CdnFox

They called it a little early. The fact that they got it right doesn't mean it couldn't have gone another way. There's nothing wrong with saying "people are pissed we called it early - don't make that mistake again". Imagine lying that they did on the internet We're talking about a projection. A guess. Not a final result. So they decided to be sure of their guess and not guess early. That is NOT the same as "not reporting". They still called it before the results were in to prove the prediction. It isn't even scuffed. nobody anywhere cares about this except people who hate him already. It's a complete and utter nothing burger.

You're basing that on your years of covering elections for major news networks? Usually they don't make a mistake and call a state too early either. So this time they did, and they took extra caution to make sure they didn't again. That's absolutely fine and there's nothing remotely shady about that.

"Crying like babies" about a foreign gov't interfering directly in our elections and threatening members of parliament? Is complaining about that 'crying like a baby' to you now? And the "So called" scandal? You think that taking no action for years on these reports is a "So Called" scandal not a real one? What would make you post such drivel? Wait a minute - blink twice if your family is being held by the chinese!

Your stupidity is consistent, my responses are consistent. Seems pretty normal. LOL - i can always tell you're emotonally damaged when you start to break out pictures and memes You're like AA that way ':) How about If: opponent makes true statements you can't refute and points out your errors THEN: have hissy fit AND: a) try to change channel by focusing on irrelevant minor issue you might be able to win while ignoring the overwelming evidence against you, b) attack them personally by claiming they're on the internet too much c) Lie about what you've said or done d) Post a picture because god knows you don't have anything intelligent to say.

Ahhh taking stuff out of context from previous posts How very leftist of you And for the 12th time sure it was - ANYONE could commission the same poling to be done. So you're a liar. I did. You just can't cope with the truth of what the report says. You have to add your own spin. Here - lets read some together. So they're talking about how trump could win. That is NOT collusion. That is just two people talking about whether or not his boss could win. And they noted that some of the negatives for clinton were high. EVERY POLL AT THE TIME SHOWED THAT. And ANYONE COULD PAY FOR A POLL AND FIND THAT OUT. There's NOTHING secret there. Hardly a secret - and again that's manifords plan. IT's not collusion to share your plan Again - bragging his boss could win. (which he did). No collusion. And was the ukraine accused of collusion? Nope. Sure he could - because it's NOT SENSITIVE INFORMATION. Its just polling data. ANYONE can pay to get polling data. With no connection between that and any "polling data". And for it to be collusion they would have to have agreed that the polling data would be used somehow to hurt clinton and there's no indication of that. Your OWN REPORT says they don't know who it was given to or if it was used for anything. They didn't. That's pretty obvious. At best they took it as evidence that trump had a good chance of winning and i'm sure they found that interesting. But that's about all that info would have been useful for. Do you think it was because some !diot would accuse him of something ? It's more like giving someone a wooden spoon and a public phone book and then having someone claim you are guilty in the knife attack based on the logic that a wooden spoon is kind of cutlery too soo.... let me make this simple for you. The committee reports are clear. There was no indicaiton of collusion. Manafort bragged to a russian that trump was going to win. The information provided would have been of no real use to the russians in attacking anyone. You cannot show how the information was used - unlike the steel dossier for example. Nor can you even show how it WOULD be used specifically. None of this is "collusion" or anything close to it. Collusion requires two parties to agree to carry out some sort of plot or scheme usually illegal or the like. No scheme is in evidence here. Manafort just says "hey my boss is totally going to win and the other guy is like 'oh that's interesting', BUT NO REPORT AT ALL OF ANY KIND OF DEAL OR PLOT OR SCHEME. If anything, this tends to prove that there WAS no plot. If there was they would have discussed it. No collusion. Sorry kiddo - i know your brain melts thinking about this stuff but there simply is no collusion and CERTAINLY nothing inappropriate or illegal.

Not at all = that's just observation. But i'm not apperently - remember all opinions on their own are useless. Uh huh. But it really isn't - everything you offer you claim is valid, everything anyone else says is baseless opinion that's useless. So it would seem that you're all tit and no tat

Sure - when it becomes obvious your argumetns are bullcrap you turn and run. Gotcha. Again - you get called on your bullshit and suddenly it's everyone else's fault you can't hold a conversation. Pot - this is kettle. Kettle, meet pot. Sure - run home with your tail between your legs. But you know i'm right. Next time be a little more honest

Amazing how your opinions are observations and everyone else's observations are opinions. It's literally what you did.

You mean like the ethics commissioner?

The libs didn't think through anything. THe ndp and cpc pushed them to do the right thing and eventually they caved. Justin was happy to be their whipping boy until public opinion started to turn.

Isn't that just your opinion? Hypocrite

Again - pretty commonly accepted. Sure - but repeating a lie doesn't make it true. And if the disagreement is valid - and it is - then it's actually an indication that your actions or statements are wrong. At the end of the day you actually DID IN FACT do what i pointed out. And in fact that behavior is seen generally as poor behavior. Behave better.

ROFLMAO - so still no examples? Well how about that Nice attempt at changing the channel nobody said how you felt - i recounted your actions Sure it is I can see why you'd choose to lie about it tho. If you say less stupid things to begin with you won't be embarrassed by them later. Try that. Awww sorry punkin - no dice Hell you confirmed what i said in your next post by clarifying you believed that PP is targeting the stupid in the party. So swing and a miss there Sure they can. And look at them all leaping to your defense People already know you're a dishonest debater so i can imagine leaving it there wont' hurt your rep any futher. I think everyone knows your emotional state Broken You run along home again if you like.

LOL - i've never claimed otherwise - but i ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED that there's nothing "collusionary" about sharing your strategy or polling data that ANYONE COULD GET And you lose right there. Zero evidence of collusion. None at all. We've been over this a million times. I realize your tribal belief in your echo chamber makes this hard to undrestand - but none of that is evidence of collusion at all. Where'd they use this data? Where did it show up? We can see where the steel dossier went - where was this info used? How was it 'collusion'? but they didn't and the committee admitted that. The committe says they don't know that. Sorry. It's right in your quote And what reason is that? What did they actually do with the data? It wasn't collusion from the looks of it. Sure you are. You're lying and trying to cover up your first statement - which i pointed out was false and the concept of mes rea was a real legal thing. And THEN after some frantic googling you come back with "oh .. .er... yah... er.. well of COURSE it is... what i meant is .. And it's bullshit. Sorry you didn't know how the law worked before hand but covering that up now isn't working for you it is the polar opposite of the definition. THere's no scheme, there's no working together, none of that. It's litearlly missing ALL the elements required to be collusion Sure - but you can' be asleep and dreaming ALL the time (also - big job? What, you work for trump now? "My job is bigly!" ) Well i'm both. Sadly only one of us can say either of those thigns

You didn't provide a single example of them lying. You said a bunch of things you didn't like. But couldn't come up with a single one where they lied I noted i could come up with plenty where trudeau out and out lied and you got pouty and took your ball and went home Want to try again? Show where he actually lied. No, it isn't. If you say 2 +2 = 425 and i say that's wrong i'm not being 'partisan'. Wasn't an argument - it was just an observation Nobody has, not sorry. it is what you plainly said. And for heaven's sake that is NOT what a "straw man" is in either case. A straw man argument is something entirely different. If you're just going to lie about what you said then you shouldn't be surprised when you get mocked And you doubled down on it after when i called you on it, saying PP was appealing to the stupid in the party. Then when i pointed out that wasn't a very smart thing to say, you got real quiet about it LOL - instead you're now claiming you said NOTHING of the KIND!!! What? Never!!! STRAW MAAAAAAN! Yeash.

I have not expressed a 'pre-drawn' conclusion. If anything what i said was it's fairly difficult to come to a conclusion. And i noted some facts about that. Do you need me to explain this further to you? Do i need to go find some crayons? Or are you just angry someone who knows something showed up and it offends your tribal sensibilities?

The chinese paid the proper cash tribute. That's the difference, The liberals will NOT allow anyone to steal this country's democracy and rule of law. BUt they will sell it at a reasonable price,

That isn't actually a particularly useful metric for several reasons. There's actually been a number of pretty detailed studies done. And it's not radically conclusive either way. THe us probably has a better system for those who access it - but they also spend more money on it. If we spent what they do per capita ours would probably be better - but right now its arguably worse. Deaths per 100 k is a useless measure.

Not a lie tho. He intended to do it - got in - realized he was wrong and couldn't - stood up and said so and took the heat. A major screw up for sure - but not a lie None of those are lies. Those are just things you don't like. And that's very common for the left - they try to claim that lies and corruption are equal to "things i don't like". That's not how it works. So in other words not a single example. He's been in teh gov't for 20 years, he's been in teh public eye for much of that - not a single example Well there you go. As it is they can spin a story but they don't tend to lie. Trudeau out and out lies and has been caught at it many times.

Yes - that's what i meant. The ndp should have pulled the plug on their deal and with the cpc forced an election so the voters could decide if the liberals actions on the china interference problem were appropriate and if they should still be allowed to lead given the facts. I doubt they'd be given that chance.

You mean where you coudln't come up with a single example of either lying Thats not me being partisan. Thats just you being wrong. Accepting bribes from the aga khan is not a 'survival instinct'. Interfering in the country's justice system isn't 'misguided loyalty'. i'll grant you that people who are normally or primarily 'ethical' can make a mistake once in a blue moon and behave in an unethical fashion. IN such cases such people usually regret it and resolve to do better. But that is NOT the case here. IT's not 'once in a while', it's every four months or so. And that's just what we know of. And he has no regrets I think you're reading into it. And logicaly that wouldn't mean justin is corrupt because of the party, but rathter that as a corrupt person he joined the liberals because they are corrupt as well Nobody has called me on it - and that is not a "strawman". A strawman would be something else. That is an accurate account of what you said. Anyone who agrees with PP is stupid. That would be you demonizing all those who disagree with you on the matter and in a thread where you're calling people out for that behaivor. You should be more concerned about your own bad behavior. The difference is i'm not talking to trudeau directly, and trudeau isn't here saying we shouldn't engage in negative generalizations while at the same time engaging in negative generalizetions. You get him to log on and talk like that and I guarantee i'll have things to say to the boy And that would be your own bias showing. "We have to get rid of red tape and gate keepers". That's dumb is it? You think more bureaucracy will solve our problems? Our people need access to housing. Another "appeal to stupidity'? "we have to conrol our spending" - OBVIOUSLY only retards control spending. Yeah - i can see what you mean now. Things like reducing inflation is just an appeal to the weak minded. PFfft.

Yes - you can. You can do so with your words and by not acting like an ass. Give that some thought while you contemplate your 'morals'.

Fair point.

True. It really should be up to the voters to decide if the libearls should still hold the reigns.

really. So - give us a couple of examples of when PP and Harper lied. Not just were wrong but actually lied. But a huge step up on the accuracy scale. They are actually immoral. They actually do engage in corruption and bad ethics. That's not 'theory' or 'opinion' they've been caught at it many times. Did anyone say he's immoral because he's a liberal? But it is true that the party itself has behaved immorally many times. Ahh - so anyone who thunks different than you is stupid. In other words you think trudeau is right. Nobody intelligent could possibly support PP. I support PP. Are you suggesting my IQ is below average? And all this in your response demanding that hyperbole be dropped.