Trudeau overheard at G-7 summit
16 responses | 0 likes
Started by wglassfo - June 15, 2021, 8:14 p.m.

It seems that staffers at  the G-7 summit over heard our Canadian Prime Minister stating the following

Kamala Harris will be president of the USA by end of 2022

Do you think Trudeau has his comments  correct???

By WxFollower - June 15, 2021, 10:27 p.m.
Like Reply

 Please provide a link to backup what you said. If you don’t provide a credible link, your post will have no value and thus would not be worthy of discussion. TIA

By GunterK - June 15, 2021, 11:37 p.m.
Like Reply


I also read on more than one site that Trudeau “was overheard’ making such a comment to his staff. However, I didn’t bother to bookmark any of this.

If you could find a link for it, that would be nice…. but be sure it’s a MSM-approved link, anything from a non-approved site is automatically considered “misinformation”

Of course, "being overheard" does not have the same punch as giving an official  speech.  Although, many other people do get in trouble because they were "overheard" saying something bad.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trudeau did make such a comment.  He may be fully aware of Biden’s comments during his campaign speech in 2020.... when Biden did say that there may be a situation where he would pretend to be sick and resign.

I would also speculate that this will happen before the next G7 meeting.

By TimNew - June 16, 2021, 3:11 a.m.
Like Reply

I found several links,  but I am certain none of them would be "approved".  Since we can be quite certain the MSM would never report such a thing, we'll just have to assume such words were never spoken.

By mcfarm - June 16, 2021, 8:38 a.m.
Like Reply

gee, did not know we had actual topic police here that approved what we could discuss, Thanks wx we will keep that in mind.

By GunterK - June 16, 2021, 9:35 a.m.
Like Reply

mcfarm, that comment of mine was not aimed at this forum. This forum is a nice place to have discussions.

However, if’you’d read the other thread, titled “the anit-radicalization training for the military”… it speaks in rather clear language, where we are headed

It says “..The U.S. Government will also work to find ways to counter the polarization often fueled by disinformation, misinformation, and dangerous conspiracy theories online, supporting an information environment that fosters healthy democratic discourse.”

This means, the government will decide what is “information”, or “disinformation”. Only government approved views are allowed to be presented in a healthy “democractic” discourse.  (and, of course, the MSM is ther mouthpiece) 

Here is that link..

Another earlier thread talks about a young student (escaped from North Korea) studying at an Ivy League university.

She also says, our young generation is being trained to think what they are told to think…. quite similar to her original home.

Add to this the “Climate Emergency”…

We all hear metmke, a tiny voice, in a deafening roar of government directed "informaton",  telling us the real truth.

And the pandemic…, that subject would become too large to bring up here.

We are all being herded into a corral (can’t think of a better analogy right now)

By WxFollower - June 16, 2021, 9:54 a.m.
Like Reply

 There still hasn’t been a link posted referring to Trudeau being overheard saying Harris would become POTUS by 2022. But apparently it is still worthy of discussion without even a single link. I guess verifying that Trudeau really said this isn’t important.

By TimNew - June 16, 2021, 10:05 a.m.
Like Reply

I'll start with a disclaimer.   

WX,  I get where you are coming from about sources.   There are many that are absolute BS.  Some are BS some of the time.  All have varying degrees of Bias in one direction or another. ALL OF THEM.

But I think it's lazy at best and dangerous at worst to discount a story based entirely on the source, even when the source has proved credible on several occasions.

That being said..      Finding sources citing Trudeau's comment is easy.  There are dozens.   But none of them approach "mainstream" and as I suggested above,  MSM is very unlikely to report on things like this...

Which is why sone feel non-MSM is the only option sometimes,  because it is.    You just have to take it with an additional grain of salt and scrutiny.  

By wglassfo - June 16, 2021, 10:26 a.m.
Like Reply

I suppose it is a sign of our present times when some try to be the self appointed thought police. We have enough self appointed people, example:  the self appointed people who decided the process of lock down etc. We all know the damage done by self appointed people who try and control others.

I could have said unconfirmed reports, possibly from staffers at the G-7 speculated if Kamala would be president by 2022

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau may have been over heard commenting on Kamala, but no confirmed source is available, thus it is unconfirmed as to possible Trudeau comments

So there you have it, no source, no confirmation, no solid confirming link, no nothing

But the question was: Kamala in 2022. which was "the question" for discussion

Now to be truthful, I think one source was Zero Hedge re-the G-7 summit etc. but several articles have posed the Kamala question, the G-7 summit and Biden's obvious lack of focus, all coming together for the Kamala question.., that one would never be able to link all of the several articles 

In fact Kamala handlers thought Kamala did so much damage to her public image in the  South America tour, her  press conference disasters and the questions about going to the southern border, that some Dems are now looking for another Dem candidate for president. I did not think all this needed a link as this is common knowledge to many people, with multiple links, re: Kamala 2022

One can word a question in any number of ways to ask a question with out the need for a link. I suppose the fault is my own by not wording correctly, according to the thought control people. As if we don't have enough thought control already

The thought police get so hung up on this and that which is pure fluff to most people, and political to others.. They are blind to any question that doesn't fit their narrow view finder. Perhaps they don't like the question so find ways to discredit the question

I don't know what goes on in others thought process, thus discussion helps to clarify one's thoughts, with out the initial fluff designed to distract from the question

By mcfarm - June 16, 2021, 11:48 a.m.
Like Reply

no problem with your post Gunter, none. Mine was in response to wx patrolling

By mcfarm - June 16, 2021, 11:53 a.m.
Like Reply

well said Wayne. We have plenty of thought police form the white house, to congress, to big media to the internet all just cancelling whoever and whenever they happen to disagree. If they just have a millisecond to conclude someone might think differently its a crime punishable by being shamed, ostracized. and marched off the liberal gulag.

By WxFollower - June 16, 2021, 12:28 p.m.
Like Reply


 I agree that discussing whether or not Harris will likely be POTUS by 2022 is a topic worthy of discussion. Why wouldn't it be? But you asking whether we think "Trudeau has his comments correct" about this without giving us at least one source discussing said comments is a "horse of a different color" imo. Based on how you stated this, you're implying that he definitely said this. I think it is only fair to ask for source(s) to help the readers of this thread to verify that he actually said this. I mean you're already calling them "his comments" and asking if they're correct for goodness sake. This is how false rumors can get spread on the internet and there's way too much crapola out there. I'm all about truth and facts being spread, not BS. When attributing comments to someone, this attribution should be sourced.

By WxFollower - June 16, 2021, 12:39 p.m.
Like Reply


 I'm not policing thought in this thread. Where did I do that? But I am policing the lack of verification of whether or not something very notable was actually said that has been attributed to the leader of Canada. Big difference, mc! I'm a "just the facts, ma'am" kind of guy.

By metmike - June 16, 2021, 1:24 p.m.
Like Reply

Larry made a completely reasonable, objective  request and I was wondering the exact same thing.

The us vs anybody that questions us and our right biased sources mentality kicked in and instead of  being able to provide a simple, very reasonable request to show a legit source for the information, he gets attacked for even nicely requesting a source.

These sources of yours are brainwashing you into submission and you are losing the ability to  even want to think objectively and fact check anything that comes from them.

Instead of doing the basic fact checking or allowing somebody else to do it...............the resounding response is to defend it and call anybody that doesn't accept it by itself with no proof.............."the thought police"

As I have been saying all year............I am not your enemy. I am your friend trying to help you with the objective truths. Your enemies(and there are tons of them) are those using your minds and stealing your intelligence for their far right agenda that is intentionally causing mistrust and maximizing hatred for anything and anybody that disagrees with their political ideologies. 

And then, convincing you that its actually the other side is doing it, not them.

Both sides are doing it but since the election, one side is doing it in such a radical fashion(worse than the mentality of the riots last Summer) that it is become even MORE dangerous than that.

Larry is not your enemy either and he is a massive positive contributor here that consistly displays objectively and a willingness to hear both sides........and doesn't deserve to be treated that way for making a nice, very legit request.

Please try to stop being so extreme in your views that you won't even allow others to question them.  We are not censoring any of them here, so don't pretend that is happening either.

We are allowing you to lay all your cards out with all your evidence. Don't try to silence the other side for doing the same thing and then accuse the other side of doing what you are doing. 

Show the evidence please without squawking about the request.

By mcfarm - June 16, 2021, 2:24 p.m.
Like Reply

without a "credible" link your post is not worthy of discussion......credible in who's eyes one might ask.....and most anything could be worthy of discussion if for no other reason than to discover how someone may look at topic 

By metmike - June 16, 2021, 2:45 p.m.
Like Reply

"most anything could be worthy of discussion if for no other reason than to discover how someone may look at topic"

Exactly right mcfarm,

However, this was not an opinion based on what somebody thought. This was the statement:

 "It seems that staffers at  the G-7 summit over heard our Canadian Prime Minister stating the following

Kamala Harris will be president of the USA by end of 2022"

They didn't say "I think(based on their opinion) that staffers or others were probably saying or thinking that"  They claim that it was stated as a fact. 

This means it either happened and they can show the authentic source............or it didn't really happen because they are unable to show the authentic source. 

We are 14 posts into this thread and there still has been no evidence I looked for it and could find any so Larry absolutely did everyone interested in the truth a huge favor by asking for a source.

You do want the truth, right mcfarm?

By metmike - June 16, 2021, 3:04 p.m.
Like Reply

Gunter followed this up with his assessment:

"I also read on more than one site that Trudeau “was overheard’ making such a comment to his staff. However, I didn’t bother to bookmark any of this.

If you could find a link for it, that would be nice…. but be sure it’s a MSM-approved link, anything from a non-approved site is automatically considered “misinformation”

Apparently he lost the links and apparently wants my job as moderator...."anything from a non-approved site is automatically considered “misinformation”"

Like the REAL moderator keeps telling you ...........all opinions and sources are not just welcome but encouraged here. Just lay out your cards  so that we can see them and comment objectively on them. If they don't make sense to an objective person, then show us what we are missing. If we can show authentic facts which prove its wrong...........then have the ability to see the truth and not have your brain controlled by entities NOT telling the truth.

Again, I am your friend doing this to help you.

Sources feeding you bad information are your enemy. Yet, you continually defend them and then, won't even show them(and blame it on objective people not accepting them as Gospel) because you must know, deep inside that they are not telling the truth and are just telling you want you want to hear/read and you don't want that bubble to burst.