Jump to content

Trump is more popular among Canadians than Trudeau (and what that means)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

So you're saying he made absolutely no difference to his country being torn up (maybe because he couldn't care less)? Then what makes you think he'll fix anything?

Ahh Richeliue, at last.

Who actually made the country  get allt orn up? Who incited, who misbehaved. During that four years of media madness, while we watched aghast up here in the north, which political leaders encouraged violence by BLM et al? Our own local BLM even did the same, and were encouraged to by our local liberals.

There were so many faked and hyped political scandals generated by the coordinated press, it spun liberals heads round and round. 

I remember them all. Right from Hillary cheating on the debate questions. Total downfall, the real liars outed.

And just like liars do, accuse you of doing what they are exactly doing. If you don't remember it all clearly, is your problem.

A lack of memory and poor attention span is a hallmark of the left. So beware

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sharkman said:

What Canada needs is a person from outside of the political establishment, the elite power structure, to rise up.  Someone not tainted by existing political parties, like a Preston Manning, who changed the political landscape. 

The problem si that it requires a huge amount of skill and support to actually win power.  So those outside of the halls of power tend to be at a disadvantage OR they tend to be so inexperienced that they don't make effective leaders even if their ideas are good.

Justin Trudeau was an outsider who'd never been in politics till just before he was elected leader. Look how that turned out :)

And much as i was fond of preston - he was in no danger of winning the prime minister's seat and we suffered in the wilderness under the liberals basically unopposed for a decade.

It's a nice idea, but it's not as practical in practice.

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Someone intelligent, capable, and somewhat ruthless. And hopefully charismatic.

I unfortunately do not know anyone like that.

Of course you don't - nobody like that would ever have anything to do with politics  :)  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Someone intelligent, capable, and somewhat ruthless. And hopefully charismatic.

I unfortunately do not know anyone like that.

Someone intelligent and ruthless would wait in the background, for an opportunity to present itself.  Such a person would be unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2024 at 11:23 AM, Perspektiv said:

Trump used a massive bomb just to take out a terrorist leader. It was obtusely overkill, but totally Trump.

Trump used? You act like Trump was up in the plane. Military/intelligence people wanted to do it, and the defense secretary went to Pence, who approved, and then they waited till there was a commercial break and mentioned it to Trump. Don't act like it was his idea.

On 1/17/2024 at 11:23 AM, Perspektiv said:

Kim Jung Un had tough talk. Trump took his a kilometer further, urging Un to be cautious and organize talks to avoid miscalculation. 

And Trump gave him exactly what North Korea has been desperate for for decades, a one on one discussion, which Trump left saying they 'fell in love'. This is a guy who has murdered more people than anyone can count and leads a country that is effectively a concentration camp. Oh, and he also promised no more American military exercises with South Korea. What exactly did he get in return again?

On 1/17/2024 at 11:23 AM, Perspektiv said:

Which were really good policies. Trump hired people who got the job done.

Trump didn't know who these people even were. McConnell and other top Republicans came up with the names. And Trump wound up firing most of them because they disagreed with him. Trump is one of those guys who wants only yes-men around him. He hates it whenever anyone disagrees with his ignorant ass thoughts about how things should work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2024 at 12:52 PM, OftenWrong said:

I thought so too, Didn't mean to hurt his widdle feewings.

Tell him not to worry. Not-So-Groot likes to give it out, so he can also take it. Anywhere he wants. Anytime.

As for him, is like my pappy says. Leftists can call lemons apples if they want, but weknow a tree by its fruits.

Fruiteeeee......

;) 

And conspiracy nuts can go on bonky rants anytime they want without much care about how truthful they are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2024 at 1:07 PM, OftenWrong said:

Ahh Richeliue, at last.

Who actually made the country  get allt orn up? Who incited, who misbehaved. During that four years of media madness, while we watched aghast up here in the north, which political leaders encouraged violence by BLM et al? Our own local BLM even did the same, and were encouraged to by our local liberals.

And what difference did Trump make? What did he do that had any impact? Or did he just incite them further, and cause more division?

15 hours ago, sharkman said:

Someone intelligent and ruthless would wait in the background, for an opportunity to present itself.  Such a person would be unknown.

Everyone knew who Churchill was long before he became PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Trump used?

Okay, I forgot you're politically correct.

Trump ordered his° American army to bomb** a top terrorist. Not to be mistaken for the entire army. He ordered the highest reporting soldier, who delegated to the appropriate team(s) to carry out the attack*.

 

*To be noted "attack" is used in the sense that a mission was carried out to assassinate a specific enemy. Collateral damage was minimized.

°The commander in chief does not own the American military. He is simply in charge of it.

**An air assault was ordered. Bombs were launched from an aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

And what difference did Trump make? What did he do that had any impact? Or did he just incite them further, and cause more division?

Everyone knew who Churchill was long before he became PM.

Churchill was part of the establishment.  I am suggesting someone from out of the establishment.  Perhaps it’s just fantasizing, but that’s all I’ve got at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Okay, I forgot you're politically correct.

I don't think you know what that term means.

23 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Trump ordered his° American army to bomb** a top terrorist. Not to be mistaken for the entire army. He ordered the highest reporting soldier, who delegated to the appropriate team(s) to carry out the attack*.

Since we know from various books and interviews with his Secretaries of Defence and National Security Advisors that Trump would not attend meetings and was mostly uninterested in briefings on those issues we can surmise that he knew nothing whatsoever about this terrorist. It would have been Pence and Esper who decided this would be a good opportunity. Then they went to Trump the way you'd approach a surly, lazy, distracted adolescent and convinced him that if he gave this order he'd look brave and commanding and everyone would cheer how tough he was.

Again, from multiple people close to him we know Trump only cared about personal gain, so that would have been the way they'd have put it to him.

 

20 hours ago, sharkman said:

Churchill was part of the establishment.  I am suggesting someone from out of the establishment.  Perhaps it’s just fantasizing, but that’s all I’ve got at this point.

Our best bet is someone we really didn't expect much from who turns out to have an inner strength, determination and vision they had mostly kept to themselves. And no, I have no names either. Maybe if Poilievre wins someone will emerge from his cabinet who stands out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

Since we know from various books and interviews with his Secretaries of Defence and National Security Advisors that Trump would not attend meetings and was mostly uninterested in briefings on those issues we can surmise that he knew nothing whatsoever about this terrorist. It would have been Pence and Esper who decided this would be a good opportunity. Then they went to Trump the way you'd approach a surly, lazy, distracted adolescent and convinced him that if he gave this order he'd look brave and commanding and everyone would cheer how tough he was.

Again, from multiple people close to him we know Trump only cared about personal gain, so that would have been the way they'd have put it to him.

Ok. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/16/2024 at 5:21 PM, CdnFox said:

Utterly not true.  First off - the fbi absoutely recommeded charges for hillary and the team working on it were furious that none were laid - and the head guy got a 'talking to' from comey and told to back down [/quote]

Is this public knowledge? Because if it is, then it's proof positive that the FBI has been weaponized (against Republicans) and is no longer an independent government body.

On 1/16/2024 at 5:21 PM, CdnFox said:

Trump however can gargle mud and poop scandal and it only makes him stronger. Muck is his wheelhouse. The dirtier the fight, the stronger he gets.

This analysis is absolutely spot-on.  I am not an Trump supporter, however, if I were American, I would vote for him just to spite the hated Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

Is this public knowledge? Because if it is, then it's proof positive that the FBI has been weaponized (against Republicans) and is no longer an independent government body.

 

Oh yeah - the fbi person in charge of the investigation has come out and talked about it - they were gung ho for charges but after consultations with the boss (comey) they were "convinced" otherwise. This was shortly after bill ran across the tarmac to board the plane of the chief justice to "talk about their grandchildren".

The optics are absolutely terrible, i don't care which party you like. The ex pres has a one on  one unrecorded conversation with the person who would be in charge of the prosecution and could litearlly advise the fbi there's no legal grounds to continue whether there was or wasn't. after literally cornering her in a plane and shortly after comey has to tell his team who was fully expecting charges that it's a no go.

Unfortunately it doesn't'  actually "prove' that the fbi is not independent.  If you could make the connection between comey and the justice then maybe - and i'm sure that happened but there's no actual evidence of that.

I think the fbi's handling of the fake steel dossier on trump - the fbi having its guy charged and convicted of falsifying documents about trump to obtain warrants ,and the recorded texts between FBI agents swearing they will do anything to prevent trump from being in office probably make the case stronger.

 

13 minutes ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

This analysis is absolutely spot-on.  I am not an Trump supporter, however, if I were American, I would vote for him just to spite the hated Democrats.

There are definitely those who feel that way.

Especially now as many believe he will spend much of his second term, should he win one, screwing with the dems legally for doing so to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh yeah - the fbi person in charge of the investigation has come out and talked about it - they were gung ho for charges but after consultations with the boss (comey) they were "convinced" otherwise. . 

Cite please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Cite please.

Cant you just look it up yourself? It's not hard to find it was everywhere -  tell you what you go look and if you still just don't have the skills come back and i'll dig it up for you.  I'm kinda fed up with spending time digging stuff up for people that they could find in 10 seconds themselves, if it was hard to find i'd do it for you but this should be pretty easy.

 

EDIT:

I typed in a search just to see how easy it would be to find, it was the first entry so i figured heck i'd drop it here for you

But seriously - put your big boy pants on next time and look yourself, i can't be holding your hand for the easy stuff. You can find interviews discussing this with other memebers of his team as well.

BTW -  numerous legal experts have said that law has NO mens rea requirement, - that means there is no requirement at all to prove she knew she was breaking the law.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was/

Asked when he was persuaded to change his mind, Baker said: “Pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until the end.”

Baker made clear that he did not like the activity Clinton had engaged in: “My original belief after — well, after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials — I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn’t be charged.”

His boss, Comey, announced on July 5, 2016, that he would not recommend criminal charges. He did so without consulting the Department of Justice, a decision the department’s inspector general (IG) later concluded was misguided and likely usurped the power of the attorney general to make prosecutorial decisions. Comey has said, in retrospect, he accepts that finding but took the actions he did because he thought “they were in the country’s best interest.”

 

 

Edited by CdnFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2024 at 8:52 PM, CdnFox said:

Cant you just look it up yourself? It's not hard to find it was everywhere -  tell you what you go look and if you still just don't have the skills come back and i'll dig it up for you.  I'm kinda fed up with spending time digging stuff up for people that they could find in 10 seconds themselves, if it was hard to find i'd do it for you but this should be pretty easy.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was/

 

Interesting. 

But it hardly supports your belief in some sort of conspiracy about why she wasn't charged. He thought she should be. Others thought otherwise. He discussed it with Comey and was convinced otherwise. You try to make that sound suspicious but the story makes it clear it was not.

Baker said that if he had been more convinced there was evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law, “I would have argued that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view.”

He portrayed his former boss as someone who was open to changing his mind once he heard from his senior staff, even after drafting his announcement statement. “I think he would have been receptive to changing his view even after he wrote that thing,” Baker said.

As for not needing to know you were breaking the law, that's the same for ALL laws. However, we need to consider the public interest. If every public official, not to mention public servant was prosecuted for improper handling of classified documents there would literally be tens of thousands of charges every year. I doubt a single cabinet secretary over the past half dozen administrations has properly handled all the classified documents they've sent and received by email. 

In addition, of course, we know the Chinese hacked the State Department's regular email system anyway. In fact, I'd be surprised if they and the Russians didn't have free reign over almost every computer system in the United States and Canadian governments.

It's also kind of rich to accuse Comey of wanting to protect the Democrats given he's a lifelong Republican and given his last-minute announcement of further investigations into her probably cost her the election. The current FBI director is likewise a lifelong Republican.

By the way, the rules call for someone making a statement to be able to back it up on request. Presumably they've seen the information and are better equipped to find it anyway.

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Interesting. But it hardly supports your belief in some sort of conspiracy about why she wasn't charged. He thought she should be. Others thought otherwise. He discussed it with Comey and was convinced otherwise. You try to make that sound suspicious but the story makes it clear it was not.
 

It really doesn't. And other interviews with him and others on the team made it clear that ALL of them thought it was a slam dunk. The whole team was mad as hell it didn't proceed. And again - this decision was made by comey alone inapporpriately. Of course he's going to say "well in the end he convinced me".  What else is he going to say, "comey's a liar and we all knew it"?  No chance.

So the entire team of LEGAL EXPERTS working with the fbi thought it was entirely obvious that she should be charged right up until the end (his words) and they argued about it, and he was magically "convinced". Comey on the other hand made the decision in a way HE ADMITS was inappropriate but thought it was "best for the country". Not the best legal decision or the like, but best for the country. His words.

And his decision has been widely panned as completely flawed by many legal experts because the law DOES NOT REQUIRE proof that she intended to break the law which was his defense....

And you're going to tell me that in no way shape or form those facts suggest any kind of interference or attempt to shut this down? None? That all looks perfectly normal to you.  No HINT of anything inappropriate. No suggestion that there may have been something pushing comey to come to his self-admittedly inappropriately arrived at decision. 

Nothing? Nothing at all.

Sir.  You are not being honest with me or yourself if you're going to try to make that claim. It absolutely REEKS of interference with the lead fbi guy being pressured to shut up and agree by comey for entirely political reasons which is why he knowingly inappropriately bypassed justice.

Now you might say it's not absolute proof. And that's true. But dont' waste my time with drivel about how it doesnt' suggest that's exactly what happened.  It absolutely does.

Edited by CdnFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2024 at 12:36 PM, sharkman said:

What Canada needs is a person from outside of the political establishment, the elite power structure, to rise up.  Someone not tainted by existing political parties, like a Preston Manning, who changed the political landscape. 

Politics is a complex, learned set of skills. If you wander in from the outside to take the top job you are likely to cause mayhem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...