WestCanMan
-
Posts
18,320 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
87
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by WestCanMan
-
-
1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:
Tell that to his campaign manager and national security advisor and lawyer who are already in jail. It must be embarrassing for you after all that Crooked Hillary nonsense.
They’re not in jail for those things Bubber. It must be embarrassing for you to say words.
-
11 hours ago, Iznogoud said:
Only several hundred news articles that you could google just as easily as I can. Haven't you been watching the news? Trump has been directly implicated in the Cohen case. It is very likely that he would be joining his friend in prison if he wasn't president.
In any case here is one of them. I suspect more will follow. The circle is closing on "Individual 1."
Trump inaugural committee under criminal investigation, sources say
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/politics/trump-inauguration-spending-investigation/index.html
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.
-
11 hours ago, Iznogoud said:
I'm not sure why you are fixated on two FBI agents that are no longer connected to the investigation. Mueller is clearly the man in charge and he is a member of the GOP so the "evil Democrats" deflection does not work in his case. And I am not sure what the immigration question has to do with Mueller's investigation - in fact it has nothing to do with it. Mueller is investigating possible improprieties in the 2016 election not the refugee crisis on the US border.
And you are wrong about the House of Representatives' subpoena powers. It can summon anyone to testify under oath and in public. It will really be interesting to see how Trump's associate's respond when they are required to testify before the House.
And you appear to be completely delusional about news agencies reporting on Trump's possible misdeeds. We are talking about news sources from multiple nations around the world. They are not all left wing and in fact many of them like the BBC and CBC are well-regarded internationally. FOX is so weak that a few years ago when Roger Ailes was still in charge he openly admitted that so-called "FOX News" was in fact entertainment.
But you are right about the fake news situation being out of hand. Unfortunately for Trump and his fans the fake news seems to be entirely generated by the President and his supporters.
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..
-
On 12/13/2018 at 7:16 AM, Boges said:
the crimes that have been committed.
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?
-
5 hours ago, Iznogoud said:
I suspect you may be using FOX News as a source. All of the mainstream news channels (CBC, CTV, BBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, seem to disagree with you as do a majority of the world's leading newspapers. But we will see, especially once the House of Representatives begins to use its subpoena powers.
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.
-
7 hours ago, Rue said:
If it was anyone else I would think he would have been tossed by now. This guy seems to be Teflon. The more dirt they find on him the more his supporters love him. The other day he orchestrated a tough guy wall talk with his Democratic opponents baiting them during a photo op. They should have known better but he quite deliberately baited them and began to talk directly to American people about the wall and portray the Democrats as bad people. I think he succeeded.
I think in some ways he's insane, mentally disturbed, etc. but he is a deliberate manipulator. He knows how to play the cameras. The man simply has to puff his face and say no, over and over and people love him in the US thinking he's tough. This ridiculous fiasco he started with the detention of the Chinese CEO of Hua Wei to bargain with China was for his audience. Look how tough I am in the middle of negotiations I will arrest one of their big shots and demand better access to soya bean markets. That's what gets him votes. He did the same thing with us orchestrating the aluminum and Wisconsin milk fake issues. Americans worship rudeness and in your face arrogance and attitude against others. They love it. They never understand their swagger is viewed as a joke in the rest of the world and breeds loathing. This he will go at it on his own against the world crap, what is that? With Global Markets so inter-twined and his own mega national corporations demanding that who is he fooling.? Go it alone, who Coca Cola? MacDonald's? Dupont? Exxon? Colgate Palmolive Is he kidding?
The US is one weird political area. It was strange watching people at the Bush funeral get little brown envelopes and look shocked and all of them Republican and Democrat looking like someone was after them all.
Man its weird. How is someone in this office for such a short period and has managed to fire so many people calling them all liars and idiots and no one says, but Donald you hired them if everyone is an idiot and liar, what does that make you? Americans seem to love this guy.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Iznogoud said:
I don't believe that the agents you mentioned are involved in the investigation. Strzok certainly is not. Apparently Mueller has assembled a team of agents that members of Trump's entourage refer to as "killers." Trump is in serious trouble and his actions in recent weeks show it.
BTW using insults to make a point weakens your argument. I prefer to respond with facts so I will not reply in kind. Interesting that you used the Semenko-Gretzky allusion. I had tickets to the Oilers during that era.
Inside Trump’s legal team: Trying to protect the president from Mueller’s ‘killers’
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).
-
2 hours ago, Iznogoud said:
From all reports Mueller put the best agents he could find on the case. The ring seems to be closing in on the President and he is slowly running out of wiggle room. It appears to me that the only reason decision to be made is whether or not to got after the President now through the process of impeachment or wait until he is out of office and then proceed with a normal criminal case.
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.
-
11 hours ago, Boges said:
First of all, I don't think everyone would have sex with a Porn Star if they could.
Second, even if that was the case, lying about it is the problem not the act. The cover-up is worse than the crime.
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".
-
1 minute ago, Boges said:
He was impeached, just not convicted. Semantics I suppose.
The truth is this is all a sidebar to the Russia Negotiation. But it shows the same tactic of LIE! LIE! LIE! And once you can't lie anymore just justify it. If it was justifiable, you wouldn't have lied in the first place.
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.
-
11 minutes ago, Boges said:
John Edwards was indicted for Campaign violations. And his weren't a month before an election. It seems campaign officials were involved in the coverup. So it was definitely involved in the Campaign.
Oh and Clinton was Impeached!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
Your lack of knowledge on this undermines your ability to put forward an educated opinion.
Clinton was Impeached for a Sexual coverup/lie. He just wasn't convicted by the Senate. We're already at a point where that's a likely outcome for Trump. He may not be thrown from office unless Senate Republicans grow spines. But they would still have a trial where all the evidence of his miss-dead would be made public.
Which, like in everything, the coverup is WAY! worse than the crime. But justifying the crime after the elaborate coverup doesn't make it go away.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:
Who's the leader of the Democratic Party?
Who said anything about the Democratic party? You need some glasses son.
-
3 hours ago, Boges said:
The fall out of this Cohen Affair, similar to the Trump Tower Meeting, is so predictable.
Strident denial until you can't deny anymore. Then you justify the action and hope your sheeple base ignore the lie.
If the National Inquirer was in on these payments then stating it's a private transaction is the biggest lie of all.
How big of a deal is it?
It's perfectly legal for Trump to get an NDA signed to protect his family and his company. Should he come out in public and tell the world that he got an NDA signed, or would that defeat the whole purpose of getting an NDA signed? Should he write a cheque to Cohen and write "NDA" on the memo line? Again, not really how it works. Should he draw up his own NDA? How would anyone else in the free world do that? They'd do it through a lawyer. A sleazy Avenatti/Cohen type of lawyer. That's what guys like that are there for.
In order for this to be a campaign violation Mueller needs to prove that the NDA was specifically regarding the campaign, and not for family or business reasons. Even if he does that, it's not a criminal offence, just a civil case. There's nothing there worth getting all hyperbolic about.
Bottom line is Trump had sex with a porn star and a playboy bunny and he tried to hide it. Maybe for family reasons, maybe for business reasons, maybe for political reasons. If that's the worst of his sins then that makes him one of the very best men in Washington.
Bill Clinton was caught influencing Monica Lewinsky to lie in her sworn testimony, trying to get her to file false affidavits, coaching witnesses, he lied to a grand jury. Is he in jail? Did he ever get impeached? That's far more serious than getting an NDA signed by someone who was a consenting adult, which was perfectly legal.
The people at CNN and MSNBC who want you to think this was a big deal are still just as hypocritical as they were the day before they meekly wondered whether or not the should have "believed Bill's legion of accusers".
This is USA politics 101. Entry level stuff. Bill Clinton went to the 808 class, still didn't get impeached.
-
6 hours ago, Boges said:
Interesting how a certain member is apt at pivoting any discussion about President Trade Tarif to talking about other leaders.
Flail On!
Trade tariffs aren't the greatest evil the world has ever seen. I don't know why you're so hung up on the fact that Trump is protecting American jobs.
Would you think more of him if he was chasing away investment and killing jobs like Trudeau?
Who would you rather have as PM: Trump or Trudeau?
-
On 3/10/2018 at 5:37 PM, eyeball said:
Absolutely, virtually every human being who is governed needs to crack down on the lying scheming bastards that are all to often governing them. But this is a completely different issue that transcends race creed colour...I suspect you'll find much the thing same through-out the entire universe.
It's just a really sad version of that story. The people who are suffering on the reserves are suffering more than people anywhere else in north america.
-
On 12/11/2018 at 7:40 AM, Wilber said:
No, they engineer ridings so that their supporters represent a majority. The result is states like Pennsylvania where the Republicans got 45% of the vote but 55% of the seats. Some of their electoral maps look like a box of distorted pieces of ginger, as if ginger isn’t distorted enough already.
The US system also allows state legislatures to pull the same garbage when it comes to drawing federal boundaries. It is a thouroghly corrupt system that allows politicians to pick their voters rather than the other way around.
I don't know how you see my comments meaning something else. Maybe you need to read those responses again, or maybe you're just reading a definition from wiki and you don't really understand it completely.
-
On 12/11/2018 at 7:44 AM, Wilber said:
Do you seriously believe that 50%+ of the vote equaling less than 1/3 of the seats represents any kind of a democratic result?
Tough to say. Do you want the people from 3 sq km of a city center to control a whole state? That's not good either.
-
FWIW, whenever I see the thread title referencing "The Banana Republic", I keep thinking it's about the fact that the leader of the Democrat Party started an investigation into a political adversary without any actual evidence that a crime had been committed.
Normally you start out with a crime and figure out who did it. When you start investigating a person just to see if you can find out if they committed any crimes, you risk drawing comparisons to Lavrentiy Beria.
https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/show-me-the-man-and-ill-show-you-the-crime/
-
1
-
-
Some interesting info about Huawei.
Check out this quote from the article:
QuoteThe deaths triggered a revision of the company policy on overtime, and the creation of a chief health and safety officer role.
Still think your job sucks? Lol.
-
4 hours ago, turningrite said:
if Scheer, who comes across as affable and ordinary, doesn't seem to offer any kind of substantive alternative to Trudeau,
We could elect a steaming pile of shit as PM and it could do nothing but attract flies for the next 4 years and it would still be a substantive improvement.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, turningrite said:
if Scheer, who comes across as affable and ordinary, doesn't seem to offer any kind of substantive alternative to Trudeau, the Libs will win. Bernier's presence in the mix may be the only thing that prevents another Lib majority.
If Scheer promised a modest $40 billion dollar deficit over the next 4 years and said that he wouldn't drive away investment, kill off parts of our economy, cater to foreign resources over Canadian options, or give the red carpet treatment to terrorists he would be a substantive alternative to Trudeau.
QuoteAs for Singh, I think he and his party are in for a drubbing. The big risk is that NDP voters will move to shore up Lib support if Scheer and/or Bernier gain significant traction.
Singh's party is toast, and the Libs will get all those votes.
-
5 hours ago, Boges said:
In most cases a one week correction in the market wouldn't be the President's fault. Though, as I mentioned in another thread, this President has seen the four largest one day drops in the DOW's History come on his watch.
Last week's correction was a direct response to his hyperbole towards China.
Is it hyperbole towards China?
-
7 hours ago, BubberMiley said:
Tariffs have nothing to do with it?
Why do you call Chuck Schumer a liar? Or you just heard Trump say it, so you thought it must be cool? Lol
I never said that tariffs have nothing to do with anything. Of course they have an impact on the stock market and everything else. The stock market is up by 33% overall. So for one week it took a correction off of that amount. Big deal. It still dwarfs the stock market's performance under Obama.
If you got a 33% raise at work would you focus on the extra taxes you have to pay? No, but you're focusing on a small negative in a sea of positivity regarding employment numbers and stock prices.
The Banana Republic is at it again
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted · Edited by WestCanMan
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.