kelownabomberfan

#3 in your list is the issue for me. Who decides what is prejudice and what is discrimination? There was this issue a few weeks ago: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/costume-party-photos-queen-s-university-1.3863522 So now wearing costumes is racist? Says who? Should Halloween be banned going forward? I get it that white people wearing black-face is racist, and society has made that pretty clear, but now no one can wear hats at parties? This is where the debate should be coming in, and all views considered. If someone disagrees and says that this costume party wasn't racist, their view should be heard. Not shouted down. And I am not saying that you are doing that, but I did see this happening on other sites I visit where this costume party was being discussed.

I think you meant "Not" all the people are sexists etc etc. And I agree, not all of them were/are. Just as all the people who voted for Hillary aren't pure as the driven snow either, and it stands to reason that some of those voters are also sexists, racists and bigots, who just happened to agree with Hillary on issues other than her "inclusion" policy, if she indeed had one. I think the issue for me, and a lot of others, is who is doing the deeming of what is considered racist etc. The goalposts seem to be constantly moving as to what is racist, bigoted etc. Societal norms change, and yet not everyone agrees with these changes. Just calling people racists and bigots and insulting them, because they don't just willingly swallow the latest PC doctrine, doesn't work. And it shouldn't work. Saying that you can see why people would have their houses burned down because they didn't vote the way they were supposed to exposes a giant problem in our society to me. It's like advocating for excessive intolerance in the name of tolerance. But that's just my opinion.

I note that we are supposed to be civil, so I'm not sure why you are engaging in name-calling, just because I disagreed with you. I don't know what "alt-right" is or what the term "alt right ideology" is, but I assume this is some kind of negative slur. It seems that you have a hard time accepting that there are people out there who may have differing views then you do. I get that. I suffer from the same affliction. But I am trying to be a lot better, and I'd appreciate it if you could try too. That being said, I realize that this response will regrettably probably illicit more venom, as it appears that the only path to a "decent, just and equal society" that doesn't result in insults is to support government sponsored social engineering and extreme enforcement of PC doctrine, the source of which always seems to be some ivory tower or university. A lot of people, 60 million in the US in fact, may not agree with everything emanating from these ivory towers. And that does not, despite the statements to the contrary, make them all bigots, racists and misogynists. And insulting these people constantly if they don't agree 100%, doesn't engender any loyalty, or willingness to change. Political satirist character Jonathan Pie, and then the actor who played him, have said this. And he's right. Debate on issues such as what constitutes a decent, just and equal society is important. Thus, it's also important to accept that people have differing views on what constitutes such a society. Here's an example of what Sweden now thinks is "decent and just", gender-equal snow-clearing: http://www.thelocal.se/20161112/stockholm-transport-heads-defends-gender-equal-snow-clearing This policy seems incredibly silly to me, for a number of reasons, number one being that it is putting forth a premise not based in practicality but instead enforcing some bad PC idea. And surprise, it isn't working. But yet, saying its silly and pointing out that it doesn't work, shouldn't mean that I am showered with insults and called all kinds of names, including this alt right thing you keep bringing up. It's my opinion. I shouldn't be bullied for it, or have my house burned down. And I should be able to engage in debate about it, in a civilized manner. Take that away from me, and I just might go and vote for Kevin O'Leary, purely out of disgust at a system that has taken away my right to speak my mind, all in the name of an Orwellian fantasy of state controlled decency dictating what I am allowed to say and think. That's not how a decent and just society should function, and that's my opinion.

He being this person who had his house burned down? You are saying that if someone voted for Trump that they should expect their house to be burned down? Really? In your opinion, 60 million people in the US are now expected to live in fear of losing their homes and potentially their lives, because they voted for someone whose views you don't agree with, or in your PC parlance, "didn't campaign for inclusion", whatever that means? Isn't this a bit hypocritical?

Very Phil Sykes like in that way, lots of effort.

why would you protest while a Jets game is on? Makes no sense...

well it's good to see that you are coming around. Perhaps you could talk some sense into some of the fellows out there that aren't as open-minded and forgiving as you are?

I think your biggest mistake was always taking Trump literally. Not just on this issue, but almost every issue. That's not seeing things through Trump colored glasses, or at least, I'm not looking through your Hillary-colored glasses. Yeah, sure he was probably setting things up if the results were close, and leaving his options open to challenge. Why would he say he would accept the results if another year like 2000 happened and the whole election hung on a few votes in one state? Then everyone would say that he would have agreed in advance not to challenge, and would be pilloried for not accepting the results, even if they were really close. But then he won in a giant landslide, so really the whole point in my opinion is moot.

Trump said "we'll see," when asked if he'd accept the results. At no time did I think that meant he'd not accept the results. It was so obviously political posturing, and not something to take literally like so many did.

Hillary is way up in the popular vote because of the huge concentration of Democrats in California. If the vote was purely based on popular vote then Trump would have spent more time on the West Coast. As it was he left the West Coast to Hillary and focused on the battle-ground states that Hillary assumed were in the bag. And that's one of the main reasons she lost, she was out-maneuvered by a much smarter election team.

He was pretty coy about what he would do, and was leaving his options open. That was my take. Joe Scarborough's take too. Do you honestly think that he would demand recounts (and be able to raise $9 million from the public) to get those recounts done, if Hillary had kicked his ass as hard as he kicked Hillary's ass? I doubt it. Trump's a business guy, and he understands cost/benefit, unlike the Green Party. Everyone knows that these recounts are a waste of time and money, and the most likely result is that the Green Party is going to bank most of this dough after the Wisconsin recounts turn up nothing.

Yes, I agree. I think Joe was just pointing out how the media jumped all over Trump and yet are silent when Hillary does the same thing. And he's right, this is why the mainstream media is going bankrupt in the USA.

I hope you named them Poplawski, Tyrone and Walby!

Ken Dryden?

What a giant tool!

and who is sitting in houses in Regina not on their official list?

His dead dog told him to put it up.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/trudeaus-turn-from-cool-to-laughing-stock/

Marco Belchior!

Playing on a line with Thorburn as a rookie: Michael Corleone kiss of death.

Praising evil dictators on behalf of all Canadians - not my Forte!!