Opening Post already had one. You could have seen that your question was answered in the opening post and apologized. You also had the option to say that using these conversations IN YOUR OPINION is not a big deal. Instead, you attacked my opinion on the basis that it was an opinion and then when that did not work you questioned if the fact I presented was real (even though it was in the opening post from a public interview).

You don't need to agree with a point someone is making to show respect. You can disagree strongly, some times with anger and passion. Respect means that you recieve the opinion rather than attack the legitimacy of the opinion and instead, if you choose, challenge its logical or factual foundation or just plain disagree without having to delegitimize the person's right to present that opinion. You have come here and are fighting with people becuase you refuse to engage with opinions and instead try to delegitimize them.

I imagine a good many people will disengage with you now becuase you are a problem that probably won't be here long.

 

 

Sean, the only problem is that you ...

Classic. No point engaging with a person like you.

Oh this is the best part:

"But I'm ahead of the curve on international politics and so I have something to teach even the most avid NDP'ers on this board. You and some of the others need to accept that and learn from it."

Sadly, we don't do well with someone in the third week telling us that we have to accept being taught by him. Unfortunately, we might just think that you are a know-it-all incapable of learning or teaching.

We are all stupid here. We can't understand being just told that we are in the presence of greatness. We like to observe over time the analysis, knowledge and communications skills of those showing up. You might have an easier time around those who are more capable of  accepting your superiority without you actually having to earn it.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Being so far ahead of the curve on international politics, my most important priority is to be anti-conservative. And the consequence of that is being sometimes sympathetic of the Libeal stand on some issues because that stand has to also be the NDP stand. 

For instance, I'm simply appalled at the support being voiced on this board with the support of Nato and the US! 

If anybody thinks that's not consistent with what the NDP's message must be, send me a p.m. explaining why? I'll take off the block of Ken now because I value his opinions too.

Your arrogance grows faster than weeds on a lawn in summer.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Being so far ahead of the curve on international politics, my most important priority is to be anti-conservative. And the consequence of that is being sometimes sympathetic of the Libeal stand on some issues because that stand has to also be the NDP stand. 

For instance, I'm simply appalled at the support being voiced on this board with the support of Nato and the US! 

If anybody thinks that's not consistent with what the NDP's message must be, send me a p.m. explaining why? I'll take off the block of Ken now because I value his opinions too.

Your arrogance grows faster than weeds on a lawn in summer.

I'll reiterate on what I've said in private. There's no need to badmouth any of the oldtimers on this board in public. I'm sure their hearts, and even your heart is in the right place, even  though some are quite wrong on Nato and the US.

Actually, I'm finding that Kropotkin is the closest to being 'with the curve' on international politics but he's got this bad tic up his ass. Really destructive of our common goal in my opinion.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

montgomery wrote:

Actually, I'm finding that Kropotkin is the closest to being 'with the curve' on international politics but he's got this bad tic up his ass. Really destructive of our common goal in my opinion.

 I do indeed think of you as a tic but I hadn't imagined you would be mining my rectum. I think I am as upfront as one can be about my goal and it is mutual aid. So other than that I am not sure what common goal we could share. Maybe just a standard Canadian one of peace, order and good government?

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Being so far ahead of the curve on international politics, my most important priority is to be anti-conservative. And the consequence of that is being sometimes sympathetic of the Libeal stand on some issues because that stand has to also be the NDP stand. 

For instance, I'm simply appalled at the support being voiced on this board with the support of Nato and the US! 

If anybody thinks that's not consistent with what the NDP's message must be, send me a p.m. explaining why? I'll take off the block of Ken now because I value his opinions too.

Your arrogance grows faster than weeds on a lawn in summer.

I'll reiterate on what I've said in private. There's no need to badmouth any of the oldtimers on this board in public. I'm sure their hearts, and even your heart is in the right place, even  though some are quite wrong on Nato and the US.

Actually, I'm finding that Kropotkin is the closest to being 'with the curve' on international politics but he's got this bad tic up his ass. Really destructive of our common goal in my opinion.

Here, we don't concede the kind of greatness you ascribe to yourself -- not even to  known writers, those who have been elected, or who have run national campaigns etc. There are a considerable number of people here with a public profile of knowledge and achievement. Others, with substantial expertise and achievements are here under assumed names. You have no idea who you are claiming superiority to.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Being so far ahead of the curve on international politics, my most important priority is to be anti-conservative. And the consequence of that is being sometimes sympathetic of the Libeal stand on some issues because that stand has to also be the NDP stand. 

For instance, I'm simply appalled at the support being voiced on this board with the support of Nato and the US! 

If anybody thinks that's not consistent with what the NDP's message must be, send me a p.m. explaining why? I'll take off the block of Ken now because I value his opinions too.

Your arrogance grows faster than weeds on a lawn in summer.

I'll reiterate on what I've said in private. There's no need to badmouth any of the oldtimers on this board in public. I'm sure their hearts, and even your heart is in the right place, even  though some are quite wrong on Nato and the US.

Actually, I'm finding that Kropotkin is the closest to being 'with the curve' on international politics but he's got this bad tic up his ass. Really destructive of our common goal in my opinion.

Here, we don't concede the kind of greatness you ascribe to yourself -- not even to  known writers, those who have been elected, or who have run national campaigns etc. There are a considerable number of people here with a public profile of knowledge and achievement. Others, with substantial expertise and achievements are here under assumed names. You have no idea who you are claiming superiority to.

Superiority can be claimed by me, based on some of the ill-informed comments. And now we're finished this bickering in public because it's allowing you to be disruptive of the topic on several threads and that's just going to give you the opportunity to blame it all on me. So p.m. with with your whining from now on. Have a nice day!

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Being so far ahead of the curve on international politics, my most important priority is to be anti-conservative. And the consequence of that is being sometimes sympathetic of the Libeal stand on some issues because that stand has to also be the NDP stand. 

For instance, I'm simply appalled at the support being voiced on this board with the support of Nato and the US! 

If anybody thinks that's not consistent with what the NDP's message must be, send me a p.m. explaining why? I'll take off the block of Ken now because I value his opinions too.

Your arrogance grows faster than weeds on a lawn in summer.

I'll reiterate on what I've said in private. There's no need to badmouth any of the oldtimers on this board in public. I'm sure their hearts, and even your heart is in the right place, even  though some are quite wrong on Nato and the US.

Actually, I'm finding that Kropotkin is the closest to being 'with the curve' on international politics but he's got this bad tic up his ass. Really destructive of our common goal in my opinion.

Here, we don't concede the kind of greatness you ascribe to yourself -- not even to  known writers, those who have been elected, or who have run national campaigns etc. There are a considerable number of people here with a public profile of knowledge and achievement. Others, with substantial expertise and achievements are here under assumed names. You have no idea who you are claiming superiority to.

Superiority can be claimed by me, based on some of the ill-informed comments. And now we're finished this bickering in public because it's allowing you to be disruptive of the topic on several threads and that's just going to give you the opportunity to blame it all on me. So p.m. with with your whining from now on. Have a nice day!

Your delusions of superiority and your arrogance are what is derailing threads. I am not the only one you are fighting with to assert your superiority. I have noticed your attacks on at least 4 others in the last 48 hours. I have no intention of having any private conversation with you ever nor am I interested in your desire to provide moderating instruction to this board.

The idea that you think you have markedly more informed comments than anyone else is a fantasy that only you have.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The idea that you think you have markedly more informed comments than anyone else is a fantasy that only you have.

Clearly true.

Debater

Sean & kropotkin are correct on this one.

This is unprecedented in Canadian political history.

A former party leader has never directly gone into becoming a paid political commentator right after retiring from politics.  It creates a bad precedent and puts a party in an awkward position when their former leader is being paid to go on TV and make critical comments about their own party, particularly during the middle of a by-election.

While former party leaders and Prime Ministers have popped up from time to time to offer comments on different subjects (eg. Ed Broadbent, Jean Chretien, Stephen Harper, etc.), they have never done so as paid political TV commentators.

Mighty Middle

MPs warned Singh in June that he's through as leader if he can't win Burnaby South

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-caucus-burnaby-south-1.50...

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Debater wrote:

Sean & kropotkin are correct on this one.

This is unprecedented in Canadian political history.

A former party leader has never directly gone into becoming a paid political commentator right after retiring from politics.  It creates a bad precedent and puts a party in an awkward position when their former leader is being paid to go on TV and make critical comments about their own party, particularly during the middle of a by-election.

While former party leaders and Prime Ministers have popped up from time to time to offer comments on different subjects (eg. Ed Broadbent, Jean Chretien, Stephen Harper, etc.), they have never done so as paid political TV commentators.

How about Stockwell Day? It seems to me that he was a regular on Power and Politics panels for years. He may still be, but I stopped watching a few years ago. The thing is, he was always clearly supportive of the Conservative Party, and never strayed from his party talking points. Apparently, Mulcair thinks he can be a neutral commentator, which is unprecedented for a former party leader.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Being a former leader who speaks about his party as a political commentator where you are introduced as the voice of the party means you restrain criticism because that format is designed for each party to send an attack dog. Paid political commentators who are supposed to be objective should be like lobbyists and there should be a period when you are not allowed to use your speed dial connections from time on the inside of the inner circle to inflict any damage on the party. Its crass and disrespectful of the membership.

Debater

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Debater wrote:

Sean & kropotkin are correct on this one.

This is unprecedented in Canadian political history.

A former party leader has never directly gone into becoming a paid political commentator right after retiring from politics.  It creates a bad precedent and puts a party in an awkward position when their former leader is being paid to go on TV and make critical comments about their own party, particularly during the middle of a by-election.

While former party leaders and Prime Ministers have popped up from time to time to offer comments on different subjects (eg. Ed Broadbent, Jean Chretien, Stephen Harper, etc.), they have never done so as paid political TV commentators.

How about Stockwell Day? It seems to me that he was a regular on Power and Politics panels for years. He may still be, but I stopped watching a few years ago. The thing is, he was always clearly supportive of the Conservative Party, and never strayed from his party talking points. Apparently, Mulcair thinks he can be a neutral commentator, which is unprecedented for a former party leader.

By the time he joined the panel of Power & Politics, it had been many years since Stockwell Day had been a party leader.

(Plus, he had been the leader of the defunct Canadian Alliance, not the Conservative Party).

montgomery

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The idea that you think you have markedly more informed comments than anyone else is a fantasy that only you have.

Clearly true.

That's not what I claimed Michael. Not on the markedly informed comments bit, which I didn't claim and certainly not more than anyone else. 

What I will claim is that I'm ahead of those two on international politics. And I also hear some very illinformed comments on the US and it's foreign policy. I'm not going to mention names.

It's o.k. for someone to say what I've said above Micheal. Those who have confidence in themselves should have no need to worry. Others that are acting paranoid about a newcomer upstaging them will certainly have issues with me. f--k em Michael. This board is still all fuddleduddled up with arrogant pricks who think they own the place. It's not going to change.

And hey! Maybe they do? I'll continue the way I'm going until I get shut down. I don't knuckle under to rude assholes. But I have a hunch that those type win out then they are going to be the influence that destroys our party. That kind of exclusionist attitude, arrogance, and inability to be tolerant of the ideas of others, spells doom.

Everybody pretty well knows that now Michael, except the closed-minded pricks who dictate what's allowable as an opinion on this board.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

montgomery wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The idea that you think you have markedly more informed comments than anyone else is a fantasy that only you have.

Clearly true.

That's not what I claimed Michael. Not on the markedly informed comments bit, which I didn't claim and certainly not more than anyone else. 

What I will claim is that I'm ahead of those two on international politics. And I also hear some very illinformed comments on the US and it's foreign policy. I'm not going to mention names.

It's o.k. for someone to say what I've said above Micheal. Those who have confidence in themselves should have no need to worry. Others that are acting paranoid about a newcomer upstaging them will certainly have issues with me. f--k em Michael. This board is still all fuddleduddled up with arrogant pricks who think they own the place. It's not going to change.

And hey! Maybe they do? I'll continue the way I'm going until I get shut down. I don't knuckle under to rude assholes. But I have a hunch that those type win out then they are going to be the influence that destroys our party. That kind of exclusionist attitude, arrogance, and inability to be tolerant of the ideas of others, spells doom.

Everybody pretty well knows that now Michael, except the closed-minded pricks who dictate what's allowable as an opinion on this board.

montgomery, step away from the keyboard.  Take a walk around the block.  Just...stop.  Please.

WWWTT

kropotkin wrote

I hadn't imagined you would be mining my rectum.

Thats real funny shyt!

But really now, all of you posters replying to montgomery should be trying to ignore more. I’m guilty lots of times of engaging instead of ignoring so I shouldn’t b preaching to anyone. Just a reminder 

montgomery

Ken Burch wrote:

montgomery wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The idea that you think you have markedly more informed comments than anyone else is a fantasy that only you have.

Clearly true.

That's not what I claimed Michael. Not on the markedly informed comments bit, which I didn't claim and certainly not more than anyone else. 

What I will claim is that I'm ahead of those two on international politics. And I also hear some very illinformed comments on the US and it's foreign policy. I'm not going to mention names.

It's o.k. for someone to say what I've said above Micheal. Those who have confidence in themselves should have no need to worry. Others that are acting paranoid about a newcomer upstaging them will certainly have issues with me. f--k em Michael. This board is still all fuddleduddled up with arrogant pricks who think they own the place. It's not going to change.

And hey! Maybe they do? I'll continue the way I'm going until I get shut down. I don't knuckle under to rude assholes. But I have a hunch that those type win out then they are going to be the influence that destroys our party. That kind of exclusionist attitude, arrogance, and inability to be tolerant of the ideas of others, spells doom.

Everybody pretty well knows that now Michael, except the closed-minded pricks who dictate what's allowable as an opinion on this board.

montgomery, step away from the keyboard.  Take a walk around the block.  Just...stop.  Please.

I've unblocked you Ken so you can tell me in private why you want me to take a walk around the block.

 

 

Pages