Canada has so much wide open space, it can take even more than the US. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I don't think that many immigrants are headed out in the wilderness (or build residences etc), be it in the US or Canada. :) Typical destinations are metropolitan centers or larger to medium urban areas. They need a foothold before they can start living and doing stuff.

@Metaphysician Undercover,

"...treat migrants with care..." mmm! Scarce evidence of that. Everybody has migrant origins, even first nations' people came from elsewhere, something convenient to forget, at times.

Not arguing with you. Just tidying up, a little bit. Of course,your being ironic also may be an interpretation.

A smile of no expectations

I suppose one's attitude toward migrants depends, somewhat, on the attitude of the migrants. If the migrants arrive with the attitude of conquer and rule... Then again, the attitude of the migrants may depend, somewhat on the attitude of the occupants. If the attitude of the occupants is Keep off!...

Looks like Fani Willis was disqualified from prosecuting the president. She wanted to make a name for herself but ended up dragging her legacy through the proverbial mud.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/19/politics/fani-willis-donald-trump-georgia/index.html

Yikes. It looks like anti-Trumpism can’t help itself. The question is: do they believe their own lies, or is lying a principle of their ideology? In any case, a very expensive choice of words.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos was repeatedly warned not to use word ‘rape’ by producer — but said it anyway: sources

https://nypost.com/2024/12/18/media/abc-parent-disney-didnt-think-it-would-beat-trump-in-court-report/

I find it hilarious that you Trumpists consider the semantic distinction (rape vs sexual assault) a bigger deal than the fact Trump committed the sexual assault.

Looks like Fani Willis was disqualified — NOS4A2

Another technicality that has zero bearing on Trump's guilt in the crimes for which he was indicted.

Jack Smith will be out of a job soon. I wonder if Georgia will make him an offer.

It’s “sexual abuse”. You just can’t help yourself.

Another technicality that has zero bearing on Trump's guilt in the crimes for which he was indicted.

Jack Smith will be out of a job soon. I wonder if Georgia will make him an offer.

Sure it does. She was the one prosecuting him. The appearance of impropriety clouds her prosecutorial decisions, leaving the prosecution itself in doubt.

Sure it does. She was the one prosecuting him. The appearance of impropriety clouds her prosecutorial decisions, leaving the prosecution itself in doubt. — NOS4A2

From the article you linked:

The court added: “We cannot conclude that the record also supports the imposition of the extreme sanction of dismissal of the indictment.”

A special prosecutor can be appointed to take over the case.

It’s “sexual abuse”. You just can’t help yourself. — NOS4A2

You Trumpists are the ones splitting hairs. Here's what Judge Kaplan said:

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ”

ABC needn't have caved to the lawsuit. They likely settled to try and ingratiate themselves to Trump, who has voted to go after his enemies- and threatened strip the FCC license from networks that say bad things (AKA "the truth") about him. As a free speech absolutist, you should be appalled at the power Trump is wielding to stifle speech - but I expect free speech is secondary when it comes to your idol.

A special prosecutor can be appointed to take over the case.

What special prosecutor will take up a case brought by a corrupt political prosecutor? An idiot would, no doubt.

You Trumpists are the ones splitting hairs. Here's what Judge Kaplan said:

I don’t care what the anti-Trump judge said. It’s right there in the verdict form.

“Did Ms.Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

Mr. Trump raped Ms Carroll?

No”

Carrol couldn’t prove her one accusation. This is a corrupt case from top to bottom.

The Trump-Musk Shutdown is a fair indication of the paralysis and complete incompetence of the MAGA movement to do what they are elected to do, which is actually govern. It's become clear that the World's Richest Man is in effect calling the shots, saying he doesn't care if the Government shuts down and that no legislation ought to be passed until after the Incarceration Inauguration. The Emperor, meanwhile, has made it clear he intends to rule by decree (a.k.a. 'executive order') and bully anyone who opposes the Divine Will by either launching bogus 'investigations' (e.g. Liz Cheney) or threatening their primary pre-selection. Just what could be expected from electing an insurrectionist president with no interest outside his own.

What special prosecutor will take up a case brought by a corrupt political prosecutor? An idiot would, no doubt. — NOS4A2

Has a judge or jury judged Willis as corrupt? The appellate court merely judged there was an "appearance of impropriety", and removed her because this could affect public confidence. Nothing about this has any bearing on the merits of the case. The only bearing this might have on another prosecutor is knowledge that the job would entail having a target on their back from members of the Trump cult and defense team.

I don’t care what the anti-Trump judge said. It’s right there in the verdict form., — NOS4A2

You're quick to judgement on the judge, who did nothing wrong and displayed no blatant bias even in the context of daily attacks by Trump during the trial. Do you just accept everything Trump says?

It matters because it's relevant to what Stephanopolous said. ABC would probably have won the case, although it would have raised Trump's ire and led to his retaliation.

Carrol couldn’t prove her one accusation.

You're ignoring reality. She proved Trump sexually abused her and defamed her on multiple occasions. The jury felt that rape (as defined in NY criminal code) was not proven, but neither did they judge that it was DISproven.

.

It matters because it's relevant to what Stephanopolous said. ABC would probably have won the case, although it would have raised Trump's ire and led to his retaliation. — Relativist

I think the decision was made by or with ABC's parent company, Disney. They are concerned with Trump's escalating weaponization of the legal system while pretending that he is the victim. His strategy is always two-fold - legal determination backed by appeal after appeal and public opinion. The merits of the case was not Disney's main concern. They were more concerned with the process of discovery and what dirt could be found or manufactured against Disney's wide ranging assets and how this might affect their public image. As Trump knows well, whatever the truth may be, the harm comes from the accusations.

.

That seems the most plausible explanation.

You're quick to judgement on the judge, who did nothing wrong and displayed no blatant bias even in the context of daily attacks by Trump during the trial. Do you just accept everything Trump says?

It matters because it's relevant to what Stephanopolous said. ABC would probably have won the case, although it would have raised Trump's ire and led to his retaliation.

That’s false, he allowed the access Hollywood tape into evidence. He coached the witness. He scolded the defense. He tried to say her claim was “substantively true” when it was not. Did the jury believe the plaintiffs claims of rape or no? The answer is no, and no amount of gymnastics is going to change that.

You're ignoring reality. She proved Trump sexually abused her and defamed her on multiple occasions. The jury felt that rape (as defined in NY criminal code) was not proven, but neither did they judge that it was DISproven.

How did she prove it? You tell me and we’ll see who is ignoring reality.

That’s false, he allowed the access Hollywood tape into evidence. — NOS4A2

This is supposed to be evidence of corruption!? Such evidence is admissible, per
Federal Rule of evidence 415:

In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.

In the recording, Trump states that he ‘moved on’ a woman named Nancy ‘like a bitch,’ that he ‘tried to fuck her.’” As summarized by the district court, Trump also says “that he just starts kissing beautiful women, he does not first obtain consent, that the women just let one do it when one is a ‘star,’ and that a ‘star’ can ‘grab’ beautiful women by their genitals or do anything the ‘star’ wants.”

You obviously make no attempt at objectivity, and instead just parrot whatever the defense says, and treat it as evidence of corruption.

It's bizarre that you ignore the fact that Trump sexually abused Carol and defamed her, and deflect by obsessing on a crime that Trump was not found liable for. Unable to face the facts about your idol?

In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.

The access Hollywood tape is not evidence he committed sexual assault.

In the recording, Trump states that he ‘moved on’ a woman named Nancy ‘like a bitch,’ that he ‘tried to fuck her.’” As summarized by the district court, Trump also says “that he just starts kissing beautiful women, he does not first obtain consent, that the women just let one do it when one is a ‘star,’ and that a ‘star’ can ‘grab’ beautiful women by their genitals or do anything the ‘star’ wants.”

Classic contextomy. You quote that he moved on Nancy O’Dell “like a bitch” but leave out the clause immediately after “but I couldn’t get there.” Of course, Nancy O’Dell didn’t describe any assault during the encounter. This is because taking someone furniture shopping is not sexual assault in the real world.

You quote “grab” and “star”, and fill in the blanks in-between, but leave out “they let you do it”. There is no evidence of assault in the tape at all. The summary from the court is stupid.

You make no attempts at objectivity, just fallacy, propaganda, and projection.

It's bizarre that you ignore the fact that Trump sexually abused Carol and defamed her, and deflect by obsessing on a crime that Trump was not found liable for. Unable to face the facts about your idol?

What evidence do you have that Trump assaulted Carroll? DNA? Video? Admission of guilt? It’s bizarre that you can believe someone committed a crime without evidence. Unable to ignore the facts about your folk devil?