Is Bay Street backing Thomas Mulcair?

By all accounts, uncompromising support for Israel, is by far the single most important political issue to Gerry Scwartz.

How plausible is it Unionist that he wanted to sabotage Mulcair?

And if Schwartz did make the donations to sabotage Mulcair, we should be hearing any minute from Mulcair about returning the donations and why.

I just dont get what is supposed to be the innuendo Unionist. Implying that there were meetings might be that. But that was off to the side. What else?

A few facts have been put out. I dont really see any possibility that there is something complicated or vague about it, one way or the other.

I meant what I said that I really dont think we should speculate about why they gave the donations. I dont know. I just think Mulcair definitely should not have taken them- and should have known its not a good idea.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

nazzouri wrote:

I disagree with you about the Jack moving the NDP to the center. He actually moved the NDP from 11% in the 2000 elections to 30.5% in 2011 elections. What i liked about him, is that he didn't sell out any of the NDP principles doing that. Maybe he got rid of some the leftist old talking points and replaced them with a more modern message, but he didn't sell out any principles. 

Curious though about dropping planks such as increasing income tax on the wealthy? Or adding more conservative ones such as mandatory sentences for gun crimes which I oppose? How do you feel about those items? Was that moving closer to the centre? Selling out our principles? Jack got away with a lot that many other politicians in the NDP would be crucified for. And he was advised by Brian Topp I may add (one question for someone to ask him at a public meet & greet if anyone gets the chance).

This is exacly what i think about when NDPers dig in to some utopian issues. You oppose mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes, but that is not the top issue facing the country. Not even in the top 5. Top issues are greater equality ( which i think of as equal opportunity, not equality per se), health care, education, economy ( as reasonable growth of the economy), environment.  We should be able to differ on a lot of other issues, and still be NDPers. A lot of canadians differ on other issues but agree with us on more issues. Do we tell them to get the hell out? i don't think so, when we agree on higher priority issues, we compromise on some of the other issues.  You can add marriage equality to that mix, but that is an issue that is solved in Canada, shouldn't be a reason for disagreement anymore. The conservatives will use it whenever they can to energize the base, but we shouldn't fall in this trap and try to convince those voters that other more important issues that they agree with us on are at stake.

Unionist wrote:

And the innuendo type of campaign, based on who's giving money to whom, is dangerous.

There are very good reasons why the private donations to political campaigns are available to the public. You sound as if you'd be happier if we didn't know who's giving money to whom.

I'm sure they can, but has anyone actually done it? Is there any reason to think that the people who processed the cheque knew who it came from?

The speculation that Unionist is talking about is the implication that these donations either indicate that Mulcair is closer to the politics of these individuals than the other candidates, or that they believe that he is. These implications are quite clearly displayed in this thread, over and over.

Someone above mentioned Occam's Razor, but somehow missed the explanation that is the simplest. Capitalists try to co-opt absolutely anything. If they think "down with capitalism" t-shirts will make them some money, then they'll make those t-shirts. So they see the NDP gaining popularity, it's practically an automatic reaction to throw a little money their way, especially such chump change as this. Why Mulcair and not the other candidates? Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news to those supporting other candidates, but Mulcair is way out in front and everyone's expecting him to win. it's a simple as that. If I were looking to buy a little piece of the NDP, that's where I'd put the money too, not because of Mulcair's politics, but just because there's no point in putting it anywhere else.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

The speculation that Unionist is talking about is the implication that these donations either .....

Someone above mentioned Occam's Razor, but somehow missed the explanation that is the simplest. Capitalists try to co-opt absolutely anything.

So we have your opinion on where is the innuendo. I asked Unionist, and I would still like to hear.

But why speculate? I said that I thought the donation should have been refused. Not, maybe it would be better. That it reeks. There is nothing in there of speculating why the donation was made.

Is there some kind of speculation in saying that Schwartz and friends are over the top supporters of Israel in very tight with the Harper government, publicly so?