kelownabomberfan

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!!

As much as Tim Kaine wanted the Ohio State killings today to be gun violence, sadly, it was gun violence that ended the actual violence....

This is pretty nuanced all right. I wonder how complicated this guy thought Castro's legacy would be, right before the bullet from Fidel's gun crashed through his head and he was executed.

I agree with you, but at least we weren't a world laughing-stock when Harper did his eulogy, like we are now thanks to Justin.