WestCanMan

That doesn't mean that evidence of collusion exists at all. That's just a combination of your own wishful thinking and poor reading comprehension. It means Trump took enough actions that make it reasonable to have an investigation when one of the two major political parties requested it. For example being happy to talk about leaked material, making a joke about Russia finding the other 33,000 emails. He had the intent to use the information to win an election. He showed a willingness to accept evidence of Hillary's crime. You could make an argument that there were enough reasons why it was important to have an investigation. You can not make the argument that there was ever enough evidence for anyone to say that "Trump colluded with Russia". Even by the civil standard of preponderance of evidence.... They dug far enough. They found lots of evidence that help was offered and rebuffed, multiple times. Why would the Russians keep asking if their offer was accepted?

I think you can see as plain as day that my comment is completely on point. I didn't have to reply with a hopeless distraction, like you just did.

Common sense is something that's so easily figured out that there's no burden of proof required. Groupthink is a Tucker Carlson word afaik. I assume it means that people jump on the bandwagon and just believe what their leader, Hillary, tells them. For example: "The election was stolen, Trump colluded." There are still millions of people who believe that despite all the evidence that she was the one who colluded with Russians, she's a known debate cheater, she cheated to win the nomination, she lied about dead people in Benghazi, she killed her own campaign by saying "basket of undesireables", etc, etc.

Since when is "agree to look at it" the same as "I would instantly start broadcasting to the entire world that it's an absolute fact and that Hillary is about to be impeached, and I would continue to do so long after a thorough investigation by the FBI turned up NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME"? How do you even try to equate the two? That's left sense. AKA sense has completely left the room.

1) If someone says "I have proof that Bubber Miley committed a crime" it's not collusion or any other crime for me to agree to look at it. You could make a better argument that it's my duty. That's just common sense. 2) Russians did what they do. They spread discord in the US. You're still working to achieve their goal today, 4 years later. Stalin would call you useful. 3) They targeted Hillary. No one has proof that Trump asked them to. Period. That's what's required for there to be collusion. If I put out some FB posts to help Hillary win, without her asking me to do it, would that mean that she colluded with Canadians?

Schiff has been the biggest liar in North America for quite a while now. He was saying that they had almost enough for impeachment a year and a half ago. It was supposed to be just around the corner. Over and over again. Just soooooo close. Now there's nothing to release. Dems are saying "WE NEED TO SEE THE REPORT FREE FROM REDACTIONS!!!! THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!!!!!" Guess what? There are many Dems who have access the the unredacted report. They're not referring to anything specific that proves collusion. They don't say it's there. They just insinuate that since something is redacted Trump HAS TO BE guilty. It's an epic farce. Several media giants in the US collapse if the depth of their dishonesty is laid bare. This accusation of redacted proof is the last straw by a drowning man

One of my best friends from back in the day went to Afghanistan. He was at a FOB with CSOR/JTF2. I'm not exactly sure what he did there, but he didn't go out with them on their more dangerous activities. I have a couple of friends who went to Yugo with 3 PPCLI as well. Civilian life in Canada didn't prepare them for picking up the bodies and parts of little kids. The picture of that little Syrian boy laying face-down on the beach is nothing compared to Yugo.

Yeah, he had to join into the virtue-signalling, political correctness song and dance to advance in his career. He got where he is by putting other people down. I'm sure that there aren't many nights in a year when he can't enjoy a glass of wine or a beer.

Beer lol. I was in the navy back in the late '80s. I drank less than 6 beers in 3 years at sea, and I drank a lot back then. When we were at sea we were doing a 1 in 3 watch system so we did 8 hrs a day Mon - Sat, noon-4 on Sunday, plus 8 hrs a day on watch, plus seamanship evolutions like refuelling at sea, tow ex, etc (always after hrs), plus training drills like man overboard, action stations, (always after hrs). Technically you could have a beer if you were 8 hrs away from being on watch or at work but that could never be the case. Here's a nice workday for you. Go on watch from 4am to 8am, have breakfast, work from 8 til 4pm, do the 1st dog watch from 4-6 (you're at 14 hrs straight now), have dinner , cleaning stations at 8 pm, stand by for inspection at 9 which takes up to half an hour, get to bed at 10 pm, go on watch from midnight to 4am (21.5 of the last 24 hrs working, then you get 3 hrs of sleep) lights come on at 7am and then you're back to work til 4 pm, on watch from 8 til midnight. Then you get "all nighters", sleep from midnight to 7. It's the only bright spot of the 3-day cycle. It's like the weekend to a civilian. Back to work from 8-4:30. Try that when you're seasick. We did as many as 22 straight days at sea, and that was on a trip to Alaska. Just doing circles and working 14-22 hrs a day for 22 days with only intermittent sleep. On mid-cycle workups we literally went 22-23 hrs/day for two weeks, but we got part of the weekend off in the middle. According to QROs it's illegal not to get 4 hrs of uninterrupted sleep but that doesn't apply at all in the Navy. Never Again Volunteer Yourself. I know it wasn't any better being a grunt (Government Reject Unfit for Naval Training), but those of us in the junior ranks of the hard sea trades weren't chugging brewskies on the Qu'Appelle.

4/5 posts with baseless allegations to this point RC. Yawn. The other liberals here are even getting tired of your shtick now, get the picture?

If you switched the name Trudeau in for Scheer that would make a lot more sense. At least we know that Trudeau's words are worthless now. We've yet to find out whether or not Scheer will live up to his major promises. Or whether or not his balance will budget itself lol.

3 posts, all of them predicated on baseless insults. Do you see a pattern forming? Hint: it has something to do with you looking like more and more of an idiot every time you post.

Second baseless allegation, zero proof, and I know for a fact that you don't have proof that "Scheer's base is composed mostly of white racists" so that makes you a liar or an idiot.

That's a serious accusation which comes with a burden of proof. Trot out something to back your unsubstantiated claims or shut up.

I know nothing about Marois, Dunderdale, and Aariak. Wynn and Redford were as bad as Notley, who is notably absent from the list. Christy Clark is a shining star on that list. Her quote to Miley Cyrus regarding the wolf cull: "if we need any advice on twerking we'll call you". LMAO. Epic one-line beatdown.

If Justin Trudeau was just useless it would be a massive improvement. I loathe him. Detest. Hate. You name it. He plays Canadians against each other, he validates islamic terrorism, he embarasses Canada and Canadians on the world stage, he gives away too much of our money to causes that he has never even talked to Canadians about, he's all about Quebec first, he protects foreign oil and regulates/taxes/blockades Canadian oil, he's a stooge for the UN which is a complete farce now, he's treating our democracy like his own personal chew toy, he's a mega-hypocrite, he completely lacks character, he's a fascist, he's a narcissist, he can't answer a question in a straightforward manner because he always has something to hide, he has bought off the Canadian MSM with our tax dollars so they barely even mention his scandals on TV, he is attacking our free speech at the same time as he denigrates Canadians, he has racked up far too much debt, he has done too much damage to our economy, he puts his own international reputation ahead of the interests of Canadians, he is as phony as a 3 dollar bill and he doesn't have a single redeeming quality. That list is probably incomplete but it's a good start.

Those networks have been factually wrong but they have been bang on target emotionally, and that's all that their viewers care about.

What about the dossier that Hillary paid the Russians for? Isn't there some proof of collusion there?

This is an example of their work so that you know exactly what your fact-checker is worth: The claims on the billboard were that he married a 6 yr old, beheaded 600 men in one day, he was a slave owner and dealer, he had 13 wives including as many as 11 at one time, he was a rapist, he tortured and killed unbelievers. That fact checker spewed out utter BS, and was even vague about the part that they said was true -(they made no mention of whether it was as much as 13 total and 11 at once). As far as the "What's False" part is concerned: "There are no historical accounts of the Prophet committing rape" - The wives and children of all the beheaded Banu Qurayza were forced into slavery or became war brides which is essentially the same thing as a slave, and mohammed's own definition of slavery and marriage made raping the women legal. So, it's possible that he didn't actually "rape" anyone himself, but 1,000's of women were "legally" raped by men under his direct command. Does that make it any better? If Trump never grabbed any vaginas but he allowed his soldiers to legally rape women and take them as war brides would that make him a better person? I don't what what evidence exists for mohammed committing rape and I don't think it's even important. If you build an army by promising people war booty and slaves that's actually worse than just committing a few rapes yourself imo. The billboard also says "torturing people". I don't know whether or not he is alleged to have tortured people, but I'd find another fact checker before I believed anything on that site. "he was known for freeing slaves, not "dealing" them" - Like i said earlier, the wives and children of all the beheaded Banu Qurayza were forced into slavery (or became war brides which is essentially the same thing as a slave). As far as the "What's Undetermined" part is concerned - Regarding his youngest wife - she was a long way from her first period when he married her and some girls start as early as 11. It's true that in some rare cases girls start closer to 20 (not even his proponents say she was anywhere close to that), but she is also said to have been a child bride. Even if she wasn't just 6, the precedent for marrying girls that young has been set and is still followed, - Regarding beheading 600 Jews in one day - To say that they were all "guilty of treason" is to say that he had absolute power to be judge and jury. It is also said that his men allowed people to live if they converted to islam. So is the sentence for treason beheading or just to be religious? So why not stay Jewish? If it's true that they were allowed to live if they converted is that not the most extreme case of bigotry you've ever heard of? No one disputes that Mohammed was at Medina in command of his army when the Banu Qurayza were all starting to be beheaded (it took a really long time, I don't know if he was there all day). Estimates are anywhere from 500 - 900 "men" (anyone with pubic hair was considered to be a man, so a lot of the "men" would be junior high school age). Let's pretend it was only 300. Does that make it any better? Can you still call it a "lie" if it was only 300? To say that the billboard was even inaccurate would be a big stretch of the truth. If you read up on the life of mohammed, and what happened to the Banu Qurayza, after the Battle of Trench, you'll have a good understanding of what's on that billboard and how accurate it is. It's impossible to

From the article: Was he really a liberal before or just a bit gay? lol, jk. Kudos to him if he is a Lib but he's still got the decency to recognize the current group for what they are.

One of many rats deserting that sinking ship.

I dunno if it's true or not because I never bothered to look it up, but I heard from a couple different people that they were famous for going around and buying up real estate before the province announced where big roads, etc were going in. Could just be urban myth. A lot of people hated him.

They’re showing it on Chinese tv or are you watching on the internet?

From the article above: “If your political party has been caught obstructing justice — as the political party led by Justin Trudeau assuredly was, in the SNC-Lavalin scandal — what’s the one thing you need to avoid, at all costs? Getting caught obstructing justice again, of course. And that’s what the Trudeau regime’s prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman would have exposed: Senior Trudeau government officials, implicated in a scheme to use the criminal justice system to punish an alleged whistleblower. In this case, the second-highest-ranking officer in the Canadian Forces.” The Liberals are pure scum, top to bottom. It’s bad enough that they need to move shipbuilding contracts to their SNC-type buddies, but they were actively destroying a man’s life to punish him for exposing their corruption and greed. Lmao at all the SJW types who think of the Liberals as knights in shining armor for everyday Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-trudeau-government-trying-to-cover-its-tracks/amp Comments?