NDP Leadership # 103

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wilf Day
NDP Leadership # 103

Now?

Issues Pages: 
Wilf Day

Posted in the last thread:

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was changed recently to allow membership in provincial parties where an NDP doesn't exist. I recall it being pretty straightforward before... not a member/supporter of another political party.

The change to allow Quebecers to join the NDP when they are also a member of a Quebec provincial party was made many years ago. At least 1989, if not much earlier. Does anyone know?

I don't object to the NDP electing a leader who didn't join the party until 2007. We are open to new members. But surely Mulcair expects to answer "why didn't you join the NDP before 2007?" Maybe he has already, and I missed it?

Brachina

Actually Mulcair first joined the NDP back in 1967 I believe.

This is a non issue for me.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Those who are supporting Tom's candidacy   (updated)

ps: in thread 94, someone mentioned Tom joined the NDP in the 1970s, but I can't find confirmation anywhere. I'll ask him if he comes to babble for a Q&A

mark_alfred

Cullen released a tax plan that is described in the Globe article NDP's Cullen pitches higher taxes for rich Canadians, oil companies.  It's similar to Topp's tax plan, though a bit more moderate.  Still, it's very good.  In spite of his open-nomination policy, I may raise him up in my choices (Topp still occupies the top spot, but Cullen is showing some promise, I feel).

Stockholm

There may be some perfectly valid reasons not to support Mulcair for the leadership - but his number of years as a party member is not one of them. Honestly, before Mulcair joined the party in 2007, the NDP was simply not a going concern at all in Quebec - it literally had no more than a handful of members in the whole province! If we start applying a "loyalty test" to Mulcair based on him "only" having been an NDP member since 2007 - what message does that send to all the thousands of Quebecers who have recently joined the party? Are we saying that there are two classes of NDP members?

Brachina

http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/315949

This why I support Mulcair on,focusing trade,away from human rights abusers like China, and giving nations with a better record prefered trade status.

Actually after reading that I was so upset I was ready to give my vote to whoever would hit China with an embargo. But I've calmed down, but I still don't want stronger trade ties with China, thier government is just butchers and serial killers.

Brachina

Stockholm wrote:

There may be some perfectly valid reasons not to support Mulcair for the leadership - but his number of years as a party member is not one of them. Honestly, before Mulcair joined the party in 2007, the NDP was simply not a going concern at all in Quebec - it literally had no more than a handful of members in the whole province! If we start applying a "loyalty test" to Mulcair based on him "only" having been an NDP member since 2007 - what message does that send to all the thousands of Quebecers who have recently joined the party? Are we saying that there are two classes of NDP members?

Bingo

mark_alfred

Sobering words a couple of weeks ago.  For the record, I have donated at least $25 to all of the candidates in this race.  For the NDP to ever win, it is going to have to galvanise more financial support from its base just like the Conservatives seem able to do.

AnonymousMouse

SDM, in answer to your question, under cap and trade permits would be auctioned off (or given away) each year; not one-time.

socialdemocrati...

Ah, I get that now. But this revenue source is designed to decline, right?

AnonymousMouse

The revenue declines eventually but as emissions are reduced, prices go up so it would a long time before total revenue went down. Not sure how long exactly, but a question of decades, not years.

socialdemocrati...

Hmm. Seems simple enough. I still maintian that Mulcair is going to have a hard time selling the consequences on this if he focuses on it as his main source of revenue. People are going to say it's either (a) taxing everyone indirectly, or (b) not enough revenue, so there will be a huge budget catastrophe or huge taxes. The best response is to promise to raise a few billion from taxing corporations and wealthy individuals. That's just my armchair quarterback opinoin, though, and not something that would disqualify Mulcair.

Chris Borst

mark_alfred wrote:

Sobering words a couple of weeks ago.  For the record, I have donated at least $25 to all of the candidates in this race.  For the NDP to ever win, it is going to have to galvanise more financial support from its base just like the Conservatives seem able to do.

Put me down as an undecided who doesn't know where best to direct his donations. In terms of how folks have positioned themselves, my sympathies lie, in alphabetical order, more with Ashton, Nash, Saganash (when he was in the race) and Topp. In terms of their abilities to handle the performative aspects of the job, Mulcair and Cullen seem to be leaving everyone else in the dust -- and Mulcair the only one able to do so in both official languages. I was really expecting a more dynamic performance from Nash, in particular. As it is, I don't know what to think.

Brachina

Chris Borst wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Sobering words a couple of weeks ago.  For the record, I have donated at least $25 to all of the candidates in this race.  For the NDP to ever win, it is going to have to galvanise more financial support from its base just like the Conservatives seem able to do.

Put me down as an undecided who doesn't know where best to direct his donations. In terms of how folks have positioned themselves, my sympathies lie, in alphabetical order, more with Ashton, Nash, Saganash (when he was in the race) and Topp. In terms of their abilities to handle the performative aspects of the job, Mulcair and Cullen seem to be leaving everyone else in the dust -- and Mulcair the only one able to do so in both official languages. I was really expecting a more dynamic performance from Nash, in particular. As it is, I don't know what to think.

Think about it like this, Nash, Ashton, and Saganash will be ministers in a Mulcair government, but the reverse strongly risks not winning which means instead you get Baird, Tony, and Flatgerly in the Harper government.

mark_alfred

Brachina wrote:

Think about it like this, Nash, Ashton, and Saganash will be ministers in a Mulcair government, but the reverse strongly risks not winning which means instead you get Baird, Tony, and Flatgerly in the Harper government.

That's what the Liberals said about John Turner as opposed to Jean Chretien (that Chretien didn't have the charisma to win).  Turner as we know lost miserably.  The fact is, people really don't know.  I don't have a crystal ball that accurately reflects the future, and presumably you don't either.

mtm

I know it doesn't really matter, but for the record, I've heard Thomas Mulcair talk about buying his first membership card in 1974, from a future colleague in the Charest cabinet.  I forget the name.  Incidentally , a cursory search of google confirms this

Translated, from October 16 article in La Presse:

In an interview, Mr. Mulcair insisted on his "social background" and his past volunteer activities. "I chose the NDP because it is the party that represents my values, my background. I actually took my first card of the NDP in 1974, he said. In addition, I immediately connected with Jack Layton on the environment. "

 

Just for the record.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Link  En entrevue, M. Mulcair insiste sur son «background social» et sur ses activités bénévoles passées. «J'ai choisi le NPD parce que c'est le parti qui correspond à mes valeurs, à mon background. J'ai d'ailleurs pris ma première carte du NPD en 1974, dit-il. En plus, j'ai tout de suite connecté avec Jack Layton sur l'environnement.»

Thanks, mtm!

Howard

Mulcair has the support of 41 NDP MPs. That's more NDP MPs than even existed in 2008. Times change.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

In case this hasn't been posted before, and apologies if it has. Nathan Cullen: An Economy for Canadians, Not the Oil Patch

AnonymousMouse

"With almost five weeks left in the race, campaigns such as Mr. Topp’s vow that they will become even more 'in your face.'"

Not good. Not good at all.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-leadership-contenders-s...

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Think about it like this, Nash, Ashton, and Saganash will be ministers in a Mulcair government, but the reverse strongly risks not winning which means instead you get Baird, Tony, and Flatgerly in the Harper government.

That's what the Liberals said about John Turner as opposed to Jean Chretien (that Chretien didn't have the charisma to win).  Turner as we know lost miserably.  The fact is, people really don't know.  I don't have a crystal ball that accurately reflects the future, and presumably you don't either.

That's not quite accurate from what I understand... Chretien had charisma and charm... and as Iona Campagnolo said he was "second on the ballot, but first in our hearts". Turner was out of elected politics for awhile (nine years) but annointed by the party insiders as the one to go with. Turner sounds more like Topp to me... :)

Hunky_Monkey

AnonymousMouse wrote:
"With almost five weeks left in the race, campaigns such as Mr. Topp’s vow that they will become even more 'in your face.'"

Not good. Not good at all.

">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-leadership-contenders-s...

I second that. And I fear it will cause some bad blood in the party... especially by Topp supporters if Tom wins.

I've talked to someone in Peggy's campaign and they're not too happy with Topp right now as well.

mark_alfred

Thanks for the link, AnonymousMouse.  That was an interesting story.  Seems the race is going into the final push -- kind of exciting, actually.

What surprised me was the impression the article gave of the Quebec caucus, in that they want either Topp or Mulcair and no one else due to them being "fully bilingual" (regardless of whether they're backing Mulcair or Topp).  What about Nash?  I've heard elsewhere that her French is fine.  Mind you, the article offered the evidence of a mere two Quebec MPs who have that view, so perhaps the idea that this a view of most of Quebec's caucus can be taken with a grain of salt.

Anyway, will be interesting to see if either Chisolm or Saganash endorse anyone.  It will also be interesting to see if anyone drops out or not.  Seems like crunch time.

Who said this race was boring?

KenS

This is a trivia point / and maybe a question.

LONG time ago some Mulcair supporter described Globe reporter Daniel Leblanc as a "friend of Topp's". I'm always skeptical of such assertions / comments, but I know nothing about him.

He's now written a lot of articles about the NDP race. And even when he first started writing I saw evidence that he was well connected. That does not imply as most people probably take it that he has been connected for a long time. A reporter can make it their business to cultivate broad connections.

If he is some kind of friend of Topp's, he hides it well. He makes points that could have come from all the different camps [as well as quoting them or referring to them directly].

KenS

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I second that. And I fear it will cause some bad blood in the party... especially by Topp supporters if Tom wins. 

Care to explain that? I literally do not get how it is supposed to 'work'.

Brachina

mark_alfred wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Think about it like this, Nash, Ashton, and Saganash will be ministers in a Mulcair government, but the reverse strongly risks not winning which means instead you get Baird, Tony, and Flatgerly in the Harper government.

That's what the Liberals said about John Turner as opposed to Jean Chretien (that Chretien didn't have the charisma to win).  Turner as we know lost miserably.  The fact is, people really don't know.  I don't have a crystal ball that accurately reflects the future, and presumably you don't either.

Do you honestly think Mulcair is anything like John Turner? Not only would Mulcair eat Turner for breakfast, he has more principles then Turner and wouldn't get but kicked in a debate by Brian Mulorony.

Turner and Mulcair have nothing in common, Mulcair is a winner and Turner not so much.

KenS

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I second that. And I fear it will cause some bad blood in the party... especially by Topp supporters if Tom wins. 

KenS wrote:

Care to explain that? I literally do not get how it is supposed to 'work'.

 

I'm going to strengthen that. If you do not explain it as something else, it comes across as a drive-by insinuation ostensibly phrased as 'just a passing obervation'.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

AnonymousMouse wrote:
"With almost five weeks left in the race, campaigns such as Mr. Topp’s vow that they will become even more 'in your face.'" Not good. Not good at all.
">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-leadership-contenders-s...

 

Perhaps.  but I thought it a good thing that the article reported a consensus emerging among Quebec MPs that they need either Mulcair or Topp.

Hunky_Monkey

KenS wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I second that. And I fear it will cause some bad blood in the party... especially by Topp supporters if Tom wins. 

Care to explain that? I literally do not get how it is supposed to 'work'.

Not very difficult to grasp, KenS... Topp has been pushing attack lines against Tom so many Topp supporters don't trust Mulcair and think he's the next Paul Martin. I've come across more Topp supporters who have said they wouldn't support a Mulcair NDP. And Topp is helping that along with how his campaign is run.

Maybe Topp should follow Jack's letter a little more closely.

clambake
KenS

HM. there's some leaps in logic and connections that just sound reasonable.

That does not make for a reasonable insinuation of stirring up bad blood- ie, something that lasts much longer than a leadership race.

You seem to forget that active NDP supporters are volunteers. People put time into things because they are worth them. There are more people for which that is condidtional than those for which it is essentially not conditional.

KenS

Any figure running for the leadership who is polarizing is going to lead to some volunteers feeling that the party lead by candidate X is a party they question they want to do anything for. More often than not they dont leave the party, they pull back. They usually come back to being more active either when they decide the new Leader is not as bad as they thought, or time goes by and among other possibilities that leader is gone.

A lot of you think that Mulcair being polarizing is totally undeserved- that it is only that 'he isnt one of us' stuff. Well, I've never had any time for that 'not one of us' crap... and I still think Mulcair has earned being a polarizing figure. I guarantee it would be there just as much whether or not the Topp campaign chose to ride it.

But my honest opinion is that I have never paid attention to people saying they will leave the party or back if X happens. I take it seriously. But they do or they dont. I really dislike gratuitously, or more often heedlessly alienating ANY constituency in the big tent. But I'm also not into catering to any of them.

Dippers choose to do what they will, and if some people dont like it, thats life.

Wilf Day

mtm wrote:

I know it doesn't really matter, but for the record, I've heard Thomas Mulcair talk about buying his first membership card in 1974, from a future colleague in the Charest cabinet.  I forget the name.  Incidentally , a cursory search of google confirms this

Translated, from October 16 article in La Presse:

In an interview, Mr. Mulcair insisted on his "social background" and his past volunteer activities.  "I chose the NDP because it is the party that represents my values, my background.  I actually took my first card of the NDP in 1974, he said.  In addition, I immediately connected with Jack Layton on the environment."

Just for the record.

Yes, I've seen that quote several times, and have no reason to doubt it. And I also understand he let it lapse at some point, which is quite understandable: he was only 20 years old in 1974. He was called to the bar in 1979. In 1983 he became Director of Legal Affairs at Alliance Quebec. He probably didn't hold a card in any party, federal or Quebec, at that point. He was President of the Office des professions du Québec (1987 to 1993), again perhaps incompatible with partisan activity.

In 1994 he was recruited to run for the Quebec Liberals, and became a member of that party. I'm guessing (do we have to guess?) that he did not join any federal party from 1994 until 2007? Has he explained why?

Considering Mulcair's maternal great-grandfather was former Quebec Premier Honoré Mercier, he's hardly shy about political activity.

socialdemocrati...

I doubt any of the candidates are especially polarizing to most of the members, let alone the millions of NDP voters. There may be some drawn out tough battles among people on babble, but the race itself has been extremely tame with few policy differences compared to the Liberals, let alone the past 30 years of U.S. primaries for both major parties. Even the babble spats are nothing compared to what I saw from observing the U.S. primaries.

I have zero doubt that the party will unify around the leader no matter what.*

(*Assuming that the debates don't get any tougher, which they might. And discounting the obligatory protest from the self professed socialist caucus.)

CanadaApple

mark_alfred wrote:

That's what the Liberals said about John Turner as opposed to Jean Chretien (that Chretien didn't have the charisma to win).  Turner as we know lost miserably.  The fact is, people really don't know.  I don't have a crystal ball that accurately reflects the future, and presumably you don't either.

These are about the same as my thoughts as well. We put alot of importance on who the Leader is going to be, but no matter who they are, they're going to go up against things that they can't really control or predict.  Perhaps by 2015, the Harper Conservatives will go through a major scandal that all but means they'll lose and the NDP will win in a cake walk no matter who is leader. Or perhaps the economy will suddenly rebound and that makes a Conservative Victory all but certain. I think it was SDM who said that predicting who the best leader is in 2012 for an election that will be held in 2015 is hard. Say what you will about American Politics, at least they get to pick their presidential candidates the same year as their elections!

I think the best we can really do is use all the best information we have, and then decide on our own who we think is the best person to lead the party. And then when all this is over, we have a nice big group hug. = D

mark_alfred

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
KenS wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I second that. And I fear it will cause some bad blood in the party... especially by Topp supporters if Tom wins. 

Care to explain that? I literally do not get how it is supposed to 'work'.

Not very difficult to grasp, KenS... Topp has been pushing attack lines against Tom so many Topp supporters don't trust Mulcair and think he's the next Paul Martin. I've come across more Topp supporters who have said they wouldn't support a Mulcair NDP. And Topp is helping that along with how his campaign is run. Maybe Topp should follow Jack's letter a little more closely.

"Don't let them tell you it can't be done." Opponents in this race should openly talk about about their differing visions for leadership, which includes critically assessing the other candidates' visions.  Jack, unlike Harper, was never a control freak who wouldn't allow people to express differences of opinion.

NDPP

Nathan Cullen's Bid to Lead NDP Gets Social Media Boost

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/02/17/nathan-cullens-bid-to-lead-ndp-gets-s...

"Two big online advocacy organizations are giving a potentially big boost to Nathan Cullen's underdog campaign to become NDP leader. Avaaz and Leadnow.ca are promoting more cooperation among Canada's 'progressive' political forces to defeat PM Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

And now they're urging new members - almost 700,000 strong - to join federal opposition parties in a bid to influence their agendas - including their choice of leader.."

And George Soros, had much the same idea..

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/avaaz

Policywonk

Wilf Day wrote:

mtm wrote:

I know it doesn't really matter, but for the record, I've heard Thomas Mulcair talk about buying his first membership card in 1974, from a future colleague in the Charest cabinet.  I forget the name.  Incidentally , a cursory search of google confirms this

Translated, from October 16 article in La Presse:

In an interview, Mr. Mulcair insisted on his "social background" and his past volunteer activities.  "I chose the NDP because it is the party that represents my values, my background.  I actually took my first card of the NDP in 1974, he said.  In addition, I immediately connected with Jack Layton on the environment."

Just for the record.

Yes, I've seen that quote several times, and have no reason to doubt it. And I also understand he let it lapse at some point, which is quite understandable: he was only 20 years old in 1974. He was called to the bar in 1979. In 1983 he became Director of Legal Affairs at Alliance Quebec. He probably didn't hold a card in any party, federal or Quebec, at that point. He was President of the Office des professions du Québec (1987 to 1993), again perhaps incompatible with partisan activity.

In 1994 he was recruited to run for the Quebec Liberals, and became a member of that party. I'm guessing (do we have to guess?) that he did not join any federal party from 1994 until 2007? Has he explained why?

Considering Mulcair's maternal great-grandfather was former Quebec Premier Honoré Mercier, he's hardly shy about political activity.

It is a legitimate question how continuous his membership is. As for the rest, you are just guessing.

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
KenS wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I second that. And I fear it will cause some bad blood in the party... especially by Topp supporters if Tom wins. 

Care to explain that? I literally do not get how it is supposed to 'work'.

Not very difficult to grasp, KenS... Topp has been pushing attack lines against Tom so many Topp supporters don't trust Mulcair and think he's the next Paul Martin. I've come across more Topp supporters who have said they wouldn't support a Mulcair NDP. And Topp is helping that along with how his campaign is run. Maybe Topp should follow Jack's letter a little more closely.

"Don't let them tell you it can't be done." Opponents in this race should openly talk about about their differing visions for leadership, which includes critically assessing the other candidates' visions.  Jack, unlike Harper, was never a control freak who wouldn't allow people to express differences of opinion.

Not talking about differences of opinion. That's fair. Have it in the debates. And we've seen it. But putting words into a candidate's mouth and saying they should be a New Democrat longer before being leader isn't about "vision". It's an underhanded attack. Jack would never have done that. Do you see other candidates doing that?

I think you're a little too supportive of Topp to see how it's not going over well.

Hunky_Monkey

KenS wrote:

HM. there's some leaps in logic and connections that just sound reasonable.

That does not make for a reasonable insinuation of stirring up bad blood- ie, something that lasts much longer than a leadership race.

You seem to forget that active NDP supporters are volunteers. People put time into things because they are worth them. There are more people for which that is condidtional than those for which it is essentially not conditional.

KenS... I said I fear it may cause some bad blood. I think Topp stirring the pot adds to that possibility. Of course, a lot of that can be dealt with by Topp being a big supporter of the new leader which I expect he will... and hopefully none of the Chretien vs. Martin type feud in the background.

socialdemocrati...

I just figure that if you're a New Democrat, you're not filled with the same sense of entitlement that the Liberals have. Nobody joins the NDP because they expect an easy ride to a kushy government job, or even because they love power. Being a New Democrat means fighting a long hard battle, and we've never really come close to winning it in all of Canadian history. The idea that someone would blow apart the caucus because they didn't win just doesn't fit with the stage that our party is at, and the type of person we've always attracted. I could see the caucus blowing apart because of an ideological dispute, but there haven't been any major policy wedges.

Perhaps the only thing that could divide us are geographic issues: Quebec versus the ROC, or urban versus rural. But that's not going to happen in the leadership race. That's going to happen when Harper or Rae start looking for wedges.

Our unity will be fine, at least after the convention.

Policywonk

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I just figure that if you're a New Democrat, you're not filled with the same sense of entitlement that the Liberals have. Nobody joins the NDP because they expect an easy ride to a kushy government job, or even because they love power. Being a New Democrat means fighting a long hard battle, and we've never really come close to winning it in all of Canadian history. The idea that someone would blow apart the caucus because they didn't win just doesn't fit with the stage that our party is at, and the type of person we've always attracted. I could see the caucus blowing apart because of an ideological dispute, but there haven't been any major policy wedges.

Perhaps the only thing that could divide us are geographic issues: Quebec versus the ROC, or urban versus rural. But that's not going to happen in the leadership race. That's going to happen when Harper or Rae start looking for wedges.

Our unity will be fine, at least after the convention.

If urban versus rural hasn't blown us apart yet, it likely never will.

KenS

I think I made clear to just about everyone [who is bothering reading] except you that I understand very well that it is not going over very well.

The difference I was pointing out is that the Topp supporters here just accept what clearly is not going over well. We dont argue it.

Ditto for the Nash supporters, who there are more of, while harsh things have been said about Peggy's capabilities. And all the rest of the candidates.

Except the Mulcair supporters, who never let anything go by.

And by the way, I think it is super ironic that you repeatedly made the not veiled comments about other campaigns "sending people" here and other social media sites. You think it means something that you've heard it from supporters of camps that do it and 'of course we dont do that.' I do not doubt the truth of all that.

But if people are wondering whether there are plants here, they would make their surmises based on what they see. And you fit the bill to a tee. I think someone else may have already said that. But it amuses me.

KenS

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I think you're a little too supportive of Topp to see how it's not going over well.

Making statements and 'just observations' based on one's convenient notions of what motivates people is your special department.

KenS

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I have zero doubt that the party will unify around the leader no matter what.*

(*Assuming that the debates don't get any tougher, which they might.)

I think you can leave that qualifier off. Even if the rhetoric gets considerably more heated, its over when its over. There will be personal wounds to heal, and some very active volunteers will leave being active. But that is always happening, we just notice it at times like this.

There is zero chance of the kind of running internal wars the Libs have. The maximum effect will be possibly some egos so bruised and animosities that dont go away enough so that some people cannot contribute to their full potential. Someone may even leave entirely to go off and do something else. These things should be expected. You can strive and hope to do much better, but it is unrealistic to expect better than that. Its also unrealistic, or not understanding, to see that sort of thing as signs of an 'internal war' or something like that.

josh
Brachina

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/02/20/ndp-leadership-toward-a-topp-mulcair-...

So is an alliance between Topp and Mulcair possible? Or is this just a crazy theory of Paul Well's.

KenS

The NDP is much more at risk for serious effects from [continued] intellectual laziness and unwillingness to have contention over alternate visions, than it is at risk for a leadership race sowing the seeds of internal wars.

[And various internal consitituencies being quick to spout off over things not going their way does not count as contention over alternate visions. What we lack is contention over articulated visions. What we get is lots of rhetoric that sound like barricades will be going up if we do not get/keep X or Y. Thats not the same thing.]

Brachina

Brachina wrote:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/02/20/ndp-leadership-toward-a-topp-mulcair-...

So is an alliance between Topp and Mulcair possible? Or is this just a crazy theory of Paul Well's.

Damn, ninja'd by Josh ;p

Brachina

KenS wrote:

I think I made clear to just about everyone [who is bothering reading] except you that I understand very well that it is not going over very well.

The difference I was pointing out is that the Topp supporters here just accept what clearly is not going over well. We dont argue it.

Ditto for the Nash supporters, who there are more of, while harsh things have been said about Peggy's capabilities. And all the rest of the candidates.

Except the Mulcair supporters, who never let anything go by.

And by the way, I think it is super ironic that you repeatedly made the not veiled comments about other campaigns "sending people" here and other social media sites. You think it means something that you've heard it from supporters of camps that do it and 'of course we dont do that.' I do not doubt the truth of all that.

But if people are wondering whether there are plants here, they would make their surmises based on what they see. And you fit the bill to a tee. I think someone else may have already said that. But it amuses me.

As a Mulcair supporter I'll support who ever wins and I believe so will other Mulcair supporters. And Yes we defend Mulcair hard, but its because the stakes are so high.

Pages

Topic locked