US Politics

[kelownabomberfan]

11 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I think Trump didnt expect to win nor did he want to win.  He wanted to get close enough to use the election as a platform for his own means.  I think his refusal to say he'd accept the results was because his plan was to lose and then publicly contest and use it to become the alt-right spokesman, probably start his own news network etc.  It was all about business for him.

He wasnt coy at all.  He said he would not accept the results.  He clarified by saying he would only accept the results if he had won.  His team attempted to portray it was leaving open the potential of a Bush/Gore scenario but he clearly didnt care about that and he never answered the question like that.

I have little doubt his people could and would raise money for recounts if the roles were reversed.  But I actually doubt whether he'd want recounts.  He'd point to the evidence of potential issues and declare Hilary a fake President and assume his role as the real voice of the people.  His plan was screwed by his winning.  He himself never disputed suggestions he'd quit if he won and during his own victory speech he referred to the "next two years" before correcting himself and saying "or four or maybe eight". 

It shouldnt be up to the candidates or their teams to raise money for recounts.  I think if there is even a semblance of issue, the government should want to clarify.  Hilary is way up in popular vote.  I think that adds credence to the idea, if there was a hint of issue with the voting, that they make sure.  Not to over-turn the results, but to get a clear result and to allow for better systems next time, if in fact there were issues this time.

I'd feel that way regardless of who won. 

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.

[IC Khari]

Lock Her Up, Lock Her Up ... LOL gotta love US elections. In Canada it would be "Take Away Her Tim's Card, Take Away Her Tim's Card" ...

[kelownabomberfan]

4 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

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. 

 

 

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.

Edited December 1, 2016 by kelownabomberfan

[Mark H.]

4 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

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.

Which is ironic - because that is the exact strategy with which Obama won his second term.

[The Unknown Poster]

13 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

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.

You're seeing that through Trump-coloured glasses.  He clearly was setting up the likelihood of losing and being able to claim he was cheated.  I mean..that's just so obvious.

[kelownabomberfan]

4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You're seeing that through Trump-coloured glasses.  He clearly was setting up the likelihood of losing and being able to claim he was cheated.  I mean..that's just so obvious.

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.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

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. 

 

[kelownabomberfan]

32 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

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. 

 

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?
 

Quote

PLANT CITY (FOX 13) - There are lots of questions surrounding a fire that gutted a home on Johnson Street in Plant City overnight. 

Along with heavy damage, anti-Trump graffiti was sprayed on the house, inside and out. The family who lives there was spending the night with relatives, but Navy veteran Matthew Smith says his home was targeted because he is a Donald Trump supporter.

"It's not what I expected out of America," says Smith. "It should be us figuring problems out together."

http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/220373017-story

 

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

PLANT CITY (FOX 13) - There are lots of questions surrounding a fire that gutted a home on Johnson Street in Plant City overnight. 

Along with heavy damage, anti-Trump graffiti was sprayed on the house, inside and out. The family who lives there was spending the night with relatives, but Navy veteran Matthew Smith says his home was targeted because he is a Donald Trump supporter.

"It's not what I expected out of America," says Smith. "It should be us figuring problems out together."

http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/220373017-story

 

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.

Edited December 1, 2016 by wanna-b-fanboy

[kelownabomberfan]

4 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

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.

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?

[IC Khari]

Time to bring this out ... what does it have to do with US politics? Nothing ... it's just so hypnotic LOL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by IC Khari

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

52 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

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?

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. 

 

 

[kelownabomberfan]

19 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

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. 

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.

Edited December 2, 2016 by kelownabomberfan

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

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 to.

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. 

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

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,

Government sponsored social engineering- is the result of the choice of the people. A Progressive government voted in by the people will have a progressive mandate and thus will socially engineer from a progressive point. A conservative government voted in by the people will have a conservative mandate and thus will socially engineer from a conservative point.  And yes there will be backlash if the majority gave social license on a given stance on a subject and the minority of people that hold the opposite stance will be challenged. 

 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.  

As said before: 

ALL the people that voted for Trump are: sexists, misogynists, racists, and bigots. But ALL sexists, misogynists, racists, and bigots voted for Trump.

An analogy of that would be... Not all fruit are oranges, but all oranges are fruits. 

Orange=sexists, misogynists, racists, and bigots

Fruit = Trump Supporter.

 

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

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 stupid to me.  And surprise, it isn't working.  But yet, saying its stupid 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 because of some Orwellian fantasy of state controlled society 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. 

Everyone should be able to speak their mind. But, if it's deemed as racist, sexist, misogynistic or whatever...  be prepared for the fallout. There is nothing Orwellian about a society agreeing on what is and isn't acceptable. 

Someone makes a racist remark- they should get called on it.  I see no problem in this- you make a remark, you own it. The only thing i see as a problem is when people misinterpret racism when there is none, and berate someone for the perceived racist remark- that is an issue. 

 

[kelownabomberfan]

 

Quote

 

As said before: 

ALL the people that voted for Trump are: sexists, misogynists, racists, and bigots. But ALL sexists, misogynists, racists, and bigots voted for Trump.

An analogy of that would be... Not all fruit are oranges, but all oranges are fruits. 

Orange=sexists, misogynists, racists, and bigots

Fruit = Trump Supporter.

 

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. 

Quote

 

Everyone should be able to speak their mind. But, if it's deemed as racist, sexist, misogynistic or whatever...  be prepared for the fallout. There is nothing Orwellian about a society agreeing on what is and isn't acceptable. 

Someone makes a racist remark- they should get called on it.  I see no problem in this- you make a remark, you own it. The only thing i see as a problem is when people misinterpret racism when there is none, and berate someone for the perceived racist remark- that is an issue. 

 

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.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

6 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

 

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.

Well, racist is racist- there is a definition.

Definition of racism

1. 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

2. 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. 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.

[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.

[Jacquie]

If people are mocking a culture by wearing the costumes then it is racist. That picture of the "Mexican prisoners" was racist.

And speaking of bigots, Mike Pence's neighbours are respectfully showing him what they think of his anti-LGBTQ views:

http://wjla.com/news/local/rainbow-flags-pop-up-in-vp-elect-pences-temporary-northwest-dc-neighborhood

 

 

[johnzo]

Republicans are now fighting the recount efforts in the great lakes states.

I thought the election was rigged! Why not take the time, count the paper ballots and make sure it wasn't actually rigged?

[kelownabomberfan]

15 minutes ago, johnzo said:

Republicans are now fighting the recount efforts in the great lakes states.

I thought the election was rigged! Why not take the time, count the paper ballots and make sure it wasn't actually rigged?

I have to agree with this.  Now it just makes them look guilty.

[johnzo]

Maybe they will catch some of the millions of fraudulent votes that Trump believes in...

Edited December 2, 2016 by johnzo

[IC Khari]

With all the red lettering I feel like we're reading the book of Matthew

[kelownabomberfan]

10 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Well, racist is racist- there is a definition.

Definition of racism

1. 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

2. 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. 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.

Speaking of what is considered "racist" these days, look at how far we've come as a society.  Check out this clip from a Jeffersons TV show in 1974, which bizarrely had a cross-over with Archie Bunker.  This actually was on TV, on a major network. Imagine if they played this on TV now? 

 

[Jacquie]

33 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Speaking of what is considered "racist" these days, look at how far we've come as a society.  Check out this clip from a Jeffersons TV show in 1974, which bizarrely had a cross-over with Archie Bunker.  This actually was on TV, on a major network. Imagine if they played this on TV now? 

 

I'm not sure whether networks censoring the "n" word means society has come far. Too many people still have that 50s mentality of race.

FYI, that isn't a clip from The Jeffersons. It's from All in the Family. The Jeffersons were neighbours of the Bunkers when the series first started. The Jeffersons was a spin-off which started airing in early 1975. 

[kelownabomberfan]

11 hours ago, Jacquie said:

I'm not sure whether networks censoring the "n" word means society has come far. Too many people still have that 50s mentality of race.

FYI, that isn't a clip from The Jeffersons. It's from All in the Family. The Jeffersons were neighbours of the Bunkers when the series first started. The Jeffersons was a spin-off which started airing in early 1975. 

ok - it was an All in the Family episode with a Jeffersons cross-over.  And if you think the N word not being bleeped is the only racist thing in that clip then you didn't watch it very closely.  The N word being used by George Jefferson unbleeped wasn't even close to the main issue in that entire clip.  There was so much wrong in that video, and yet 42 years ago, that was the "norm".  As society evolves, norms change.  Some move faster in that change than others, but there are still valid view-points that shouldn't just be dismissed with an insult. That was the point I was trying to make.

Edited December 3, 2016 by kelownabomberfan