J.C.MacSwell

I'm not hung up on that particular term at all. I already stated I would tend not to use it unless I was confident my intended (or likely) audience would recognize the intended context. As MigL says it is offensive anyway, less so if directed at what was said than a person...but still. That's pretty sad with regard to climate change, that anyone would take offence to such an important topic, but I understand what you mean.

Do you allow yourself to be manipulated in your speech by anyone who might feign offence? Or are you sure no one would do that?

So you decide to refer to a woman as an "intelligent person" so as not to offend anyone that reads that as "intelligent for a woman"...and then someone gets offended because they feel saying "intelligent person" is obviously condescending toward woman... What do you do next?

You acknowledge their concerns. You tell them, as honestly and precisely as you can, which ones you feel are legitimate and why. You tell them which ones you don't feel are legitimate and why you hold that position. You listen to their responses and reply as best you can, and tell them you will look into any new information that comes up, or anything you are uncertain about. You then follow up as best you can. All the while you assume the best in their intentions and concerns consistent with what they are telling you. Maybe you persuade them. Maybe you don't, but perhaps assuage at least some of their concerns. Maybe you learn something.

That wasn't my intent. You was bolded simply for emphasis. I wasn't sure why you put my "properly addressed" in quotes ...like it was some code for something. I wanted to know what it meant to you and asked in that manner. The examples were how I see the right and left extremes (plus Trump) addressing concerns coming from the other side. Not very helpful IMO.

It means your posted explanation was much more solid. One I would agree with. It would stand up where the assumption in the other clearly would not. Wow. No to the bold. What the heck to the rest...you've attributed an awful lot to my comment. Stop reading between the lines...I wrote nothing between them. How about I take something you say out of context, and go on a diatribe about it? I would say you wouldn't think much of it. Short term thinking. How would you properly address those with opinions different from yours? Tell them their wrong and insult them? Call them racist? Ignore them? Lie to them? The key is not preaching to the choir. That's the kind of talk that gets you Trump...or after impeachment...Trump II.

I knew you knew the difference. My point was with regard to making overreaching statements, which is all too common IMO. Aren't you more comfortable making an accurate statement that will hold up? Even if it isn't seemingly as strong a statement on the point you would like to make? Where do you feel I did that? You are suggesting some motive that isn't there. My point is properly addressing concerns of those that might feel disadvantaged by immigration. Do you want immigrants to feel welcomed by a few, or do you want them to feel welcomed by the vast majority? ...and I do believe that is a key element to maintaining immigration levels long term.

Counter productive? I'm not sure what you mean there. The bold includes an example of an assumption that should not be made. How does it help to claim immigrants bring no crime? People commit crimes. Immigrants are no exception. They should be accepted with that understanding, while trying to limit immigrants with criminal histories. I honestly think it helps if the facts, as best you know them, are stated without overreaching. Even if you suspect a racist component may be behind some of the concerns. Overall I agree with the sentiment of the post. There is, hopefully at least, less racism in America than it might currently seem.

With the Russian government? I certainly haven't concluded that. Naive, right? So you're saying he's guilty of collusion, but not as a crime? I guess that explains why they need more?

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.