CdnFox

Or his mechanics at any rate

Unless he's impeached for it.

Actually that's basically what nixon did. Resigned and had the vp pardon him on the way out and he got away with all manner of crimes. As long as they're federal crimes that actually works And there's some question as to whether the president can even pardon themselves. As to murder - sure. Obama had people killed around the world in drone strikes etc without trial or anything else. That's murder. If you did it you'd be up on charges. But a president can get away with it provided the crime is committed in the execution of their duties.

I've heard the rumour before but i don't think it has any validity in the slightest.

Nobody with half a brain beleives that. We all get that you dem supporters do NOT want to fight the election on biden's track record (who would) but nobody believes that trump wants to end democracy. You want to know who wants to end democracy? The stupid judges in maine and colorado. That is a very CLEAR effort to try to interfere with democracy. So you've got zero room to say that trump is going to. And spare me the 'dictator' thing. He clearly means he's going to take no one's advice and just tell everyone what his decisions are, NOT that he's going to take over democracy and run the country as a genuine dicator. How would he even do that? Tell me how that's possible. What mechanism does he use to do that? He gets in, decides to be a dictator aaaannnndd.... what? Beats up mike pence? what does he do to force EVERYONE ELSE to set aside the laws? GIve your head a damn shake. You're spouting drivel at a grade 3 level and it flies in the face of basic logic and facts.

Sir, i should HOPE you're not calling into question the validity of my pink elephant in a tutu experience.....

Twice?

No, you have to stop as soon as a judge says you must. Such cases are common and always the authorities get a judicial order requiring the protesters to go away. That never actually happened in ottawa. Nobody actually ruled it wasn't legal. They were never told by a judge that they were in violation and had to stop. THe closest they came was the honking, and when the judge orderedt hey stop Strange that, wouldn't you say?

Its two words. How can this be giving you that much trouble? It was not possible for those events to unfold in a way that lead to the overthrow of the gov't. There's no way that could have been an outcome. I'll caveate this by saying i seriously doubt it was stolen - BUT fact is there's no way to be sure or even 'reasonable doubt' sure. There is no evidence i'm aware of that proves any substantial or election changing levels of voter fraud or tampering (there's some of course, there's always some) but - as i have demonstrated in other threads it is entirely possible and even plausable to have done so without detection. In fact we could go so far as to say it would be surprising indeed if there wasn't some - the question then becomes how much and of course there's no way to know. And this is the problem - there is no way to know if trump has or has not been lying or is or is not correct. Just like it was not possible to know if trump won the last election with russian collusion and after 3 years of the dems INSISTING he did and clinton insisting he was an 'illegitimate president'. (Despite the fact she paid for the dossier that she knew was false that started this), and after mueller specifically saying they couldn't find evidence that supported that claim, you STILL get lots and lots of dems who SWEAR by the 'collusion' story. So it's just as 'reasonable' for trump supporters to believe the election was stolen as it is for dem supporter to believe trump 'colluded' with the Russians. 1/3 of americans believe the election was messed with to one degree or another and about half believe in russian collusion (guess which half ) Sorry - the dems and their supporters have no grounds to stand on claiming that we shouldn't believe something that's not proven.

Handcuffs for journalists, double-doubles for jihadists David Menzies arrest exposes insane policing double standard The man, clad unassumingly in an overcoat and tie, promptly shoves Menzies against a nearby plexiglass billboard, informing him he’s “under arrest for assault.” The camera briefly catches a smirking Freeland slinking out of the frame as the scene unfolds. When Menzies starts to protest this shoddy treatment, the second plainclothes officer, dressed in a suit, cautions him, “You’ve been told you’re under arrest.” The man later claims falsely that the reporter was “pushing everybody over.” “It is against the law in blackface’s (Justin Trudeau’s) Canada to ask insensitive questions,” Menzies remarks mid-perp walk. It was subsequently reported on Monday evening that Menzies was released from police custody without charges. In one especially bizarre scene captured last week in downtown Toronto, just a 45-minute drive from Richmond Hill, a police officer (presumably moonlighting as an Uber Eats driver) hand-delivered an urn of Tim Horton’s coffee to a keffiyeh-clad protester. (A man standing next to the caffeine-starved demonstrator can be heard uttering the word “jihad”.) The juxtaposition of the two clips perfectly illustrates a clear double standard in policing that has crystallized over the past several weeks. Handcuffs for journalists; double-doubles for jihadists. Welcome to Justin Trudeau’s Canada.

No, by "Israel' I mean the country that's currently beating the living snot out of your terrorist zenophobe buddies in Gaza who started this war.

Yeah. Which is exactly what you'd expect. Although one does sometimes wonder why they'd go that far just for a rock when they clearly could just have cracked your head open and found all the rocks they wanted.

Virtually all of that is a lie. And we can tell that you know that by your Freaked out use of alternating caps. It's always a good giveaway

This is horrific. Whether you like rebel news or not they ARE an accredited news source and the courts have determined that the last time the PM'S office tried to exclude them from media events. Now - a cop has a collegue bump into a reporter who's in the middle of asking difficult questions for the media and then arrests the guy. And this is the PM's security people, not just some cops. We are literally at the point where gov't security forces are arresting reporters who ask questions they don't like. That' is actually happening. What the ACTUAL hell?

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/rebel-news-david-menzies-rcmp-arrest David Menzies was grabbed by an RCMP officer and told he was under arrest — with video of the incident sparking outrage before he was released without charge A member of the RCMP security detail who grabbed and arrested a Rebel News commentator while questioning Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland Monday is under review by the federal force after video of the incident sparked outrage for a seemingly dubious arrest. David Menzies was grabbed and pushed by an RCMP officer and told he was under arrest for assault as he was asking the minister questions about the government’s terrorism response, outside of a vigil in Richmond Hill, just north of Toronto, to mark four years since Iran’s military shot down Flight PS752, killing 176 people, many of them Canadian. “The arrest of the Rebel News reporter was made by the Prime Minister’s RCMP security detail. York Regional Police officers assisted as the interaction took place in our region,” said Constable Lisa Moskaluk, a media relations officer with York police. No credible security threat existed “It was determined that no credible security threat existed and the subject was released unconditionally shortly thereafter.” Menzies’ release without charge hasn’t muted expressions of outrage over the incident, recorded by a Rebel News videographer in a video which shows a man in a suit, tie and dark coat seeming to create a collision with Menzies that facilitated the arrest.

It's not even close to the same thing. Like - not at all. Sigh - robolawyer is making crap up to suit is needs again

An insult is a retort. re·tort1 a sharp, angry, or wittily incisive reply to a remark. "she opened her mouth to make a suitably cutting retort" What you mean is some species of reply or counter argument. And yes you have. As noted -"Great Leader" did not order his people to physical violence. He specifically told them to be peaceful and lawful. The term "fight" is a very very common word to mean struggle metaphorically - people 'fight' for their rights all the time, lawyers 'fight' for their clients, etc etc. No violence, no actual physical 'fighting'. in fact the term is so common that your instance that it must be 'proof' of orders of physical violence suggests extreme dishonesty on your part. None have been found guilty of insurrection or rebellion and there is no reason to believe he'll be banned outside of the severe misuse of powers of some left wing state judges who believe it's ok to interfere with democracy. In a few years people will feel the same as they do now. Almost nobody outside of the protesters actually supports what they did. Everyone says it was wrong. But - the dems will likley give up on trying to pretend that democracy was ever actually threatened.

You mean excuses like how trudeau doubled the national debt ? And how he cancelled the fighters that were ordered? And how he's run the economy into the ground so that gdp per capita (which is how countries afford things) is barely about luthiwania? Or how he's killed the oil and gas sector? Or ruined things to the point where people can't afford food or homes? Those kind of "Excuses"? Yeah - they might come up

FFS man, because it's a desolate lifeless barren wasteland devoid of any interesting features or reasons to visit, other than being able to say you did once. I haven't gone back to moosejaw since the 60's for much the same reason, but that doesn't mean nobody was ever there!

LOL -no but a reasonable guess I've never met you but i talk about you all the time And we'd both agree you have limited sovereignty over me. I hope. Doing a quick couple of searches i can see the problem, there was such a flurry of stories when she died that it's hard to get anything at all from much before that, never mind 14 years or so. And it wasn't much of a story at the time. Harper: "while we treasure our connection and history with the monarchy, it has no real power in canada and we govern ourselves". Queen: :Staaaaaaaaaaaare...."

Oh look - another lefty lie. Do you have video of trump actually taking up arms and fighting as you claim? No? Sounds pretty legit then, Mr "i'm a conservative guys honest!"

Every report i've read says the chinese navy is a case of quantity over quality and their ships are NOT great combatants. And to be frank - the US doesn't seem to worried about them. While i'm certain that under the right conditions they could do damgage, they would likely lose their fleet very quickly in any kind of set piece battle with a us force. And they'd risk all out war. I don't think they'll be excited by their prospects. I think the question in their minds would be would the us actually intervene.

And yet the cheeze industry flourished shortly after each landing. Coincidence?! COINCIDENCE?!?!?!!?! I think NOT!!

Your OPINION is USELESS without PROOF!!!!!! And you have no proof. So there you go

LOL - love the commie line Well there is still speculation that he'll step down soon. But it would have to be fairly soon, or he'll really screw them up. Mind you there's also speculation he'll FALL down soon, and break a hip. Which would take him out of the race too. I think it's probable that he'll be the one running mainly for the reasons you mention - who else have they got right now? At least it's got to be a silver lining for them that if they lose then biden's out of the picture for them and trump ONLY gets 4 years and then he's gone for them. And you never know, campaigns matter and biden could pull it off, in which case they only have to prop him up with a stick for 4 years and they can move on. Yes - guns, title 42 and dr seuss. The trinity of evil.