Ten oz

Trump on lawyer Giuliani no longer denies collusion. Now that it is undeniable that Trump's campaign committed crimes Guiliani is shifting the goals posts.

The GSA inspector and staff are White House appointees. This report wasn't prepared by an anti-Trump politician or media outlet. The Emoluments Clauses is a Constitution provision. Violating it is a crime. Regardless of how rich you think Trump might be or ever might want to be it is still a crime to violate the Emoluments Clauses.  I fail to understand how the amount of money you believe Trump is worth changes anything.

So much for giving Pence benefit of the doubt.

If a man had never been elected Prime Minister of Canada, if only 1 in 100 publicly traded Canadian companies had a male CEO, or etc do you believe you'd feel as you do today about the state of sexism? Forget the "historical" stuff for a moment and consider that today, real time, these disparities exist. Only 1 in 5 Universities in Canada are led by women, only 1 in 4 Canadian Parliament members are women, and 40% of Canadian women report having been sexually assaulted since the age of 16 or above. I understand that you are not denying sexism exists but I get the feeling from your posts that you feel adequate headway has been and is being made. I believe you'd feel very different if roles were reversed. Saying maybe one day a woman will be President doesn't seem like equality to me. Men do not have to wonder, you have never once wondered, if a man might ever be President or Prime Minister. For a woman it is a hypothetical notion without any precedent. You belief that the day may be close if meaningless in the absence of it happening.

A President has won office while losing the popular vote 4 times in U S. history. A woman has become President zero times. As uncommon (stupid and convoluted) as it is for a President to win without the popular vote it has happened multiple times. It is a low percentage thing but it happens. A woman elected President have never happened: zero percent. The 2 are not equal. One of the two has been absolute through history to this day and the other hasn't. This is not an evidence based assessment. No woman has ever received even a tenth of the votes for President Clinton did. No woman other than Clinton has ever received a single electoral vote. *As for Haley no woman running for the Republican nomination has ever won single state primary.

As if the various bombshells regarding paying off adult film stars, nepotism, and Russian collusion weren't enough the inspector General for GSA has acknowledge that Trump is in violation of the Emoluments clauses.

Here in the U.S. I having been hearing similar attitudes my whole life. That we were willing and ready to elect a female POTUS but it needed to be merit based rather than gender based. Meanwhile idiots (my opinion) like Bush and Trump have been elected but not one single woman. We have elected men from across the scale, great to terrible, but no women. When something happens 100% of the time it isn't a coincidence. I will believe Canada and the U.S. are "ready" once it starts happening. Until then it seems clear to me Canada the U.S. are not "ready".

@naitche Canada (MigL is Canadian) has never elected a female Prime Minister in it's history. Discussions about sexism in society whether one is from Canada, England, U.S. or etc are not merely rhetorical ones. I believe their are strong arguments to be made that sexism is a serious problem disenfranchising large portions on the population. I will attempt to do better. Phones can be clunky but ultimately I just need to be more mindful. Sometimes I do well for a awhile and then get lazy.

It is a huge flaw of mine for sure. I mostly post from my phone. Words auto fill or correct on me often and I am not careful enough.

I agree he surely should have been briefed and known but in this administration who knows.

Sadly Trump's administration is more interested in claiming victory than focusing on what's really happening. Despite the insistence that ISIL is defeated recent attacks are still killing people including U.S. service members.

Because this discussion (as it applies to the GOP platform) has nothing to do with terrorism or total amount of illegal entry. Trump himself has made it crystal clear he dislikes immigrants from "sh!thole" countries but wouldn't mind more immigrants from Norway. Also individuals with Mexican heritage overwhelming vote for Democrats. So keeping Mexican Immigrants out helps Republicans at the polls.

I another discussion in another thread you ignorance plea would make better sense to me. Here, in a thread literally about people being offended by that very thing, the ignorance plea has no creditability.

This conversation has almost made it back to where it was nearly a month. Different stuff offends difference people. If one cares (no one is obligated to) about being causing offense it would be best for them to avoid things known to cause offense.

Beyond the proper use of English your statement has a relationship to this thread's topic and the many other posts in the topic. Whether or not you consider "stupid woman" sexist several other posters have indicated they in fact do. You are aware of those posts, aware some do consider it sexist, and still chose to use "stupid woman". That is your choice but I think it is disingenuous to pretend like you were stirring the pot. I find it sarcastic and a bit indifferent towards sexism in society at large. Not sexist outright in itself. That is just my opinion. Others might find it extremely sexist while other still might chuckle and think it clever. I have no idea what this bit is about. Did you mean this for someone else? Right, now imagine someone using that known epithet for a Jewish person 16 pages into a thread debating that very epithet. It would come across as deliberate.

Above is the OP for this thread 16 pages in and you are basically re-asking the same question which this thread started with. Simply reading all the various responses to the OP would provide you some insight on who might be offended and why. Likewise you'll see that pre-judgements of you specifically have nothing to do with it.

"Hope I'm not offending anyone's sensibilities." Is a line which seems sarcastic to me. If you actually were interested in not offending anyone's "sensibilities" you could have just altered your post to avoid the potential. I am not saying you should have altered your post. It is your post to do with as you want. Rather I am merely pointing that you knew "stupid woman" potentially would cause offense and still chose to use it. So you were prepared to potentially offend people which makes the disclaimer sarcastic.

This thread was created to discuss whether or not "stupid woman" is offensive. I do not think pre-judgements are necessary to understand your use of it, in a thread about it, was sarcastic.

Her history on some issues are troubling. She use to anti LGBTQ and pro Assad. That said she has apologized and called those previous positions stupid. She is young so it is very possible she had an awakening or whatever. I think TX is ready to turn blue. In 12' Romney got 1.2 million more votes than Obama. In 16' Trump got 800k more votes than Clinton. Then this past Nov. Cruz only got 150k more votes than O'Rourke. Texas should be a treated as a swing state in 2020 in my opinion. Having someone like Castro, who is from Texas, in the race this early is terrific. Castro will hopefully bring some much needed Democratic exposure to Texas. I am glad he is running. I need to read up on Gillbrand. I don't know what he platform is. Ignoring the rest of the world won't accomplish anything. After Trump Russia will still scheme, trade with China will loom over stock markets, and etc. The person who follow Trump will need to address certain matters.

I think Warren missed her chance. I was really hoping she'd run in 2016. That fact she didn't run despite such a strong appetite for a candidate with her populist liberal credentials makes me question her political instincts. Political environments shift very quickly and I don't feel Warren has shown the right amount flexibility, ingenuity, and quick thinking to manage a successful national campaign. I like her domestic politics but don't think she is the right candidate for 2020. Also, since you brought up Trump, Trump's mess goes far beyond a domestic policy. Trump has created a foriegn policy nightmare. Warren's politics are too domestically focused. Anyone who replaces Trump will have serious international issues to deal with. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, China, North Korea, and even Canada are all countries where Trump has upended decades worth of U.S. foriegn policy and altered relationships. Foriegn policy appears to be outside Warren's comfort zone.

I know it is still early but candidates are already throwing their hats in the ring. So let's discuss it. At present the following candidates (in last name alphabetical order) have already announced their candicacy or filed the necessary paperwork to begin organizing their campaigns. There will be more candidates to come but for now I would like to discuss the ones currently in rather than speculate about others. How does everyone feel about these candidates? Julian Castro Tulsi Gabbard Kristen Gillbrand Elizabeth Warren

The federal government doesn't even own the land required to build Trump's wall (or fence). That is why enimant domain has been discussed. Trump's wall isn't a project which is ready to be acted on. If Congress yeilded to Trump's demands tomorrow the wall would still be years away. So while I agree with the overall thoughts in your discussion with@CharonY I feel your both referencing the wall as if it were closer to a reality than it is. There are currently numerous looming court battles over the 33 milesof fencing Congress approved last March. A wall would be a far greater logistical challenge.

My interpretation is that you purposefully used potentially offensive labels to sarcastically my a point. So the disclaimer itself is insincere in my opinion.

You were posting about the number of illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. and this is a thread about a Border Wall. So border crossings are at the heart of the matter as they are how the illegal immigrants currently in the country, ones a wall would potentially prevent, got here in the first place. The number of illegal border crossing directly related to the number of illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. who crossed the board. You implied John's numbers may reflect a change in classification rather than a true diminishment in numbers. As John accurately pointed out if your "interpretation is correct then there have been essentially no "new" immigrants in 10 years.".

Right, the assertion is just Gish Gallop. It doesn't really matter how one spins the numbers illegal immigration has been falling for decades. Crime will never be zero. People over staying their Visa's will never be zero. There will always be examples of whatever for a politician to point to and cry crisis.