Of course he was talking about those specific undocumented immigrants they care about most.
Of course the undocumented immigrants IN THE COUNTRY are the ones our representatives should care about the most.
Only a brain dead slug hears this quick cut clip and thinks “see, they only care about illegal immigrants, not Americans.” Bob thinking that is proof of my point.

100%.
Rhonda Rousey could kick my, or your, ass.
Her 23 & 24th chromosomes being different from ours doesn’t negate that.

On average is what you said somewhat true….mostly (there are athletic disciplines that benefit female physique strongly, and there are exceptions to every “rule”)…. but sports are played by the exceptional, and a shitload more than chromosomal arrangement and genital assignment determines how exceptional a person is in a given field.

It is possible that the best woman in a sport is better than the best man, true in almost all sports, equally possible a man born a girl could be better, or a woman born a boy…If you can’t accept that, then yes, we must live in two separate realities.

What about hermaphrodites? Can they play for either team, or none at all?

Again, denying a citizen their right to participate in publicly funded sports is pretty damn unAmerican. If your not American and your culture differs, that’s on you and not my business.

Yeah, because parents are never up to no good....and moronic criminals never record their crimes.
🤦‍♂️

Legitimate to worry, not legitimate to take it upon yourself to test it. I'm worried about my money in the bank, it's not legitimate for me to break into the vault to see how easy it is. Duh.

What?! How would the school not having funding to increase security in any way excuse her going to great lengths putting all other students at risk? It would be worse, because she would be going in knowing they CAN'T increase security because they can't afford to.

You are free to assume this person had only perfectly pure motives (just as others are free to assume she was going to kidnap a child for a sex slave while disguised as another child in a mask and hoodie), but that doesn't change the fact that she surreptitiously snuck into the school with no authorization or authority to do so. Her motives might be above board, her actions aren't even close. The proverbial road to Hell is what you think excuses her illegal actions.
Edit:You seem to be suggesting we prosecute thought crimes only....If I intend to commit a crime but don't intend to do harm, no foul, but if I wish to do harm but take no action, lock me up. That's not American or reasonable without a perfect mind reading machine. We prosecute actions, and her outrageous trespass was definitely illegal.

Would you be fine with me, or any random citizen "testing" the security of your home when only your children are there? What if I dress like their friend? Gee....why not? Don't you think the other parents have the right to not have adults constantly trying to be in their schools disguised as kids under masks?

More bullshit from this YouTube moron who has Trump's c*ck so deep up his ass he's drooling syphilitic discharge.

Ripping up a speech is the worst thing ever in political history? Derp.

The travel ban from China was xenophobic and racist, it only stopped Chinese from coming from China, not Americans, not people from other countries.

The quarantine rule was only for those entering from one province, and was not enforced.

Cuomo was following CDC and Whitehouse guidelines to send the elderly back to their nursing homes after being discharged from hospitals....Derp.
Trump killed 170000 Americans and counting....statistics say he's likely also disabled 500000 for life too.

NYC had the most infected enter through their ports of entry....Trump didn't shutdown travel from Italy or other European countries while they were out of control with new infections. Wonder why?

It's not difficult, this guy and those that repeat his utter bullshit are exponentially more disgusting, cynical, and dishonest than Quomo. Period.

Trump's response was to deny it's a problem for months, dumbfuck.

The field hospitals wouldn't take patients, neither would hospital ships.
Um, you fucking moron again, "elderly patients had covid but were not sick enough to be admitted" doesn't mean "they were too sick to be admitted" you fuckwit.
The CDC guidelines stated clearly they should be sent back to their nursing homes, that was Trump's plan and directive, not Quomo's.

Trump created a complete mess by infecting people in nursing homes while insisting there's no problem, the virus isn't dangerous, and sometimes the virus is a pure hoax. This led to thousands of people dying a day.
The protests didn't start a second wave, the anti mask protests and anti maskers refusing to social distance, having covid parties and gathering indoors exacerbated wave one, we haven't started a second wave yet.
So much erroneous, stupid, blatantly false, self contradictory, hyper partisan, utter bullshit. *lies is right, there wasn't anything else, but this moron has never had facts, only his own uninformed opinion.

Congratulations. By covering Trump's little daily propaganda junkets, he has effectively turned major media outlets into fake news outlets.

Of course, he is the fake news source, but by giving him air time they spread his utter bullshit lies and fake excuses for his lack of action in an emergency...6 weeks of inactivity after his all too late partial travel ban against Chinese (but not Americans coming from China or their families) that wasn't enacted for a full week after China went on full quarantine and was rapidly building huge temporary hospitals, Jan 23. By then there was no longer any question about the seriousness or speed of the viral outbreak, it was so bad China quit pretending there's nothing to see and acted. China waited almost 4 weeks to take meaningful actions and take it seriously, Trump waited another 6 after that.

So yep, fake news, all thanks to covering our fake "president".

Cheers for the interjection. I always appreciate a well-formed argument that challenges my beliefs.

I wasn't aware of the exposure of undercover agents. That does at least partly counter my first point. I do still think the public interest aspect is very significant, although as I'm not American I see it more from more of a global point of view.

As for the second point, I was referring to the statements in the video, specifically its 'leveraging of anti-Trump sentiment', rather than the prosecution itself.

I still believe that my general point holds: that the statements in the video are generally correct, and that the approach the US has taken (under both Trump and Obama) will have - and is designed to have - a chilling effect on the publishing of information that shows the state acting in what many would describe as an evil manner.

I'm not American. I'm not comparing it to anything you obviously think I am. Think outside your own box. America is not THE WORLD. So blow it out your arse.

Obviously not American beer. That would sound like sex in a canoe.

@newtboy said;
"You wish to ignore all racial discrimination and racial obstacles except that single instance you can point to where it doesn't come out in your favor, then suddenly racism IS a problem that needs eradicating...."

No I don't. I never said that, you're the one that said anyone objecting to affirmative action is like that. At least I presume that's what you meant by: "short sighted, purely tribal reasoning"

I question the process for applications for jobs, grants, university/college or other places. If one has a color blind computational method of creating a qualification score for candidates, how do we most fairly use that score to choose candidates.

My view: Sort the candidates by qualification score and take the top ones.

Tell me if I understand your view right or not.
I understand your view as: Some times or to some extent, higher scoring candidates should be disregarded for other lower scoring candidates based upon race.

Please correct me if I misunderstand that.

Also, anywhere else that race is similarly systematically used to discriminate against people should of course be equally corrected. Again, I'm not American, are there other parallel examples of law and process that check for your race and replace you with lower scoring people because of it? You accused me of only looking at "the kind that harms white guys", but the reality is I only know of this example of law and regulation written specifically addressing race as something that must be used to raise/lower the scoring of candidates. Are there other direct examples?

You are delusional and poorly informed, and can't keep your argument from contradicting itself.
He backed away because Obama was involved, he was able to because congress (who you said had no input) required presidential recertification every 90 days, not because there was no legality, not because it wasn't binding, not even because it wasn't working.

Obama spoke for the P5!? He was even more of a leader than anyone knew, directly leading Europe single handedly! Jesus fuck Bob, you just don't think your nonsense through and often make Obama out to be far greater than he was in your misguided efforts to demean him.

Who do you think made money? Obama?
I won't be surprised if you respond by talking about the $1 billion we released, likely completely unaware we were breaking international and American law by keeping it, and that it was from illegally seized Iranian assets, not American tax payer money...Trump certainly seems unaware of those facts.

First, I'm not American, I'm an Irishman living in NZ.

Second, once again, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend. Just because I disagree with a university not allowing Peterson to speak, doesn't change my opinion of him.

Finally, I've read a few legal opinions that do contradict that you can be convicted for failing to use the pronouns requested by others, however IANAL and again, that's not relevant.

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

I'm not American but I really hope the country can get behind this amazing man. *promote