That was only among asylum seekers, and the report clearly indicates that the difficulty of asylum seekers making it into the country is the cause of it.
If you really gave one flying fuck about it, you'd stop advocating for a wall, as interdiction by US CBP is the only thing that saves these poor fucking people from having to sign up to be smuggled across the border.
The actual source.

The violence against women migrating in general is directly correlated with the building of the wall, as it leads migrants to cross over in more dangerous and remote areas.

Nobody is being intellectually dishonest except for you, you fucking piece of shit.
There is only one fucking way this works.
Either you're against those brown people coming in, and thus OK with their systematic rape,
Or you're against their systematic rape, and so you want that wall to go away and increased processing at the border.

But the fact is, we know which you want. You like the rapes happening- it increases the deterrent.

Not yet. Doesn't mean we aren't working on it.

Also, as someone who lives around works with a good bit of Canadians (we have a lot over here in Seattle :) I'm unsurprised by this. They're generally the best natured people on the damn planet.

Ya, there are a few rockstars on there, for sure. Canada being one of them.

Being that the list is sorted by score, and alphabetically, it's pretty dumb to mention someone's position on it, now isn't it?
The US has a score of 84/100. France is at 89/100.
The difference is not as great as you want it to be.

Don't ever let rationality get in the way of your political mouth-foaming, my friend. The world just doesn't have enough people like you.

NAT traversal is a solved problem.
Most ISPs these days are using TR-69 managed CPEs, and they're managed over the same NAT that they've got you behind. And they don't have special holes poked.
All we need is a STUN server, and a quick evaluation of what the kind of NAT it is (full-cone, half-cone, etc)

None of this has anything to do with NAT.

This is completely wrong.

1) NAT traversal is a very solved problem.
2) Centralized services do not require more bandwidth than peer-to-peer. And frankly, I think you have no idea how cheap bandwidth is for us these days.
3) Video-conferencing takes surprisingly little bandwidth. You'd be amazed how well it compresses.

Ah yes, SIP.
That protocol that is notoriously defeated due to NAT... wait no. It isn't. Because NAT traversal is a very solved problem.

The centralization is about money. Nothing more.

US Jews are not univocal in their support for the Israeli government and its policies.
The statement you replied to could very well have been written by a Jew. Did you ask them?

I read the entire thing (hence why I said, "if you read the transcript...")

No. That is an outright falsehood.

Are we now saying every right winger is a neonazi?

Are we assigning group blame for teh actions of one piece of shit?

Oh I agree. But the problem is, if you remove that sentence, or put its surrounding context around it, it's quite clear that the only comparison he was making, was between people who wanted the statue up, and people who wanted it down.
Now, I'm more than happy to do my own generalization here- that almost all of the folks who wanted the statue up are at least subtly racist.
However, that doesn't make them violent pieces of shit.

The Oxford Comma is, indeed, optional. If you've had too much concussive damage done to your brain via repeated blowbangs- then I will indeed cut you some slack, there. My apologies. Educated and non-brained-damaged people use the comma. Purposeful ambiguous sentence construction is the hallmark of a stupid person.

This is a stupid claim to make.
Being born in the South does too, yet we haven't cracked down on all of you daughter fuckers, yet.

Complete fabrication. Sourced from Trump's bullshit. The final, actual number, is about 1 in 10. 1 in 3, if you include all of the women that tried to pay for their transit with sex. 1 in 2 if you are pulling numbers out of your ass in order to prop up the argument made by your Dear Leader.

The problem is that it's hard to take your intentions seriously when we know you get off on Federal Agents beating brown people and shooting the "libtards".
You have the intellectual honesty of a weasel assuring a chicken that they're a good travel partner.

Gah- transition of the US to a democratic republic.

I did answer your question. Though you've added clarification that would change my answer.
With "at least a bit", then sure. ok.
The US is not responsible for the current crop of left-wing dictatorships there, though.

Fair- that was me reading into your words. If it was inappropriate- then I'll cop to that.

Maybe.
They were dictatorships before colonial rule, too. (Absolute rule by divine Kings)
I think more accurately, the transition from the US to a democratic republic was the unusual outcome.
Hell, it took France quite a while to end up there after throwing their Kingly yoke.

More nuanced than I can offer. It's a good read.

If you want, you could say that I'm "blaming the people of South America for the oppression of their dictators".
But I mean, at some point, you have to, don't you?
You want democracy, and you want a lack of outside intervention.
Who does that leave to achieve it?

No argument, there.
The target of ATF Phoenix's dumbfuckery was different, in that case.
But ultimately, it was the same stupid tactic, by the same fucking people, aimed at a different segment of the illicit gun trade.

i.e., "Fast N Furious wasn't the first time the ATF had done this, either." is factual and intellectually honest, and attempts at trying to make it some kind of "Scandal of a Presidency" is really just some partisan bobblehead bullshit.
OIG found in both cases, neither Holder or Mukasey had any idea what those dumbfucks were up to.

Surprising. Cool.

It wasn't shoved on anyone.
A dude at Redhat wrote it, Redhat adopted it for its platforms because it filled a need. Other distributions adopted it because they agree.
It's that fucking simple.

Saying it was shoved on you with great force is like saying a President was. There was a system that selected it. Your participation in that system was optional. There was always a chance, that even if you did participate in that system, you weren't going to win the vote.
Distributions that adopted systemd have corporate governance boards who make decisions like this, and they did- democratically.

At some point, you just have to accept that you're in the minority, and the feelings of the majority aren't some kind of conspiracy.

Note: I never made any argument about the technical merits of systemd. Not interested in litigating on Poettering's behalf. But calling its very organic adoption an instance of sabotage is just you failing- utterly- to find the truth within the facts.