[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Wont get in the rest of the parts

I wish I could say that I’m surprised

(which I think you really need to take a real hard look at your line of thoughts for your argument, as it is getting to the level of trying to convince us the earth is flat)

If I’m a flat earther, does that mean you’re losing a debate to a flat earther?

I don’t think my arguments are out of line and again you simply saying something is the case is not a very strong argument. Especially when you’re dodging pretty straightforward questions left and right in the process while constantly trying to manipulate what I’ve said.

CPC and Erin O'Toole were very vocal at the time to have retaliatory actions against China following the detainment of the Michaels. Releasing the Michaels prior to the election would turn China into an election rallying point for the CPC in particular, while Liberals could deflect the China question until after the election, stating how the situation is delicate (which is exactly what they did and shamed the CPC claiming they are partisan). Releasing the Michaels at that time would have allowed the CPC to say their pressure on the Liberals helped free the Michaels and give wind to being tougher on China, the same way they cheered when Katie Telford to testify was championed by Poilievre. How that line of thought could not be a possibility to you, I don't know what to tell you. You can see for yourself O'Toole's stance on it.

https://erinotoolemp.com/2019/07/09/the-china-crisis/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/cons...ains-1.4512949

That still doesn’t answer how anyone could possibly come to the conclusion that the CPC would have more to gain than the Liberals if the Liberals would have gotten the 2 Michael’s released earlier.

Again. As I stated very clearly that at this point it's an allegation, one that seems too insane to be true because of how much damage it being true would and meaning an elected Canadian MP committed treason. This is one of the allegations we do not want to be true, because it would mean our government has been compromised and irreparably damaged. You better hope that the allegations are false, as the repercussions are extremely dire if they are true.

Irreparably damaged? You’re laying it on pretty thick at this point. While these allegations being true would be no doubt a very bad outcome I’m sure our country would manage to take the necessary steps to address the matter and avoid it happening again.

But you have chosen to not only ignore the scandal, but instead focused on the CSIS side of the story, as if there is a magical barrier anytime someone from your political spectrum could be negligent or complicit, as if 'your' side could ever do a wrong. That's why I say you are an apologist.

Ignore the scandal? I’ve literally been discussing it with you for some time now. The manipulation is strong with you, although IMO you’re not very good at it.

So basically what you’re saying here is that you’re calling me an apologist based on things you’re making up. I guess I’m ok with that.