How can you tell if Justin Trudeau is lying? Easy. Is he talking? Yes? Then he is lying.
Omnibus : Justin Trudeau Sucks thread
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
It's a shorter to just list the stuff they have done without scandal.
As I have always believed in and said here many times. Our politicians are nothing more than a bunch of puppet on a string pro globalist traitors to we the people. They all live the good life at our expense from our tax dollars that has and is still being robbed from us all the time. What a bunch of scumbags indeed.
The stench is so strong that I can even smell the stink of that puppet on a string pos coming off of my computer. I had to spray it down several hours to try and get the stink of my screen.
I wonder if they are talking about, and not with, the turd? None of those globalist buffoons ever want to gather around the turd. They always appear to want to try and keep away from the turd. The turd never looks like he belongs anywhere, except maybe in jail, and at most times looks dumber than s doorknob. Sorry to all you doorknobs out there. At least doorknobs are useful for something. This globalist suck of a turd is not useful for anything. Embarrassing indeed.
He doesn’t have to move his mouth, he can stand there & smirk while someone like Baggish (? Or whatever her name was, the Minister of Excuses person) talk/lie for him.
I was thinking of this liberal minister above:
Anyway, In trying to protect themselves from the latest turmoil to engulf the Trudeau government, the prime minister and his emergencies minister are offering explanations that defy both logic and the evidence on hand.
Assertions by Justin Trudeau and the minister, Bill Blair, have inconsistencies that negate their credibility. They don’t withstand close examination. And neither man can be conceded the benefit of the doubt.
The case in question is the shambles of an inquiry into the mass shooting in Nova Scotia in 2020, in which 22 people died. Leaked evidence indicates Trudeau and Blair cynically sought to exploit the tragedy for their own political benefit, by pressuring RCMP commissioner Brenda Lucki to release details about the weapons used. The Liberals evidently hoped to use that information to justify an attention-getting firearms policy that might not have done much to stem the use of such weapons, but would have looked like they were doing something.
apple.news
…..The prime minister has been cagier than his minister, saying one thing that may mean something entirely different. Off on a series of summits that keep him conveniently distant from the fray, Trudeau maintained he did not put “any undue influence or pressure” on Lucki. The trick is that we don’t know what sort of pressure Trudeau considers “undue.” His track record would indicate he views any pressure that gets him what he wants to be entirely appropriate, etc….the rest at the above link.
Anyway, In trying to protect themselves from the latest turmoil to engulf the Trudeau government, the prime minister and his emergencies minister are offering explanations that defy both logic and the evidence on hand.
Assertions by Justin Trudeau and the minister, Bill Blair, have inconsistencies that negate their credibility. They don’t withstand close examination. And neither man can be conceded the benefit of the doubt.
The case in question is the shambles of an inquiry into the mass shooting in Nova Scotia in 2020, in which 22 people died. Leaked evidence indicates Trudeau and Blair cynically sought to exploit the tragedy for their own political benefit, by pressuring RCMP commissioner Brenda Lucki to release details about the weapons used. The Liberals evidently hoped to use that information to justify an attention-getting firearms policy that might not have done much to stem the use of such weapons, but would have looked like they were doing something.
Kelly McParland: Trudeau can't be taken at his word on Brenda Lucki scandal — National Post
The trick is that we don’t know what sort of pressure the prime minister considers 'undue'
Question. . . how often are OUTRAGED demands to resign from the other side met with. . . y'know. . . actual resignations?
Me, personally? Not often in all honesty, but more of a constant appeal to my political sense of humour. So much is so blatant that it’s worth pointing out so it’s there to refer to easily.
Maybe y'all should program a furious demand to "Resign!" into every swearing-in ceremony.
Y'know, comic relief. . .
It used to be common practice for the minister to step aside if there was controversy or scandal in his/her department . That went out the door during prior liberal regimes .
Sorry, I actually miss read your first post above and that’s why my reply seems so weird because I thought you were asking about myself personally.
In years gone by if Minister was caught in a scandal they just stepped aside to not taint their party….but not anymore and things are getting so much more outrageous with every scandal that it’s just beyond getting upset about as it’s just one more goofy “ let them eat cake“ moment, And it just makes me wonder when people will wake up & stop rewarding these people for treating us like peasants and peons as they run roughshod over our rights & our nation.
