The democrats

[BubberMiley]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Trump didn't rape anyone like like B Clinton raped Juanita Broderick. Trump's dalliances were also consensual and with financially independent women, not employees or unpaid interns. You're comparing apples and oranges. 

I don't blame you for being sucked in if that's your level of understanding Argus.

McCabe has been fired for altering witness statements. Strzok was demoted for the insane level of bias in his text messages to another member of the team, and thousands of his messages were deleted. Bruce Orr was keeping Steele in the loop, and bringing info to and from the investigation from Steele long after he was fired for his improprieties. All of those guys  committed malfeasance by signing off on FISA warrants fraudulently.

So it's a collection of people who were actual criminals, and people who committed crimes on this investigation, and people who are known to be grossly incompetent for this level of work.

No, there is more evidence of Trump's sexual assaults (including of a 13 year old girl) than there are of Bill Clinton. He even admitted to it on the Access Hollywood tape.

[turningrite]

On 1/9/2019 at 9:48 PM, Truth Detector said:

When Booker was mayor, he was actually pretty good and a reasonable and sensible politician.  Once he became senator he lost all of it.  And now is completely obedient to the far left wing fringe, it’s really a shame.

I think the Dems have far more to fear about their left-wing fringe than many are willing to admit. The past couple days have witnessed the melodramatic and deserved political takedown of Steve King of Iowa for expressing apparent support for the white supremacists, or at least for their right to be heard. But listening to commentators on CNN last night, and particularly the pro-Dem Symone Sanders, who sputtered her utter distaste for the use of the term "Western civilization," the left-progressive agenda is much broader. When the notion of Western civilization itself is now on the apparent chopping block for many Dems, how seriously will or can "middle America" take the party? Persisting on this course could well hand Trump the 2020 victory on a silver platter. Elections are won and lost mainly among moderate voters in most Western (if I may use that term) democracies. To the extent that the Dems abandon both moderation and common sense, they're doomed to electoral failure.  

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

No, there is more evidence of Trump's sexual assaults (including of a 13 year old girl) than there are of Bill Clinton. He even admitted to it on the Access Hollywood tape.

This is from the Trump-hating capital of the world, CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/donald-trump-women-allegations/index.html

This is nothing compared to the evidence against Bill Clinton and the severity of his crimes. 

 

And I'm not saying that one woman has more worth or merit than another, but I do have more sympathy for the plight of a woman who is going to her day job and putting in her 40/week to pay her bills and contribute to society and then gets sexually assaulted at her job than I do about a girl who goes to a beauty pageant to show every square inch of her body except for her vagina, b-hole and nipples and then she gets groped. The two incidents are LIGHT YEARS APART!

There has to be a place for women to just have a respectable job and not be assaulted by pervs like B Clinton, otherwise it's basically a shithole country. There's ZERO room for these types of attacks on women who want to work in a classy, professional environment. ZEEEEEEEEEROOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! If my wife got the Bill Clinton treatment I'd beat the guy down, period. I honestly don't give a shit who he is.

On the other hand, if my daughter wants to go parade around in a beauty pageant and she gets groped I'm not going to get all bent out of shape. I've warned our girls before about the dangers of getting into a modelling career and certain other types of jobs. Our eldest isn't the kind of person to jet off to NY, stand up to the Harvey Weinsteins of the world, resist the peer pressure when the offer to "come to exclusive parties" and try whatever drugs everyone else is doing, or lose twenty pounds blah blah blah. She's a liberal through and through and she refuses to pre-judge the world that way. I'm not saying that people should be allowed to do things to those girls, but I'm saying that there DEFINITELY are girls who are willing to lay down on the casting couch or do whatever it takes to make it to the next level and those are the people you're surrounded by. You're competing with those people at work, every day. There are people all over in those lines of work who are willing to give it up and people trying to entice them to take it. You can't stop women from offering sex for power in a free country any more than you can stop two guys from having sex. Power and money is a strong aphrodisiac for some women. Who's to say that it's any less of a sexual desire than homosexuality or heterosexuality? Or that it's any less allowable than choosing a mate by appearance and character? 

[BubberMiley]

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

This is from the Trump-hating capital of the world, CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/donald-trump-women-allegations/index.html

This is nothing compared to the evidence against Bill Clinton and the severity of his crimes. 

 

And I'm not saying that one woman has more worth or merit than another, but I do have more sympathy for the plight of a woman who is going to her day job and putting in her 40/week to pay her bills and contribute to society and then gets sexually assaulted at her job than I do about a girl who goes to a beauty pageant to show every square inch of her body except for her vagina, b-hole and nipples and then she gets groped. The two incidents are LIGHT YEARS APART!

There has to be a place for women to just have a respectable job and not be assaulted by pervs like B Clinton, otherwise it's basically a shithole country. There's ZERO room for these types of attacks on women who want to work in a classy, professional environment. ZEEEEEEEEEROOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! If my wife got the Bill Clinton treatment I'd beat the guy down, period. I honestly don't give a shit who he is.

On the other hand, if my daughter wants to go parade around in a beauty pageant and she gets groped I'm not going to get all bent out of shape. I've warned our girls before about the dangers of getting into a modelling career and certain other types of jobs. Our eldest isn't the kind of person to jet off to NY, stand up to the Harvey Weinsteins of the world, resist the peer pressure when the offer to "come to exclusive parties" and try whatever drugs everyone else is doing, or lose twenty pounds blah blah blah. She's a liberal through and through and she refuses to pre-judge the world that way. I'm not saying that people should be allowed to do things to those girls, but I'm saying that there DEFINITELY are girls who are willing to lay down on the casting couch or do whatever it takes to make it to the next level and those are the people you're surrounded by. You're competing with those people at work, every day. There are people all over in those lines of work who are willing to give it up and people trying to entice them to take it. You can't stop women from offering sex for power in a free country any more than you can stop two guys from having sex. Power and money is a strong aphrodisiac for some women. Who's to say that it's any less of a sexual desire than homosexuality or heterosexuality? Or that it's any less allowable than choosing a mate by appearance and character? 

How would you feel if your 13 year old daughter was hanging out with Trump, Clinton, and Jeffrey Epstein (who has been let off extremely easy by Trump's Justice department)? What you call "nothing" isn't nothing at all. You just call it that because you love Trump and hate Clinton. But they are both reprehensible and the only difference is Trump has admitted to it.

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by BubberMiley

[Argus]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Trump didn't rape anyone like like B Clinton raped Juanita Broderick. Trump's dalliances were also consensual and with financially independent women, not employees or unpaid interns. You're comparing apples and oranges. 

And you're comparing an allegation with proven adultery. That's the problem with you Trump guys. The merest hint of a suggestion about the Democrats is held as rock solid, incontrovertible proof, but mountains of evidence against Trump is shrugged off as of no consequence.

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

McCabe has been fired for altering witness statements.

No, he wasn't. At least get your stories straight. He isn't even accused of altering witness statements. He's accused of being misleading with investigators when they asked him about what he said to the media.

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Strzok was demoted for the insane level of bias in his text messages to another member of the team,

And I bet t here are all kinds of text messages exchanged between members of the RCMP and justice department here about Justin Trudeau. Should they all be fired? Should any public servant who says anything bad about Trudeau, even privately, be fired?

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

So it's a collection of people who were actual criminals, and people who committed crimes on this investigation, and people who are known to be grossly incompetent for this level of work.

Again this bullshit where you absorb crap from extremist sources and instantly convict everyone involved. Meanwhile, the mountain of evidence against Trump is just brushed off as unimportant.

[WestCanMan]

10 hours ago, Argus said:

And you're comparing an allegation with proven adultery. That's the problem with you Trump guys. The merest hint of a suggestion about the Democrats is held as rock solid, incontrovertible proof, but mountains of evidence against Trump is shrugged off as of no consequence.

 

Rotflmao. The King of “one allegation has to be considered absolute proof” from the Kavanaugh thread is suddenly reverting to “allegations are meaningless”. You’ve just brought internet credibility to a new low and you know that.

And you’re also comparing testimony from a credible witness of an actual rape with mere adultery? That’s pathetic. One is a violent felony assault against a woman the other isn’t even a misdemeanour. 

Quote

No, he wasn't. At least get your stories straight. He isn't even accused of altering witness statements. He's accused of being misleading with investigators when they asked him about what he said to the media.

He’s accused of altering 302s, that was a big story before he was fired. Whatever the new official explanation is, and whether it’s just a cover-up for the more serious crime, is anyone’s guess. But honestly, when you think of all the other stuff that happened at the FBI it seems impossible that he was fired for a single lie. 

This theory that “the FBI is so concerned about integrity that McCabe was fired for one lie” is a complete farce. McCabe took the plea-bargain level hit on his record, and lost his pension 26 hours before he started collecting it, for a lot more than one lie. 

Quote

And I bet t here are all kinds of text messages exchanged between members of the RCMP and justice department here about Justin Trudeau. Should they all be fired? Should any public servant who says anything bad about Trudeau, even privately, be fired?

Incredibly stupid comment. 

IF an RCMP member sends text messages indicating that they don’t think there’s enough evidence of a crime for an investigation, but they consider the investigation is an insurance policy against Trudeau winning the election, and they open the investigation by testifying (falsely) to a court of law that there is enough evidence to open an investigation then yes. Of course. 

And Strzok wasn’t fired, he was removed from the investigation and demoted.

Quote

Again this bullshit where you absorb crap from extremist sources and instantly convict everyone involved. Meanwhile, the mountain of evidence against Trump is just brushed off as unimportant.

Sure, I absorbed crap with no merit. That’s why McCabe and Strzok are still FBI aces lol. ITS ACTUALLY A REALLY BIG DEAL WHEN PEOPLE LIKE THAT ARE FIRED, CRIMINAL REFERRALS ARE ISSUED, THEYRE TAKEN OFF THE JOB, ETC.

WHAT MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE? Some affairs? Ooh lock him up with 150 million other Americans. 

Just last week ABC news had taken the position that people who are expecting the investigation into Trump-Russia to come to a dramatic end will be disappointed. Apparently “there’s no big there there”. Apparently the collusion story is “a big nothinburger”. Apparently Strzok and Van Jones can tell the truth when they’re off the job, but they say the exact opposite things officially.

Deal with it.

[Jimwd]

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Rotflmao. The King of “one allegation has to be considered absolute proof” from the Kavanaugh thread is suddenly reverting to “allegations are meaningless”. You’ve just brought internet credibility to a new low and you know that.

And you’re also comparing testimony from a credible witness of an actual rape with mere adultery? That’s pathetic. One is a violent felony assault against a woman the other isn’t even a misdemeanour. 

He’s accused of altering 302s, that was a big story before he was fired. Whatever the new official explanation is, and whether it’s just a cover-up for the more serious crime, is anyone’s guess. But honestly, when you think of all the other stuff that happened at the FBI it seems impossible that he was fired for a single lie. 

This theory that “the FBI is so concerned about integrity that McCabe was fired for one lie” is a complete farce. McCabe took the plea-bargain level hit on his record, and lost his pension 26 hours before he started collecting it, for a lot more than one lie. 

Incredibly stupid comment. 

IF an RCMP member sends text messages indicating that they don’t think there’s enough evidence of a crime for an investigation, but they consider the investigation is an insurance policy against Trudeau winning the election, and they open the investigation by testifying (falsely) to a court of law that there is enough evidence to open an investigation then yes. Of course. 

And Strzok wasn’t fired, he was removed from the investigation and demoted.

Sure, I absorbed crap with no merit. That’s why McCabe and Strzok are still FBI aces lol. ITS ACTUALLY A REALLY BIG DEAL WHEN PEOPLE LIKE THAT ARE FIRED, CRIMINAL REFERRALS ARE ISSUED, THEYRE TAKEN OFF THE JOB, ETC.

WHAT MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE? Some affairs? Ooh lock him up with 150 million other Americans. 

Just last week ABC news had taken the position that people who are expecting the investigation into Trump-Russia to come to a dramatic end will be disappointed. Apparently “there’s no big there there”. Apparently the collusion story is “a big nothinburger”. Apparently Strzok and Van Jones can tell the truth when they’re off the job, but they say the exact opposite things officially.

Deal with it.

Manafort giving internal data  to 

Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian business associate with ties to Russian intelligence

 

The contested swing states that Trump narrowly—and surprisingly—won, such as Michigan and Wisconsin, were also places where both the Trump campaign and Russia’s Internet Research Agency focussed their efforts. Herein lies at least one answer to the question of why Russia would want the Trump campaign’s polling data: it potentially offered demographic targets for Russia’s bots and propaganda.

 

Kilimnik was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury on June 8, 2018 on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice by attempting to tamper with a witness on behalf of Manafort.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Jimwd said:

Manafort giving internal data  to 

Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian business associate with ties to Russian intelligence

 

The contested swing states that Trump narrowly—and surprisingly—won, such as Michigan and Wisconsin, were also places where both the Trump campaign and Russia’s Internet Research Agency focussed their efforts. Herein lies at least one answer to the question of why Russia would want the Trump campaign’s polling data: it potentially offered demographic targets for Russia’s bots and propaganda.

 

Kilimnik was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury on June 8, 2018 on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice by attempting to tamper with a witness on behalf of Manafort.

If this is legit I would call it a solid lead at this point, and if Trump is guilty I hope they get him. The most important outcome of the 2016 election is that Hillary didn't become President and that's great for America. If they get rid of Trump too that's not terrible news to me. 

I still think it's BS though.The total amount of money spent by Russians was miniscule and only accounted for something like 1/23,000th of the ads on FB at that time. If they swung an election with that then they truly are scary. 

 

[BubberMiley]

I always enjoy watching die-hard Trump supporters squirm and try to pretend they never were die-hard Trump supporters.

[Yzermandius19]

13 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

I always enjoy watching die-hard Trump supporters squirm and try to pretend they never were die-hard Trump supporters.

I always enjoy watching die-hard Trump haters squirm and pretend like they aren't a bigger help to Trump achieving his agenda than his supporters are. Trump has the most counter-productive haters of any politician that I have ever seen in my lifetime, and that's saying something.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

My die hard support is to the Red Nation libertarian and limited government conservatives who are my cousins by both history and ideology, Trump is simply one of their messengers, the bull in china chop option creative destruction blast penetration warhead. 

Expended down range and still imparting effects to the targets, but none the expendable and replaceable with follow up shots as needed.

[Dougie93]

Otherwise known as fire mission, shot over, shot out, stand by, stand by, watch and shoot, watch and shoot.

[BubberMiley]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I always enjoy watching die-hard Trump haters squirm and pretend like they aren't a bigger help to Trump achieving his agenda than his supporters are. Trump has the most counter-productive haters of any politician that I have ever seen in my lifetime, and that's saying something.

Why do you suppose that is?

[Jimwd]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

If this is legit I would call it a solid lead at this point, and if Trump is guilty I hope they get him. The most important outcome of the 2016 election is that Hillary didn't become President and that's great for America. If they get rid of Trump too that's not terrible news to me. 

I still think it's BS though.The total amount of money spent by Russians was miniscule and only accounted for something like 1/23,000th of the ads on FB at that time. If they swung an election with that then they truly are scary. 

 

Why you promoting russian propaganda to me? I wasn’t dumb enough to fall for the propaganda.

[WestCanMan]

33 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

I wasn’t dumb enough to fall for the propaganda.

Good for you I guess? Who's to say anyone fell for Russian propaganda?

There were plenty of reasons to vote against Hillary going back 20 years. 

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Good for you I guess? Who's to say anyone fell for Russian propaganda?

There were plenty of reasons to vote against Hillary going back 20 years. 

 

America fought a Revolution just to get rid of Kings and Queens who think name alone is a right to rule.

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

I always enjoy watching die-hard Trump supporters squirm and try to pretend they never were die-hard Trump supporters.

I always enjoy explaining everything about politics to you. Just kidding, it's getting tiresome.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but I doubt that anyone ever said "Even if Trump colluded with the Russians I hope that nothing happens". I think guilty people should be punished accordingly. Hillary, Strzok, McCabe......everybody. Including Trump. I just said all along that it looked like BS and I will still be surprised to find out that it isn't. There has been a constant stream of proven lies from the Dem/Mueller/Comey/Brennan camp for two years now and I don't know why it would end all of a sudden.

If you want to put me on the record for something, it's "If you don't see CNN or the Democrats lying to you then you're a complete idiot", or "Hillary losing was the best thing that ever happened to the planet earth" or "Donald Trump is living up to his campaign promises and he is actually doing his best for his country, which is the opposite of what Trudeau is doing".

You can hold my feet to the fire if I'm wrong on any of those things. Right now you have nothing but a misguided smirk and some mustard on your shirt.

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

America fought a Revolution just to get rid of Kings and Queens who think name alone is a right to rule.

I'm not a royalist either, but if you also believe that's the case then tell me where you stand on the NGas pipeline in BC?

Elected 1st nations chiefs gave their unanimous consent, but hereditary chiefs are trying to stop the pipeline. Does their "name" give them rights? Can 1 or two people overrule 20 elected chiefs and a halt progress for a whole province?

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm not a royalist either, but if you also believe that's the case then tell me where you stand on the NGas pipeline in BC?

Elected 1st nations chiefs gave their unanimous consent, but hereditary chiefs are trying to stop the pipeline. Does their "name" give them rights? Can 1 or two people overrule 20 elected chiefs and a halt progress for a whole province?

 

Of course I'm for a pipeline. Hereditary chiefs....bah.

[Jimwd]

14 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

America fought a Revolution just to get rid of Kings and Queens who think name alone is a right to rule.

 

17 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Good for you I guess? Who's to say anyone fell for Russian propaganda?

There were plenty of reasons to vote against Hillary going back 20 years. 

The reasons the birther ,pizza gate nut jobs or the Russians told you.

 

Don’t  assume I’m a fool.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

If this is legit I would call it a solid lead at this point, and if Trump is guilty I hope they get him. The most important outcome of the 2016 election is that Hillary didn't become President and that's great for America. If they get rid of Trump too that's not terrible news to me.

 

I agree that the single most important thing about a Trump presidency is that it prevented another Clinton presidency.   Everything else is just gravy.

Impeachment is a political, not a criminal prosecution, and Trump cannot be impeached for actions before he took office.   Articles of impeachment for actions that are clearly illegal (bribes, obstruction while in office) could bring Trump down, but even that is not a given.  

It is very difficult to remove a U.S. president by impeachment and conviction in the Senate....has never been done.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

 

The reasons the birther ,pizza gate nut jobs or the Russians told you.

 

Don’t  assume I’m a fool.

 

Some folks like being ruled by kings and queens.

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Of course I'm for a pipeline. Hereditary chiefs....bah.

Agreed. 

It's literally sickening to see people come on TV and talk about how important the opinion of 1 hereditary chief is. As if there's an unbroken line of hereditary chiefs going back 10K years or something. I'm pretty sure that the lines got switched up, ended, etc hundreds of times. Now all of a sudden this one family gets to rule forever?

So I'm curious about what they think is going to happen if one chief marries a white girl, and the next one marries a black girl, then a chinese, then a Peruvian.... All of a sudden the hereditary chiefs are less "native" than Lizzy Warren lol. So are they still the chiefs? Or do they have to only breed within their tribe? It gets a bit incestuous after a while. Their race? That's kinda racist. 

The hereditary rule thing is getting to be BS imo.

[WestCanMan]

14 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

I’m a fool.

Edited for accuracy lol.

Quote

The reasons the birther ,pizza gate nut jobs or the Russians told you.

Obama's birth place does matter. His dedication to the country mattered more though. It was severely lacking.

Edited January 18, 2019 by WestCanMan
I made my answer less d-baggish. Moment of weakness I guess.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Agreed. 

It's literally sickening to see people come on TV and talk about how important the opinion of 1 hereditary chief is. As if there's an unbroken line of hereditary chiefs going back 10K years or something. I'm pretty sure that the lines got switched up, ended, etc hundreds of times. Now all of a sudden this one family gets to rule forever?

So I'm curious about what they think is going to happen if one chief marries a white girl, and the next one marries a black girl, then a chinese, then a Peruvian.... All of a sudden the hereditary chiefs are less "native" than Lizzy Warren lol. So are they still the chiefs? Or do they have to only breed within their tribe? It gets a bit incestuous after a while. Their race? That's kinda racist. 

The hereditary rule thing is getting to be BS imo.

 

The entire pandering to 'tribes' is asinine. We're all Canadians.