Wanna-B-Fanboy

I don't get it. I am not a huge JT supporter... but I don't see him as "an immature man-child who can't hold his emotions in check." Please elaborate- because the only immature man-child who can't hold his emotions in check was Mulcair and Bourassa. If anything, JT was more of the parent... or teacher type in that exchange. And in him taking an MP by the arm and ushering him to make a vote instead of the lolly-gagging and "oh... I can't simply walk around to make my vote", I thought that would resonate with your strongman fantasies.

I did.

Yes, JT is a tool- what's your point? My Point was: Harper was a terrible PM. Not JT>SH. We will see what JT has accomplished at the end of his run.

Bullshit- never did he say "that Muslims were going to be put into internment camps". quote please. I find it funny that you denounce Van Jones for perceived fear mongering, but are silent about.... the entire trump campaign and everything after his win. Hypocrisy? I think if you approach what Van Jones has to say with an open mind you will realize that he has some very good points. He totally understands why Trump won.

Not sure if serious or hyper-escalating hyperbole... Regressives are actually affected by the shitty PM and his policies and attitudes as are their neighbors and community. Progressives are actually removed from the Castro situation and don't really understand the brutality of his presidency. The two situations are very different and should not be treated as equal.

So.. Trudeau sr. = Castro? or are you using evil a bit too randomly?

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/thedailyshow?vid=1010108 Pretty good inteview- I think I will watch the CNN special.

He was a top notch bully- shitty Prime Minister though. Really unsure how the regressive conservatives reconciled their loss of freedoms and privacy while supporting the bloating of the government under Harper's "watch".

I think you missed the the entire aspect of satire and political commentary there

Well, racist is racist- there is a definition. Definition of racism 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principlesb : a political or social system founded on racism 3: racial prejudice or discrimination I can understand, not condone, why a person's house got burned down because of who they voted for- two very different things.

Alt-Right is: The alt-right is a segment of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in the United States. It has been described as a movement unified by support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, as well as by opposition to multiculturalism and immigration. It's not name calling, it's actually less derogatory than calling someone "Leftist". It's a political mindset. And no, I don't have a hard time accepting that other people have a different view, they do and I am free to disagree as they are with me.

My apologies, I had no idea that the notion of inclusion is foreign to your Alt-Right ideology. I will try to refrain from such assumptions in the future. Being inclusive is to incorporate ALL of the people, not to marginalise/exclude a group of people based on faith, race, belief and so forth. It is not so much Political correctness as a good ideology for building a decent, just and equal society for everybody. And yeah, people should not be surprised that they are targeted for crimes because of their faith, race, belief, who they support and so forth. Are these actions deplorable, hell yeah. Do I agree with these crimes- **** NO! I do not. Do I understand why they happen- yes I do. It is directly related to this divisive campaign where the "US vs Them" mantra was repeated over and over until it is ingrained into the social consciousness. It's like the united states turned into a crowd at a Manchester vs Liverpool soccer match. So yeah, there will be an uptick in violence based on the divisive rhetoric from the primaries and the presidential campaign. I am not surprised and no one else should be either.

He voted for one of, if not the most divisive political figure in history - what was he expecting? Kumbaya? Trump didn't campaign on a platform of inclusion- quite the opposite actually. He's gotta start expecting these things to happen in a new Trump reality.

So I have refined my stance on the Trump voter. I never said ALL the people that voted for Trump are: sexists, misogynists, racists, and bigots. (Although, people that were able to overlook, rationalize and justify to themselves the sexism, misogyny, racism, and bigotry in order to select Trump to represent them- is very telling and frighting). But ALL sexists, misogynists, racists, and bigots voted for Trump. And he is now their President.

You mean to tell everyone that if Trump had won the popular vote by +2mil and lost because of the electoral college count... that he would not have a huge tantrum about it and scream "CROOKED, CROOKED, CROOKED!" all the while mashing his phone trying to post on twitter demanding that all the illegal votes be taken out? If you believe that he wouldn't have demanded a recount in the rudest most childish manner? Then you have not been paying attention these past 18 months.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2016/11/10/vp-elect-mike-pence-does-not-accept-evolution-heres-why-that-matters/#7169720c1977

There, nuanced:

Upon their next meeting:

Yeah... nuance is not your forte.

A little more Nuanced take: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/opinions/trudeau-castro-complicated-legacy-joseph-opinion/index.html

I meant in the judgement department: "lacking in care, judgement, selectivity, etc"

Tough call: Indiscriminate targeted assassinations with "acceptable" collateral damage (read: civilian). VS Indefinite imprisonment with no trial or semblance of justice