WestCanMan

I totally forgot about his Nike ad. Thank god I bought Under Armour shoes last month.

The courts won’t be able to do anything about a theoretical ban on Kaepernick, reason being: owners don’t have to sign a player who will ultimately cost them a lot of money. That’s just common sense. Do you think he’s really making money off of endorsements? Who is he representing? If you honestly don’t know why you should feel a sense of patriotism towards Canada, or the US if you happen to be an American, I honestly think that’s really pathetic. If you think there is some other country or some other way of life that’s superior I’d love to hear about it

Russian trolls chucked crap at both sides to sow division. Their total FB budget was about $4K iirc. The only thing that looks the slightest bit off is the emails that Assange leaked, but like I've said many times - the grass roots support in the Dem party was in favour of Bernie Sanders. Dem IT staffers had all kinds of access to those emails. It's not unlikely that they actually were leaked, as Assange said. Those idiots even had Pakistani nationals maintaining their servers. The fact that they got leaked or hacked, after all their cheating, lying, cutting corners, dodging the laws, being sore losers & sowing division, encouraging rioting & looting, encouraging the harrassment of other members of government, making grandiose allegations etc, etc, etc.... they can all go to hell. I don't really care what happened to their servers. They basically asked for it this whole time. I don't care what the CIA or FBI said about the origin of those emails either, seeing as the FBI is full of criminals and both organizations are so blatantly biased (and they were before biased before Trump was ever president). Brennan and Comey are both huge sleezebags and a disgrace to the American system of law. Nobody even talks about how corrupt the IRS was under Obama anymore because they're such a small story now compared to the dirty FBI.

You make a decent enough point, but to be honest, if Kaepernick wants to participate in the NFL and reap the rewards of playing in that country and in that league then he needs to get on board with the program. He's free to choose another line of work. Also, to say that the nation is forcing the NFL to make those players stand for the anthem is just an assumption. If the NFL didn't have an anthem at the beginning of the game there's a good chance that another league would own Sunday and the national football league would be long forgotten by now. Americans want the anthem. Patriotism is the glue that holds the nation together. Without that there's nothing making them a group, tribe, etc. Nothing to really love or believe in. Humans all need to believe in something. Call it a flaw if you want but it's in us all.

OMG dude. You talk about "knowledge" and then you barf out CNN bafflegab like it's worthwhile commentary. When you watch CNN do you ever see a person talking and think to yourself "that guy is just a total moron"? Here's a quick question about a topic that made it's way through the various news cycles for a couple of years now, so you should have had lots of time to figure this one out. I just want to get a read on your level of understanding: If you see a talking head on CNN say that "Kaepernick is just exercising his freedom of speech" when he kneels during the anthem do you think they're correct or are they actually completely moronic?

I'm not trying to insult you. Just trying to wake you up. Surely you must be able to understand at least some of what I said to you.

Evidence was from his own texts with Lisa Page re: the start of the Russian collusion investigation. The is right from the first page of a Google search for "Peter Strzok no there there": https://opensociet.org/2018/07/25/in-russiagate-testimony-before-congress-fbi-attorney-page-admits-there-is-no-there-there/ Trump picked the same campaign finance manager that other Republicans used. Trump picked a slimy lawyer because he cheats on his wives and that's slimy. He paid for his own NDA because he wasn't elected yet: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/in_case_you_forgot__congress_paid_17_million_in_hush_money_to_protect_politicians.html You see, Congressmen use money from a government slush fund for this kind of thing. And it is always regarding re-election. Is it reasonable to assume that Trump would spend a minute in jail just because he used his own money for this kind of thing? No, it's completely stupid. But that's where CNN is, and you just believe everything they say. When Trump bombed Assad for gassing civilians the first time CNN said that he was unhinged, about to start a huge war, etc. The second time that he did the exact same thing the people on CNN were literally trying to make the case that his administration lacked a clearly defined policy, as if to say that they didn't see the similarity between the two incidents. CNN viewers just nod in agreement, that's what they do. If Trump wants a wall they say that they don't need a wall, it's racist, it's too expensive, it doesn't work, etc. Their viewers don't fact check, they don't question a damn thing they're told, they just nod and regurgitate exactly what they heard on "the news". Walls actually do work. They're expensive, but it's more expensive to pay thousands of extra border agents for 50 years, to staff huge detention centres for illegals awaiting processing for that whole time, to have more ice agents working on tracking down illegals within the country, etc. They say things on CNN that are literally stupid all the time. In fact they rarely make any sense at all. Russian collusion is just another farce. FBI agents are losing or severely damaging their careers over this, and it's going to get worse for them before it gets better. If there is no proof Russian collusion then a lot of people will be up against the wall for what appears to be a lot of blatant lying to the FISA court.

Hillary gave no answers. She said that she couldn't remember anything over and over because "she hit her head" during the Presidential campaign. She didn't seem unable to answer questions at the debates though. Hillary's people weren't even questioned under oath, most weren't even questioned at all, but the ones who were questioned were caught lying. Comey had her exoneration letter written months before he jumped the gun and cleared her all by himself when that decision was above his pay grade. Comey even had in his original statement that she was grossly negligent (felony) and changed the wording to "extremely careless", because the exact legal definition for the felony charge is "grossly negligent". Is destroying subpoenaed evidence worse than answering a question incorrectly while under oath Bubber?

Do you honestly think that's what they're in jail for? Not even CNN is saying that, they're just letting you guess that's the case.

Blah, blah, blah. If Mueller had evidence then did Strzok think that there wasn't a case to be made? He would know as well as anyone else. This is just like Duffygate in Canada. Hold a 3 year long bitch session, get all the msm behind it, and then when the election is over it all just magically disappears. They're telling the same lie enough times for it to seem like the truth to people with no BS filters. If Trump really colluded with Russia and there's really evidence I hope they get him. But the chance is about 0% imo. I've seen too much lying and malfeasance from the side that's making the claims. Slimy people getting slimy witnesses and sketchy informants to leak information and sign dirty deals to get their asses out of prison a bit sooner.

Trump is being investigated for Russian collusion, which never happened according to all the evidence that’s in thus far. Manafort, Flynn and Cohen are indicted for things that had nothing to do with Trump. The only thing they have in common is that the FBI is bribing them with reduced sentences to get them to say things about Trump. 2 top members of the team that was assembled to find Trump crimes have been fired or demoted for malfeasance. There, now you’re up to speed.

There was evidence of a crime before Hillary was ever investigated. Then Hillary and her people lied to the FBI. Then they destroyed evidence that had been subpoenaed. Then her husband “coincidentally” ended up on the same tarmac as Loretta Lynch two days before the end of her investigation but they just talked about their grand kids. You know which one of those things that I just said was lie? The part about the grand kids. Bill doesn’t even have any. You know what’s characteristic of your lot? Saying baa and believing everything you see on CNN.

They’re not in jail for those things Bubber. It must be embarrassing for you to say words.

What a joke. These aren’t “crimes” lol. You drink too much kool-aid. It’s people like you who get caught up hook, line and sinker following people like Hitler to round up Jews.

Of course it’s a big deal that the guy who started the investigation was just a disgruntled Dem supporter with a bone to pick. It’s a sad day when the FBI just starts an investigation on a person to see what they can find. That’s not how they’re supposed to work. They’re supposed to find out that a crime has been committed before they go all out with wiretaps and large-scale investigations. For you to laugh that off just shows incredible bias and ignorance. The CBC is not well-respected, and “Fox News” is not an entertainment show. The channel has opinion shows like Waters’ World etc that are entertainment, but Brett Baier is actually a very well-respected news anchor and you can check into that if you want. CBC ran the $90K duffygate “scandal” for 3 years like it was headline news. The CBC is garbage and should be defunded..

What crimes? Does someone have evidence that crimes were committed? Last I saw there still wasn’t a shred of evidence that any crime was ever committed. Do you have a link showing otherwise?

Did all of those news channels say ahead of time that McCabe was in hot water? Strzok? Nope. They either “didn’t know or didn’t tell”, and it’s one or the other. But seeing as Fox was reporting on it do you think it’s possible that they didn’t know? Not at all. Don’t you think that they have an obligation to check into a story as big as “assistant FBI Director might get fired for malfeasance”? So why would they collectively ignore such a big story, and also downplay it after the fact? Why can’t they see James Comey’s obvious history of lying, leaking, denying, covering for Hillary to the point of being a complete disgrace to his office, and feigning ignorance? In his recent testimony under oath he just claimed to not remember anything over and over. 100 times, plus. Yet he’s treated like a paragon of virtue by the liberal msm. The whole slew of FBI malfeasance is just one instance where Fox News was head and shoulders above that enire group. It happens all the time. If you think those news agencies that you mentioned are anything less than liberal propaganda outlets then your head is way deep in the sand. I think that anyone with an average ability to reason who watches news on a regular basis has to remain intentionally ignorant to follow that garbage. Haven’t those other stations been saying that Trump was “on the verge of impeachment” for over a year now? It’s been a year since Von Jones was caught on camera saying that Russian collusion was a big nothingburger. Who’s right, Jones when he’s off-camera or all those networks? Seems like Jones and Fox are still the ones in the catbird seat. Diane Feinstein was saying that this investigation would nab Trump almost two years ago, and even she had to admit that there was no link yet. Funny to see her and Chuck Schumer so interested in impeachment when they voted against Clinton’s impeachment, despite the fact that he was caught lying under oath and witness tampering. The house getting subpoena powers won’t make a difference because the FBI already has subpoena powers. Also, the house subpoenas are basically just butt-wipe. Hillary had evidence destroyed after she was subpoenaed and no one was charged with anything. The Republicans used house subpoenas repeatedly on the Dems and they take months to comply and then they send everything out so redacted that it’s basically useless. Did all your vaunted news stations lie to you when they came out with the big story that there was proof that Sessions was caught lying? He said “I never had any conversations with Russian government officials or agents about colluding with Russia”. They showed a tape of him saying that, then said that he lied because “he was caught talking to Kislyak”. Is that a lie? Not at all. It’s only a lie if he talked about collusion, and he did not. They knew that. He didn’t lie, and yet they called him a liar. How pathetic is that? If I called you a liar right now for saying something that we both knew wasn’t a lie that would be bad. When a “news” agency does it it’s a dealbreaker for me. Those guys all act like Trump is the first president to separate families at the border. Obama did it too. When he was president he even released children back into the custody of human smugglers. Check it on Snopes if you don’t believe me. I was at a local function in my community and Lib MP John Aldag’s assistant was there representing him while he was in Ottawa. She was chatting with a group of people beside me, saying how pathetic it was that Trump was separating families at the border. I knew some of them, so I chimed in and said “It’s nothing new, they did that when Obama was President too”. She said that wasn’t true, so I said “Yes it is true, the pictures used to initially break that story were taken in 2014 when Obama was president”. The old hag said again that wasn’t true so I got out my phone and started to opened up the Global news story to show her and she just walked away instead of looking. How pathetic is it when members of our own government are even mislead by our news? Should they really be that dishonest in their reporting? Re the stupid old lady, I totally get why the average Joe would think something was true just from watching one news source, but when information is so readily available how can a government representative be so wrong, and make such an inaccurate and serious accusations against the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? This fake news situation is completely out of hand. I talk to people all the time who just utterly refuse to face facts right in front of their faces because they are so well-programmed.

If you can watch CNN without your BS filter turned on you will believe anything Rue. You name the time of day, I will pvr ten minutes of CNN, and I’ll find you at least one obvious lie.

Strzok was a lead investigator when the Russian collusion investigation started. He was only behind Mueller and McCabe. His texts before the investigation showed an extreme bias against Trump, and for Hillary, and he even mentioned to his lover Lisa Page that he didn’t feel like there was anything to the Russian collusion story, although he promoted Hillary’s dossier as legitimate at the FISA court to start the whole thing off. He was removed from the investigation but he’s still in the FBI. They have no scruples. McCabe was fired for tampering with witness statements. Bruce Orr was the #4 guy, his wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS and they did a lot of the background work with the foreign agents, from Russia and Britain. After it was found out that C Steele was leaking his own fiction to news outlets to corroborate his own story the FBI cut him loose, but Bruce Orr kept him involved. The FBI never disclosed to the FISA court that the supposed corroboration of Steele’s dossier came from Steele as well. When people talk about how the Russian collusion noose is tightening on Trump, just because his lawyer committed bank fraud and tax fraud, it’s either lying (as in the case of CNN) or ignorance (usually as a result of watching CBC or CNN).

Strzok? Orr? McCabe? Are you f'n kidding me? It's a whole laundry list of people who donated to the DNC, showed blatant bias & intent to overturn the result of the election, and got fired or demoted for their serious malfeasance. That's the worst response to a question that I have ever seen in my life, and it won't be topped until the day that someone comes along and says that Gretzky rode Dave Semenko's coattails.

Ok, the playboy bunny then. Put 100 men in a position where they think they can get away with it, what % do you honestly think will do it? What % of the people who abstain would be doing it solely for the purpose of attaining power or protecting their job? Are they any more worthy of holding a position of power than the ones who caved? The only % of people who actually pass that test are the ones who do it purely out of loyalty or because they're so pure that they don't even have the desire. Like I said, the whole point of an NDA is to cover something up. What would be the point of getting and NDA signed and then holding a press conference the next day saying that you got an NDA signed? Of course you cover it up. But.... what kind of person takes the money for an NDA and then goes out and blabs? How could their lawyer be a party to that signing, take his payment for his part in the deal, and then come out and be a party tp disclosing it? The same kind of people who would have sex with a married man, or cheat on their wife I guess. This campaign finace thing is an actual nothingburger, and a sad chapter in the history of the FBI. If you consider that witness tampering is illegal, then how can it be legal for the FBI to say "if you testify that person x said all of these 3 exact things then we will reduce your prison sentence by ten years"? They got Cohen to plead guilty to a non-crime, and they're acting like he's going to jail for it. He is a lawyer who committed bank fraud and tax fraud. That's pretty "jaily" stuff unless I miss my guess. But on CNN and MSNBC they're acting like that dipshit is going to jail for campaign finance violations. LMAO. He actually got his sentence REDUCED for saying that. The lying there is astounding. You have to literally be retarded to sit there and watch 30 straight minutes of that shit. It's like if someone strangles an infant, steals and car and then jaywalks and they come on the news and say "A man just got sent to jail for 20 years for jaywalking".

He lied about affairs with Stormy and the playboy bunny. Yeah that's bad. Give 100 men the chance to have sex with those women when they think that they can get away with it, how many say no? Would a married Mike "I don't even have dinner with other women if my wife isn't there" Pence say no? Chuck Schumer? Adam Schiff? Beto O'Rourke? I'd be shocked if one of them said no, but if they did I think it would be solely to protect their political aspirations, which makes it even worse. If the standard for election is going to rise to the level of "wouldn't have sex with a playboy bunny" no one will run. When I thought that Clinton's trial was just about an affair I didn't even care. I didn't know about the actual rape allegations because I didn't follow politics that closely back then, and the perjury didn't even bother me. I know, or at least I assumed at the time, that he lied partly to save his wife the humiliation. The thing that bugged the most about that whole affair was Hillary's first interview after he confessed. I expected her to say something strong like: "He's doing the most important job in the world, and he's doing a great job of it. It would be ridiculous to throw our country into upheaval right now just because he had an affair. I consider this a personal matter and we're dealing with it as a family." Instead she seemed like smug little schemer with a thirst for power that I found alarming. She was even smiling. It was just gross how detached she was from human emotions.

John Edwards was found not guilty. No one has ever been successfully prosecuted for campaign finance violations just because of an NDA. It's actually quite legal to get an NDA signed. If it serves the dual purpose of defending his family it's not illegal. Sorry to burst your bubble. The fact that Cohen is enough of a weasel to try to turn this into a crime just to reduce his sentence is just pathetic. He even tried to get this stuff on tape, which is the lowest thing a lawyer can do, and he couldn't even do that. Clinton was acquitted, (see the part of that article that says "acquittal by the Senate") and all 45 Democrats in the Senate (including Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and John Edwards, remember him?) voted "not guilty" on both charges. That's also in your article. The evidence against Clinton was undeniable, including the fact that he lied under oath. Ie, he was caught red-handed engaging in actual criminal activity. Chuck Schumer et al just let him off the hook. If the word impeachment comes out of his mouth he needs to give up politics.

Mueller is doing a good job of making things look like something, but he still doesn't have a case against Trump judging by all these arrests. Trump associates are in jail for things that don't have anything at all to do with Russian collusion. To this date the only person who is known to have paid foreigners and Russians for the purpose of election meddling is Hillary Clinton. The NDA that was signed by Cohen is not proof of campaign finance violations, regardless of Cohen's testimony. It's perfectly legal for Trump to get an NDA signed, and the fact that Cohen got his sentence reduced for saying that the NDA was purely for political reasons is almost worthless in court because Cohen's credibility is zero. The CIA can say whatever they want about the emails that Wikileaks released, but the net result of all that was just that the truth got out. Assange said that the info was leaked, and who's to say that he's lying? More than 50% of Democrat voters favoured Sanders, and IT personnel at the DNC had access to all those emails. Is it unlikely that a Bernie supporter leaked those emails? Hillary was caught cheating in the primaries, cheating at the Presidential debates, and paying Russians for information which to this date still is still considered inaccurate. Trump has only been accused of things which aren't any closer to being proven after two years. The Republicans were the ones who warned of Russian interference in advance. Obama was the one who told Romney that "The 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back" regarding the supposed end of Russian animosity. All I've see against Trump so far is a highly-political group of FBI misfits, most of whom have been fired or demoted, chasing windmills. General rule of thumb - if James Comey doesn't like you, you're probably an awesome person.

Who said anything about the Democratic party? You need some glasses son.