₦airaland Forum

Dapcity007:
OK
But its not a bad thing to be uneducated
Jobs,Gate,Dell,zukerburg are all uneducated

uneducated without exposure isn't the same thing as undereducated with exposure

Timiofak:
Immigrants are costing amricans healthcare how !!!

Lmao, china plague

Why wont your argue it , argue it with me. Since he cant provide healthcare for the mother and child, why should he be the one to determine if she as the child ?

Why not, do you know how much civil lawsuits police settle every year because of the brutality per state ? Hundreds of millions

What does a local county sheriff need armour tanks for ?

I told him already, his understanding is too simplistic for this thread, not worth engaging

Dapcity007:
Immigrants Are costing AmericAns their current health care
Economy was affected by China plague not his fault
I won't argue abortion
Democrats are slashing police funding in some places

Obviously your understanding of things is too simple and boils down to misinformation and the slogans or catch phrases from the rights propaganda factory, so no need to engage you any further

Dapcity007:
Are u aware he has strong evidence of voters fraud , and voters law manipulation ,its only Democratic state judges that are dismissing his cases, appeal circuits are currently hearing out his cases
You can check it out on wikipedia,

Yeah, if it is on Wikipedia it must be true

I know I'm biased towards trump, but I also know some of his cases that lack merit which have been dismissed, but the majority of his cases are still playing out up to supreme court level, even democrats have cases against trump

Thank you for having the decency to admit your bias first of all, secondly, not some, almost all of his cases lack merit, I challenge you to name five that do, and majority of his cases aren't playing out, they're fizzling out and won't make it to the supreme court because I believe new evidence is inadmissible and as such, if the currently admissible evidence could not hold water in the lower courts, they wouldn't hold water in the higher courts too

busky007:
Umudike is actually a town in Abia state. A big university town as that is the home of Michael Okpara University of Agriculture. If their is one thing you people are right about them it will be that it is an IPOB hotzone and full of cultist.

now that you've mentioned the university, I realise that I have driven through and back a couple of times in recent years

OgaTheTop2:
It will NEVER work in Nigeria. Make we just dey buy gun in US for protections. Nigerians would use every right to guns for personal vendetta

you talk anyhow you see anyhow we are just too damn aggressive for comfort

Amujale:
You're correct, that is all that really concerns me.

The betterment of my brother and sisters that are out there in the struggle, that's all that ever concerns me.

The struggle being the fight against discrimination and bigotry.

well, I can roll with this

Thattallgirl:
My love for lions ehn I'd really love to own a lion cub one day

cub sef dey grow oh

Amujale:
Dominion is merely a scape goat, perhaps they arent and they are innocent, perhaps they are guilty, in that situation.

Either way, I don't see themselves or any one else telling on camera that they was responsible for what the presenter was asking.

There are no good methods of discrimination.

All the methods of discrimination are abberant.

but by this explanation, it is factually impossible to rig electronic voting without getting caught as the results won't tally with the printed votes copies submitted by the voters to the collating officers or can you come up with any possible scenario in which that would be possible?

ono:
Yet still, I believe Trump will win this election.

oga we understand don't stop crying, personally, I appreciate your tears

LordReed:
Dominion spokesperson on Fox News


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFK0DgZ9BgA

Oga Amujale, hope this interests you as a self proclaimed neutral

Bluebyrd:
I also ask you again, are you logically challenged? Yes or no? If after two years of a special counsel investigation with unlimited resources at his disposal in addition to the FBI investigation on the same issue, they couldn't turn up a single shred of evidence of collusion with Russia to steal the elections then should you still be flogging that dead horse or are you without an atom of a doubt logically challenged?

the horse definitely isn't dead as you and trump will find out after he is booted out of office and loses the protection of his office, Mueller wouldn't have manufactured collusion out of thin air if it didn't exist even if he was witch hunting trump like you claimed so an innocent trump never had any reason to be on the defensive and as such no bloody logical reason to obstruct the investigations! After Mueller's report is unredacted we will know not if there was collusion but how deep the collusion was so on that day I pray I care enough to remember you and call you out so I can repeat my question again, are you logically challenged?

Amujale:
Firstly, thank you for assuming the position of an extremist.

My contribution was clearly addressed to extremist and you took it upon yourself to respond.


Stop jumping on the bandwagon leading to nowhere, at least take the time to read into what it is that was being said.

Now kindly point to me where I equated anything with any other things?

That's how a neutral summation of the current situation appears as we text.

okay, I will be parsing some recent comments of yours then, at the end, you tell me how you can call yourself neutral with your partisan opinions and takes from partisan sources

Amujale:
You aren't making any sense.

What is your conclusion.

Did Rudy file lawsuits alleging election malpractices?

Any one who watch his press conference will know that Rudy Giuliano himself said that was what he is partaking.

I don't quite understand what you are getting at here.

what i am getting at is that a true neutral will judge the outcomes of the suits filed and make his/her assessment from that, not from the fact that a suit was filed or an allegation was made as doing that is pretty basic! That should have no influence on the analysis of a true neutral! Gettit?

Amujale:
Rudy Giuliani broke it down meticulously.

Go and search for the video on the internet. He gave a press conference.

Your take from Rudy Guliani's conference is interesting, you seem to have given him the benefit of the doubt that there is substance in his claims and as such, there is a genuine case for systemic fraud, am i misquoting you here?
Key fact here is, you're not playing the role of neutral analyst, you're playing the role of judge and jury and in Guliani's hearing or presentation, you accept his argument, funny thing is actual judges dismissed them with prejudice! What then does that make you? Are you still pretending to be neutral?

Amujale:
I leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

I'm guessing you are of the opinion that the US election that had just gone, was the most honest election in history. That was the statement of one public official that soon after got fired by President Trump.

According to one of the major American political parties, the election that had just gone is one of the most corrupt elections in their history, yet you ask for proof.

Not according to one of the major American party's, because if they do that that will bring scrutiny on the senate and congress seats they won in the same election so no, according to the trump campaign organisation which lost the elections, this was one of the most corrupt elections in American history (except in places they won of course ) and their motivation for saying that is quite obvious to actual neutrals, if you're still pretending to be one of course see this right here, is why you should stop pretending to be neutral, if the DHS responsible for proofing the election from interference and headed by a trump appointee says it is the most secure election in history so far, we should disregard that assessment in favour of the assessment of the trump campaign organisation which lost the elections and that is what you base your claim to neutrality on.

What more proof are you to need?

The alleged electronic systems that have an inbuilt ability to misrepresent one's vote.

Yes, we need proof, you being an acclaimed neutral (pun intended) should be seeking the truth above us all, after all, you said it was "alleged" didn't you?

The old American government election systems weren't perfect, it always had its fairly somewhat bigotry motivated inbuilt systems, however, recently the company that gained the contract to supply the American government added new features that makes that system flawed.

And when you are regurgitating q-annon talking points without backing them with proof we are supposed to take your neutrality serious right?
So, according to you, the democrats tried to pass electoral reforms to prevent this but were blocked by Mitch McConnell's senate, then the trump admin in furtherance awarded a contract to a company that added new features to the system to make it easier to hack and rig right? So who then does your logic tell you was planning to hack the system?

There are mathematical analysis done by various professionals in all different works of life and are attracted to mathematics and statistics, and when they analyse the data from entire process, they are left in no doubt that there are inexplicable patterns and anomalies that can only be tested and or contested in a court of law.

Were is your citation from these mathematics and statistics experts or are we supposed to take only your word for it? So much for being a neutral and unbiased analyst! so I guess, according to you, the DHS lied right?

The US election system revolves around two major parties, one of them says there's election malpractice and has taking it to the courts and your here asking for proof.

the Republican party as a body didn't say there's election malpractice as that is a given in any election, the trump campaign alleges that there is election fraud! I hope you know the difference between malpractice and fraud and between the trump campaign and the Republican party?
Even if the Republican party says there is fraud, does that then make the statement incontrovertible evidence of the existence of fraud and not just a mere allegation? are you still pretending to be neutral or are you going to admit that you are another logic challenged umudike republican?

Bluebyrd:
I neither espouse nor disavow them, I reported on what they said and now I am waiting for them to present the evidence they have before making my conclusions.

you didn't report them, you were making an assumption that the rest of us weren't aware and you were enlightening us and you were wrong, we were aware and didn't rate it worth anything except to laugh about, but you gave it "the benefit of the doubt" which shouldn't and doesn't exist so yes you espoused it and when I called you out on your espousal foreshadowing the debunking that was to come there was no response from you! So don't come and tell us after the fact today that you were just reporting you espoused batshit crazy phony conspiracy theories because for all your being clever by half, you are just another Sydney Powell or one in the making

Bluebyrd:
You can't put words in my mouth and force me to accept the them as mine. if I come here to say I saw someone addressing the press and he or she said he saw aliens invading the earth, it doesn't make it my opinion. I even made it clear on the day I posted those reports that it's up to them to present their evidence for what they were saying before the courts. If you guys were not smart enough to know the difference between reporting what someone else said and endorsing them then you have yourself to blame for that and I don't owe you any apologies for that.

I am sorry, you seem to be confusing me for yourself in terms of smartness, I asked you then, since you brought that to our attention trying to pretend the rest of us didn't see it and dismiss it as the ravings of lunatics which it was, did you espouse those views or did you espouse the opposing views of the majority of us here even other conservative leaning contributors? The allegations were so phony and loony that it wasn't worth mentioning except for comedy value but you didn't mention it in those terms, you mentioned it the terms that as phony as it was, you were giving it the benefit of the doubt because no matter how outlandish an accusation was, you didn't put it past we "the radical left" to orchestrate! Even in the world of political opposition, some common sense which seems to actually be uncommon in the true sense of things must be allowed to prevail but it seems the minimum requirement of being a trumpette is to shelve common sense and throw logic out of the window! As far as those phony accusations were concerned, there was never a fence or middle ground or benefit of the doubt, there was either the outright scorn and ridicule from those who applied logic to it like us and the desperation to hold on to anything or grasping at straws from the logically deficient q-annon believing trumpettes like you, trying to insulate yourself from that foolishness in terms of those allegations weren't yours to prove doesn't fly in this case, you only further detach yourself from logic and reality in the eyes of everyone else, well, almost everyone else, not appear smart or savvy as you might be thinking you are! Because even back then the allegations were so phony i called you out immediately and told you to take a stand! That was logic speaking and today logic has been validated because it would seem even the trump campaign had a threshold for batshit crazy

Bluebyrd:
Let me also ask you, are you logically challenged? You are making a very absurd comparison of two scenarios that are not even remotely the same. If you see a group of people who are desperately trying to pin something on you to the extent that the used a fake dossier manufactured by your political opponent to start harrasing your campaign staff even when they already knew the dossier was fake, They went and lied to the Fisa Court, presented fake documents and used it to get a warrant to interrogate your campaign staff and try to force them to testify against you on something they know that didn't happen, will you still have confidence in the impartiality of such a group of people? People that were caught changing witnesses statements to change their meaning to something incriminating and discussing how to wear a recorder and get Trump to say something incriminating on tape. All these things are on record in declassified materials or confessed to by the FBI themselves so Trump was very right to distrust such a group of people. Again, that is in no way any evidence of collusion with Russia. You are just beating about the bush because you know the only truth here is that after all the relentless investigations, not a single shred of evidence was found about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia.

are you logically challenged? Yes or no? An innocent person fears no accusations or witch hunting as you put it because even with extreme bias you can't manufacture crimes that don't exist as the Republican senate's Benghazi trials of Hillary has shown or should Obama have screamed executive privilege and witch hunting too? Committee after committee, time after time she submitted herself for scrutiny, if trump and his campaign did absolutely no wrong, no amount of witch hunting will uncover any wrongdoing especially since you want us to believe he was innocent, that the investigations cut corners in going after his organisation is typical of American law enforcement in general from the county police departments and precincts to the much vaulted FBI, interesting that you defend and make excuses for the police when the victims are minorities and/or poor and when trump is the target here you scream procedural irregularities should invalidate the whole investigations! so i ask you again, given trumps squeaky clean innocence which I believe is what you're trying to claim, should a few procedural irregularities which were revealed after the fact justify the trump administration's refusal to cooperate with the special counsel's investigations given their obvious innocence or are you without an atom of doubt logically challenged?

Bluebyrd:
Obstruction doesn't validate anything. Trump believed the Mueller probe was a witch hunt and therefore he didn't want his people cooperating with them. It's not any evidence of anything, the FBI have investigated this, A special counsel has also investigated it and all found no evidence of collusion.

I am accused of stealing stuff and stuffing my pockets with it and I deny, my accuser says I should empty my pocket for all to see and prove my innocence and him a liar, naturally I refuse because it is just a witch hunt and I have absolutely nothing to hide in my pockets seeing as I stole nothing and my bulging pockets are filled with rocks, me being the avid rock collector that i am and since the man accusing me is an employee of my dad, I slice my thumb across my throat while looking directly at him as a reminder of my great friendship with him, naturally, he backs down and doesn't accuse me as aggressively anymore while my dad is in one corner looking daggers at him so, naturally, all this is because i am definitely innocent right? I ask again, are you logically challenged?

Bluebyrd:
Who is my lawyer and why should I apologize to you for reporting what someone else said?

you can quote technicalities all day long but the bottom line is on this thread and on this particular topic we are all partisan, you posted what they said because you espouse their views not disavow them outright! If they had pulled through with their spurious claims you wouldn't have hesitated to rub it in our faces now that they turned out to be the tripe the rest of us knew it to be in the very beginning we, sorry i don't care to rub it in your face, just your admission that you were wrong once again is all that is required

Bluebyrd:
How many times will I make it clear that I was only reporting on what the Trump campaign lawyers said at their press conference and that it was up to them to bring the evidence they have to the courts? So if I say that a Mr X held a press conference today and this is what he said, does that mean that I am now endorsing everything Mr X said? Some of you were even asking me to provide evidence for the things Giuliani said as if I was the one that said it. The Sidney Powell in question has even been cut off by the Trump campaign lawyers as of now. I repeat again, the people that held the press conference are Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell, I only reported what they said and now it's up to them to provide their evidence before the courts.

do you espouse or disavow their views? That was the crux of the matter! I disavow their views and view them as dingbats! You obviously don't disavow them so do you espouse them or not? Mind you there is no fence to sit on or middle ground here

Bluebyrd:
I wasn't wrong when I called people like you morons because that's what you are. I am talking about you idiots going on and on claiming for the last four years that Trump colluded with Russia to rig and steal the 2016 elections. I am challenging you now to name a single person that has been convicted of colluding with Russia to steal the elections and you are telling me about obstruction of justice and an impeachment that had nothing to do with Russian collusion. You are the one that needs to shut your mouth and stop talking from you anus.

obstruction goes to show that the investigations into the claims was impeded by the presidency at every turn which circumstantially validates the claim that there was collusion in the first place, this is simple logic or are you logically challenged?

Bluebyrd:
For the liberal puppets at CNN to attack Trump for not "respecting norms" is the height of irony after the last four years. What "norms" did these clowns not trample on in the last four years in their desperation to damage Trump?

clown, your lawyer and her kraken have both proven to be duds! When are you apologising?

wirinet:
Watching the videos is a waste of time and bandwidth. It's just dialogues between fox and friends on what they think Comey said or did and the crimes they think Comey and Clinton commited. They forgot to add that Hillary went through 2 years of senate and FBI investigations and she was given a clean bill by Republican controlled senate.
Clinton had left government for 5 years and the Justice department is controlled by Trump's houseboy, Bill Bar while the Senate is still Republican controlled. So, why hasn't charges been filled against Hillary Clinton?

Now, watch out for Trump. The minute he looses immunity, you will see dozens of criminal charges brought against him by both the justice department and southern district of New York among others.

thanks for saving my data and sparing my mind the assault on its decency from deplorable talking heads

benalvino2:
Lol, they were literally saying Russia stole the election and Russia hacked it.

I am not talking about Facebook post.

Russia did attempt to hack some state utility services prior to the elections I think and failed, can't remember details but the Russia issue was mostly about collusion between Russia and the trump campaign, if the democrats really did believe hacking of electoral systems took place to aid trump they would have contested the results and they'd have been right to do so but seeing as Hillary didn't contest the results which is exactly what trump is doing now then your argument is moot

benalvino2:
It's not every court case that sets up a jury.
Secondly about the affidavit I qualified my claim. They are cross examined and what they say has to fit certain things.

According to you. If I was in a party and a murder occur. I can be a witness and what I said should fit what happened based on evidence from the investigation. So if someone who claim he was there also to counter my claim will get cross examined as well. And what he says has to fit the evidence.

"Based on evidence from the investigation" implies that we are not in disagreement, after the affidavit, evidence is still required meaning affidavits in and of their own aren't sufficient in proving a claim or allegation! So now that we are both agreed on that, what was the evidence from investigations so far? What was the verdict of the DHS, election observers, party poll watchers et al?

There is a reason court give warrant so that they can search for evidence and gather them. Accusations has been made why can't the court allow further investigation? Like check if their are signature that does not match. That is how Obama started his political journey to the white house.

He challenge signatures from his 4 opponents and he won because they found a lot of fake votes giving him the victory

what warrants do you think are required and who apart from the election officials and poll watchers who have already green lighted the current election will be qualified to be the acceptable umpires in this hypothetical scenario of yours? Because it seems the trump campaign is crying foul against everybody involved in the elections in places where he did not win! And what is this about signatures not matching? Is it meant to invalidate mail in votes? Are signatures always exact or are you grasping for straws? If a states election statutes does not include that, should a court still go ahead and make it a requirement?

benalvino2:
If you remember then you can quote me. We are typing on a forum that is stored in a database and the system or thread uses what we call pagination in programing to organise the post. So go and find where I Said I trusted her. I ask you to quote me. Since you remember quote me then

my apologies, it was some character bluebyrd or something like that, all you pro trumpets are blending into one singular nameless moniker in my head now

Amujale:
That's exactly what those extremist are claiming.

malpractices, in most cases singular and unconnected does not equate fraud which is coordinated, premeditated, systemic and widespread which is what the trump campaign is alleging allegations about which seems to weigh heavily in your analysis though you claim to be neutral! Do you get the difference?

Amujale:
Precisely, that's the point I was alluding when extremist attempt to misconstrue what was said.

It goes to show that as usual you appear to be up to date with what's going on in our world of today.

Its important to note that I never said that the allegations are facts as some American politics extremist tried to make out, but that it's a fact that the allegations are being made by one of the major parties.

stop obfuscating ogbeni! stopping at mere allegations as a counterbalance for the fact that biden is president elect is very very lazy thinking and analysis not even worthy of a primary school pupil! in Nigeria as we sometimes sing............after the raggae play the blues......, after the allegations come the what?................................ I'll leave you to fill that blank space unless your logic stops you at allegations alone

benalvino2:
I never said I trust anyone. Go and quote me. I always say they sound confident from their press briefing but we will see what they come up with.

yes and I remember asking you if you'd apologise if it all turns out to be nothing seeing as you espoused her views enough to be sharing them here, well, here we are

benalvino2:
You have to have a case first for cross examination to take place. How does the judges know they are lying? The whole system is just political which is bad. Judges act as activist these days instead of following the law.

Example, the obama judge in charge of Michael flynns case. The DOJ had brought proof that he was settle up and say they are dropping the case but the judge who is supposed to allow the case go refused. Now the judge has become the persecutor.

People with first hand knowledge are not required to produce video or audio to make their testimony valid. That's not how things work in the court.

is it up to the judges to determine truth? That is for the jury I think, and that is by extension based on evidence presented, first hand witness affidavits is not evidence because once the other side produces their own first hand witness with a differing account of events your witnessed evidence stops being incontrovertible and as such inadmissible and as the accuser the onus is on you to provide the incontrovertible proof to back your claims! Do you get it now? First hand witness is not incontrovertible when every single body involved in organising, counting, monitoring and proofing the election says it was free and fair

benalvino2:
Maybe you have been under the rock

meddling in this case means influencing by means of propaganda amongst others, not actual theft of votes or falsification of ballots which is what trump is alleging

benalvino2:
First you need to understand the difference between a hearsay and an oath.
Trump was impeached base on hearsay, people have gone to prison based on hearsay. There are people who robbed commit murder, and they brag about it in the pubs or prison... The court use hearsay in those aspect as an evidence. The hearsay has to fit with the evidence.

Oaths are taken by people with first hand knowledge and are willing to be punished if they are lying. I can see a man kill another man, but because I didn't have my phone to record it or prove it... All I have are my words.

What I am saying it's not every crime or fraud you can provide hard evidence for. This election has so many irregularities. If people are under aoth, people who work in the counting and canvassing process saying this and this happened under oath, why can't they rule that let's check for those things they say happen and see if it's there?

Why all the time wasting. Get investigators from both parties to check for those irregularities. The fake signatures etc. etc. Saying we recount or audit by same people who do the fraud is pointless. Thats just me.

these people under oath that you claim, have they been cross examined for bias? If yes, why are all these affidavits not standing up to scrutiny in the courts? People with first hand knowledge should be able to produce at the barest minimum pictorial or audio evidence in this digital age and not just mere word of mouth, at least the barest minimum of said evidence should have been unearthed in a manual recount in a Republican state like Georgia, so of what effing value has these purported affidavits been to the trump campaign so far?

LordReed:
LMFAO! Ah, I just wanted to give him benefit of the doubt that maybe he saw a lizard and mistook it for a kraken. Now I know it wasn't release the kraken but release the crackhead. LMFAO!