IjeBos:


God, you really do strangle the English language. Is it that hard to conjugate a verb?

Lol am I writing an application letter? You take naira land too serious. You were using excel to document monikers on naira land. Conjugate this and that 😂

IjeBos:


I started reading this post and then stopped here.

Read this section here. I'm not sure if you wrote this or copied it. But it's clear you don't understand what you are talking about.
1.) You have a section on legal immigration (as opposed to illegal immigration).
2.) You say legal immigrants include Visa holders. Ok. True

IjeBos:

3.) Then you go on to talk about Rights and Benefits.
4.) One of those benefits you site is that legal immigrants can vote. Another is they can get a passports? Huh?

Except you lack comprehension, you seem to be fooling yourself.

Authorization: they have valid visa, been granted asylum or CITIZENSHIP
This is what you left out.

Ilhan Omar is an immigrant who can vote and not only that, she holds an office in the US government.

IjeBos:

5.) So do you think that Visa holders can vote or get a passport?

No I do not think so, you brought this out of your hay-ass because that's what you use to reason.
Visa holders can get a passport when they naturalize. That is when they become a naturalized US citizen.
Raumdeuter got to the US with a visa, he has a passport and can vote.

IjeBos:

6.) So, if Visa Holders can't vote or get a passport does that mean they are not legal immigrants?

This question says you your brain is misfiring

IjeBos:

This is the continuous problem with you. You're too stupid to understand words have meaning. You're too stupid to know how little you know. So you continuously over-value your abilities and post condatrictory nonsense like you did above.

You are speaking about yourself here
To you when you migrate to another country and become and naturalized citizen, you are no longer and immigrant. Hahaha you are so dumb.

IjeBos:

And until you can demonstrate you have a minuscule understanding of the US immigration process (unlike this nonsense you are writing here). And so I don't feel like you are my punching bag (I don't like abusing people, even idiots like you), I'm done with you.

Again, you are describing yourself on this one.

bemeruca:



Except you lack comprehension, you seem to be fooling yourself.

Authorization: they have valid visa, been granted asylum or CITIZENSHIP
This is what you left out.

Ilhan Omar is an immigrant who can vote and not only that, she holds an office in the US government.


No I do not think so, you brought this out of your hay-ass because that's what you use to reason.
Visa holders can get a passport when they naturalize. That is when they become a naturalized US citizen.
Raumdeuter got to the US with a visa, he has a passport and can vote.

This question says you your brain is misfiring


You are speaking about yourself here
To you when you migrate to another country and become and naturalized citizen, you are no longer and immigrant. Hahaha you are so dumb.



Again, you are describing yourself on this one.

Lol. I almost died of laughter reading this. I realize now you don't have a strong enough grasp of the English language and struggle enough with Reading Comprehension that you don't even understand the things you yourself write.
So let's break this section down again. I added numbers to help

bemeruca:

Legal Immigration:
Definition: Legal immigration refers to the process of moving to another country with the right documentation and clearance.
Status: Legal immigrants are foreign-born individuals legally admitted to the U.S.
1.) Authorization: They have obtained a valid visa, been granted asylum, or have been granted citizenship.
Rights and Benefits:
2.) Legal immigrants can vote.
They are eligible for social services from federally funded programs.
They can receive social security benefits.
They can hold United States passports.
Process: Legal immigration involves following established procedures and meeting eligibility criteria.

Line 1 basically breaks down to: Legal Immigrant = Valid Visa, , Granted Asylum, Granted Citizenship (the comma is a logical or)
Line 2 basically breaks down to: Legal Immigrant = Can Vote
Combining them, you would have: Legal Immigrant = Valid Visa, Granted Asylum, Granted Citizenship = Can Vote
Therefore by the logic in what you wrote you are saying: Valid Visa, Granted Asylum, Granted Citizenship = Can Vote
Or If you have Valid Visa or are Granted Asylum or Granted Citizenship then you can vote.
We know that is not true so your logic and what you wrote are clearly wrong.
So, go finish arguing with yourself and figure out what you are trying to say and then write it effectively so your words convey what you want it to.. (though I think both the thinking and writings parts will prove difficult for you)

IjeBos:


Lol. I almost died of laughter reading this. I realize now you don't have a strong enough grasp of the English language and struggle enough with Reading Comprehension that you don't even understand the things you yourself write.
So let's break this section down again. I added numbers to help



Line 1 basically breaks down to: Legal Immigrant = Valid Visa, , Granted Asylum, Granted Citizenship (the comma is a logical or)
Line 2 basically breaks down to: Legal Immigrant = Can Vote
Combining them, you would have: Legal Immigrant = Valid Visa, Granted Asylum, Granted Citizenship = Can Vote
Therefore by the logic in what you wrote you are saying: Valid Visa, Granted Asylum, Granted Citizenship = Can Vote
Or If you have Valid Visa or are Granted Asylum or Granted Citizenship then you can vote.
We know that is not true so your logic and what you wrote are clearly wrong.
So, go finish arguing with yourself and figure out what you are trying to say and then write it effectively so your words convey what you want it to.. (though I think both the thinking and writings parts will prove difficult for you)

45 years plus 😂

Dumb as a rock.

Visa holder (student visa, work or visitors) != asylum !=citizen.

All these are legal forms of immigration with different characteristics.

A legal immigrant can vote provided he meets the criterion.

Common sense evades you.

I am not the one who think showing up at a bother and say I fear for my life in my country automatically makes one a legal immigrant.

You can remain stupid. You claim you went to Harvard 🤣🤣

Fani Willis admits relationship with prosecutor on Trump Georgia case

https://wapo.st/3UqCHCl

IjeBos:


You posted this example again like you are proud of it and as if it were somehow clever. I left you last time as it was so utterly stupid and so devoid of any understanding of how defamation works. So..

In your example who would be suing who for defamation? And what law would they be using to do so?

I find your continued arrogance in things you have 0 understanding of contemptible.

I gave a hypothetical example, I clearly indicated that I had, you reminding me or what ?
The ruling stinks to high heavens.
Same judge let Prince Andrew walk but was all in to paint Trump in the worst light possible.
If you are convinced the trial was not political and was fair, it's high tine you consult a shrink

JessicaRabbit:


You seem to be confused about the difference between criminal and civil cases.

In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime. In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant caused harm or violated a right. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal cases.

E. Jean Carroll filed a civil lawsuit against Trump for battery and defamation. Battery is the intentional and harmful or offensive contact with another person without consent. Defamation is the false and injurious statement that damages someone's reputation. To prove battery, Carroll had to show that Trump sexually abused her, which the jury found that she did. To prove defamation, Carroll had to show that Trump made false and malicious statements about her, which the jury also found that he did.

The jury did not find that Trump raped Carroll, because that was not the question they had to answer. Rape is a criminal offense, not a civil one. Carroll did not sue Trump for rape, nor did she press criminal charges against him. She sued him for battery, which is a broader term that includes rape as well as other forms of sexual abuse. The jury verdict form clearly states that the jury had to decide whether Carroll proved that Trump sexually abused her, not whether he raped her.

Therefore, your argument is based on a false premise.

Trump denying her claim is defamation because he lied about what happened and harmed her reputation. He did not just say that he did not rape her, he called her a liar, a loser, and not his type. He also implied that she made up the story to sell her book and that she was working with the Democratic Party to smear him. These are not opinions or expressions of free speech, these are factual assertions that can be proven or disproven. And the jury found that they were false and malicious.

You should check the facts before you make such baseless claims. Otherwise, you might end up like Trump, who is now facing an $83 million bill for his defamation and battery of E. Jean Carroll. That's a lot of money for someone who is not his type 🤡.

Circling round the proof .
Caroll said she has never sleot with any other man since Donald raped her. I doubt one would forget the year you last got laid. And esp women who tend to insert feelings and emotions into romantic encounters.
So how did jury find out she was NOT raped but was sexually violated?
Same judge who oversaw the first biased trial was the same one who ruled Trump defamed her by denying he knew her.
You waltzed in here from wherever with emotive SOB stories of how justice is fair,yet you have to twist legal definitions and terms to make this
sham Trump case look solid.
What an epic fail!!!

bemeruca:


You can't correct someone when you have no clue of what you are saying.

This is your words:




There is a reason you avoided my questions. Go back and answer them so you can expose yourself.

Legal Immigration:
Definition: Legal immigration refers to the process of moving to another country with the right documentation and clearance.
Status: Legal immigrants are foreign-born individuals legally admitted to the U.S.
Authorization: They have obtained a valid visa, been granted asylum, or have been granted citizenship.
Rights and Benefits:
Legal immigrants can vote.
They are eligible for social services from federally funded programs.
They can receive social security benefits.
They can hold United States passports.
Process: Legal immigration involves following established procedures and meeting eligibility criteria.

Illegal Immigration:
Definition: Illegal immigration occurs when someone enters a country without permission or overstays their visa.
Status: Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, fall into this category.
Authorization: They do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation.
Rights and Benefits:
Illegal immigrants cannot vote.
They are ineligible for most social services from federally funded programs.
They cannot receive social security benefits.
They cannot hold United States passports.
Consequences:
Someone who enters the country illegally is subject to detainment and deportation at any time.
Legal immigrants can also face removal if they commit and are convicted of a crime.
However, unless an undocumented immigrant has committed a crime and been convicted, they may not be immediately detained or removed from the U.S.
In summary, legal immigrants follow established procedures and have rights and benefits, while undocumented immigrants lack legal status and face limitations on their rights and access to service

If someone enters the U.S. either legally or illegally, they can apply for asylum affirmatively.
Affirmative process involves submitting Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, directly to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
USCIS conducts a non-adversarial affirmative asylum interview with the applicant.
If an individual is subject to expedited removal and found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture, the written record of this determination serves as their asylum application.
If USCIS does not grant asylum during the affirmative process, the individual may be placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge.
Result: Applying for asylum affirmatively does not automatically make someone a legal immigrant. Their status depends on the outcome of the asylum process.
Defensive Asylum Process:

Defensive process comes into play when an individual is already in removal proceedings.
Reasons for being in removal proceedings include:
Not being granted asylum during the affirmative process.
Being placed in removal proceedings by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for immigration violations.
Being subject to expedited removal and issued a Notice to Appear.
In defensive asylum, the case is heard by an immigration judge in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
If an individual was referred to EOIR by USCIS, their asylum application on file with USCIS carries over to the immigration judge.
If there is no asylum application on file with USCIS, the individual must submit Form I-589 to the immigration judge.
Result: The outcome of the defensive process determines their legal status.
Rejected Asylum Claim:

If an asylum claim is rejected, the individual does not automatically become a legal immigrant.
They may be subject to removal orders if their asylum application is denied.
However, some individuals may choose to disappear within the country, which can lead to undocumented status.
Result: Rejected asylum does not confer legal immigration status, but it does impact their ability to remain in the U.S.

To summarize this part, applying for asylum does not automatically grant legal immigrant status. The outcome of the asylum process determines an individual’s legal standing in the U.S.

Ijebos can't stand the fact that he is a Nigerian like us 'n that can't be changed.
He can't stand that it's possible you could one day be eligible to vote in America like him .

budaatum:
Fani Willis admits relationship with prosecutor on Trump Georgia case

https://wapo.st/3UqCHCl

I don't read that rubbish lying crappy wapo. Come to my rescue on this?
Has wapo included this info?

relating to allegations that her office misused a $488,000 federal grant.

The subpoena on Friday follows a report this week by the Washington Free Beacon citing claims that Fani Willis fired a whistleblower who tried to stop an aide from misusing a grant targeted at youth empowerment and gang prevention.


Lawyers amuse me. She has filed a 176 page response to the Judge who wants an evidentiary hearing. Translation.She don't want to testify.
It hit me that Trump and Co can demand her emails, texts, medicals, etc in oder to determine she is of sound mind and not under blackmail.

basilico:


Ijebos can't stand the fact that he is a Nigerian like us 'n that can't be changed.
He can't stand that it's possible you could one day be eligible to vote in America like him .

it's unfortunate for him. he can hopeless stood by and hate while i go about my business

Obrigardo:
basilico loco and our resident black man hater benalvino will be seething with rage.lol
President Biden is blowing off criminal trump's abysmal records off the park.
A top rate President, Biden is one top rate President.

People see things differently. Say a mobile phone mast.
You see a 60 foot plus tower with rectangular white blocks .
Someone else sees it and wonders how he can win a contract to be putting up such Telco towers..
These youngsters don't see Biden the way you do

JessicaRabbit:


You seem to be confused about the difference between criminal and civil cases.

In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime. In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant caused harm or violated a right. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal cases.

E. Jean Carroll filed a civil lawsuit against Trump for battery and defamation. Battery is the intentional and harmful or offensive contact with another person without consent. Defamation is the false and injurious statement that damages someone's reputation. To prove battery, Carroll had to show that Trump sexually abused her, which the jury found that she did. To prove defamation, Carroll had to show that Trump made false and malicious statements about her, which the jury also found that he did.

The jury did not find that Trump raped Carroll, because that was not the question they had to answer. Rape is a criminal offense, not a civil one. Carroll did not sue Trump for rape, nor did she press criminal charges against him. She sued him for battery, which is a broader term that includes rape as well as other forms of sexual abuse. The jury verdict form clearly states that the jury had to decide whether Carroll proved that Trump sexually abused her, not whether he raped her.

Therefore, your argument is based on a false premise.

Trump denying her claim is defamation because he lied about what happened and harmed her reputation. He did not just say that he did not rape her, he called her a liar, a loser, and not his type. He also implied that she made up the story to sell her book and that she was working with the Democratic Party to smear him. These are not opinions or expressions of free speech, these are factual assertions that can be proven or disproven. And the jury found that they were false and malicious.

You should check the facts before you make such baseless claims. Otherwise, you might end up like Trump, who is now facing an $83 million bill for his defamation and battery of E. Jean Carroll. That's a lot of money for someone who is not his type 🤡.

You are trying to lead me into a rabbit hole.
Trump witch- hunt cases are not going as per plan. Chutkan DC case is off the court calender. Fani Willis extra maritals are a huge dent in the case ( by the way is she under blackmail eg FBI has her nudes?) .
Alvin Bragg case is (mis)interpretation of the law and plain witch-hunt.
Florida cases, that judge is not in the get Trump by all means train, Jackboot needs solid evidence and be free of bias. I think he implied Mar a Lago has secret rooms they didn't search.. Another raid? Who knows?
My opinion . These cases are going nowhere and democrat options to stop Trump are running out.
Enter Judge Kaplan, who let a paedo go, while listening to a crazy sex starved sicko.
Judge Engoron, he may have their best and final chance of delivering the killer blow to Trump chances , he has moved the verdict to mid Feb possibly on revelations of some obscure Chicago loan Trump took out.

bemeruca:


it's unfortunate for him. he can hopeless stood by and hate while i go about my business

Ijebos.
Elon Musk POV on immigration policies by Biden. I consider him a true genius who has taken full advantage of democrat policies to amass unimaginable wealth. I'm surprised he said it.
Bill Maher also on Biden powers to enforce border security

But Ijebos knows better. Blames Trump influence for not supporting immigration bill

Ilhan Omar Congresswoman. She is a fraud , She entered US using false name. She 'married' her brother in order to get him papers . She is on the receiving end where she said she is Somalia first about a week ago.
She had the gal to once say those suicide bombers were people who "did something on 9/11" referring to the terror attacks.

Full story of how this democrat enabled congresswoman is a fraudster.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/david-steinberg-tying-up-loose-threads-in-the-curious-case.php

Excerpt

Please read the verified evidence below — and read it alongside the three years of verified evidence published by Scott Johnson, Preya Samsundar, and myself (our work is linked here). The answers to those questions about 2009 appear to give probable cause to investigate Omar for eight instances of perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, up to eight years of state and federal tax fraud, two years of federal student loan fraud, and even bigamy.


If this foot solder wasn't a democrat She would have been gaoled and deported faster than you can blink.

Jessicarabbit.

Your infatuation with the moral uprightness of one Jean Carroll should end when you read page l
linked below.

Tara Read ( Joe Biden s victim) had DMs with Jean Carroll where Carroll admitted supporting Blasey Ford because of Roe vs Wade. No hint at all that she was sex starved for decades because Donald Trump raped her in a high end fashion store while wearing a dress that had not been designed then. Jean Carroll hoped to have a cup of tea with Tara Reade one day.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/02/02/heres-why-e-jean-carroll-got-behind-christine-blasey-ford-n2634729

Reading on , the page details Blasey Ford activist lawyer implying that her client was doing it for Roe v Wade ie Ford was accusing Kavanaugh for political reasons.

Mr Apologetic, how will you spin that? What lies will you conjure up this time?

basilico:


People see things differently. Say a mobile phone mast.
You see a 60 foot plus tower with rectangular white blocks .
Someone else sees it and wonders how he can win a contract to be putting up such Telco towers..
These youngsters don't see Biden the way you do

These old white republiqans don't see criminal trump the way you a blacky blacky man does.
We can go at this for days but it's clear Pres. Biden is just the clear choice over a criminal defendant who has been arrested twice by the DOJ.
Get a grip boy.

basilico:


People see things differently. Say a mobile phone mast.

Say dump. You see a messiah, while majority see a murdering pussy grabbing loser.

budaatum:


Say dump. You see a messiah, while majority see a murdering pussy grabbing loser.

Budaatum , a nice vacation safe space where adults who love diapers wear them.
In other words, adults who still think they are toddlers. I would not rule them out as groomers.

basilico:


Circling round the proof .
Caroll said she has never sleot with any other man since Donald raped her. I doubt one would forget the year you last got laid. And esp women who tend to insert feelings and emotions into romantic encounters.
So how did jury find out she was NOT raped but was sexually violated?
Same judge who oversaw the first biased trial was the same one who ruled Trump defamed her by denying he knew her.
You waltzed in here from wherever with emotive SOB stories of how justice is fair,yet you have to twist legal definitions and terms to make this
sham Trump case look solid.
What an epic fail!!!

LOL. I'm sorry, are you here for a debate or a remedial class? Had you bothered to acquaint yourself with even the most rudimentary legal terminology, perhaps your arguments wouldn't have resembled a toddler's first attempt at finger painting. Rape is a specific type of sexual abuse, but not the only one. Sexual abuse can include any unwanted sexual contact, such as groping, handling, kissing, or penetrating. The jury said Trump did that to Carroll, which means he violated her bodily autonomy and consent. Who cares if he raped her or not? That's not what they were asked to decide.

Questioning Carroll's credibility based on her personal life is a classic ad hominem fallacy -- attacking the person instead of the argument. Carroll's personal life has nothing to do with her argument. That's like saying you can't trust a chef because he likes pizza. Who cares if she hasn't slept with anyone else since Trump? Does that make her story less true? And why do you think women always get emotional about sex? Are you saying women are crazy and men are smart? That's a load of baloney, and you know it. And your allegations against Judge Kaplan remain unfounded. He has a reputation for being a fair and impartial jurist, who has handled many major cases such as:

(1) The trial of Osama bin Laden's son-in-law

(2) The extradition of a Mexican drug lord

(3) The fraud case against Exxon Mobil.

You have no credible evidence that he is a political hack, nor a Trump hater. The only thing we've continuously established in this discussion is that you have ZERO proof for your nonsense. You just fling shit constantly at the wall and hope that it sticks. Kaplan is a top-notch judge, who did his job by the book and the facts.

It's not my fault that you're wantonly ignorant of the law to the point where you don't even understand legal definitions and terms. You have no clue about the difference between criminal and civil cases, or the level of proof needed for each. You also have no idea what battery and defamation mean, or how they relate to Carroll's case. And you're the one who's dodging the evidence, trying to divert attention from the fact that Trump was busted for sexually abusing and slandering Carroll. Calling the Trump v Carroll case a sham is just you throwing irrelevant tantrums over the results. In the real world, it's a historic win for survivors of sexual abuse. Carroll is one of the many women who have courageously spoken up about being attacked by Trump. She is also one of the few who have taken him to court and won, and she has proven that no one is above the law, not even the ex-president.

You have failed to demonstrate any intellectual or political acumen, any wit or style, or any decency or civility. You have failed, miserably and completely. And that, my friend, is the true tea!

basilico:


You are trying to lead me into a rabbit hole.
Trump witch- hunt cases are not going as per plan. Chutkan DC case is off the court calender. Fani Willis extra maritals are a huge dent in the case ( by the way is she under blackmail eg FBI has her nudes?) .
Alvin Bragg case is (mis)interpretation of the law and plain witch-hunt.
Florida cases, that judge is not in the get Trump by all means train, Jackboot needs solid evidence and be free of bias. I think he implied Mar a Lago has secret rooms they didn't search.. Another raid? Who knows?
My opinion . These cases are going nowhere and democrat options to stop Trump are running out.
Enter Judge Kaplan, who let a paedo go, while listening to a crazy sex starved sicko.
Judge Engoron, he may have their best and final chance of delivering the killer blow to Trump chances , he has moved the verdict to mid Feb possibly on revelations of some obscure Chicago loan Trump took out.

Pish posh!

First, you are wrong about the Chutkan DC case being off the court calendar. The trial date was pushed back, not canceled, as the court is still scratching its head over Trump's claim of presidential immunity. Even if Trump dodges the bullet in DC, he still has a target on his back in Florida for hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort and blocking the government's attempts to get them back. He also has to deal with civil lawsuits in New York and Virginia for being a creep and a liar. So, no, the witch-hunt cases are not going according to plan - they are going downhill for Trump faster than he can tweet!

Your baseless speculation about Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney who is prosecuting Trump for his attempt to subvert the 2020 election in Georgia, amounts to nothing more than petty character assassination. Willis and Nathan Wade, the lovebirds working on the case, have admitted that they had a fling, but they swore they did nothing wrong or shady. They also claimed that their romance did not cloud their vision or the quality of the case. There is no proof that Willis is being blackmailed or that the FBI has her naughty pics, as you ridiculously imply. These are just lame and pathetic attempts from a Trump fan who can't face reality. You are also misrepresenting the case brought by Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, who indicted Trump on four counts related to his hush money payment to Stormy Daniels in 2016. This is not a case of misinterpretation of the law or plain witch-hunt, as you claim. This is a case of applying the law and holding Trump accountable for his crimes. Bragg has a strong legal basis for charging Trump with conspiracy and obstruction of official proceedings, as he violated federal election law by concealing his payment to Daniels and tried to interfere with the congressional investigation into his conduct. Bragg also has ample evidence to support his charges, including Trump's own admissions, his former lawyer Michael Cohen's testimony, and the documents seized from the Trump Organization.

And I like how you tried to undermine and dismiss the case brought by the New York attorney general, Letitia James, who sued Trump and his company for fraud, alleging that they inflated the value of their assets on financial documents to obtain loans, insurance, and tax benefits. Judge Arthur Engoron, who is overseeing the case, has already found Trump guilty of fraud in a pre-trial ruling in September 2021. The trial was over whether Trump committed fraud with intent, which could result in a hefty fine and a ban from doing business in New York. The verdict, which was delayed until early to mid-February, could be influenced by a letter from the court-appointed monitor, Barbara Jones, who identified certain deficiencies and errors in the financial information provided by the Trump Organization, including a $48 million loan that never existed.

So, are there any more pointless rabbits you're itching to pull out of your wretched hat?

basilico:
Jessicarabbit.

Your infatuation with the moral uprightness of one Jean Carroll should end when you read page l
linked below.

Tara Read ( Joe Biden s victim) had DMs with Jean Carroll where Carroll admitted supporting Blasey Ford because of Roe vs Wade. No hint at all that she was sex starved for decades because Donald Trump raped her in a high end fashion store while wearing a dress that had not been designed then. Jean Carroll hoped to have a cup of tea with Tara Reade one day.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/02/02/heres-why-e-jean-carroll-got-behind-christine-blasey-ford-n2634729

Reading on , the page details Blasey Ford activist lawyer implying that her client was doing it for Roe v Wade ie Ford was accusing Kavanaugh for political reasons.

Mr Apologetic, how will you spin that? What lies will you conjure up this time?

Phew! you really scraped the bottom of the barrel to find a source that backs up your fantasy that Carroll and Reade were plotting against Biden. The link you shared is from Townhall, a website that makes Fox News look like the BBC. The article you cited is based on a chopped-up video clip from a documentary called "The Hunting of Biden", which was made by a Trump fanboy who has already been busted for lying and twisting facts. The clip shows Carroll and Reade chatting like old pals, but it does not show any confession from Carroll that she only supported Blasey Ford to save abortion rights. Actually, Carroll has said that she trusts both Reade and Blasey Ford, and that she stands with women who speak up about sexual assault. I get that you have a hard time accepting reality, but please, get a grip.

And don't you have any shame repeating a lie that Carroll was wearing a dress from the future when she was attacked? This lie was first cooked up by Trump's lawyer, Boris Epshteyn, who said that the dress was not made by Donna Karan until years after 1994, but it was busted by many sources, including Donna Karan herself, who said that the dress was from her 1993 collection. Carroll also showed a photo of herself in the dress in 1993, and a receipt from Bergdorf Goodman, the store where she got the dress and where the assault happened. Do you really think Carroll was celibate for decades because Trump supposedly raped her? That's a ridiculous and offensive assumption. Carroll never claimed that she stopped having sex or dating after the alleged attack, or that it ruined her love life. She said that she didn't tell anyone or report it to the cops, because she was scared of Trump's revenge and felt guilty for what happened. She also said that she finally spoke up in 2019, when she saw Trump lie about the other women who accused him of sexual abuse. As for Blasey Ford, did you skip the part where she swore under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2018, and gave reliable and consistent details of her accusation? She also aced a lie detector test and had backup evidence from her therapist and her hubby. You have ABSOLUTELY ZERO proof that she was driven by politics rather than civic duty and personal trauma. She said that she had to come forward after finding out that Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court, and that she worried about the consequences of his confirmation for women and girls. She also said that she suffered from anxiety, depression, and PTSD because of the assault, and that she had to move and hire bodyguards because of the threats and harassment she faced after going public. Your arguments are as empty as a vacuum, and it shows. But please, don't let me stop your game of make-believe. I'm actually having fun exposing your silly claims.

In review, Townhall almost exclusively publishes news articles that favor conservatives and utilizes strongly loaded language such as this: Shove It, House Democrats: Another Trump-Russia Story Blows Up. This story is sourced from the left-leaning Axios and right-leaning Fox News. In another article with loaded language, by Rush Limbaugh’s brother David: Abortion Extremism Exposing Left’s Moral Contradictions, there is not a single source listed to support Mr. Limbaugh’s claims.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/townhall/

"His Airness" six NBA teams title winning sneakers
Sold for a record $8m in a Sotheby auction.
Darn you Americans have cash to burn.

CNN ^ | Updated 9:46 AM EST, Sat February 3 2024
Basketball legend Michael Jordan won six NBA championships during
his prolific sporting career – and a set of the six sneakers he worewhen
clinching those titles has sold for a record-breaking $8 million at auction.

Friday’s winning bid for “The Dynasty Collection” reached $8,032,800,
setting a new global auction record for game-worn sneakers, according
to auction house Sotheby’s.

The set consisted of Air Jordan VI (1991), Air Jordan VII (1992),
Air Jordan VIII (1993), Air Jordan XI (1996), Air Jordan XII (1997),
and Air Jordan XIV (1998).

Most times I just bust out laughing at the wanton stupidity of maga cultists.

The criminal used $50m of small donor campaign donations from his cult to fight court cases where he has paid over $100+m to the plaintiffs notably E.Jean Carroll and a number of settlements for frivolous suits by the criminal. Savvy art of the deal. Lol

And at the same time he dangles a mere $20,000 to some bone headed hungry folks to stage a fake Union rally, he got rattled by President Biden then.

This criminal is what some mentally ill people want back as president? Wake up,ain't gonna happen.

basilico:
"His Airness" six NBA teams title winning sneakers
Sold for a record $8m in a Sotheby auction.
Darn you Americans have cash to burn.

CNN ^ | Updated 9:46 AM EST, Sat February 3 2024
Basketball legend Michael Jordan won six NBA championships during
his prolific sporting career – and a set of the six sneakers he worewhen
clinching those titles has sold for a record-breaking $8 million at auction.

Friday’s winning bid for “The Dynasty Collection” reached $8,032,800,
setting a new global auction record for game-worn sneakers, according
to auction house Sotheby’s.

The set consisted of Air Jordan VI (1991), Air Jordan VII (1992),
Air Jordan VIII (1993), Air Jordan XI (1996), Air Jordan XII (1997),
and Air Jordan XIV (1998).

Are you looking for a way to link this to DEI or CRT?

JessicaRabbit:



Phew! you really scraped the bottom of the barrel to find a source that backs up your fantasy that Carroll and Reade were plotting against Biden. The link you shared is from Townhall, a website that makes Fox News look like the BBC. The article you cited is based on a chopped-up video clip from a documentary called "The Hunting of Biden", which was made by a Trump fanboy who has already been busted for lying and twisting facts. The clip shows Carroll and Reade chatting like old pals, but it does not show any confession from Carroll that she only supported Blasey Ford to save abortion rights. Actually, Carroll has said that she trusts both Reade and Blasey Ford, and that she stands with women who speak up about sexual assault. I get that you have a hard time accepting reality, but please, get a grip.

And don't you have any shame repeating a lie that Carroll was wearing a dress from the future when she was attacked? This lie was first cooked up by Trump's lawyer, Boris Epshteyn, who said that the dress was not made by Donna Karan until years after 1994, but it was busted by many sources, including Donna Karan herself, who said that the dress was from her 1993 collection. Carroll also showed a photo of herself in the dress in 1993, and a receipt from Bergdorf Goodman, the store where she got the dress and where the assault happened. Do you really think Carroll was celibate for decades because Trump supposedly raped her? That's a ridiculous and offensive assumption. Carroll never claimed that she stopped having sex or dating after the alleged attack, or that it ruined her love life. She said that she didn't tell anyone or report it to the cops, because she was scared of Trump's revenge and felt guilty for what happened. She also said that she finally spoke up in 2019, when she saw Trump lie about the other women who accused him of sexual abuse. As for Blasey Ford, did you skip the part where she swore under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2018, and gave reliable and consistent details of her accusation? She also aced a lie detector test and had backup evidence from her therapist and her hubby. You have ABSOLUTELY ZERO proof that she was driven by politics rather than civic duty and personal trauma. She said that she had to come forward after finding out that Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court, and that she worried about the consequences of his confirmation for women and girls. She also said that she suffered from anxiety, depression, and PTSD because of the assault, and that she had to move and hire bodyguards because of the threats and harassment she faced after going public. Your arguments are as empty as a vacuum, and it shows. But please, don't let me stop your game of make-believe. I'm actually having fun exposing your silly claims.


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/townhall/

Even if Carrol was motivated by politics, I can argue that could be a valid statement so arguing against it is just moot. Why? Politics is just part our daily life, an absolute fact, wether he likes it or not. Every thing that has twisted in the day to day running of our life has an existential link to politics and policy by our government. There's no denying that.
So it would be valid to say Carrol will do everything she has to do to bring her rapist down and for the political reason of not allowing her rapist within an inch of becoming a dictator.
Only maga cultists unthetered from reality would find a conspiracy angle in something as plain as this.

basilico:


Ijebos.
Elon Musk POV on immigration policies by Biden. I consider him a true genius who has taken full advantage of democrat policies to amass unimaginable wealth. I'm surprised he said it.
Bill Maher also on Biden powers to enforce border security

But Ijebos knows better. Blames Trump influence for not supporting immigration bill

Ijebos has a learning disability. After embarrassing himself yesterday I am sure he will shut his a-hole up for some days till he recovers

basilico:


Ijebos.
Elon Musk POV on immigration policies by Biden. I consider him a true genius who has taken full advantage of democrat policies to amass unimaginable wealth. I'm surprised he said it.
Bill Maher also on Biden powers to enforce border security

But Ijebos knows better. Blames Trump influence for not supporting immigration bill

Thanks for the post. It's a good teaching example of what an "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy looks like. Why should I be listening to Elon Musk about immigration? People should save it if they want to know how not to construct an argument.

It also seems like you've found the people from "both left and right" Zendi was referring to. Lol.

zendi:

Let me oblige you with one last JAMB answer. You want to see stats, go to the border. Trump's Border was miles and miles far from the mindless chaos that will greet you there, as everybody from both left and right has been attesting to.

I am not sure why Conservatives like to let other think for them and propagandize to them. Seems like such Beta thing to do. There's a plethora of information out there about immigration including facts and figures and good articles about the complexity of it. Google, Read, Learn. It's clear you have the time to be informed if you keep posting this nonsense.

Michimichi

Obrigardo:


Are you looking for a way to link this to DEI or CRT?

Mike Jordan didn't use wokeness and race to win everybody's heart. He is a democratt which is his right. His shoes were and are boughtt by all races. Whites have made him more money than blacks and he respects that.
He like millions of other blacks worked their way out of the reparations bracket.
Michael Jordan kept his shoes as a souv + reminder, I'm not sure whether the proceeds go to charity.
Woke democrats can only advice others to kerp semen stained dresses for a rainy day Or dresses that were designed years after a fake rape took place .

IjeBos:


Thanks for the post. It's a good teaching example of what an "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy looks like. Why should I be listening to Elon Musk about immigration? People should save it if they want to know how not to construct an argument.

It also seems like you've found the people from "both left and right" Zendi was referring to. Lol.


I am not sure why Conservatives like to let other think for them and propagandize to them. Seems like such Beta thing to do. There's a plethora of information out there about immigration including facts and figures and good articles about the complexity of it. Google, Read, Learn. It's clear you have the time to be informed if you keep posting this nonsense.

Pains you because the Great Replacement does not appear to be a conspiracy theory after all.
Biden I have shared here before spoke glowingly of constant unmeasurable immigration till whites were a minority. All his actions on immigration reflects what he said in that video clip .

basilico:


Pains you because the Great Replacement does not appear to be a conspiracy theory after all.
Biden I have shared here before spoke glowingly of constant unmeasurable immigration till whites were a minority. All his actions on immigration reflects what he said in that video clip .

I doubt that. Ijebos has no purpose in life. No children so he does not care about the future.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUa4dFSpV1E

bemeruca:
Michimichi

You can thank immigration for that. Somalia has 1 church and 1000 xtians out of 17m population.Now that's Dar-el-Islam meaning house of peace where everyone is a Muslim.