WestCoastRunner

And they are experts on this matter?

However, I'm assuming that People who oppose this move believe that immigrant women's safety aren't as important. (And men).

This dude isn't going to be around much longer. I won't be surprised if Hassan Rouhani becomes the next supreme leader.

This is where Hollywood is in denial. Moviegoers are Latino, black, women, and baby boomers also. When they don't make movies for these demographics they are leaving money on the table. Soon enough they will figure this out.

You didn't mention why it was being dropped. The following from your linked article: "But other immigration specialists praised the pending move, saying the two-year delay had unintended consequences that put new immigrants, especially women, in a vulnerable position." "Marriage fraud was a problem, there is no question about that, said Vancouver immigration lawyer Alex Stojicevic, past-chairman of the Canadian Bar Associations immigration section and an adjunct professor at the University of B.C." "But the policy caused more problems than it solved (by creating) incentives (for sponsored spouses) to stay in abusive and bad relationships simply to keep their status." "He said the separate prohibition on a second spousal sponsorship less than five years after an initial marriage should be an effective deterrent." " Stojicevic noted that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has also developed sophisticated tools in recent years to detect marriage fraud, making a Draconian measure like the two-year delay unnecessary." "Vancouver immigration lawyer Richard Kurland said there are other tools to discourage fraud, like a mid-2015 regulation that excluded proxy marriages executed via telephone, fax or the Internet."

Except Clinton got 80% of the black vote in SC. 2% more than Obama in 2008.

Trump will get the nomination. No doubt about it now.

I'm sure my statements are very broad based but trump is an idiot. When I listen to him, I think of a psychiatrist analyzing him as a patient.

"If most of the moderates up for office win seats, that could make it easier for Rouhani to open up the economy to foreign investment. But conservatives refer to reformists as seditionists, and their small numbers ensure that Rouhani is unlikely to get enough backing for most of his goals.""Though opposition activists called the elections a sham, the vote totals could open a small window onto the Iranian appetite for change and Rouhanis political future." Source. Washington Post. Change starts in small windows of opportunity.

Maybe so however there are plenty of analysis that think otherwise. "Latest polling has suggested that between 70 to 80% voters would turn out, which would be incredibly high for a parliamentary election in Iran. And actually with that turnout, that would be a clear signal that they are supporting the current Rouhani's administration and that will boost his chances of getting reelected in the 2017 presidential elections." I can't post references on my iPhone. However, if you dig deeper, there are plenty of reasons for optimism. Forbes certainly isn't the megaphone on this issue nor is CNN.

North American companies no longer feel a loyalty to their respective countries. This has to change even if it eats into their profits.

North American companies no longer feel a loyalty to their respective countries. This has to change even if it eats into their profits.

It's the companies in North America who move their companies to China or Mexico that is the problem.

And a deficit doesn't take away the jobs in the u.s. that produce those exports.

Get ready for a Clinton/Trump battle for POTUS.

Tell that to the U.S. companies who export on average 226 billion a year. Trump's disparaging comments won't help in the least.

Early results indicate moderates with a strong showing in the election. An amazing 60% of eligible voters have turned out. 500 candidates out of 4800 are women. The final results will have a huge impact on relations with the west. I will post the link in a bit. It can be found on cnn.

Better check your facts. Mexico is America's 2nd or 3rd largest trading partner.

Why? I'm sure you would agree that financial projections are important for a business. Why would population projections not be just as important for future planning. Cities all over the world use these stats for urban planning.

Does this make a difference?

According to the worldbank: "The world needs to produce at least 50% more food to feed 9 billion people by 2050. But climate change could cut crop yields by more than 25%. The land, biodiversity, oceans, forests, and other forms of natural capital are being depleted at unprecedented rates. Unless we change how we grow our food and manage our natural capital, food securityespecially for the worlds poorestwill be at risk" World bank.org

What does this have to do with the OP. Another low information post.

They aren't arguing against government policies. They were caught red-handed covering up evidence of the dangers to humanity as far back as 1977 from their own researchers. "At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity." http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

Your skills as spokesperson for the oil industry lack substance.

I haven't read through the entirety of this thread so not sure if this information has been posted here yet: