Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Canada did not exist as a country until 1867. In fact between 1791 and 1841, Canada did not exist at all. During this time, we had Lower Canada and Upper Canada: two British colonies.

Trump asked Trudeau: "Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" No, they didn't, the British did.

Trump is still an idiot.

---------- Post added at 22:54 ---------- Previous post was at 22:47 ----------

BTW, from your article:

Just so we are clear. So when Trump asked "Didn't you guys burn down the White House?", (altogether now), the answer is a resounding No :)

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Loving how all the Trump fans will work so hard to try and cover up and explain away his mistruths when the historical facts are there for all to see.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

If Trump says history and facts are lies/fake, then they must be ! The orange bufoons word is absolute. Sometimes folks bury themselves in so deep with their devotion, that there's no going back without making themselves look silly.

However he's not a joke unfortunately, he's a bigger threat to World security than Putin. Just hope those that are propping him up will realise in time.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

National review is a traditional conservative voice but along with ABC etc, seem to have similar opinion(s) on the case - I think that it is circulated through Reuters or the pool of the news wire service. (Big 5).

I'll re-read the opinion(s) from what you linked tomorrow or later in the week. Editorializing is one thing but I think that on the merits, they are not reporting accurately on this.

Ironically, the majority seem to be look at this from the perspective of pure constructionist philosophy (i.e. just this one specific case within the confines of the constitution) but most of them will only do so when it suits them.

The trend will show that this is a broader precedent that is eventually set but even on the merits of this individual case, I do not see this as a ruling with limited scope. The headlines may have grammatical issues but on the substance of the case, and the ruling plus the trend the court clearly is leaning towards (if members stay similar) is that of a deep protection of religious liberty (as indicated by many cases lately the little sisters / Hobby Lobby etc etc).

The thing is, even though you mentioned that other outlets see it the way that I did, I don't need to read their commentary to validate my views. Not to sound too obnoxious about this, but I know that I am correct - this is not limited the way that it is being opined and the clear trend going forward is a pattern under these parameters for comparable cases, which sets precedent.

ScotusBlog btw is just a rumor mill of what people think will come down the pipeline - kind of like the Michael Bevan in legal scholar form. So basically, worthless.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Utter rubbish, the historical facts I presented are the truths. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 03:32 ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 ----------

I stand by my posts, always. I believe my assertion of the historical facts and nothing you or others say, will alter that.

What we have laid bare here, is the pathetic Anti-Trumpers with TDS, are just nitpicking over what is essentially a question, not a statement, Trump asked about Canada, so in essence he didn't actually say a statement of fact...

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

The historical fact is that British forces burnt down the White House. Trump asked that not who was in the war in 1812.

Most people assumed it was an rhetorical question. If it wasn’t then I would suggest it’s a bit weird for the President of the United States to be asking the Canadian PM relatively basic questions of US history.

It’s not a big deal, just poking fun at him, I don’t understand why people critising him bothers you so much. As you said in the other thread telling him to ignore ‘the haters’ as if we’re teenage girls talking about One Direction. I don’t think there is a famous person alive I would be so motivated to defend. Especially not a politician.

---------- Post added at 08:24 ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 ----------

I didn't say you did and there were people who agreed with you.

However my only point was that these outlets were reporting the mainstream interpretation of the decision. First they were editoraising their headline to call a 7 - 2 decision 'close' but they weren't and instead they were incompetent which, while debatable, in probably unfair given it was not a uncommon reading of the decision even if it later turns out to be wrong.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

We should definitely consider doing that again. Then re-invade via the friendly Canada, unfinished business, and its for their own good. :)

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

In fact what we're doing here is revealing how difficult it is for Trump's supporters to accept that he, like anyone else, can make mistakes. The whole Canada thing is a joke, no more.

What is not a joke is where people are unable to discern fact from fiction and try to weave arcane explanations to try and justify the impossible. The last act is then just to throw a few playground insults and say that he didn't mean it in the first place. :rolleyes:

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

What is a joke is you going on and on and getting nowhere.

And who is this "we" ?

- You or anyone else is not revealing anything, you're just trying to argue a point that I have already dealt with and I believe to be the facts.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44486250

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/n...s&ref=headline

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

"Fake News!"

"But her emails!"

"Dems collusion!"

Etc., etc., etc...

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Too many sources are now reporting it..and if the BBC are doing so it's hard to assert that it's fake news.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Is it Mick's night off ? :)

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

The infamous IG report is out: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...watchdog-finds

It seems:

- Comey damaged the FBI but wasn't politically biased.

- 5 FBI agents were biased, and have been referred for investigation, but that this did not affect the material investigation

- Nothing suggests the decision to clear Clinton was incorrect


So it doesn't pave the way for another investigation into Clinton. Comey is accused of being improper but not of illegality.

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page come off the biggest losers in the report.

---------- Post added at 19:26 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

Wait, best one yet:

While Comey was heading the investigation into Clinton using a private e-mail server for government business Corney was using Gmail for FBI business:

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation
 

Damien, why do you keep calling Comey Corney ? :D