Ten oz

Here in the U.S. it is common for Rap Musicians of color to use the N-Word yet still extremely offensive for anyone else to do the same. Language and social interaction can be complicated. Formalities only get us so far. If you were on a date and your date told you the disliked the word cup (for whatever reason) you could choose to replace the word cup with glass or just accept the date will go poorly. The choice would be yours.

....and who specifically is that; are they a singular group? I still don't understand as you are using pronouns. You say to be addressing the concerns of those who feel disadvantage but have provided no definition for who those individuals are. Do you feel disadvantage by immigrants?

It isn't a crime to cause offense. It also isn't a crime to be sexist, racist, ageist, or etc. You and everyone else in Canada or the U.S. are free to say things which cause offense. People are also free to be offended. So if you or I choose to say things others preceive as sexist or racist we might be veiwed by others as sexist or racist. If a person doesn't want to be thought of as sexist it would be best for them not to say things people find sexist. It really isn't complicated. @MigL You seem hung up on the fact you personally don't think "stupid woman" is offensive but it really doesn't matter whether or you think it is. I think climate change is real but know better than to talk about it in certain environments because I understand many people view climate change as political. As a supervisor of other at work if I overheard people speaking about climate change I would ask them do it elsewhere so not to potentially upset others. I would do that regardless of how well what was being said align with my own beliefs. As a negative consequence if I don't I may lose the professional respect of others who hold different beliefs if they feel disenfranchised or disrespected. You are free to say "stupid woman" often as you'd like. Just know that some people who observe you saying that will consider you a sexist.

Gabbard has gotten some press today out attempting to deal past comments. While the press might be the kind many Politician's wouldn't want an argument could be made all press in good press. It is raising her profile.

That doesn't answer Zap's question.

"Properly address" was on qoutes because I do not understand what you mean. I am still awaiting an explanation.

Please provide a post where I have told you what terms you should or shouldn't be offended by.

Considering the situation I don't understand why "you" is in bold followed by things like "insult", "ignore" and "lie". It is Trump who can be shown doing such things daily. I fail to see how I owe an answer to these questions? I supported Obama's push for dreamers and pathways to citizenship. During Obama's time in office he didn't give his opposition insulting nicknames on social media, ignore or kick out reporters during press briefings, and didn't blatantly lie constantly. If you can qoute where I have lied, used known insults against those posters disagreeing with me, or ignore posted directed at me which request a response I will gladly do my best to answer the questions you asked. Otherwise I veiw them as rhetorical. I am not sure what you me. If preaching to the choir won Trump the White House and will which Trump II the White House than you appear to be imply in preaching to the choir works.

Whether Trump obstructed justice, will be impeached, should be impeached, colluded with Russia, broke the emoluments clause, and etc, etc, etc are all things which may or may not be dealt with independently. Nothing on the investigation side will force an impeachment vote in Congress. If they choose Congress could start impeachment hearings tomorrow. The two can happen in parallel or series. The Special Counsels Investigation and Impeachment are separate processes. I have no idea whether or not Congress will impeach Trump. I am not arguing I think they will. Rather I am pionting out that arguments that they'd pay a political price if they did don't seem to be rooted in any sort precedent. As for Collusion between Russia and Trump's campaign evidence and court proceedings have already proved it happened.

@MigL what is the difference between "preceived" offense and offense? If someone preceives themselves to be offended are they not in fact offended? As for victimhood taking over Western Society; isn't that just your own judgement regarding how others should feel? Why should "we" take a look just because you disagree with the things which offend other people? Neither you or I get to dictate what offends individual people any more than we get to dictate how people feel about climate change, flat Earth theory, Bigfoot, or any other number of things we might definitely think people should not believe.

Republicans won the following Presidental election didn't they? Not only that but Republicans trotted out Monica Lewinsky arguments to rip Hillary Clinton with. So they got decades of mileage out of it. If Republicans had the impeachment to do again they'd be foolish to change a thing.

This is often stated but in practice doesn't appear to be the case. Nixon was forced out of Office and in the next Presidental election the opposing party to Nixon's won. Clinton was impeached in the House, conviction failed in the Senate, and in the following Presidental election the opposing party to Clinton won. So in the two most recent examples the opposition party to the embattled POTUS successful won the White House. The argument seems more of an intimidation tactic some use in hopes of discouraging those who may want impeachment to proceed.

What about pleading guilty and then providing evidence to Investigators? Cohen, Flynn, and Papadopoulos all cooperated with investigators providing information regarding their crimes.

Is this not a motive? Also how are you quantifying "properly"? The vast majority do welcome Immigrants. So I don't understand what you are asking or what it has to do you "properly addressing" whatever it is you think you are "properly addressing". "JUNE 21, 2018 - WASHINGTON D.C. -- A record-high 75% of Americans, including majorities of all party groups, think immigration is a good thing for the U.S. Gallup." The key is majority support you don't seem to realize is already a thing?

No, crimes committed during the campaign. Both Papadopoulos and Flynn pled guilty to lying to Federal Investigators about their contacts with Russia for example. Cohen's crimes include Unlawful corporate contributions, Excessive campaign contributions, and tax fraud during the Campaign. The "experts" you've heard are wrong. People have already been proved guilty of crimes and sentenced. Too late to claim crimes weren't committed.

Papadopoulos, Flynn, Manafort, and Cohen have all either pled guilty or been found guilty by a jury. It is a fact that Trump's campaign broke the law. The suggestion that we need more information before we can know if a crime was committed is inaccurate. Crimes were committed. People have already been sentenced to prison. Further findings will simply determine how many more will go to prison. Exoneration for Trump's campaign is no longer possible.

There is always a different way a stat could have been collected. Always some other stat which might be relevant. Other than attempting to insert doubt in the data available do you have any useful data which implies a higher number of illegal immigrants than generally reported or higher rates of crime? We should be using the best data we have to draw the beat conclusions we can. Not just using whataboutism to avoid conclusions all together. Crime will never be zero but that reality in itself supports nothing in particular.

I posted "appointees". I was not referring to her exclusively. That whole office is under Trump's executive purview. I am not suggesting anything. The Inspector General who is the subjectatter expert is. Are you claiming they are wrong?

You are drawing a hard distinction between Trump himself and his campaign. The beneficiary of the crimes committed and the person in charge of those who committed the crimes was Trump himself. That is not not in question. It is a fact. I think, though it is unclear, you are attempting to say Trump's campaign just happened to be full of criminals breaking the law on Trump's behalf but Trump himself wasn't involved. A fairly pitiful defense which would require total incompetence from Trump and obscure motives from all involved. Trump was the boss. Papadopoulos, Flynn, Manafort, and etc worked for Trump. It is Trump who created his campaign and it is Trump who his campaign benefited. I do not see a distinction between the two. Moreover Trump has publicly supported those convicted. Trump personal asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn and fired him (Comey) after he didn't. Trump has also tosses support Manafort's way. So as their boss Trump has been supportive of the crimes they committed for him.

It is a fact that Trump's campaign broke the law. That is beyond dispute. Base on it being proved already in court. Individuals have already been sentenced to prison. Impeachment is a political process and not a legal process. Impeachment would require passing votes in the House and then Senate. Regardless of the facts no Senator is legally obligated to vote for impeachment.

It is not a real time rebuttal but does show that this is a fight Trump and Trump alone has chosen to take on. As already stated by others in this thread Republicans in Congress wouldn't give Trump money for his wall either when they had control. This isn't a both sides issue. This is Trump (an individual) picking a fight.

Members of Trump's campaign like Flynn and Manafort have already been proved guilty. At this point it is accurate to state Trump's campaign violated the law. It is beyond being merely an assumption. It is fact. The only questions which remain deal with depth of involvement from Trump himself.

The interview where Guiliani made the remarks was a CNN interview. So that just is what it is. However it is what Guiliani said and not which outlet he said it on that I am focusing on.

More context? I have seen Guiliani speaking on this issue with my own 2 eyes. I do not need CNN or Fox punditry to frame it for me. Manafort, Trump's from campaign manager, has been proved guilty in a court of law. It is a fact Trump's campaign worked with Russian officials. The Russian lawyer Trump Jr and Kushner met with during the campaign at Trump Tower has been charged. Link

As the govt remains shutdown and Trump continues to demand money for the wall it is worth remembering that even among Republican leadership support has never been solid.