WestCanMan

So are you guys done with being led around by the nose by CNN? Honestly I might start to miss the fun we've had talking about all these awesome topics: "These women were being told by the CBP officers to drink water out of the toilet. They were drinking water out of the toilet." [but we never bothered to turn on the video cameras that we all have on our phones] That was a good one. Lots of people here gobbled that up. "Walls are racist!" [Yup. And my car is a homosexual] "Women have to be believed!" [mainly when they can't name a location, or a year, and their own witnesses deny any knowledge of the alleged incident. The exception to the rule is when the women have actual physical evidence and actual witnesses but they are testifying against Bill Clinton]. You gotta be a special kind of stupid to believe that. Should we open up that old thread? LMAO! "There's a new Kavanaugh victim BOMBSHELL STORY!!!!!" [Nope it was another landmine. But stupid Dem Presidential candidates jumped in on it and screamed IMPEACH KAVANAUGH right away. It's like they don't know about fake news yet.] "Sessions said that he never talked to Russian gov't officials or agents about collusion. BUT HE WAS RECORDED ON A PHONE CALL TO KISLYAK!!!!!!!! DUN dun dunnnnnnnnnnnnn!" [um, are we supposed to assume that you mean they talked about collusion? Like, hellooooooo? Can you finish that sentence? Because you know that stupid people will run around saying that is evidence of collusion] "Walls don't work. I'm standing here beside a wall on the border, and there aren't illegal aliens running around here. So this is proof that we don't need the wall." ????????????????????? CNN was even dumb enough to show that footage. Open mouth, insert foot. "Russian collusion is a big nothingburger" - Van Jones, the one time he told the truth. But CNN pushed Russian collusion for a year after that admission. Then the truth came out that there was no evidence of Russian collusion, just evidence that Russians offered to collude. That's kind of suspicious. "The FBI isn't properly investigating Dr Ford's allegations! Kavanaugh needs to be impeached now!!!" [Yes they are. They just went to an undisclosed location and asked people who were never named as witnesses (because the ones who were named as witnesses already said that they never heard of this before) to talk about things that almost happened in a random year in the late 80s. Or they're laughing because D Ford was caught on several other lies and the FBI might be corrupt but they're not as dumb as the avg CNN viewer.] "Racist white people put a noose around my [Jussie Smollett's] neck and threw bleach on me!!!! Waaaaaah!!!!" Nope, his own co-conspirators did it to dredge up racial division, but CNN says he did it for [I can't even remember the stupid reason they gave. Maybe because he was angry that his hemorrhoid medication wasn't working. It was something equally stupid] "The Synagogue shooting happened because of Trump's anti-Semitism!!!!" [sure, he's Benjamin Netanyahu's best friend on this planet, and his daughter got married to a Jew in a Jewish wedding ceremony and his grandkids are being raised as Jews and then he gave that Jewish son-in-law a job in the Whitehouse...... Trump's as bad at being an anti-Semite as Jeffrey Epstein was at being prudish.] That's a LOT of fake news, yet as soon as CNN belches out the next idiotic story I'm going to have to walk some firm believers through it fifty more times, and then CNN will save their day with the next massive round of BS to replace the stuff that has "unexpectedly" turned out to be wrong. Greg Gutfeld made a brilliant comment today. He likened impeachment believers to doomsday cultists, who predict a specific doomsday and then when the day comes and goes they just double-down and create a new fake date. In the case of CNN viewers it doesn't even have to be about impeachment, it's just "the next really sexy story that comes out about Trump and the Republicans is going to be true, even if it seems really stupid at the beginning!!!!" Why not just take a breath, and say "I'll wait to see if this story is legit before I run around screaming that it's just gotta be true because CNN said it."

Huh? An example of a crime under the Logan act is if John Kerry actually had discussions with Iranian officials after he was no longer a member of the government.

Where are all the peeps who were so sure that CNN and the Dems didn't just lie to them for the 76th time in a row? Crickets......

WP: "Yeah, we published a bit more fake news but we have another good excuse. No worries, peons will keep gobbling up everything we say, and the only thing that they'll remember long-term is the feeling of anger and mistrust towards the President. It works every time. We still have jobs, right?"

He gets the infamous Lisa LaFlamme eye-rolls. There’s no attempt at hiding media bias here.

That’s just because of the lib media here. If an Obama impeachment farce was going on down south and some PM Harper blackface photos/videos had turned up the media coverage would be reversed in a massive way. “PM Harper must resign!” would be the focus of the first ten minutes of news coverage every day. As it is the blackface coverage here just showed Trudeau’s apology and a bunch of people saying that they aren’t affected by it, or “it sounds like dirty election politics.” Basically the MSM coverage of blackface was full damage-control mode. If Harper did it they would show a little black Greta crying, saying: “Is the PM going to come kill me?” The next step is to give press to Trudeau’s new climate control measures, they’re taking away guns, etc. All very SJW heroic. A bit of Canadian MSM history for a backdrop here..... Harper was accused of helping pay back $90K that Senator Duffy claimed in travel expenses that were theoretically bogus and it was serious headline news here for 3 full years. SNC and blackface are already relegated to making the rounds on social media. Trudeau has also ducked out of two debates now and the media barely noticed. Our country is f’d.

Fer instance? A lengthy string of unsubstantiated and disproven allegations doesn’t amount to anything. It just makes the Dems and CNN look like whiny chumps. They can’t keep fooling the same people over and over. Eventually even Dem supporters will figure it out.

Lol. Kinda hard to argue against that. I doubt that a single demmie talked about impeaching Obama. FWIW there are still Dem Senators around like Biden, Feinstein and Schumer that voted against impeachment for Clinton. I’d be interested to hear what they have to say about impeachment.

The way I read the post that you’re replying to is that McGuire denied that he threatened to resign.

Ok that wraps it up 100%. Joe Biden was determined that the prosecutor in the Ukraine absolutely had to be fired for reasons that had nothing to do with the investigation into the company that had just plunked Hunter Biden, with his vast inexperience, onto the board and paid him so much money for (what?). It was surprisingly easy to find that conclusive evidence. I feel so silly now.

Dormant, as in, Biden had already told them to make it dormant? He gave the order to fire that guy on his "12th or 13th trip to Kiev". We know that Biden was all over that guy and there's a 99.99% chance that it had to do with his son.

Which story are you going with Boges? Was the prosecutor fired because he was weak on corruption like you said before, or was he actually corrupt as you said here? He was investigating a pro-Russian CEO, in charge of the Ukraine's largest non-gov't gas co, who fled the country, was he not? I'm not bothering to refresh my memory right now.

LMAO Bubber. You've been quoting everything you heard on CNN [facts lol] for the last two years and it's all turned out to be a huge joke, yet you still let them do your thinking for you and you let them give you all your talking points. When has CNN been right Bubber? Is the wall racist? (kind of ot, but I think my car is gay). Are you on-side with all the fuss that the Dr Ford testimony is STILL getting from Dems who say that the FBI didn't investigate it seriously enough? Was there ever any evidence of collusion ever found? Did Trump obstruct the Russia investigation even half as much as Hillary obstructed her own email investigation? If Trump talked to those guys then you would consider them government agents until proven otherwise. Since Hillary talked to them you consider them sweet, helpful, pro-America Russians until a jury of all-Democrats finds them guilty of supporting their own country, as if it would be surprising to find out that they do. If collusion is such a big crime, and YOU KNOW [there's an actual fact for you Bubber] that Hillary enlisted Russians for aid in her election bid, then why aren't you interested in an investigation into Hillary's election meddling? Can you think for yourself? Do you ever figure things out on your own? If not, then can you at least connect the dots and acknowledge some salient points when you see them? You come back with crap which amounts to "CNN never said that so it can't possible be worth considering. IT'S ALL LIES!" It would be one thing if you could acknOwledge that you've caught them lying to you for the last two straight years now but YOU NEVER CATCH ON. YOU JUST GOBBLE UP THEIR NEXT LIE UNTIL IT'S PROVEN FALSE, RINSE, REPEAT. YOU GO FROM LIE TO LIE WITHOUT EVEN NOTICING. THE NEXT LIE WILL GET YOU HOOK, LINE AND SINKER.

The problem with islam is the same thing that was wrong with Germany when Hitler was running the country: There are certainly decent moderate people that live in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, etc, but even if they're in the majority, they're irrelevant because they're not standing up to the powers that be and they're not eradicating terrorism. If there were 1M people in Canada who were radical a-holes, and the other 35M didn't rein them in, then Canada would be the next Germany/Pakistan. The 35M can be as nice as pie, it still wouldn't stop Canada from being a shithole unless they stood up and did something.

Hillary got her information from Russian nationals, and who are you to say that the Russians that Hillary got info from weren't working for the government? And the Russian are the very people that the Dems only started recognizing as a geopolitical adversary after Obama left the Whitehouse. The Republicans warned them about Russia many times and were scoffed at. If Trump was caught getting info from Russian nationals you and the Dems and CNN would claim victory for collusion. It's stupid/hypocritical. Trump was talking with a foreign country that's potentially entering NATO. A country that Congress had approved money and military aid to. What he talked to them about is being declassified tomorrow. It's more than just a bit hypocritical for the Dems to give a billion dollars to the Ukraine, contingent upon them pulling Hunter Biden's fat out of the fire, and then to say that Trump can't even talk to them. Get help.

You're just a racist eyeball. I already explained to you what you did that was racist. Just own it. Obama admitted that he's "a little bit racist". It's ok for leftists I guess.

LMAO. Where the hell do they think the info for the Trump dossier (the one that they used to get a FISA warrant and hold a 2+ year-long investigation) came from? Kansas? Where are the adults? This is even dumber than the last round of stupid BS.

There is nothing like just calling things hooey when you're unable to understand them.

This is what you do Boges. You take every single thing that you see and hear in the "news" as gospel if it's bad for the Republicans. If one liberal outlet publishes it, you steadfastly believe it and defend it tooth and nail. (how did the whole kavanaugh thing work out? collusion? obstruction? Do you feel like your loyalty to those stories was rewarded? Do you feel like the Smollett case was handled fairly?) Here's the thing Boges. This has to do with the son of the Vice-President. If Obama makes it his position to get rid of the guy who's investigating his VP's son, then it's officially "the government's" position. So does that mean that Biden can do or say whatever he wants as long as Obama rubber stamps it, so that it's officially "the government's position"? No, not at all. That's pretty see-through. And how is it that the prosecutor who was fired for being "too soft on corruption", was busy investigating corruption, and then the investigation that he was conducting into the shady Russian ally within the Ukraine was suddenly closed? Shouldn't that type of investigation ramp up at the point when someone who was more serious about investigating corruption took over? Again, your story seems to be just that - a story. If Mike Pence's son is given a high-ranking position in a foreign country, and then he and his company suddenly came under investigation from prosecutor X, and Pence was about to rubber stamp a $1B lump sum to that country from the US but he said "fire prosecutor X within 6 hours or you don't the $1B", but it was officially the US government's position because Trump said so, would you say "hey it's all good. It's the US's official position? And I totally believe that Pence didn't talk to his son about that at all?" And then when the new, tougher prosecutor didn't follow up on that case would you think "Hey it's normal for the guy who's tougher on crime to close up an investigation of that magnitude and just let it all go?" I would hope that you could at least acknowledge that you would scream BULLSHIT at the top of your lungs if this was the case. By now it should be obvious to you that the Dems are the world champions of getting investigations opened and closed. Hillary is known to have deleted subpoenaed emails, sent money to Russians for election dirt on Trump, she was able to say "I don't remember" 39 times (Comey over 200 times) during her election campaign when she seemed to be doing fine remembering everything else, and her hubby coincidentally met the Obama AG (Loretta Lynch) on a tarmac the weekend before it was announced that Hillary wouldn't face criminal charges. But Clinton and Lynch didn't discuss the case at all (common theme, these guys never discuss the elephant in the phone booth). I give up on you Boges. I don't think that you're going to allow a critical thought into your head.

Joe Biden prompted a foreign country to fire one of their prosecutors, and it just randomly turned out to be THAT guy who was involved in investigating his son. What are the chances hey? Like, $1Billion to one? And you think that the world should just take Biden at his word, no investigation required? He probably didn't even know his son was being investigated because he never talks about overseas business with him. It was just a huge coincidence. LMAO

Expand? Ok, now even Pelosi says that Trump needs to be impeached (impeachment is part of the fake collusion/obstruction story that has been at the top of the Dems' agenda these past 3 years) because he started talking about the fact that Biden used $1B US taxpayer dollars to incentivise the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating his son. Biden is on video bragging that he told the Ukrainian government that [paraphrasing] "they wouldn't get the $1B US unless they fired that prosecutor before Biden's plane left". He was fired before Biden's plane left. There's no debating it. If Trump was giving a country $1B in foreign aid then said "That money is on hold unless you fire the prosecutor [that's investigating my son] before I get on my plane" what would you say about that Boges? I doubt that you'd be ignoring it. I think you'd say that it would stand alone as a bona fide reason that Trump needed to be impeached. Care to comment?

Trump's track record thus far is going up against the Dems' radical & idiotic policies and their history of being emphatically wrong over the past 4 years. The Dems followed the Smollett story, collusion, obstruction, they want to embark on a $30 trillion fiasco.... they don't have a single policy as of yet that's actually good for the country.

It was a racist allegation in the form of a question. Like if I said: "Eyeball, why are you guys so bigoted against Jews?" It just skips right past the whole part about making statements substantiating the claim that your group is bigoted against Jews, and goes right to the part where you're supposed to defend your reasons for being a bigot or to try and show that you aren't one. The onus should always on the accuser in the beginning, but it's a huge liberal/democrat tactic to flip that around. Like for example having zero actual evidence that there was a crime committed against Dr Ford and forcing him to try to prove that he didn't do anything, zero actual evidence of collusion and acting like Trump has to prove that he's guilty, or Trudeau's statement that "Canadians are still too discriminatory against women of colour even though the hijab cutting incident was phoney". The Dem have taken the new position that "the accuser HAS TO BE believed" lol. But they never applied that standard to Clinton when there was actual physical evidence and witnesses.

Hillary would beg to differ lol. She barely lifted a finger in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin based on that exact assumption and she lost all of those states by small margins. That was 46 electoral college votes that she let slip away to the other side. The final tally was 304 - 227 for Trump. Take 46 from Trump, add 46 to Hillary and it's suddenly 258 for Trump and 273 for Hillary. She likes to blame her loss on a million things, but his energy vs her lethargy was the actual difference in the election. She just didn't do enough. She thought CNN could do it all for her.

Here's your stupid, racist, unsubstantiated allegation again just in case you forgot: