This is a very black and white view of the situation. And of course it's not that simple. Most of the issue now is the legal immigration (asylum seekers). There is a huge backlog and so cases are taking years to come up. The law is broken and has been broken. Trump tried some illegal actions to go around the spirit of the law and the law itself. Biden chose not to. The issue is that this could have easily been fixed with a comprehensive bill. Bush almost had one but it was torpedoed by Republicans. Why? because it's a good issue to run on. And it's harder fixing it when your constituents (farmers) rely on the cheap immigrant labor.
I think most people are for secure borders and finding a good balance for legal immigration. I know I am. I think there isn't enough money to support the whole world. That being said, I recognize many of those people who support more open borders think their reasoning is sound as well... "that's what Jesus preached, "helping your neighbors"". So, they may be living their faith better than I, who is largely focused on money.
I wonder if you have a brain in your head or your are just like a monkey with a keyboard. You cross the border illegal and claim asylum is legal immigration? ewo 🤣🤣😂
I wonder if you have a brain in your head or your are just like a monkey with a keyboard. You cross the border illegal and claim asylum is legal immigration? ewo 🤣🤣😂
You somehow believe that your tired posts are witty and that watching Youtube clips qualifies you as an expert. Neither are true. You seem to also never tire of being wrong and sticking your foot firmly in your mouth. This post is another case in point. I don't understand why you are on this forum, it's clearly not to discuss things intellectually as you seem to be in short supply of intellect. If you're bored, while waiting to be matched with an Uber customer, I'm sure your 4 kids would love a call.
You somehow believe that your tired posts are witty and that watching Youtube clips qualifies you as an expert. Neither are true. You seem to also never tire of being wrong and sticking your foot firmly in your mouth. This post is another case in point. I don't understand why you are on this forum, it's clearly not to discuss things intellectually as you seem to be in short supply of intellect. If you're bored, while waiting to be matched with an Uber customer, I'm sure your 4 kids would love a call.
You must be the dumbest person here. Obrigado, your days are numbered. Because someone is seeking asylum automatically makes him a legal migrant? Are you this stupid?
People who cross the border illegally are not legal migrants. They are considered irregular or unauthorized entrants who may be subject to removal or prosecution. However, they may still have the right to apply for asylum or refugee protection under certain circumstances, depending on the country they are in and the country they are from. Asylum and refugee status are not the same as legal migration, but rather a form of humanitarian protection for those who face persecution or danger in their home country. Asylum and refugee claims are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and do not guarantee permanent residency or citizenship.
Given the fact that most of them seeking asylum are undocumented aliens who no one knows their whereabout should tell you mare seeking an asylum does not make you a legal Migrant.
You must be the dumbest person here. Obrigado, your days are numbered. Because someone is seeking asylum automatically makes him a legal migrant? Are you this stupid?
People who cross the border illegally are not legal migrants. They are considered irregular or unauthorized entrants who may be subject to removal or prosecution. However, they may still have the right to apply for asylum or refugee protection under certain circumstances, depending on the country they are in and the country they are from. Asylum and refugee status are not the same as legal migration, but rather a form of humanitarian protection for those who face persecution or danger in their home country. Asylum and refugee claims are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and do not guarantee permanent residency or citizenship.
Given the fact that most of them seeking asylum are undocumented aliens who no one knows their whereabout should tell you mare seeking an asylum does not make you a legal Migrant.
Lol. As I said, your name should be open mouth and stick foot in. I won't stick around long enough for you to twist words and contort what you've written in order not to be wrong as you always are.
This is what I said.
Legal immigration is what the law permits. You can be in the US illegally and still apply for asylum which would then be "legal immigration" as there is a legal process in place.
So let's start with Fun with Vocab
legal: LAWFUL, LEGAL, LEGITIMATE, LICIT mean being in accordance with law.
As long as you are following the laws defined for the pathway you are trying to use to immigrate into the US, you are considered a legal immigrant. The asylum process allows some people who entered illegally to apply for asylum. When you apply for asylum you are thus using a legal immigration process. Thus you are a legal immigrant until the asylum application is adjudicated.
Legal immigration to the United States occurs through an alphabet soup of visa categories, but a small number of pathways. Family relationships, ties to employers, or the need for humanitarian protection are the top channels for immigrants seeking temporary or permanent U.S. residence.
8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum U.S. Code (a)Authority to apply for asylum (1)In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
Lol. As I said, your name should be open mouth and stick foot in. I won't stick around long enough for you to twist words and contort what you've written in order not to be wrong as you always are.
This is what I said.
So let's start with Fun with Vocab
As long as you are following the laws defined for the pathway you are trying to use to immigrate into the US, you are considered a legal immigrant. The asylum process allows some people who entered illegally to apply for asylum. When you apply for asylum you are thus using a legal immigration process. Thus you are a legal immigrant until the asylum application is adjudicated.
Legal immigration is what the law permits. You can be in the US illegally and still apply for asylum which would then be "legal immigration" as there is a legal process in place.
you are doubling down on stupid to kiss Joe Biden's ass. How many people who cross the border are granted asylum? how many of them are deported? how many complete the process? you can call them legal migrants all you want but your brothers in sanctuary cities are crying. from Chinese to Somali pirates are pouring into this country. Remain a daft, goodnight
you are doubling down on stupid to kiss Joe Biden's ass. How many people who cross the border are granted asylum? how many of them are deported? how many complete the process? you can call them legal migrants all you want but your brothers in sanctuary cities are crying. from Chinese to Somali pirates are pouring into this country. Remain a daft, goodnight
Bwahahahahaha. You got roasted again for talking about something you have no clue about and you come back for another helping. What surprises me is that Republican buffoons like you have no real understanding of the issues you are feverishly mad over. Yet you feverishly talk about it over and over. Especially you, Mr. "Open mouth and insert foot".
The asylum laws are the problem. It is not the granting asylum, it is the fact that if someone claims asylum they have to be allowed to stay until their application is approved or denied. Until then, they are released into the US with a court date to show up.
It is drawing attention to an immigration system that has been under strain for decades. Congress has failed to update laws designed to address the American economy and migration trends of 30 years ago. And the asylum system, chronically understaffed and underfunded, has a backlog of two million cases that some say is insurmountable.
Ten years in limbo That is how long some people wait for the government to issue a decision on their asylum claim. Recent estimates show the wait times average three years in immigration court and 10 years if an application is filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Even as additional resources are added to help manage the overwhelming workload, far more asylum applications are filed each year than the government is able to resolve.
For many, the yearslong wait for a decision is benefit enough. Asylum seekers can work legally and often live in much safer environments than the ones they fled. Policymakers say this waiting period, which tends to grow as the backlog grows, has been one of the biggest drivers of illegal immigration.
Don't think I've not noticed your lies. The judge was biased. You know nothing about the jury selected. Reid Hoffman is paying her bills She admitted that in court. Justice was not served rightfully. There are women who claimed Clinton raped them, I think one settled out of court, the rest sit by and watch him escape all sort of scrutiny. You lied about Monica Lewinsky blue dress. She was not a victim of Bill Clinton perse. She was a victim of Hillary who labelled her and others as " bimbo eruptions" and orchestrated a scheme to damage her reputation. I watched her Ted Talk don't assume I'm just writing or believing anything you've written Tara Reid has a written complaint against Joe Biden. Those documents are sealed by Joe Biden Archivist, She can't prove it. Justice is served to to those suing republican. Giuliani was not able to produce evidence because FBI raid took away every electronics he had. The judge partly used that against him the declare him liable for defamation l.
You spew a lot of lies about Jean Carroll being traumatized. Remember when Blaise Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault. She later recanted. Democrat style. Image below because you will say it's lies.They lie to serve a particular putpose. I believe this is another scheme by Jean Carroll. I'm.not known to give up on topics I believe I'm right, for the upteempth time I use this as my bookmarks for later reference. To be honest I don't believe a thing you wrote about this topic. You sound like her lawyer. Intending to convince us that there is equal justice.Yiu are peddoing a narrative, it's very easy to pick your talking points and find them repeated by leftie media. Before I forget, did she ever see a shrink or a counsellor about her traumatic rape in a very busy fashion shop? Did she, or maybe dyeing her dog pink was therauptic? I think there was some witness who can swear there was no rape allegations in that store while she worked there during that period . I'll find out why she did not testify. Finally Jean Carroll got her description of the store wrong too if I'm correct.
Because the darn encounter happened in her dreams.
I have already written two detailed posts full of links to the relevant articles rebutting this recent comment of yours but due to the unexplained ridiculousness of this forum's spambot, I couldn't get them through. I'll limit the length of my rejoinder and cut to the chase here. After reading this particular comment, it has become obvious to me that you're totally willing to indulge in mendacity and fraud. Of course I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your desperation to cling onto this sinking ship, while admirable, only lends credence to your unrelenting dishonesty.
#1 Reid Hoffman is not paying anyone's bills. He only chipped in some cash to the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, which backs up survivors of sexual harassment and assault.
#2 Clinton has been accused of sexual assault and/or sexual misconduct by several women, but none of them have been proven conclusively in court.
#3 Lewinsky had a consensual affair with Bill Clinton. She hid the dress from the public, while Carroll wore the dress openly several times. These are not opinions, these are verifiable facts. Do your research.
#4 Hillary Clinton did not label Lewinsky or others as "bimbo eruptions". That term was coined by Betsey Wright, a former aide to Bill Clinton, in 1992, long before the Lewinsky scandal. Hillary Clinton did not orchestrate a scheme to damage Lewinsky's reputation. She was just a scorned wife who stood by her cheating hubby in the face of political drama.
#5 You claim that you watched Lewinsky's TED Talk, but did you really listen to what she said? She said that she was a victim of cyberbullying and public shaming, not of Bill Clinton. She said that she regretted her involvement with him, but that she also forgave him.
#6 Tara Reade was exposed as a liar and fraud. She did not have a written complaint against Biden, but a criminal complaint against an unnamed person. Plus her allegation has been contradicted by several people who knew her or worked with Biden at the time, and by the lack of evidence or corroboration.
#7 The FBI raid on Guilani's home and office in April 2021 had nothing to do with the defamation case, but with his shady dealings with Ukraine. The raid did not strip him of all his gadgets, neither did it stop him from producing evidence. These are pathetic excuses!
#8 Blasey Ford bravely faced the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2018 and never backed down from her allegation. It was Trump who played fast and loose with the truth by conveniently leaving out which accuser had changed her story (check out the screenshot below). And she was not a Democrat, but a card-carrying Republican.
#9 Halina Kuta, the ex-guard at Bergdorf Goodman who claimed to witness something scandalous while working there between 1975 and 2001 was exposed to be a liar and bluff. She wasn't even there when it supposedly happened. She confessed that she was a fan of Trump and that she got a nice $500 tip from his buddy to lie. Talk about fake news!
The rest of your post is just more gas-lighting, and clutching at irrelevant straws like the colour of Carroll's dog. You're clearly out of your depth on this topic but you insist on trudging on like a lost donkey. Of course, fanatics like you will thrive on spurious statements like "Justice is served to those suing Republican" which only serve to foster hatred and division. Justice is not a partisan issue, but a universal value.
In this discussion, you have only proven yourself to be a liar, a manipulator and a fraud with an ego the size of America. You obviously know next to nothing about these cases, but rather than educate yourself accordingly, you've intentionally limited yourself to regurgitating nonsensical far-right soundbites you've heard from your colleagues.
I wonder if you have a brain in your head or your are just like a monkey with a keyboard. You cross the border illegal and claim asylum is legal immigration? ewo 🤣🤣😂
How stupid.
Gov Newsom of Commiefornia rumoured to be Biden replacement. Problem. A president and VP from one state? Anyway his policies are working out well for California. He handily won a recall vote so they must love him.
I have already written two detailed posts full of links to the relevant articles rebutting this recent comment of yours but due to the unexplained ridiculousness of this forum's spambot, I couldn't get them through. I'll limit the length of my rejoinder and cut to the chase here. After reading this particular comment, it has become obvious to me that you're totally willing to indulge in mendacity and fraud. Of course I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your desperation to cling onto this sinking ship, while admirable, only lends credence to your unrelenting dishonesty.
#1 Reid Hoffman is not paying anyone's bills. He only chipped in some cash to the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, which backs up survivors of sexual harassment and assault.
#2 Clinton has been accused of sexual assault and/or sexual misconduct by several women, but none of them have been proven conclusively in court.
#3 Lewinsky had a consensual affair with Bill Clinton. She hid the dress from the public, while Carroll wore the dress openly several times. These are not opinions, these are verifiable facts. Do your research.
#4 Hillary Clinton did not label Lewinsky or others as "bimbo eruptions". That term was coined by Betsey Wright, a former aide to Bill Clinton, in 1992, long before the Lewinsky scandal. Hillary Clinton did not orchestrate a scheme to damage Lewinsky's reputation. She was just a scorned wife who stood by her cheating hubby in the face of political drama.
#5 You claim that you watched Lewinsky's TED Talk, but did you really listen to what she said? She said that she was a victim of cyberbullying and public shaming, not of Bill Clinton. She said that she regretted her involvement with him, but that she also forgave him.
#6 Tara Reade was exposed as a liar and fraud. She did not have a written complaint against Biden, but a criminal complaint against an unnamed person. Plus her allegation has been contradicted by several people who knew her or worked with Biden at the time, and by the lack of evidence or corroboration.
#7 The FBI raid on Guilani's home and office in April 2021 had nothing to do with the defamation case, but with his shady dealings with Ukraine. The raid did not strip him of all his gadgets, neither did it stop him from producing evidence. These are pathetic excuses!
#8 Blasey Ford bravely faced the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2018 and never backed down from her allegation. It was Trump who played fast and loose with the truth by conveniently leaving out which accuser had changed her story (check out the screenshot below). And she was not a Democrat, but a card-carrying Republican.
#9 Halina Kuta, the ex-guard at Bergdorf Goodman who claimed to witness something scandalous while working there between 1975 and 2001 was exposed to be a liar and bluff. She wasn't even there when it supposedly happened. She confessed that she was a fan of Trump and that she got a nice $500 tip from his buddy to lie. Talk about fake news!
The rest of your post is just more gas-lighting, and clutching at irrelevant straws like the colour of Carroll's dog. You're clearly out of your depth on this topic but you insist on trudging on like a lost donkey. Of course, fanatics like you will thrive on spurious statements like "Justice is served to those suing Republican" which only serve to foster hatred and division. Justice is not a partisan issue, but a universal value.
In this discussion, you have only proven yourself to be a liar, a manipulator and a fraud with an ego the size of America. You obviously know next to nothing about these cases, but rather than educate yourself accordingly, you've intentionally limited yourself to regurgitating nonsensical far-right soundbites you've heard from your colleagues.
Glad you have done your homework. Reading through the attached image from the search engine , it was clear that it was not Blaise Ford, but another accuser. Read between the lines. All in all it's the democrats play book..Accuse anyone of anything to serve the immediate cause, truth be damned. An incident where Harry Reid accused Pierre Delecto of not paying taxes for 10 years in 2012 election against St Jesus of Chicago.. Later Reid quipped Well, they can call it whatever they want,” Reid said. “Romney didn’t win, did he?”
I will read through your post, I'm sure to pick up more lies. You are the one spreading lies. Note that you seem to get your talking points only from far left junk sites, while for me I first go through them knowing very well they are lying. I suppose you think I believe Mitchell Obama is a man because of some right wing photos showing a bulge ? No I can separate the truth from the lies
I have already written two detailed posts full of links to the relevant articles rebutting this recent comment of yours but due to the unexplained ridiculousness of this forum's spambot, I couldn't get them through. I'll limit the length of my rejoinder and cut to the chase here. After reading this particular comment, it has become obvious to me that you're totally willing to indulge in mendacity and fraud. Of course I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your desperation to cling onto this sinking ship, while admirable, only lends credence to your unrelenting dishonesty.
#1 Reid Hoffman is not paying anyone's bills. He only chipped in some cash to the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, which backs up survivors of sexual harassment and assault.
#2 Clinton has been accused of sexual assault and/or sexual misconduct by several women, but none of them have been proven conclusively in court.
#3 Lewinsky had a consensual affair with Bill Clinton. She hid the dress from the public, while Carroll wore the dress openly several times. These are not opinions, these are verifiable facts. Do your research.
#4 Hillary Clinton did not label Lewinsky or others as "bimbo eruptions". That term was coined by Betsey Wright, a former aide to Bill Clinton, in 1992, long before the Lewinsky scandal. Hillary Clinton did not orchestrate a scheme to damage Lewinsky's reputation. She was just a scorned wife who stood by her cheating hubby in the face of political drama.
#5 You claim that you watched Lewinsky's TED Talk, but did you really listen to what she said? She said that she was a victim of cyberbullying and public shaming, not of Bill Clinton. She said that she regretted her involvement with him, but that she also forgave him.
#6 Tara Reade was exposed as a liar and fraud. She did not have a written complaint against Biden, but a criminal complaint against an unnamed person. Plus her allegation has been contradicted by several people who knew her or worked with Biden at the time, and by the lack of evidence or corroboration.
#7 The FBI raid on Guilani's home and office in April 2021 had nothing to do with the defamation case, but with his shady dealings with Ukraine. The raid did not strip him of all his gadgets, neither did it stop him from producing evidence. These are pathetic excuses!
#8 Blasey Ford bravely faced the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2018 and never backed down from her allegation. It was Trump who played fast and loose with the truth by conveniently leaving out which accuser had changed her story (check out the screenshot below). And she was not a Democrat, but a card-carrying Republican.
#9 Halina Kuta, the ex-guard at Bergdorf Goodman who claimed to witness something scandalous while working there between 1975 and 2001 was exposed to be a liar and bluff. She wasn't even there when it supposedly happened. She confessed that she was a fan of Trump and that she got a nice $500 tip from his buddy to lie. Talk about fake news!
The rest of your post is just more gas-lighting, and clutching at irrelevant straws like the colour of Carroll's dog. You're clearly out of your depth on this topic but you insist on trudging on like a lost donkey. Of course, fanatics like you will thrive on spurious statements like "Justice is served to those suing Republican" which only serve to foster hatred and division. Justice is not a partisan issue, but a universal value.
In this discussion, you have only proven yourself to be a liar, a manipulator and a fraud with an ego the size of America. You obviously know next to nothing about these cases, but rather than educate yourself accordingly, you've intentionally limited yourself to regurgitating nonsensical far-right soundbites you've heard from your colleagues.
I'll kerp updating. Reid Hoffman non profit made direct payment to Roberta Kaplan , a filing that was revealed in court filings. When Trump asked for more discovery the judge sealed the records relating to the Hoffman and Kaplan payments.
In a letter on Thursday morning, Trump’s legal team documented how Carroll at her Oct. 14 deposition claimed that no one else was paying for her lawyers—only to have those same lawyers suddenly inform them this Monday that they indeed had a mystery backer. Trump’s lawyers say Carroll’s team wouldn’t immediately disclose who this rich donor was until several phone calls later during the week, when they reluctantly revealed that it was Hoffman and a nonprofit called American Future Republic.
Reid Hoffman pays through his non profit. I would believe you if you claimed that he does not dictate the expenditure of this non profit not does he care what they do with the money.
Bill Clinton who left the WH 'broke' paid $850000 to Paula Jones in an out of court settlement over a sexual harrassment case. If you care to remember Donald Trump paraded 4 suffering women in a Presidential debate with Hillary. Because there is no court case it doesn't mean any clams were debunked. You lie again, echoing MSM talking points. I don't buy their lies.
On this day in 1998, President Bill Clinton settled a sexual harassment lawsuit by making an $850,000 payment. The settlement with Paula Jones, reached without the suit going to trial, heaped fuel on Clinton’s impeachment proceedings by the Republican-controlled House. (He was acquitted in a subsequent Senate trial and completed his term in office.
Listen to Trump's Second Debate with Billary on how vicious Bill was to women and how Hillary joined in the choir. According to you She was a scorned woman.. Yeah right scorned woman, Bill Clinton said of his faithful wife and mother to his child Said Gennifer Flowers: “I just know what Bill Clinton told me and that was that he was aware that Hillary was bisexual and he didn’t care. He should know. ‘He said Hillary had eaten more pussy than he had.
I'll kerp updating. Reid Hoffman non profit made direct payment to Roberta Kaplan , a filing that was revealed in court filings. When Trump asked for more discovery the judge sealed the records relating to the Hoffman and Kaplan payments.
In a letter on Thursday morning, Trump’s legal team documented how Carroll at her Oct. 14 deposition claimed that no one else was paying for her lawyers—only to have those same lawyers suddenly inform them this Monday that they indeed had a mystery backer. Trump’s lawyers say Carroll’s team wouldn’t immediately disclose who this rich donor was until several phone calls later during the week, when they reluctantly revealed that it was Hoffman and a nonprofit called American Future Republic.
Reid Hoffman pays through his non profit. I would believe you if you claimed that he does not dictate the expenditure of this non profit not does he care what they do with the money.
Wow, you really do have a knack for twisting the facts and spewing nonsense. Reid Hoffman is not some sugar daddy who pays for people's lawsuits, he is a generous donor who supports a noble cause. He gave money to the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, which is a nonprofit organization that helps victims of sexual harassment and assault get legal help and media support. It is run by the National Women's Law Center, which is an independent and respected group that has been fighting for women's rights for over four decades.
The fund does not hand out cash to lawyers, it covers some of the costs and fees that they incur while representing victims. The fund also has strict standards and a thorough screening process to ensure that the cases it backs are valid and worthy. Roberta Kaplan, is one of the many lawyers who have volunteered to take cases for free or on a no-win-no-fee basis through the fund. She is not on Reid Hoffman's payroll or his nonprofit, American Future Republic, but is paid by her client, Carroll. The fact that Hoffman's nonprofit gave a grant to the fund does not mean that he has any say or sway over the fund or the cases it supports. He is one of the many donors who have chipped in to the fund, which has raised over $25 million from more than 20,000 people. He is also not involved in the legal strategy or the decision-making of Kaplan or Carroll. He is simply a good guy who cares about justice and equality for women. The reason why the judge sealed the records relating to the funding of Carroll's case is not because there is anything shady or wrong about it, but because it is irrelevant to the merits of the case and it could expose the fund and its beneficiaries to harassment and intimidation by Trump and his cronies. The judge also rejected Trump's request for a one-month delay of the trial, which shows that he is not falling for Trump's tricks to divert attention from the real issue: whether he raped Carroll in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.
Your argument still amounts to nothing more than a smear campaign against E. Jean Carroll, by every means necessary. It is also a hopeless and dishonest attempt to tarnish the reputation and integrity of Hoffman and Kaplan, as well as a blatant disrespect for the truth and the rule of law. It still amazes me how you've not collapsed in a paroxysm of embarrassment for spreading such lies and misinformation constantly.
Glad you have done your homework. Reading through the attached image from the search engine , it was clear that it was not Blaise Ford, but another accuser. Read between the lines. All in all it's the democrats play book..Accuse anyone of anything to serve the immediate cause, truth be damned. An incident where Harry Reid accused Pierre Delecto of not paying taxes for 10 years in 2012 election against St Jesus of Chicago.. Later Reid quipped Well, they can call it whatever they want,” Reid said. “Romney didn’t win, did he?”
I will read through your post, I'm sure to pick up more lies. You are the one spreading lies. Note that you seem to get your talking points only from far left junk sites, while for me I first go through them knowing very well they are lying. I suppose you think I believe Mitchell Obama is a man because of some right wing photos showing a bulge ? No I can separate the truth from the lies
You do realize that claiming something is a lie without proof is an exercise in hubris and dishonesty? Perhaps you've mistaken this debate for a childish scrap in the schoolyard, where "facts" are subjective and unjustified aspersions win the day. I didn't fail to notice how you subtly declined to acknowledge your amateurish gaffe about Blasey Ford. You were obviously conflating two different accusers of Brett Kavanaugh: Christine Blasey Ford and Judy Munro-Leighton. The latter was the one who admitted to fabricating a letter claiming to be another victim of Kavanaugh. She had no connection to Blasey Ford or her lawyers, and she was not the source of Reid's claim.
Moreover, you are comparing apples and oranges when you bring up Harry Reid's accusation of Mitt Romney not paying taxes for 10 years. This misses the whole point. Reid's source was some shady guy who claimed to have worked at Bain Capital, the evil empire that Romney used to run. Reid wasn't sure if his source was telling the truth, but he threw it out there anyway, hoping that Romney would show his tax returns and clear the air. But Romney didn't do that, because he probably had something to hide. Like maybe he was secretly funding a cult of Mormon vampires or something. Reid's claim was never confirmed or denied, but it was not a lie or a trick. It was a clever move to make Romney look bad and untrustworthy to the voters. It was also not a personal attack on Romney's personality or morals, unlike your ridiculous and rude suggestion that Michelle Obama is a man.
You are also making a sweeping generalization and a false dichotomy when you say that all Democrats accuse anyone of anything to serve the immediate cause, and that all Republicans can separate the truth from the lies. Let me break it down for you, champ. Both sides of the aisle have their fair share of hot takes and questionable logic. Painting entire parties with such broad strokes is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. You're ignoring the diverse spectrum of opinions within each group, from firebrands to moderates, and reducing complex issues to a kindergarten-level "good guys vs. bad guys" narrative.
Please do yourself a favor and crack open a non-partisan book (gasp, they exist!). The evidence might surprise you, revealing that truth and misinformation aren't neatly divided by party lines. Then, maybe, just maybe, you can join the grown-up table where we discuss the nuances of politics with, gasp again!, respect and critical thinking. Until then, you might as well create a private blog titled "Unpopular Opinions No One Asked For" and publish your toxic ideas there.
This is a very black and white view of the situation. And of course it's not that simple. Most of the issue now is the legal immigration (asylum seekers). There is a huge backlog and so cases are taking years to come up. The lawis brokenand has beenbroken. Trump tried some illegal actions to go around the spirit of the law and the law itself. Biden chose not to. The issue is that this could have easily been fixed with a comprehensive bill. Bush almost had one but it was torpedoed by Republicans. Why? because it's a good issue to run on. And it's harder fixing it when your constituents (farmers) rely on the cheap immigrant labor.
I think most people are for secure borders and finding a good balance for legal immigration. I know I am. I think there isn't enough money to support the whole world. That being said, I recognize many of those people who support more open borders think their reasoning is sound as well... "that's what Jesus preached, "helping your neighbors"". So, they may be living their faith better than I, who is largely focused on money.
"The law is broken and has been broken".
This is how a bad workman quarrels with his tools. "This tool is broken and has been broken", Yet, past Presidents used the same tool (the law) to secure the border.
An unwilling mind finds a thousand excuses. A willing mind finds a thousand ways.
Trump was a willing mind and he secured the border with the law as it is. Then came the open-borders Baba Left with excuses :
"The immigration law is broken and has been broken".
Bwahahahahaha. You got roasted again for talking about something you have no clue about and you come back for another helping. What surprises me is that Republican buffoons like you have no real understanding of the issues you are feverishly mad over. Yet you feverishly talk about it over and over. Especially you, Mr. "Open mouth and insert foot".
The asylum laws are the problem. It is not the granting asylum, it is the fact that if someone claims asylum they have to be allowed to stay until their application is approved or denied. Until then, they are released into the US with a court date to show up.
He is claiming victory for being stupid? So you admit there is a problem, and you also admit that people who asylum and then disappear are illegal aliens. Bingo....
45 years old remember your age before you become mumu on naira land.
Questions asked up there. How many are granted asylum? How many that come to court? How many that disappeared?
Are they all legal migrants? Because they said they feel threatened at home.
You are only a legal migrant if you are processed and granted asylum not when you disappear into the country.
You do realize that claiming something is a lie without proof is an exercise in hubris and dishonesty? Perhaps you've mistaken this debate for a childish scrap in the schoolyard, where "facts" are subjective and unjustified aspersions win the day. I didn't fail to notice how you subtly declined to acknowledge your amateurish gaffe about Blasey Ford. You were obviously conflating two different accusers of Brett Kavanaugh: Christine Blasey Ford and Judy Munro-Leighton. The latter was the one who admitted to fabricating a letter claiming to be another victim of Kavanaugh. She had no connection to Blasey Ford or her lawyers, and she was not the source of Reid's claim.
Moreover, you are comparing apples and oranges when you bring up Harry Reid's accusation of Mitt Romney not paying taxes for 10 years. This misses the whole point. Reid's source was some shady guy who claimed to have worked at Bain Capital, the evil empire that Romney used to run. Reid wasn't sure if his source was telling the truth, but he threw it out there anyway, hoping that Romney would show his tax returns and clear the air. But Romney didn't do that, because he probably had something to hide. Like maybe he was secretly funding a cult of Mormon vampires or something. Reid's claim was never confirmed or denied, but it was not a lie or a trick. It was a clever move to make Romney look bad and untrustworthy to the voters. It was also not a personal attack on Romney's personality or morals, unlike your ridiculous and rude suggestion that Michelle Obama is a man.
You are also making a sweeping generalization and a false dichotomy when you say that all Democrats accuse anyone of anything to serve the immediate cause, and that all Republicans can separate the truth from the lies. Let me break it down for you, champ. Both sides of the aisle have their fair share of hot takes and questionable logic. Painting entire parties with such broad strokes is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. You're ignoring the diverse spectrum of opinions within each group, from firebrands to moderates, and reducing complex issues to a kindergarten-level "good guys vs. bad guys" narrative.
Please do yourself a favor and crack open a non-partisan book (gasp, they exist!). The evidence might surprise you, revealing that truth and misinformation aren't neatly divided by party lines. Then, maybe, just maybe, you can join the grown-up table where we discuss the nuances of politics with, gasp again!, respect and critical thinking. Until then, you might as well create a private blog titled "Unpopular Opinions No One Asked For" and publish your toxic ideas there.
Since when does being dishonest or denying something is defamatory?
There are countless of people who were accused of tape, they went to prison and was later vindicated. Are you saying each time they said they didn't do it they should pay 88million?
Wow, you really do have a knack for twisting the facts and spewing nonsense. Reid Hoffman is not some sugar daddy who pays for people's lawsuits, he is a generous donor who supports a noble cause. He gave money to the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, which is a nonprofit organization that helps victims of sexual harassment and assault get legal help and media support. It is run by the National Women's Law Center, which is an independent and respected group that has been fighting for women's rights for over four decades.
The fund does not hand out cash to lawyers, it covers some of the costs and fees that they incur while representing victims. The fund also has strict standards and a thorough screening process to ensure that the cases it backs are valid and worthy. Roberta Kaplan, is one of the many lawyers who have volunteered to take cases for free or on a no-win-no-fee basis through the fund. She is not on Reid Hoffman's payroll or his nonprofit, American Future Republic, but is paid by her client, Carroll. The fact that Hoffman's nonprofit gave a grant to the fund does not mean that he has any say or sway over the fund or the cases it supports. He is one of the many donors who have chipped in to the fund, which has raised over $25 million from more than 20,000 people. He is also not involved in the legal strategy or the decision-making of Kaplan or Carroll. He is simply a good guy who cares about justice and equality for women. The reason why the judge sealed the records relating to the funding of Carroll's case is not because there is anything shady or wrong about it, but because it is irrelevant to the merits of the case and it could expose the fund and its beneficiaries to harassment and intimidation by Trump and his cronies. The judge also rejected Trump's request for a one-month delay of the trial, which shows that he is not falling for Trump's tricks to divert attention from the real issue: whether he raped Carroll in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.
Your argument still amounts to nothing more than a smear campaign against E. Jean Carroll, by every means necessary. It is also a hopeless and dishonest attempt to tarnish the reputation and integrity of Hoffman and Kaplan, as well as a blatant disrespect for the truth and the rule of law. It still amazes me how you've not collapsed in a paroxysm of embarrassment for spreading such lies and misinformation constantly.
More lies from you.
Tax returns revealed that Hoffman and this organization was the major financial backer of E. Jean Carroll, a columnist who alleged that former President Donald Trump sexually assaulted her.
Liar liar. What is Hoffman saying in the video I linked to. Check my other update above on Billary the scorned wife.
basilico: Bill Clinton who left the WH 'broke' paid $850000 to Paula Jones in an out of court settlement over a sexual harrassment case. If you care to remember Donald Trump paraded 4 suffering women in a Presidential debate with Hillary. Because there is no court case it doesn't mean any clams were debunked. You lie again, echoing MSM talking points. I don't buy their lies.
On this day in 1998, President Bill Clinton settled a sexual harassment lawsuit by making an $850,000 payment. The settlement with Paula Jones, reached without the suit going to trial, heaped fuel on Clinton’s impeachment proceedings by the Republican-controlled House. (He was acquitted in a subsequent Senate trial and completed his term in office.
Listen to Trump's Second Debate with Billary on how vicious Bill was to women and how Hillary joined in the choir. According to you She was a scorned woman.. Yeah right scorned woman, Bill Clinton said of his faithful wife and mother to his child Said Gennifer Flowers: “I just know what Bill Clinton told me and that was that he was aware that Hillary was bisexual and he didn’t care. He should know. ‘He said Hillary had eaten more pussy than he had.
First of all, you seem to have a very selective memory when it comes to Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct allegations. You conveniently ignore the fact that Monica Lewinsky, who had a consensual affair with Clinton in the White House, publicly defended him against the accusations of rape and assault by other women! You also forget that Paula Jones, the woman who received the $850,000 settlement, initially sued Clinton for $700,000 in damages, but later reduced her demand to $525,000. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/heres-a-look-at-bill-clintons-alleged-sexual-misconduct/
That means that Clinton actually paid her more than she asked for, which is hardly an admission of guilt. In fact, Clinton's lawyer stated that the settlement was made only to avoid further litigation, and that Clinton still maintained his innocence!
Secondly, you seem to have a very distorted view of Donald Trump's role in this whole saga. You claim that he "paraded 4 suffering women" in a presidential debate with Hillary, but you fail to mention that those women were paid by Trump to attend the debate and accuse Clinton of various crimes. You also fail to mention that Trump himself has been accused of sexual assault and/or misconduct by at least 26 women, some of whom have filed lawsuits against him. You also fail to mention that Trump has been caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by their genitals and kissing them without consent. How can you possibly defend such a vile and predatory behavior?
Shifting gears to the 'whataboutism' express, we arrive at your bizarre detour to attack Hillary Clinton, who's about as relevant to this topic as a one-legged man in a kicking contest. You throw shade with nicknames like 'Billary' and 'scorned woman,' then crown it all with a quote from Gennifer Flowers, who admitted to lying about her affair with Clinton in the past, and whose truthfulness is about as reliable as a Nigerian prince's email. Bravo! You also imply that Hillary is bisexual, as if that's something to be ashamed of or ridiculed for. You also ignore the fact that Hillary has been a champion of women's rights and empowerment throughout her career, and that she has faced constant sexism and misogyny from her opponents and the media. You are not a debater, you are a troll. And you are not a worthy opponent, you are a waste of time.
Every fabricated claim of yours is like a brick in the wall of delusion you're so desperately trying to build. But I'll be here with truth bombs to topple your castle of delusions!
Since when does being dishonest or denying something is defamatory?
There are countless of people who were accused of tape, they went to prison and was later vindicated. Are you saying each time they said they didn't do it they should pay 88million?
I'm glad you asked!
Now, I think you are misusing the term "defamatory". Defamation is a legal term that refers to a false statement that harms someone's reputation. It has nothing to do with being dishonest or denying something. Also, I suspect you are making a false analogy between the cases of people who were falsely accused of rape and the case of Michelle Obama. The former involves a serious criminal charge that requires evidence and due process, while the latter involves a baseless and absurd conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. Finally, you are ignoring the fact that Michelle Obama is not suing anyone for defamation, but for invasion of privacy. She is entitled to protect her personal information and identity from unauthorized and malicious use by anyone, especially by someone who is spreading lies and hate about her. She is not asking for 88 million dollars because she was called a man, but because her personal data was stolen and used without her consent. That is a clear violation of her rights and dignity, and she deserves justice and compensation.
So, to answer your question, no, I am not saying that every time someone denies something they should pay 88 million dollars. I am saying that every time someone steals and misuses someone else's personal data, they should pay the price. And every time someone makes a false and offensive claim about someone else, they should be challenged and exposed. And every time someone tries to evade the facts and logic of a debate, they should be called out and ridiculed. Like the child basilico.
First of all, you seem to have a very selective memory when it comes to Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct allegations. You conveniently ignore the fact that Monica Lewinsky, who had a consensual affair with Clinton in the White House, publicly defended him against the accusations of rape and assault by other women! You also forget that Paula Jones, the woman who received the $850,000 settlement, initially sued Clinton for $700,000 in damages, but later reduced her demand to $525,000. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/heres-a-look-at-bill-clintons-alleged-sexual-misconduct/
That means that Clinton actually paid her more than she asked for, which is hardly an admission of guilt. In fact, Clinton's lawyer stated that the settlement was made only to avoid further litigation, and that Clinton still maintained his innocence!
Secondly, you seem to have a very distorted view of Donald Trump's role in this whole saga. You claim that he "paraded 4 suffering women" in a presidential debate with Hillary, but you fail to mention that those women were paid by Trump to attend the debate and accuse Clinton of various crimes. You also fail to mention that Trump himself has been accused of sexual assault and/or misconduct by at least 26 women, some of whom have filed lawsuits against him. You also fail to mention that Trump has been caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by their genitals and kissing them without consent. How can you possibly defend such a vile and predatory behavior?
Shifting gears to the 'whataboutism' express, we arrive at your bizarre detour to attack Hillary Clinton, who's about as relevant to this topic as a one-legged man in a kicking contest. You throw shade with nicknames like 'Billary' and 'scorned woman,' then crown it all with a quote from Gennifer Flowers, who admitted to lying about her affair with Clinton in the past, and whose truthfulness is about as reliable as a Nigerian prince's email. Bravo! You also imply that Hillary is bisexual, as if that's something to be ashamed of or ridiculed for. You also ignore the fact that Hillary has been a champion of women's rights and empowerment throughout her career, and that she has faced constant sexism and misogyny from her opponents and the media. You are not a debater, you are a troll. And you are not a worthy opponent, you are a waste of time.
Every fabricated claim of yours is like a brick in the wall of delusion you're so desperately trying to build. But I'll be here with truth bombs to topple your castle of delusions!
You are hopelessly biased. With Trump anything said of him.is True but with the democrats, there has to be irrefutable proof. Bill has abused women. Hillary talked ill of them. You are like writing a love letter defending these Biden and Clinton.And Biden pinched a young 7-8 yr girls titties in the VP's office, She is now 15 and she acknowledged that gropper sniffer touched her inappropriately.joe Biden who said children loved to feel his hairy legs.
Wrt Trump saying he grabs them by the pussy, you are relying on media interpretation. He clearly meant that once a man is rich and famous ,these A-list types would let you grab their whatever. I've beaten this dog here. Remember that lady going to Tysons room in the morning after he had spent the whole night flirting and making it known he wanted to lay someone.. that's for another day.Or those groupies who appear in music videos. Yes that type looking for fame. In the video of the debate, Trump clearly explained. Listen to girls talk when they are alone an you will be shocked.
You are proving yourself to be a liar an an apologetic for scumbags protected by media an DOJ.
Now, I think you are misusing the term "defamatory". Defamation is a legal term that refers to a false statement that harms someone's reputation. It has nothing to do with being dishonest or denying something. Also, I suspect you are making a false analogy between the cases of people who were falsely accused of rape and the case of Michelle Obama. The former involves a serious criminal charge that requires evidence and due process, while the latter involves a baseless and absurd conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. Finally, you are ignoring the fact that Michelle Obama is not suing anyone for defamation, but for invasion of privacy. She is entitled to protect her personal information and identity from unauthorized and malicious use by anyone, especially by someone who is spreading lies and hate about her. She is not asking for 88 million dollars because she was called a man, but because her personal data was stolen and used without her consent. That is a clear violation of her rights and dignity, and she deserves justice and compensation.
So, to answer your question, no, I am not saying that every time someone denies something they should pay 88 million dollars. I am saying that every time someone steals and misuses someone else's personal data, they should pay the price. And every time someone makes a false and offensive claim about someone else, they should be challenged and exposed. And every time someone tries to evade the facts and logic of a debate, they should be called out and ridiculed. Like the child basilico.
what did Trump say that harmed her reputation? what info did he steal? let's start from here. i am getting set to go to the office but I will reply when I can. Dishonesty has something to do with defamation. in other to defame someone, you have to be dishonest abi? exercising your First Amendment right by saying you did not do something you are accused of is not defamatory. she Jury did not find him guilty of rape so how is it defamatory for him to deny he raped her. unless there are things i don't know about this case that you will be kind enough to tell me. i don't think you know what you are saying. so answer the questions up there and tell me what i don't know.
Tax returns revealed that Hoffman and this organization was the major financial backer of E. Jean Carroll, a columnist who alleged that former President Donald Trump sexually assaulted her.
Liar liar. What is Hoffman saying in the video I linked to. Check my other update above on Billary the scorned wife.
Sorry child, but tax returns did not reveal that Hoffman and the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund were the major financial backers of E. Jean Carroll. They only showed that Hoffman's nonprofit, American Future Republic, gave a grant to the fund, which is one of the many donors who have contributed to the fund. The fund does not pay for Carroll's lawsuit, it only covers some of the expenses and fees that her lawyers incur while representing her pro bono. Carroll is not a beneficiary of the fund, she is a client of Roberta Kaplan, who is one of the many lawyers who have volunteered to take cases through the fund.
As for the video you linked to, it is a clip from an interview that Hoffman did with CNN in 2019, where he talks about his views on democracy, technology, and philanthropy. I've just skimmed through it and unless you can point it out for me, I don't see where he mentions Carroll or Trump at all, so I don't see how it is relevant to this debate. If you are trying to imply that Hoffman is somehow biased or dishonest, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Hoffman is a well-known and respected entrepreneur, investor, and philanthropist, who has supported various causes and organizations that promote social justice, civic engagement, and innovation. He is not a partisan hack or a puppet master, he is a good guy who cares about the future of this country and the world.
So, before you accuse me or anyone else of lying, maybe you should check your facts and sources. And maybe you should also focus on the real issue here, which is whether Trump raped Carroll in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s, as she alleges in her book and her lawsuit. That is what the April 25 trial will be all about, not about who is funding whom or what Hoffman is saying in some random video. I hope you are ready to face the music, because I suspect it will be a long day for Trump and his supporters.
what did Trump say that harmed her reputation? what info did he steal? let's start from here. i am getting set to go to the office but I will reply when I can. Dishonesty has something to do with defamation. in other to defame someone, you have to be dishonest abi? exercising your First Amendment right by saying you did not do something you are accused of is not defamatory. she Jury did not find him guilty of rape so how is it defamatory for him to deny he raped her. unless there are things i don't know about this case that you will be kind enough to tell me. i don't think you know what you are saying. so answer the questions up there and tell me what i don't know.
It's like an example I gave earlier. A lot of people in prison always claim they are innocent. The new normal is that once a jury finds you guilty of any charge, you accept the 'convict' status until a higher court acquits you .Lest you be sued for defamation.
what did Trump say that harmed her reputation? what info did he steal? let's start from here. i am getting set to go to the office but I will reply when I can. Dishonesty has something to do with defamation. in other to defame someone, you have to be dishonest abi? exercising your First Amendment right by saying you did not do something you are accused of is not defamatory. she Jury did not find him guilty of rape so how is it defamatory for him to deny he raped her. unless there are things i don't know about this case that you will be kind enough to tell me. i don't think you know what you are saying. so answer the questions up there and tell me what i don't know.
Actually, Trump did not just say that he did not do something he was accused of. He called E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of raping her in the 1990s, 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 false and malicious statements that harmed her reputation and dignity, and that is why the jury found him guilty of defamation and ordered him to pay over $83 million in damages. This is not a matter of exercising his First Amendment right, but of abusing his power and influence to silence and discredit a victim of sexual violence.
Secondly, Trump did not just steal and misuse Michelle Obama's personal data. He also spread a baseless and absurd conspiracy theory that she is a transgender woman who was born as Michael Obama. He also did this to undermine Michelle Obama's achievements and contributions as a former first lady, a best-selling author, and a role model for millions of people. This is not a harmless joke, but a deliberate and hateful attack on her identity and privacy.
Thirdly, you are not making any sense when you say that dishonesty has something to do with defamation. Dishonesty is a moral flaw, while defamation is a legal wrong. You can be dishonest without defaming someone, and you can defame someone without being dishonest. For example, if you lie to your boss about why you are late for work, you are being dishonest, but you are not defaming anyone. On the other hand, if you tell the truth about someone's criminal record, you are not being dishonest, but you may be defaming them if you do it without a valid reason or consent. The point is, defamation is not about whether you are telling the truth or lying, but about whether you are harming someone's reputation or not.
So, to answer your questions (again), yes, Trump said and did things that harmed Michelle Obama's reputation and violated her privacy. Yes, he stole and misused her personal data, along with the data of many other people who sued him for the same reason.
Now, I think you are misusing the term "defamatory". Defamation is a legal term that refers to a false statement that harms someone's reputation. It has nothing to do with being dishonest or denying something. Also, I suspect you are making a false analogy between the cases of people who were falsely accused of rape and the case of Michelle Obama. The former involves a serious criminal charge that requires evidence and due process, while the latter involves a baseless and absurd conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. Finally, you are ignoring the fact that Michelle Obama is not suing anyone for defamation, but for invasion of privacy. She is entitled to protect her personal information and identity from unauthorized and malicious use by anyone, especially by someone who is spreading lies and hate about her. She is not asking for 88 million dollars because she was called a man, but because her personal data was stolen and used without her consent. That is a clear violation of her rights and dignity, and she deserves justice and compensation.
So, to answer your question, no, I am not saying that every time someone denies something they should pay 88 million dollars. I am saying that every time someone steals and misuses someone else's personal data, they should pay the price. And every time someone makes a false and offensive claim about someone else, they should be challenged and exposed. And every time someone tries to evade the facts and logic of a debate, they should be called out and ridiculed. Like the child basilico.
Asked you what Trump said that defamed her you didn't answer.
What are the info he stole. You type long things without saying anything. So let's be specific. What are the things trump did that was defamatory, what info did he steal from her? Again, I am asking
Actually, Trump did not just say that he did not do something he was accused of. He called E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of raping her in the 1990s, 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 false and malicious statements that harmed her reputation and dignity, and that is why the jury found him guilty of defamation and ordered him to pay over $83 million in damages. This is not a matter of exercising his First Amendment right, but of abusing his power and influence to silence and discredit a victim of sexual violence.
Secondly, Trump did not just steal and misuse Michelle Obama's personal data. He also spread a baseless and absurd conspiracy theory that she is a transgender woman who was born as Michael Obama. He also did this to undermine Michelle Obama's achievements and contributions as a former first lady, a best-selling author, and a role model for millions of people. This is not a harmless joke, but a deliberate and hateful attack on her identity and privacy.
Thirdly, you are not making any sense when you say that dishonesty has something to do with defamation. Dishonesty is a moral flaw, while defamation is a legal wrong. You can be dishonest without defaming someone, and you can defame someone without being dishonest. For example, if you lie to your boss about why you are late for work, you are being dishonest, but you are not defaming anyone. On the other hand, if you tell the truth about someone's criminal record, you are not being dishonest, but you may be defaming them if you do it without a valid reason or consent. The point is, defamation is not about whether you are telling the truth or lying, but about whether you are harming someone's reputation or not.
So, to answer your questions (again), yes, Trump said and did things that harmed Michelle Obama's reputation and violated her privacy. Yes, he stole and misused her personal data, along with the data of many other people who sued him for the same reason.
Have a nice day at work 🥰.
Trump is not paying 88 million to Michelle Obama. What are you talking about?
You are hopelessly biased. With Trump anything said of him.is True but with the democrats, there has to be irrefutable proof. Bill has abused women. Hillary talked ill of them. You are like writing a love letter defending these Biden and Clinton.And Biden pinched a young 7-8 yr girls titties in the VP's office, She is now 15 and she acknowledged that gropper sniffer touched her inappropriately.joe Biden who said children loved to feel his hairy legs.
Wrt Trump saying he grabs them by the pussy, you are relying on media interpretation. He clearly meant that once a man is rich and famous ,these A-list types would let you grab their whatever. I've beaten this dog here. Remember that lady going to Tysons room in the morning after he had spent the whole night flirting and making it known he wanted to lay someone.. that's for another day.Or those groupies who appear in music videos. Yes that type looking for fame. In the video of the debate, Trump clearly explained. Listen to girls talk when they are alone an you will be shocked.
You are proving yourself to be a liar an an apologetic for scumbags protected by media an DOJ.
I'm sorry to see that you are getting so emotional about the sexual misconduct allegations against Trump, but you have to realize that I'm doing you a big favor by offering you a bitter reality check concerning these lies you keep peddling.
Let me try to clear some things up for you. I am simply looking at the facts and the evidence, which you seem to ignore or dismiss. I am not writing a love letter to Biden or Clinton, nor am I defending them blindly. I am acknowledging that they have faced accusations of inappropriate behavior, which they have denied or apologized for, and that there is no conclusive proof that they committed any sex crimes. And you are wrong to say that with Trump anything said of him is true, but with the Democrats there has to be irrefutable proof. That is a double standard that you are applying, not me. Trump has been accused of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment by at least 25 women since the 1970s. He has also bragged on tape about grabbing women by the pussy without their consent and he did not provided any credible evidence to refute these allegations, nor has he apologized for them. He has instead resorted to calling his accusers liars, threatened to sue them, and attacked their appearance and credibility.
The claims you are making about Biden and Clinton are unsubstantiated. You say that Biden pinched a young girl's titties in the VP's office, but there is no evidence or witness to support that. The only source for that claim is a conspiracy theory website that has been debunked by fact-checkers. You also say that Biden said children loved to feel his hairy legs, but that is a distorted and out-of-context quote from a 2017 speech he gave about his relationship with the black community. He was not talking about anything sexual or inappropriate, but about how he learned to respect and understand different cultures and backgrounds. You also say that Bill abused women and Hillary talked ill of them, but that is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of their history.
(1) Bill admitted to having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, which was wrong and immoral, but not a sex crime.
(2) He also faced allegations of sexual harassment and assault from several women, which he denied or settled out of court. He was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath about his affair, but acquitted by the Senate.
(3) Hillary supported her husband during the scandal, but also criticized his behavior and expressed her pain and anger. She did not talk ill of his accusers, but rather questioned their motives and credibility, which is a common and understandable reaction for a spouse in such a situation.
I'm still confused as to why you decided to bring up Mike Tyson and music video groupies. Do you know what a red herring fallacy is? Honest question: why do you find it so difficult to stay on topic?
Your suggestion that women who go to a man's room or appear in a video are consenting to sexual advances, is a dangerous and sexist assumption. Consent is not implied by location or appearance, but by explicit and enthusiastic agreement. No means no, regardless of the circumstances.
I'm sorry to see that you are getting so emotional about the sexual misconduct allegations against Trump, but you have to realize that I'm doing you a big favor by offering you a bitter reality check concerning these lies you keep peddling.
Let me try to clear some things up for you. I am simply looking at the facts and the evidence, which you seem to ignore or dismiss. I am not writing a love letter to Biden or Clinton, nor am I defending them blindly. I am acknowledging that they have faced accusations of inappropriate behavior, which they have denied or apologized for, and that there is no conclusive proof that they committed any sex crimes. And you are wrong to say that with Trump anything said of him is true, but with the Democrats there has to be irrefutable proof. That is a double standard that you are applying, not me. Trump has been accused of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment by at least 25 women since the 1970s. He has also bragged on tape about grabbing women by the pussy without their consent and he did not provided any credible evidence to refute these allegations, nor has he apologized for them. He has instead resorted to calling his accusers liars, threatened to sue them, and attacked their appearance and credibility.
The claims you are making about Biden and Clinton are unsubstantiated. You say that Biden pinched a young girl's titties in the VP's office, but there is no evidence or witness to support that. The only source for that claim is a conspiracy theory website that has been debunked by fact-checkers. You also say that Biden said children loved to feel his hairy legs, but that is a distorted and out-of-context quote from a 2017 speech he gave about his relationship with the black community. He was not talking about anything sexual or inappropriate, but about how he learned to respect and understand different cultures and backgrounds. You also say that Bill abused women and Hillary talked ill of them, but that is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of their history.
(1) Bill admitted to having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, which was wrong and immoral, but not a sex crime.
(2) He also faced allegations of sexual harassment and assault from several women, which he denied or settled out of court. He was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath about his affair, but acquitted by the Senate.
(3) Hillary supported her husband during the scandal, but also criticized his behavior and expressed her pain and anger. She did not talk ill of his accusers, but rather questioned their motives and credibility, which is a common and understandable reaction for a spouse in such a situation.
I'm still confused as to why you decided to bring up Mike Tyson and music video groupies. Do you know what a red herring fallacy is? Honest question: why do you find it so difficult to stay on topic?
Your suggestion that women who go to a man's room or appear in a video are consenting to sexual advances, is a dangerous and sexist assumption. Consent is not implied by location or appearance, but by explicit and enthusiastic agreement. No means no, regardless of the circumstances.
Yet when trump denied accusations against him for something the accuser was unable to prove he has to pay 88million. Weldon
Sorry child, but tax returns did not reveal that Hoffman and the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund were the major financial backers of E. Jean Carroll. They only showed that Hoffman's nonprofit, American Future Republic, gave a grant to the fund, which is one of the many donors who have contributed to the fund. The fund does not pay for Carroll's lawsuit, it only covers some of the expenses and fees that her lawyers incur while representing her pro bono. Carroll is not a beneficiary of the fund, she is a client of Roberta Kaplan, who is one of the many lawyers who have volunteered to take cases through the fund.
As for the video you linked to, it is a clip from an interview that Hoffman did with CNN in 2019, where he talks about his views on democracy, technology, and philanthropy. I've just skimmed through it and unless you can point it out for me, I don't see where he mentions Carroll or Trump at all, so I don't see how it is relevant to this debate. If you are trying to imply that Hoffman is somehow biased or dishonest, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Hoffman is a well-known and respected entrepreneur, investor, and philanthropist, who has supported various causes and organizations that promote social justice, civic engagement, and innovation. He is not a partisan hack or a puppet master, he is a good guy who cares about the future of this country and the world.
So, before you accuse me or anyone else of lying, maybe you should check your facts and sources. And maybe you should also focus on the real issue here, which is whether Trump raped Carroll in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s, as she alleges in her book and her lawsuit. That is what the April 25 trial will be all about, not about who is funding whom or what Hoffman is saying in some random video. I hope you are ready to face the music, because I suspect it will be a long day for Trump and his supporters.
Mr Molesters spokesperson. Here is a new one. Reid Hoffman wasi a buddy of Epstein He spent $2m on Joe Biden writein efforts in New Hampshire the other day. He is a major donor to democrats. Trump if he wins might have the Epstein cases scrutinized. This judge has handled a previous Epstein case, with more evidence than this sham Caroll case.
He WAS ALSO the judge for the Virginia Giuffre v. Prince Andrew case that he DISMISSED with no jury trial!! That’s right… Andrew was accused of raping a 17 year old over and over and it goes away with a “settlement” But Trump gets slapped with an outlandish amount for saying the CRAZY BlTCH is lying!! Oh ya, and he was appointed by Bill Clinton You seriously can’t make this SHlT up!!!,’ said Salty Goat.
