Embedded swamp Trump. Yes, that sounds right.
Trump and his people have all been guilty of what he called swamp behavior to an extreme never seen in America, so many removed for abuse of office and theft, most while being praised by Trump. He didn't remove any for their crimes, he's only removed people for not properly kissing his ass and repeating his lies. Those removed for criminal malfeasance were often removed against his wishes and with his praise.

These are his people...the "individuates" he chose and hired. I agree he did the right thing firing most of those he did fire, but absolutely the wrong thing when he hired them and the wrong thing again with those he replaced them with who are usually worse....and worst of all he didn't remove the swamp monster in chief, you know, the one pumping stagnant feculant water into Washington by the metric ton.

No Bob, many were treasonous crimes, all were intentional crimes of moral turpitude. Hiding tens of millions paid to you by Russia and testifying you have no ties to them, that's not a process crime as you pretend, and was happening during and after his campaign and 100% for Trump's benefit.
Flynn, you can't trap someone who isn't committing a crime. They only trapped him into lying under oath about the crime he had already committed for Trump and at Trump's direction....subversion....when they already had proof he had done it. Duh.

How many of Trump's "best people" are convicted of being unreported foreign agents? How many in Obama's administration were?

Please stop spouting moronic lies, Dimitri, and give us back the Bob that knows English, please. When you start spouting clear insanity like this paired with losing your grasp of what you claim is your native language, we know another agent is posting as "Bob" today, and he's the one who's like an angry 6 year old trying to make political arguments with no knowledge whatsoever besides which party the players belong to.

I like Samantha and the points she makes but her body language has gotten really old.

I don't have time to teach you statistics. Stop trying to downplay the danger.

And for the third time, even if it is 1%, that's still millions of people suffering from colon cancer in the USA alone, but y'all are pretending like 1% is 0%.

Regardless of the numbers THE RECOMMENDATION IS UNANIMOUSLY DO NOT EAT. Very clear language that leaves no room for dispute.

I could speculate that it's because many European languages (including German) spell it that way? Even in English it was the dominant spelling until the 1890s (at least according to the google NGRA
M viewer.

Re the actual video, it takes a few cancelled trains before my line gets that crowded. It would be interesting to know if this was normal for this line.

Your example surpasses all languages.

Fox has filed an amicus brief with the court, in support of CNN’s lawsuit against Donald Trump. By default, this means that Fox is now participating in legal action against Trump. Fox also released a lengthy statement, saying in part that “passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized.”
It seems your preferred source agrees with me, strongly enough to join the legal action against Trump....surprising.
Not surprisingly, Fox viewers are throwing a fit, certain the liberal media cabal has taken over, and they're threatening to quit Fox in droves this morning.

Does this mean you finally backed off your claim that an accurate English description of the scene in France by CNN and BBC were just vehicles for biased loaded language supporting an agenda?

We'll begin with box, and the plural is boxes;
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.

Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

The cow in the plural may be cows or kine,
But the plural of vow is vows, not vine.

I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
If I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?

If one is a tooth, and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

If the singular is this and the plural is these,
Why shouldn't the plural of kiss be named kese?

Then one may be that, and three may be those,
Yet the plural of hat would never be hose;

We speak of a brother, and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.

The masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis, and shim!

So our English, I think, you all will agree,
Is the craziest language you ever did see.

I take it you already know
Of tough and bough and cough and dough?

Others may stumble, but not you,
On hiccough, thorough, slough, and through?

Well done! And now you wish, perhaps
To learn of less familiar traps?

Beware of heard, a dreadful word,
That looks like beard and sounds like bird.

And dead; it's said like bed, not bead;
For goodness sake, don't call it deed!

Watch out for meat and great and threat;
They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.

A moth is not a moth in mother,
Nor both in bother, broth in brother.

And here is not a match for there,
Or dear and fear for bear and pear.

And then there's dose and rose and lose,
Just look them up, and goose and choose.

And cork and work and card and ward,
And font and front and word and sword.

And do and go, then thwart and cart.
Come, come, I've hardly made a start.

A dreadful language? Why, man alive,
I'd learned to talk it when I was five,
And yet to write it, the more I tried,
I hadn't learned it at fifty-five!

So "not entirely inaccurate, though" equals "that statement is wrong" to you? I can see why it's so hard to have a discussion in the English language with you. Is it not your original language?

"they are likely mistrustful of people who don't look like them and could be swayed by one or two strong voices to persecute those they see as "other""

Seems like you're fine making large behavioral generalizations based on skin color, or am I reading that one wrong too?

"Excuse" does not exist in he Snow Leopard's language.

I think I now understand

"Did you get that?"
"Yeah."

in 5 different languages.

@ChaosEngine:
"The first 3 levels of sexual violence ALL involve no physical contact and are entirely verbal. "
100% fine with this. You can be a creepy sleazebag without touching someone and it's still not ok.

Perhaps you misunderstand. I also oppose verbal harassment and discrimination. I disagree with calling sexist and racist comments acts of violence. I agree with condemning them and acting to stop them.

Real world example, a Canadian student TA at Wilfred Laurier University played a short clip of a publicly broadcast debate over trans pronoun usage between 2 U of T professors in a class. She was brought into a meeting with 3 WLU staff who told her she was horribly wrong for doing so because playing that clip was "an act of violence" against any trans students in the room.

This abuse of language is manipulative and wrong.

I'm a man, and I'm not scared of being accused of sexual assault. None of my male friends are scared either.

With burden of proof I'm thinking beyond merely sexual assault. This already practice in forms in Canada. Ontario has an entire system of Social Justice Tribunals that run parallel to the criminal court system. It's been a gradual transformation of the civil court system, so civil and family courts are lumped in as tribunals now there. The specific one relevant in this case is the human rights tribunal. If the WLU faculty, or a student from the classroom, wanted to file a human rights complaint for the 'violence' they faced, the burden of proof would be a preponderance of the evidence rather than innocent until proven guilty. Which I can even understand in some cases, but lets not say that doesn't make people nervous about being falsely accused. That is not what scares people the most though in Ontario. The social justice tribunals have paid for legal representation for the accusers, and so the government foots the financial costs for the accuser. The accused however is on their own. The erosion of burden of proof and fear of financial damages from malicious or vengeful complaints is a very, very real thing in Canada. Accusations of sexual harassment being just one of many kinds of accusations that you can be damaged by while entirely innocent.

Thanks for your reply bcglorf,

To clear up my analogy, I was actually speaking about the power, tolerance and bravery of women and the thick headedness and cowardice of men who are abusers.

Sometimes you need to find a language that can be understood.

I also think reasonable people believe that any action taken against them should be met with equal and opposite reaction.

Somewhere I posted a quote from the movie Tora, Tora, Tora, which I altered to fit the present conversations.

The quote was said to have been made by Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto regarding the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

It's debated if he actually said it but it was something that I remembered and thought it fit well with recent events with the altered quote.

My altered quote is:

I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giantess and fill her with a terrible resolve.


Women (giantess) are coming together, along with men, more than ever before and rightly so.

I never said or implied anything about ridicule or attacks.

Thanks again for your reply and I think we both are on the same side.

"Second, as I've pointed out before, the idea that we're seeing an epidemic of false accusations is not supported by evidence."

I am seeing a strong movement to demand that accusations be enough to get people suspended, expelled and fired though. The Canadian Federation of Students has been pushing a campaign to improve campus sexual assault policies. Their plan specifically includes things they don't want any policy to have, including any " SANCTIONS FOR VEXATIOUS, MALICIOUS OR FALSE COMPLAINTS". They sigh an example section from Dalhousie University's sexual assault policy that they believe is wrong and should be removed:
"A complaint made in bad faith shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action against the complainant, which shall be commenced in accordance with applicable disciplinary processes. A bad faith complaint is a complaint that is made with a conscious design to mislead or deceive, or with a malicious or fraudulent intent. "

More insidiously, strong movements across Canada are training the workplace on what sexual violence is. The first 3 levels of sexual violence ALL involve no physical contact and are entirely verbal. When people are manipulating language to make actions seem worse than they are, you are acting in bad faith and I think it should be called out.

" If a woman (or a man) comes forward with a claim of sexual assault, they are entitled to be taken seriously."

Agreed, but lots of people are very much arguing that lives should be destroyed then and there, just to be safe and/or to balance things out finally so men can be victimized too so they know how it feels. We'll even right songs to laugh at them when they complain.

IMO, the real issue here is one of deflection. Trump and his cronies
No disagreement there. I both vehemently disagree with virtually everything Trump says or does. At the same time, still don't like how far the condemn the accused pushes are looking to go.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by jimnms.

*dupeof=https://videosift.com/video/Mitchell-and-Webb-Proper-Language-Use