₦airaland Forum

IjeBos:
That's only part of it. Cyber Bullying only stops when that Bully is totally ignored and he doesn't reap whatever emotional rewards he gets from his attempted bullying. So, until people like Benvalino3 and Basilico who give him whatever emotional benefits his broken mind gets from his bullying stop stanning for him, he will keep coming back until the Mods become more proactive. If you want to Stop a Bully you have to stop those who enable him as well.

The bullies accomplices and cheerer ons should "stop stanning for him"?

That's wishing magas get sense and dump dump.

Beautifully done. Thanks.

IjeBos:
This is the stuff that weak little men do. Let's be honest. You are the definition of a bitch-ass (excuse my french).

We are on an internet discussion board. And you know you can't compete with me intellectually, cuz you're a mental midget. I hate to say that about people cus everyone's God's child. But you're dumb. Not average dumb. Dumb Dumb. Even sly though mentally disturbed is smarter than you.

And because your so dumb and because you know in that little coonish heart of yours you can't compete with me on any tangible level. You resort to lying and insults. And because you're DUMB, DUMB, the insults and lies are childish. You are literally trying to mock a woman who is a Domestic Violence survivor. That's very clever innit? "Oh my gosh, you got abused". WTF. You're so DUMB, you don't even understand, that says more about the TRASH person you are than anything else. And all because you are a bitch-ass who is sooo intellectually unequipped to have a discussion on a discussion board. Lol.

You're embarrassing yourself Mr. Scooby Snack Black.

si = stupid idiot.

1stGenAmerican:
Budatuum, Ijeboss, Obrigado, and a few others have never disrespected me or any other woman (or men) on this board therefore I will not be condoning any slander or attempts at bullying/harassing them. If a person can’t match wits and match the intelligent discourse they seek to have, that person isn’t worth acknowledgement.

Glad you notice what some already noticed.

IjeBos:
Holy Tennessee. The South stands up again. Back story, the Tennessee legislature had 3 members up for expulsion for protesting Child gun violence. They ended up expelling the only the 2 Black Lawmakers while the white lawmaker was not expelled.
Our resident cooners will tell us there is no racism in the US. Will probably say it was these black legislators fault for not knowing their place.
An aside: These politicians couldn't even help themselves. Their racism got in the way of their political sense. This was political malpractice.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/07/tennessee-republicans-racism-democrats-expelled

I love when there is reasons to not vote red.

basilico:
Fentanyl was not exonarated as the cause of death by the coroner.

“[Dr. Baker] said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death,” the memo said.

The Lynch mob would never accept this,

Is English such a problem for you that you ignore "if"?

Was Mr. Floyd found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors, bas?

If your answer is "yes, he was", then fentanyl must have definitely killed him dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors like Derrick Chauvin.

Obrigardo:
Seeing a lot of blank spaces @ budaatum, Ijebos, Wirinet, ramdeuter, basilico, benalvino3, Ono, 1stgenamerican

No matter the divide, we have we have built this place over the years with our time and resources and have made here the most engaging board when it come to American politics.

Once we see a user clearly violating the rules, let's all report it.

The Mods are aware but we need to be definitive about what we can allow here, no matter where we stand.

Love you guys

+1

IjeBos:
Comey's Hilary release tipped the scale against Hilary.
Trump's indictment tips the scale towards Trump in the primary.
I'm sure you can see the difference.

I bet, not for a while.

IjeBos:
Find me one prosecutor who has acted as unethically as Ken Starr or one Judge who acted as unethically as the panel of judges who put Kenn Starr there in the first place. So far everyone has done the least. From Mueller leaving it up to Bill Barr to manipulate the results instead of full throatily saying Trump committed obstruction of Justice, to Garland slow walking everything. In fact, he's gotten preferential treatment.

Not everything has to be equal.

I very agree, Ije. The unethical witchhunt of Clinton does not need to equal the preferential treatment witchhunt of dump and nor have I ever claimed it was or has been or is.

IjeBos:
I understand that. The issue is the argument that Trump is equally being witch hunted.

"Equally being witch hunted", Ijebos? I wonder if you don't mean witch hunted equally, as in 'witchhunted with the same intensity and magnitude of witchhunting'. If so, see above again, then ask some here who'd tell you dump is the most witchhunted ex-president in the whole of America's history and no one has ever been witchhunted like he is being nor likely ever after.

Of course they'd ignore the numerous witches and spells being detected and discovered all over dump mostly put their by himself instead of a dodgy Ken Starr, but me I'm not concerned with however they wish to see it, perhaps due to a spell in local government scrutiny, which is not so much witchhunting but 'keeping an eye on' - buda likes and wants and enjoys very much the witch hunting of those who would be presidents anywhere.

Squeaky clean should be job spec for presidents, is my view, just as licenses should be required to have sex. Unfortunately I must put up with ourselves, which is why we hunt witches. If we find witches we'd be saving us from bad spells, (pity we were not so diligent witchunting before-president dump). And if no witch is found c’est la vie it as the cost of being president or sue for compensation.

Now, a special mention of your "In fact, he's gotten preferential treatment.

For dump to get preferential treatment those willing to give him preferential treatment must be in charge of the preferential treatment giving system, which sounds basilicoloquially deepstatish to me, though not completely since Biden might not have replaced some dump nominees with his. Still, one thing I've learnt is the arm of the law is slow, perhaps that's due to my Nigeria experience where a simple land case can go on 20-30 years. Dump is not 4 years yet, so I am patient. I trust that if we can't Ken Starr dump, which Dems don't seem to so much do anyway, the American people can (witchhunt) dump at the ballot.

IjeBos:
Here is a nice article on the whole investigation. I even forgot how crazy it was. Republicans are still abusing the system now as they did then.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/18/ken-starr-lewinsky-scandal-00057381

I hope you note I accept Clinton was witch hunted and tricked into committing a crime. And yes, Repubs are still abusing the system, a time of note being Barr on Mueller's Report.

They've shown their dirty hands, and I am an advocate of birds learning to fly without perching if the hunter has learnt to shoot without missing.

IjeBos:
What do you consider a witch? His crime was lying about an affair that wasn't a crime. That witch didn't exist prior to the investigation. The lie wasn't material to the investigation and the lie wasn't used to cover up anything greater.

I think the justice system shouldn't be engaged in witch-hunting. Clinton's was a witch hunt led by a Independent Counsel who abused his abused who died in disgrace. Trump's investigations are not a witch-hunt.

It's not about viewing things differently, it's that your argument seems suspect at best.

Well, I just see it different. A smarter person would not have fallen into their witch hunting trap, especially considering the Fifth.

wirinet:
I am shocked you are conflating the Clinton and Trump impeachments. The grand jury had no business asking about Clinton's sex life. That's a very personal issue. Ken Starr and I would say the Grand jury abused their powers by asking Bill Clinton if he had sex with Monica Lewinski. Nothing concerns the whitewater investigation with who and how many people Clinton slept with. What do you expect a married man in a position of high office to say, when asked about his sex life? If it was a regular court, Clinton's lawyer would have screamed "objections, irrelevant to the case" to such irrelevant questions. I doubt any judge would have allowed that. They should have asked him how many times he fùcks Hillary Clinton in a month and if Hillary disagrees, then charge and impeach him for perjury.

Trump's impeachment crimes are on another level. He withheld Congress approved aids to Ukraine while trying to blackmail their president to announced am investigation of hunter Biden for political advantage and he planned to subvert the outcome of an election through threats of officials and violence in order to cling onto power.

You see it as defending, while I am stating the facts as I see them which are, Clinton, a lawyer, could have not lied and instead taken the fifth, instead he fell into their trap of asking if he had had sex with Lewinsky (a question they knew the answer to), and thereby committed a crime by lying - because, according to you, "a married man in a position of high office" - for which he was impeached. It is after all a crime to lie to grand jury and not a crime to have sex with Lewinsky.

IjeBos:
Clinton pled to perjury, but l'm not even sure what he said was perjury.

You are "not even sure what he said was perjury", while I take Clinton's plea for what he pled, is from where we argue I guess. And opinions of some matter nought to me on this issue, for I never saw where the sentence for Clinton's crime was overturned.

My opinion is, the witchhunting of Clinton caught a witch which he pled guilty to and was sentenced for and served without, to my knowledge, appealing, and I hope a witch is found in dump's hunting too, plus him being boneheaded so he don't plead.

And no, I'm not arguing with you, Ije. I'm just showing some might view things in ways you might disagree with, is all.

A40:
Truthfully speaking.

Very interesting season ahead. Looks like the Aston Martin is competitive this year. Can't believe Alonso is 3rd on the standings. Can he steal a race?

Depending on how often he beats the Mercs I'd bet Monaco. Verstappen though.

Obrigardo:
Hmmm criminal defendant trump has really destroyed what it means to be a Republican. What a narcissist, self loathing hateful bastard he is.

I wonder how Cucker tarlson is going to juggle this.

Heard cucker last night. Was waxing lyrical dump, so had to turn off go bed.

IjeBos:
No. I'm saying Prosecutors just can't bring you into a Grand Jury and ask you about random things until you lie and then try to indict you for that lie.

Sorry, but in America Prosecutors "just can"; they will, and they do. At consent of a judge though. so this qualifies as equal in the eyes of the American Law, far as I'm concerned.

IjeBos:
They brought Clinton into a Grand Jury and asked him whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky? What was the purpose of that? What was the purpose of asking him about his consensual sexual life? So Clinton subsequently "lied" about that and they impeached him for that. He was pressed on a matter that had no underlying crime. That is what I consider a witch hunt.

Lying to a grand jury is a crime, according to 18 USC Ch. 79: PERJURY. He could have not lied by pleading the fifth. He's after all a lawyer, which is why losing his licence was part punishment. And to serve as a deterrent to others, note.

IjeBos:
If they were investigating Clinton and found out he had raped a woman and asked him about that in a Grand Jury and he lied. I'd be with the prosecutors. This is closer to what is happening with Trump.

Gravity of crime you lie about does not apply in grand jury, you'd likely conclude happened in both cases, though dump's is more than just lying, being in New York too.

Is dump going lower than defund police?

Obrigardo:
Metoo was just the movement that exposed the sexual depravity of these powerful men which led investigators to dig deep and find the crimes.
Which led to the prosecution of the men.
Metoo was catching up to criminal defendant trump in the lead up to the 2016 election but he had to catch and kill the stories before they came up. He even had his personal bodyguard threaten "Jane doe", the 13 year old girl he raped with Epstein.
He's still trying to fend off the other women accusing him of sexual harrasment and now the famous E Jean Carrol case which was a product of metoo is about to wring him further.

So metoo was just the movement, and it exposed the crimes which eventually brought down these powerful deviants and it's still bringing others down till date.

Same as sexually deviant Clinton. They sound exactly like the same one person.

IjeBos:
You're obfuscating. Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury about having oral s*x with Monica Lewinsky. What underlying crime did he commit or was being investigated for in re: to having sex with Monika Lewinsky that he was being questioned about it in a Grand Jury? That seems to be the definition of a witch hunt.

You speak as if an underlying crime has to be related to subsequent crimes, which is not the case, or that I should be against witchhunting that catches the hunted, which I definitely am not, since in most cases, like Clinton's and hopefully dump's, witches have been found, and where none is found compensation is paid to the hunted.

Clinton's lie was discovered during the witchhunting of the underlying suspected crime in his financial dealings and investment in a failed land development called Whitewater.

And dump is in court because we witchhunted him because we suspect him of being a witch. We impeached him twice, do note.

IjeBos:
Me too is not a legal definition of a crime. The crimes are usually sexual assault, rape, etc.

And neither dump nor Clinton have been arraigned for sexual assault, rape, etc., yet is my point.

IjeBos:
No. My argument is simple. If there is no underlying crime, there should be no investigation. Clinton was impeached for lying about something that wasn't an underlying crime by an Independent Counsel(Kenn Starr) who most everyone agrees went too far and will live in infamy.

What was the underlying crime being Investigated for Clinton?

What was the underlying crime being investigated for Trump?

There were underlying crimes for both! Investigations began because of suspected underlying crimes which led to other crimes!

The underlying suspected crime for Clinton was financial dealings and investment in a failed land development called Whitewater. It led to overlying crime of lying under oath, which is the even greater crime that he got sanctioned for.

For dump I won't even bother, but he was impeached twice for what could be considered underlying crimes², though there's some that call he's a witch hunt too like you do for Clinton, but as far as I'm concerned good for the goose good for the gander. After all, it's not as if there's much witchhunting of criminally unsuspected former presidents.

IjeBos:
Me too is not a crime.

Finally! Metoo is not the crime for neither Clinton nor dump, in there current cases, one might be inclined to cautiously add, since metoo was a crime for Weinstein and Cosby almost , and can still catch up with them both.

IjeBos:
What am I conflating? Be precise.

You are both focusing on the sex when it suits you, and ignoring their actual crimes.

What was Clinton's crime?

What is dump's crime?

It's for you both.

IjeBos:
You're both siding this.

The Clinton situation started with a Whitewater investigation then led to an investigation about having sex with Lewinsky. What was the underlying crime that was being investigated with the Lewinsky sex?

Trump probe started with Russian collusion, a myriad of people were prosecuted with crimes arising from Russian collusion (Manfort, Russin Troll farm, etc etc. Then investigations all arose from that investigation). All of them had underlying crimes. The one's non tangential were known of before the Russian collusion investigation began. Trump was not a witch hunt.

Look at Bill Barr's Durham investigation. That is another classical right wing witch hunt.

"Started" and led to the discovery of crimes, so yes, I support it.

It's like starting with search of home of suspect of theft and a dead body is found. Suspect must be investigated for homicide, no?

raumdeuter:
So why has it taken this long for the long arms of the law and Metoo to get to him and convict him for his sex crimes which are well detailed
Why is it Trumps that was brought out

Funny how Ijebo and you are conflating issues.

Dump is not being prosecuted for sex crimes, and neither was, has, Clinton, yet.

IjeBos:
What did Monica Lewinsky's case even have to do with Paula Jones Arkansas case. Why would any Judge even allow that line of questioning in deposition?

Better still, what did a failed land development called Whitewater investigation have to do with a case about sex.

It was nearly nine years ago, in his first presidential campaign, that Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton were first buffeted by questions about their investment in a failed land development called Whitewater. Following a tortuous path across the years, the questions about financial dealings spawned an independent counsel and eventually transmuted into a case about sex -- specifically whether the president committed perjury and sought to obstruct justice in the Jones sexual harassment case.

IjeBos:
The Clinton investigation was an actual witch hunt. It went far upstream from what the initial investigation was about.

Same is being said about dump. But, if
while investigating a crime a witch leads to other crimes I'd expect the law to hunt as far upstream as the witch leads.

And since we hunted can't keep his diq in his pants Clinton guess we definitely will hunt dump, I'm delighted to be reminded.

IjeBos:
Not confused. Was referring to the subsequent potential indictment in Arkansas he settled.

I can do a gift article.

Thanks, it worked, but NYT not very good (me venting). Best they said was "professional conduct", but that's still not "for a consensual affair he had in another state".

raumdeuter, Clinton did not give up his Law license because of the numerous allegations of sexual assault against him. Most he gave up for sexual assault was a few thousand dollars.

Future #metoo debt must weigh heavily on him.

https://www.yourtango.com/2017307907/bill-clinton-sexual-assault-rape-allegations-list-women-timeline

IjeBos:
I'm even confused why a state prosecutor would have tried to indict Clinton for a consensual affair he had in another state.

Surprised NYT can't make that free by now!

You are confused. Clinton was not indicted "for a consensual affair he had in another state", he was indicted because he gave false testimony under oath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/01/20/in-a-deal-clinton-avoids-indictment/bb80cc4c-e72c-40c1-bb72-55b2b81c3065/

Complexity of labour in US.

https://wolfstreet.com/2023/04/04/this-is-still-the-most-astonishing-labor-market-job-openings-hiring-voluntary-quits-layoffs-discharges/

How much Qatar Airways from Murtala Mohammed to Heathrow and San Francisco?