J.C.MacSwell

You finally figured it out...I'm Rudy Giuliani...

I thought Swansont's "police officer taking the bribe" was supposed to represent Trump. It didn't seem like it was referring to Cohen or Manafort. I think we are all a little impatient. Hopefully it is clear one way or the other. What if it was bad enough that Trump did get impeached? After all the Democrat Presidential candidates for 2020 finished tripping over themselves getting to the Left?

That was meant specific to illegal immigration. It was suggested I use google. I already had, and the information I got was unclear. My assumption is that, plus a focus on the concerns of those that feel illegal and/or legal immigration is to their detriment. Canada allows more immigration (as a percentage of population) than the US does. My hope is that this can continue. It won't happen if we ignore concerns of certain groups, and simply point out "net benefit" or insult people with racist accusations instead of addressing their concerns. (not that I expect everyone to be 100% happy with all of it)

You seem to think it is a foregone conclusion that Trump is guilty. (correct me if I'm wrong) Based on what you are so sure you know. Why does the investigation continue, if it already has all the information it needs confirmed to prove Trump is guilty of enough crimes to expel him from office? Why would they allow him any more time leading your Country?

There must be a lot of irreputable ones that come up on google.

Why would any number of illegal immigrants matter? Or why would the uncertainty matter? Theres no consensus in the numbers.

With the extensive uncertainty in the numbers, all are at least somewhat uninformed. Clearly the majority are legal, but what numbers are the educated working with? Closer to 12 Million or 20?

Without the broader context of Cuomo's questions and insinuations?

CharonY was referring to illegal immigration.

Does everyone know the police officer is doing this, or just half the police force? Or do some just suspect it? Should they wait for an investigation to be completed, or just assume the worst? If the officer wasn't a rude and obnoxious individual would the facts appear different for her?

I's a pretty unfortunate "balance", when many feel there is a loss of control, and many feel the weight and benefits of immigration is not spread equally.

This is not a rebuttal of Trump's current request for funding. Trump has changed his position on most of this (not that he would admit it....if he got 10 feet of wall that proved effective, he would probably claim yet another "victory" and that he was right all along)

More than in the link you provided, yes. That post wasn't solely for you either. You may claim you do not need CNN, but you provided a link from them as the original source.

A little more context: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/rudy-giuliani-cnntv/index.html Keep in mind this is coming from CNN. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-claims-i-never-said-there-was-no-collusion-in-trump-campaign Keep in mind this is coming from Fox News.

What factors effect this small, very successful group of people? How much of this is effected by females personal choices, and influenced by personal biology and the decision to have kids and/or stay home for the most important development years of their lives? (a time that often coincides with a critical point in their careers) How much of this is sexism, and how much lifestyle choice? How much of the choice is driven by the fact that they chose to request, and successfully gained custody of their children after a break up? How much from the fact that the father is often older, and already further in his career? How much of it is from sexism in the past having put a very small percentage of men in these types of favourable positions? Do we kick them out, or do we disadvantage men vs women going forward? (fight past sexism with current sexism) This is obviously a problem. What can be done to reduce it without restricting rights and freedoms of both men and women? (other than the perpetrator's after the fact) Education is important IMO, but not in a manner that vilifies men, which is both sexist and counterproductive long term IMO. So how would it effect your vote? Would you vote for who you considered the best candidate regardless of sex? Or not?

Who would dispute the historic evidence...or the fact that there likely was plenty of reasons for it based on sexism in the past. Not saying sexism doesn't exist, but sexism is certainly more balanced currently. Personally I don't like sexism against woman or men, but some seem to think it is justifiable. It is opinion...I recognize that, but I don't believe it is without some evidence. There are a number of females running for the Democrat ticket with considerably less baggage than Clinton had and has.

Hilary Clinton won the popular vote. The coincidence currently is geographic and your system. You know that...yet you spout this. ...and I'm sure you have females that would get more votes than Clinton. And don't forget that after extreme left torments everyone into voting Trump in again in 2020 out of spite, you will finally get your Woman POTUS in 2024 (Nikki Haley)

I think the population is ready to vote for the right leader, male or female. Hopefully when we do elect a female prime minister it will be based more on that than "it's time for one". We did have Kim Campbell as PM, though she was not elected, and have had female Governors General, the "official" head of state when the Queen is not on Canadian soil. Edit: I guess the Queen is always head of state

There are some concerns: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/national-illegal-border-crossing-us-from-canada-1.4863636 "Along this one sector of the border, apprehensions of people crossing illegally are up 60 per cent over the past year, although the numbers remain minuscule relative to activity on the border with Mexico." That's not referencing the whole border, but clearly there is an implication that our border has significantly less concerns with illegal crossings.

Is this a joke? Where has this term been mentioned?

No. Just trying to make a point. Sorry if you feel I didn't think you would understand that. What terms, exactly, am I defending? I'm generalizing that through ignorance any one of us could say something potentially offensive to some people. I'll give you an example of my ignorance. Until recently I would not have expected anyone to take offence to wearing black make up on Halloween in a genuine attempt to say dress up as an African American/Canadian. (Wear a black face...as opposed to "blackface" with exaggerated features) I don't fully understand the problem with doing that, and believe it is regrettable, but at least now I am aware it can be offensive to some. On topic "stupid woman", I think I understand that can be taken either way, a derogatory word followed by an identifier, or derogatory term.

I think at any significant depth it is very difficult, even for stationary systems.

None of us know all possible contexts of potentially offensive remarks. We didn't all grow up together in the same areas of the World. Ideally we eventually won't need to, and we can get along OK with our partial ignorance as long as we mean well. But to some degree we are stuck with our history. Zapatos has given a good example of that, though it is not clear why religious tie would be mentioned at all in that case (maybe in a group of gardening priests and rabbi's, where many priests were dirty but only one rabbi?)

With all due respect, this sounds like a call to create a power vacuum. What types would be the first to feel compelled to fill it?

The mock number is getting a little high... ...there aughtta be a limit