Derek 2.0

Flying across the country to go skiing isn't a vacation? By all means, if there is evidence that Harper averaged a vacation every month and a half present it........regardless, Harper is no longer the Prime Minister.

I'm going by his own statement: WALLACE: According to The Washington Post, the CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the election to help you win the presidency. Your reaction? DONALD TRUMP, R-PRESIDENT-ELECT: I think it's ridiculous. I think it's just another excuse. I don't believe it. I don't know why, and I think it's just -- you know, they talked about all sorts of things. Every week, it's another excuse. We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College. I guess the final numbers are now at 306. She's down to a very low number. No, I don't believe that at all. WALLACE: You say you don't know why. Do you think the CIA is trying to overturn the results of the election -- TRUMP: No, I don’t think -- (CROSSTALK) WALLACE: -- somehow to weaken you in office? TRUMP: Well, if you look at the story and you take a look at what they said, there's great confusion. Nobody really knows. And hacking is very interesting. Once they hack, if you don't catch them in the act, you're not going to catch them. They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place. I mean, they have no idea. WALLACE: So, why would the CIA put out this story that the Russians wanted you to win? TRUMP: I’m not sure they put it out. I think the Democrats are putting it out because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics in this country. And, frankly, I think they're putting it out. It's ridiculous. We ought to get back to making America great again, which is what we're going to do. And we've already started the process. WALLACE: You've said repeatedly you don't believe the intelligence community's analysis that the Russians were involved. TRUMP: Take a look. They're not sure. They're fighting among themselves. They’re not sure. WALLACE: But the question is, these are the folks you're going to have to rely on to know what's going on in the world? (CROSSTALK) TRUMP: Of course, we’re going to make (ph) changes, you know, at the top. I mean, we're going to have different people coming in because we have our people, they have their people. And I have great respect for them. But if you read the stories, the various stories, they're disputing. And certain groups don't necessarily agree. Personally, it could be Russia. It -- I don't really think it is. But who knows? I don't know either. They don't know and I don't know. As he clearly states, he doesn't know and it could be anyone, likewise he questions the motivations of the Obama appointments within the intelligence community

No, that is your (or someone else's opinion regurgitated) hyperbolic projection on what Trump said.......I watched the actual interview several weeks ago, and I stand to be corrected, but that wasn't Trump's statement.....

Exactly, our economic growth through this mandate will be lower on average then what it was through the recession a few years back and the doldrums of the 90s and 80s.......even lower then the growth we saw during PET's dumpster fire in the 70s.........

I have been following it......and that's not what I asked......you said: As far as I know, he never said that.......I know a few weeks before Christmas, in an interview with Chris Wallace on FNS, he said he didn't know who hacked the DNC and that it could be anyone........I don't recall him stating anyone but Russia...do you have a source?

From watching the election coverage, everybody but O'Reilly and Rove seemed surprised.....Brit Hume and Kelly were the first anchors to even broach the subject that it could be a close election, I remember because it was around dinner on the left coast.......again neither seemed near tears.

Is he? I know he had high ratings on his debut, I didn't know he's carried it on......maybe because O'Reilly (and Kelly) has been off for most of December???

Did he actually say that? If so, in what context?

Or on average, one vacation every ~6 weeks

Here and here..........

Again, that's speculation......one could easily speculate that his own intelligence advisers have passed on information from sources still within the agencies that confirm the proof of Russian hacking is suspect and politically motivated. Saying that anyone could be involved isn't fishy, but realistic.........

I agree. Again I agree, but if O'Leary could manage to win the leadership, I would think him to be very competitive against the Trudeau Liberals....further compounded by this Government's own dire economic forecast...... I don't think it would mater.............his ex dated a biker a decade before he met her, likewise leaving the NATO briefing notes at her place. The follow on investigation proved there was nothing critical within them, regardless, he did the right thing in resigning his cabinet post and owning his mistake.

Canada will look exactly the same? Huh? Did you read this government's own release, that clearly states they expect lower economic growth and decreasing government revenue? This will be a generational challenge, a generation that will look far different then it does today or in decades past.....

Yes and no, I believe that political parties in any democracy can and do manipulate data for political purposes. In this example, absent being presented with such data, I believe Trump correct in not acknowledging Russian involvement with his electoral success.......further compounded by a highly contentious political race and an intelligence service with a piss poor record. Does that mean Trump knows it to be a lie? Probably not, more so, based on this political calculus and the opinions of his own advisers (including former intelligence officers) there is no upside in acknowledging something he doesn't know to be true. No, you're confusing my point. Ryan etc would be aware of political games (the GOP plays themselves), but might not be aware of the full details of this one example. Has Ryan received the same brief as Obama, or what Trump is expected to receive? Probably not. If the intelligence is proven to be faulty, then yes, the likes of Ryan/McCain/Graham etc will look like idiots if/when the intelligence is proven to be false/hyped.....inversely, once presented with said data later this week, Trump's own opinion could be swayed.

Are you talking about Kelly? I watched the FOX election coverage wall-to-wall, and don't remember her "almost crying"........outside Bill O'Reilly (and Karl Rove), nearly the entire FOX team was surprised when it looked like Trump would win.........turn around between Rove-Kelly from 2012 mind you.......

Nah.....the Corporations and their future Condottieri would never let that happen

And quietly released the Friday before Christmas.....the future of Canadian Debt and Deficit: Furthermore, from the governance side: Since budgets won't balance themselves, expect tax hikes and drops in public services.......another interesting fact found within their numbers.....despite Trudeau promising a debt:GDP no greater than 27%, it now projected to remain over 30% into the next decade.... which would put us on course (based on this rate continuing and our economies expected increase) for over $1 1/2 Trillion dollars of Federal debt by the middle of the century. Trudeau economy pt II...........

The thing with O'Leary is that based on past views and statements, despite being maybe electable against a Trudeau, he might not win the Tory leadership race as the base gets to know him.........crapping on the military, gun owners and Tory leaning trade-union voters is a good way to piss off the base and not get elected to the leadership....... I have nothing against Scheer or O'Toole, but I think both are too nice and would get murdered by the media/Liberals...........as it stands now, I'm with Mad Max.

Sure and I remember not a month before the election Obama saying how US elections couldn't be hacked and the results should be respected, and in not accepting defeat, Trump would undermine a Clinton administration..........Yet Putin has now stolen the election for Trump.......by hacking and turning over to Wikileaks internal DNC emails........in other words, Obama is suggesting if American voters didn't know what Democrats really thought, Clinton would be President.

I agree 100%....... Values testing would be a greater part of the conversation if it was determined to be an electable cross worth bearing.........absent a domestic terror attack from an immigrant, it holds zero political water and would ensure the Tories wouldn't form government in 2019. Maybe, but realistically immigrant voters in Greater Vancouver and Toronto hold more political clout then you and people that wouldn't vote based on values testing. Leitch would result in a Trudeau Government........O'Leary I'm not so sure, though I've been supportive of him for nearly a year, recent statements have put me off.

........You're not suggesting the Bush Administration conspired hyped or faulty intelligence material to push a political agenda are you? No, like I said before, his opinions are shaped by the intelligence he receives...........as to a DNC "conspiracy", I'd be very surprised if Ryan (or any other senior GOP members) weren't aware the realities of party politics (see Benghazi)...........Of course, Trump has managed to best Ryan/McCain/Graham in terms of political accomplishment.

The heads of any given Federal agency is appointed by the President..........they then appoint their own department heads, who then appoint their own people etc........which is why a change in Administration in Washington see upwards of 4000 people leaving and coming into new jobs. Obama's "people" are well entrenched in Washington. Trump hasn't yet been given the final report on the alleged Russian hacking........plenty of deniability when he hasn't even been given the briefing. I never stated that.......Ryan is in the same position as the Democrats that voted in favor of the Iraq war.

Brennan and Clapper are both suppose to be briefing Trump later this week........likewise the department heads and their senior staff (appointed by the appointments) are the ones that brief the intelligence committees in both the Congress and Senate.

The head of the CIA, John Brennan, was appointed by Obama, and prior to that, was an adviser to both President Obama and Clinton........The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, appointed by Obama, lied under oath to Congress over domestic spying by the NSA and misread the threat posed by ISIS.......Presidential appointments are ever much so political. Why would Trump commit to getting to the bottom of anything that he's yet to see supportive evidence of? My question, if the Obama administration has such evidence, why have they yet to brief Trump on it? .........Or like I said, on the receiving end of what intelligence has been shared by the Obama administration.

The only fire I see in Leitch is one associated with an electoral dumpster fire.