raumdeuter:


Whatever makes people not have big families is subject to debate, Some think its women having a career, going to school getting a job which takes a part of their reproductive life, Some say its economy where the cost of raising kids are no longer the same

So how do you make people have kids at the rate they used to? If they dnt have kids, they have to get people (Immigrants) to cover the labor shortage

You are correct regarding the costs. My children's daycare expenses amount to around $5,000 per month. Looking ahead, as my children reach ages 12-14, we may need to consider private schools, which could range from $30,000 to $60,000 annually per child. Additionally, there are university costs to account for. It is challenging to discuss these issues without firsthand experience in the United States. Republicans often express support for certain policies without thoroughly examining the underlying issues. To the credit of the Democrats, they have attempted to address some of these structural challenges and barriers to future growth by proposing bills aimed at such things as assisting with childcare and other related issues. Meanwhile, Republicans tend to rely on Jingoistic and simplistic statements such as encouraging people to "just have more children," without addressing the financial realities. Where do I get the money to have more children?

MentalCase98:



Nobody believes you clown. You lied about Harvard so you can lie about everything.

You never mentioned anything about owning a 20 bedroom mansion until recently. Prior to that you always bragged about sleeping in hotels and your friends couch when you visit Nigeria.

We clowned you for it now you have invented a mansion. Just like you invented a fake white girlfriend in the UK a few days back 😂😂

Jesus, you are such a delusional clown. You must honesty have some kind of mental illness that gives you the ability to create and believe so many lies and imaginary friends 😂😂

what happened to your imaginary wife and kids that you spoke about as DaHighLife? You are cheating on your imaginary wife with your imaginary UK girlfriend 😂😂😅😂

I’m dead 😂

One more thing, learn to keep your posts succinct and well paragraphed if you expect people to read them. Didn’t they teach you that in your imaginary Harvard lectures? Stark illiterate.

Please stop manipulating quotes and including my name. It is akin to putting words in my mouth. I have reported it to the moderators.

Bad actors, such as this, who openly admit to actions that appear to violate most of the rules of this forum.
Cc: fergie001, Mynd44

bemeruca:

you don't know what phishing is. Just shut the fvck up. You claimed to be using a VPN which is a lie. Your IP last was consistent with your IP early this year.

people who live around Cambridge St. are usually idiots

bemeruca:


Do you think I am stupid? you don't use VPN anymore hahaha.
Your ex
only sleep on your friend's couch, only you sleep on your ex's couch
I didn't say you live at Cambridge Street, I said close to.
you know Court... is close to Cambridge Street right?

Five days later and still unable to deactivate.

Budaatum, there was this great article on Reddit discussing the process of going public, becoming a reliable source of information, and achieving this by eliminating bad actors from their site.

bemeruca:


You don't have to deactivate it. Just leave already.
Tribalism? Are guy who is trying to be anonymous online is crying about getting banned because of tribalism. The mods don't know who you are except for the fact that you are moody and petulant.

I decline to entertain nor engage in your convoluted logic that moderators were unable to discern the tribe of 'IjeBos,' neither by his username nor by the content of his contributions to a discussion board featuring a Politics section.

You've noticed I don't respond to you. You seem not to understand libel, defamation, or harassment, especially with your attempts to steal people's information. Maybe one day someone will teach you a lesson in those words, as you seem to be in a spiral.

By the amount of time you devote to this thread, you seem unemployed or underemployed. Your trollish behavior here means you're not a serious person. A conversation with you has 0 value to me, and I'm very selfish with my time.

I so pray you "seek help," as you've been prone to say, before you spiral further.

Cheerio

budaatum:


Don't be at a loss. We have found that Tinubu supporting mods would ban Obi supporters and vice versa. So yes, bias here is undeniable.
.

Indeed.
The fact that I can reasonably suspect that tribalism motivated moderators to ban somebody, combined with my inability to deactivate my account, more than validates my decision.

budaatum:


Et tu ijebosb? Guess you can't beat them so you joined them after all.

Mods don't come here and just ban anyone. You got played by someone reporting you, probably with a different monicker to the one they used to insult you.


Recently, my favourite game got a sequel that disappointed hugely, and the CEO said what I've posted below which got those of us who preordered for £80 all go up in arms since what we got wasn't what was promised. Refund policy on Steam is, no after 2 hours play, which wasn't enough for most to work out we bought a nothing game.

Thankfully, Paradox's money making strategy is to sell dlcs for it's released games, and many would tell you "rob me once, shame on you, rob me twice shame on me!"

No one is asking anyone to bend over for anyone, so stop with the gaslighting! No one is forced to converse with degenerates neither, and if you can't handle the shoddy way the mods run this thread, go to other threads or forums or find something better to do with your time.


Now this is you just being dishonest, and is the precise reason I call someone here a stupid idiot and ignore him.

My line for dishonesty is reached a lot quicker than the one I draw for the "n" word, so I'm going to leave you be so you can spend your time and resource doing what you enjoy here.

Just know that you have made me discuss benalvino more in the last couple of days than I've spent conversing with or about him in the past 12 months. Damn! You've made it so I can't even call him an si at the moment!

IjeBos takes a more high-minded and idealistic approach to this, but he's not necessarily wrong. The implementation of the moderation policy seems inconsistent and capricious. I'm at a loss to explain how a moderator would intervene in this thread solely to address one person's use of the word "idiot" while disregarding others' use of the same term and even harsher language, including tribal slurs. It's akin to (apologies for the offensive analogy) having your floor covered in excrement and being concerned by just one grain of rice that fell on it. Either IjeBos misrepresented the reason for his ban, or there's more to the story. There definitely seems to be some sort of bias here; the question is which type. Let's call a spade a spade.

What troubles me further is that Bemeruca is evidently Benalvino3 and continues to post here. It seems everyone, including the moderators, is aware of this. How is it possible that despite using an embedded link to potentially phish for users' IP addresses and admitting to such behavior in the past, along with other things like admitting to identifying users' web browsers and phone numbers, Bemeruca and all his other known aliases have not faced even a temporary vacation? It's deeply disturbing that the moderators appear either unable or unwilling to safeguard the safety of users on this platform.

If the moderators are unwilling to moderate effectively, it might be better to leave the platform unmoderated so that users are aware of the risks they're facing. However, I've seen enough. Best of luck.

Edit: To top it off, it appears Nairaland won't even allow me to deactivate my account

raumdeuter:


Trump was speaking about car manufacturing and tarriffs on automobiles, why the need to focus on bloodbath and claim he wants violence. Is it your understanding that Trump was threatening violence on the country?

Its similar to saying 'Highlife dont lose your head" and next Media goes with "Ramdeter wants to behead Highlife"

That is dishonesty and what's why people don't trust the media

A CNN staff admitted that much that their station did everything


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4R_p-qG0wQ

"We were creating stories we didn't know anything about, I think thats Propaganda. Look what we did we got Trump out, I am 100% going to say it that if it wasn't for CNN I dont think Trump would have got voted out"

"Fear sells"

I have provided you with a recording of one of his advisors saying he would advice him to express the same sentiment. You also acknowledge that fear is a powerful selling point. Yet, somehow, it's deemed a step too far to recognize that Trump intended to leverage the imagery of bloodbaths, as advised by his advisor, to instill fear as a selling point for his election?

It appears you prefer to isolate Trump from his words and who he has proven to be. That's a choice you're entitled to make, but is it an informed one?

raumdeuter:


This is youtube from Forbes. Forbes is not right wing and its not a place right wing people go to for content. If almost everyone on the comment section could read and understand but the media posting it cannot understand, Maybe there is an agenda to it. Like Trump likes to call them "Fake news"

Let me try it again.
If Trump posts a link to a link from a Forbes article on his Truth feed, his predominantly conservative supporters will click on the link and visit Forbes. These individuals aren't typically regular readers of Forbes. Consequently, it's these Trump supporters who are now commenting on the articles. I've observed this pattern repeatedly. This will sound elitist, but the giveaway is usually when there's an influx of illogical comments on a platform that generally attracts well-informed readers.

I'm not suggesting it occurred in this instance, but what I am emphasizing is not to place too much trust in comments as representative of a broader viewpoint.

raumdeuter:


On the video from the same Forbes youtube page

Go and read the comments and how almost everyone understood context except the leftist media

The whole cuntry now knows hw corrupt the establishment media is

Find out where that link to the article was posted, and you'll get your answer. I also read comments at times to gauge people's perceptions. However, sometimes the comments don't align with the article or the site. For example, if 90% of posts on an NPR article sound deranged, yet most people who read or listen to NPR don't write like that, it's generally because the article was linked by a right-wing site.

I'm not saying this was the case here; I'm saying I wouldn't use the posts as a litmus test. However, I can also see how people could interpret it differently. But given his statements in the past and who he generally is, I believe the media got it right. The Trump campaign could easily release the speech he read off the teleprompter or a video of what was on the teleprompter when he delivered those lines. I doubt they will, though, they know what he meant.

raumdeuter:


Roger Stone did not make the speech over the weekend, Trump made the speech over the weekend. This is the speech below. Listen to it and make your own conclusion


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hyuxp1m6CY

Now read the comments below the video and see why the American public distrust the media

Almost everyone in the comment section who listened understood what he was talking about except the liberal media

I did listen to it. I read it. Then I thought how I would diagram it. In fact, I initially thought the media misunderstood it until I listened to the entire clip. What I understood he said is that 'if I don't get elected, it will lead to a bloodbath', and when he said 'that'll be the least of it,' he was referring to the automotive industry. Meaning, the loss of auto plants would be the least of our concerns compared to the bloodbath that would ensue if I'm not elected.

He's clearly not very articulate and struggles to maintain focus. So, it was evidently an adlib. He even paused himself when he realized the implications of what he was saying, then proceeded. Moreover, he has been repeating the same narrative consistently. If I lose, the economy will collapse, states like Ohio or Pennsylvania won't exist, doom and gloom. This aligns with what he has been instructed to say by Roger Stone in 2016, as well as his actions on January 6th, and so forth.

You're arguing to interpret what he said without considering the context of his seven-year-long rhetoric and the advice given by his advisors. My question is why?

“No, we’re going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected,” Trump said. “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a blood bath for the country; that’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars. They’re building massive factories.”

raumdeuter:
Trump: If I get elected I will put tarrif on every Chinese car, if I don't get elected, it will be a bloodbath for the auto industry and the country

Liberal media: Trump promises bloodbath and violence if he loses

Except that is precisely what his political advisor, Roger Stone, suggested he say... and Roger Stone wasn't referring to automobiles.
I'll set aside the fact that it's clear what Roger Stone meant by 'bloodbath,' even though he attempted to soften it by saying 'not violence'

I think he has to put them on notice that their inauguration will be a rhetorical and what I mean civil disobedience, not violence, but it will be a bloodbath. The government will be completely shut down if they attempt to steal this.

Here is the clip, listen to it from the 40 second mark.
https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1769239890934333690

benalvino3:


You and yourself ijebos can chat about this. I am at this time busy. Cheerio 🤣

I assumed you wrote this because you intended to discuss it, as that is generally the purpose of posting on a forum.
It appears you may have had other intentions.
Cheerio.

budaatum:


As the judge said, "perception of impropriety". And not many would argue that perception does not exist. Magas here sure would perceive impropriety, and dump definitely will claim harm and prejudice even though this ruling does not help him achieve his goal, and that would become the show while the prosecution of dump is on the side.

Fanni should have known better. Her actions are letting dump off.

I believe the judge was mistaken. He sought a predetermined conclusion and manipulated the law to achieve it. What's more troubling to me is the fact that he had the ruling finalized last week but delayed its announcement for a week due to security concerns from death threats. This a familiar pattern, particularly in matters associated with Trump and his associates.

Just read the two cases he cites to support his argument that 'These cases indicate that a trial court can consider alternative solutions to cure the appearance of impropriety.' The cases are Billing vs State and Head vs State.

* Here is the relevant text from the ruling: Billings v. State
It discusses a conflict arising from a prosecutor previously representing a defendant. The two fact patterns aren't even remotely similar. Naturally, there may be a conflict when a prosecutor had previously represented a defendant.

4. In two separate enumerations of error, Billings asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant his alternative motion to dismiss or disqualify the district attorney's office from the prosecution of this case based upon a conflict of interest and an appearance of impropriety. Beth McFadyen, an assistant district attorney at the time of trial, represented Slappey while employed with the public defender's office and negotiated his guilty plea in December 1992. Billings was also represented by the public defender's office prior to the assignment of outside counsel based upon a conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest warranting the disqualification of a prosecuting attorney "has been held to arise where the prosecutor previously has represented the defendant with respect to the offense charged , or has consulted with the defendant in a professional capacity * 129 with regard thereto. . . ." Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 314 (369 SE2d 232) (1988). "It would clearly be improper for an attorney to change roles from the prosecution to the defense (and vice versa) in the same case." Frazier v. State, 257 Ga. 690, 693 (9) (362 SE2d 351) (1987). While we agree with Billings that an appearance of impropriety exists, other members of the office of the prosecuting attorney were not disqualified from the prosecution of this action. Although Directory Rule 5-105 (D) of the Georgia Code of Professional Responsibility provides that no partner or associate of the firm where an attorney is disqualified from the representation of a client may accept or continue employment with the client based upon a conflict of interest, this "imputed disqualification rule was not meant to encompass governmental law offices. . . . The salaried government employee does not have the financial interest in the success of departmental representation that is inherent in private practice." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Frazier v. State, supra at 694. Vicarious disqualification of a government department is not necessary or wise, and the individual lawyer should be screened from any direct or indirect participation in the matter, and discussion with colleagues concerning the case should be prohibited. Id. In the case at bar, McFadyen testified unequivocally that she did not participate directly or indirectly in the prosecution of this case since joining the office of the district attorney and did not consult with any person in the district attorney's office on this case. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Billings' motion to disqualify. See Pullen v. State, 208 Ga. App. 581 (3) (431 SE2d 696) (1993).

* And here is the relevant text from Head v. State:
In fact, they found that even when there was a close personal relationship between an investigator and the victim, there was no conflict of interest. They went further, stating, "we will not presume or find the appearance of such conflict solely because an investigator who works for the district attorney has a close personal relationship with the victim."

Head contends the investigator's close personal relationship with the victim disqualifies the district attorney and every prosecutor on his staff. It is possible for a *538 disqualifying conflict of interest to arise where a prosecutor has acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant's conviction. Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 314-315, 369 S.E.2d 232 (1988). For example, a prosecutor's close personal relationship with the victim in a case may create at least the appearance of a prosecution unfairly based on private interests rather than one properly based on vindication of public interests. Christopher Vaeth, Annotation, Disqualification or Recusal of Prosecuting Attorney Because of Relationship with Alleged Victim or Victim's Family, 12 ALR 5th 909 (2001). In that case, the individual prosecutor who has the conflict may be disqualified from participation in the case, but not all the other prosecutors who work with him. See Frazier v. State, 257 Ga. 690, 693-695, 362 S.E.2d 351 (1987).

There was no evidence of any conflict of interest or resulting misconduct in this case by the district attorney or any prosecutor on his staff, and we will not presume or find the appearance of such conflict solely because an investigator who works for the district attorney has a close personal relationship with the victim. [color=#990000][/color] Moreover, to insure that no conflict of interest or the appearance of one might develop, the district attorney took the prudent step of ordering the investigator to take no part in the investigation or prosecution of the case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the disqualification motion.
https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2002/a01a1628-0.html

This pattern is typical of most of the cases he cited. None are directly relevant and in fact most are contrary. Most, if not all, of the cases where an appearance of impropriety was found involved either a prosecutor previously representing a defendant or a situation where a District Attorney incentivized convictions by offering bonuses to prosecutors, effectively tying performance to payment, which created an incentive to convict people. In this case, Wade actually attempted to negotiate deals with the defendants to avoid trials. His incentive structure was time-based, so avoiding court proceedings cost him money.

The judge should have denied the motion based on all this precedent and then allowed Willis to remove Wade herself, as she likely would have. Twisting the law to arrive at a what you believe is fair conclusion is detrimental, especially when the foundation of this motion stemmed from malicious motives.

budaatum:


This precedent actually establishes that Fanni shouldn't have hired her Wade. And to be honest, on a case of this magnitude she should have known better and has gotten off lightly, though I'm certain the defence will milk this all the way to appeal somehow.

I am open to the possibility of being mistaken. Could you show a case with a similar precedent? I reviewed some of the cases cited. I did not see that precedent. In fact, one case I read mentioned that there wouldn't be an actual conflict if two married lawyers were to represent opposing sides — one as a prosecutor and the other as a defense attorney. If such a scenario did not prejudice the defendant, how could this situation?

While it was unseemly to hire him given their current relationship, the fact that he wasn't her first or second choice somewhat mitigates the severity of that.

But allow me to ask, could you tell me what potential harm or prejudice to the defendant might have occurred in a scenario where tow prosecutors are dating? I cannot think of any.

benalvino3:

legally, it is untenable to disqualify only one. Such a contradiction.

I'm confused by this language.
Which law/precedent mandates him to disqualify both?

I'll take it a step further here: the judge actually generated the "appearance of impropriety" by permitting the hearing to proceed as it did. As stated in the ruling, there was no prejudice to the Defendants, and given the inherently adversarial nature of the system, a relationship between prosecutors shouldn't inherently result in prejudice to defendants.

The judge in conducting this hearing in this way created the appearance of impropriety, and then he felt compelled to take action based on that appearance he himself created.

The judge has made a ruling. As I mentioned, the precedent established was that there needed to be an "actual conflict." The judge determined that there was no actual conflict. However, he took an unusual step and stated that there was an "appearance of impropriety." Consequently, he requested either Willis or Wade to leave. I believe Wade leaving was the correct course of action from the outset, but I fail to see how the judge legally arrived at that decision given that the law and legal precedents are quite clear. It appears that he aimed to appear fair rather than adhere to Georgia law.

Edit: In my honest opinion, I believe this ruling is ultimately flawed. The notion of an "appearance of impropriety" can be manipulated quite easily. Why does the appearance hold significance if there is no actual conflict or bias against the defendants? This ruling establishes a precedent that could allow future defendants to exploit the same loophole. In my view, it's a dangerous ruling.

I agree with the ultimate outcome, but I'm not fond of the judge contorting the laws to achieve it.

budaatum:


Republicans be careful, lol, when it seems they can not reason and think everyone forgets like they seem to have forgotten.

It's almost as if that year has disappeared from their memories.

raumdeuter:


Its left to the voters to decide and this concept of condescending non college educated is irritating. So because he is non college educated means he should die? or not feed himself

All citizens are equal Wole Soyinka is equal to a roadside mechanic, at the end of the day they both have concerns and need to feed their family

Its the belief that the political class are condescending and uncaring that has pushed many of them to Trump irredeemably and are willing to take the bullet for him. The country has to work for everyone college educated or not

Republicans and propaganda? Lol you are funny, Is that not what every politician and political party does?

These people are tired of the 2 parties as they see no difference between Bush and Clinton, Romney and Obama. They are all politicians who dont get them and are only there to screw them over

Regards the Covid thing, its the voters that will also determine what matters to them. They knew where they were and where they are and will make a decision based on the information available to them and their life

My intention wasn't to insult Republican's voters, I was speaking matter of fact, but to highlight the complexity of issues which requires citizens to be informed. By reducing the vote to a popularity contest rather than engaging with these complexities, they do a disservice to the country. Take the example of the tech people you mentioned—do they truly understand why jobs are being outsourced? If they did, why would they support Trump and the Republican party?

It's no surprise that I've voted Democrat, and while I acknowledge that every politician spins to some degree, what we're witnessing now is on a completely different scale from mere political spin. Republicans are outright lying about numerous issues. Take Ken Buck, for instance, who recently resigned. He was a conservative Republican. Here's what he said:

We’ve gone from a time when the Tea Party stood for conservative principles, for constitutional principles, to a time where the [populists] have taken over the Republican Party and are really advocating things that I believe are very dangerous,” he told host Chris Stirewalt in an interview that aired Sunday.
...
But really we’re at a time in American politics, that I am not going to lie on behalf of my presidential candidate, on behalf of my party. And I’m very sad that others in my party have taken the position that, as long as we get the White House, it doesn’t really matter what we say,

raumdeuter:


Na you know say these issues are global, WHat concerns the average voter with inflation being global? The only thing that matters is I spent $50 on grocery during Trump times now I am spending $85. I filled my tank with $35 now its costing me $70. None of their business if there is war in the gulf costing the price hike

Like in Nigeria where everyone is groaning under Tinubu, enter market in Onitsha Kano or Ibadan and tell the market woman that its global or that Venezuela Egypt or Anywherestan is having the same issue and see if they dont stone you out of the place

All they are concerned is that this moment, my life was harder than it used to be, and the only person to blame is whoever is sitting at presidency

I do not disagree with you. But that is also the reason why Trump leads with mostly non-college-educated voters.

How can you vote for someone to support your interests when you don't fully understand what effects those interests? Republicans excel at propagandizing, leading people to vote against their own interests due to a lack of understanding of the issues. It's akin to Trump right before the 2016 election; he criticized the economy, but a month after taking office, he claimed it was the best economy ever. What changed? Nothing. He even admitted it. That is also how Nigeria got Tinubu, not understanding what effects their issues.

But Republicans have to be cautious with the 'are you better off than you were 4 years ago' question. Four years ago, many Americans were frightened, and countless were dying due to Trump's inept response to Covid.

budaatum:


Was waiting for one of you to acknowledge this, lol.

lol. I attempt to steer clear of drama, but unfortunately, it's the elephant in the room.

raumdeuter:


The thing about this election is that both candidates have had 4yrs of show workings. Voters can now decide what issues concern them
Some think its Economy, some its immigration, some its abortion, some its democracy, some its foreign policy

If these polls are right. Its something that should worry Biden.
Hispanics used to be pretty secure for Democrats are moving, Same with many demographics

I agree. And I do acknowledge that, at present, Trump appears to have a slight edge over Biden in terms of the economy. However, this advantage isn't due to statistical measures (excluding inflation, which is a global issue), but rather because of propaganda. I hope this perception changes as the election approaches and more accurate comparisons emerge.

Yes, the polls are concerning, but I believe, just as in 2022 and the primaries, they may overrepresent Trump's support.

zendi:

And who can help all the things that leftists feel? Leftism is a feeling-based, as against fact-based, Ideology
I've told you that my comment was not referenced to any particular country, but was on world and human affairs generally, wherever woketopian voting practices occur.
And you still insist on feeling gaslighted. Are you that easily gaslit?
Then the problem may be inside your head, rather than in another man's free speech and opinion.

Come on, you are being disingenuous.

Let's use your term 'Woketopian,' which I understand to refer to liberal Western democracies. The guiding principle in these 'Woketopian' places is equality, and this equality is rooted in the ability to vote freely and fairly in elections.

Therefore, no, I hope Nigeria reaches such standards one day, but as of now, there is no 'Woketopian' country, as you call it, where Nigeria's voting practices are superior.

Laurene:
Do you even know who Jesse Ventura is? He's a popular native Minnesotan wrestler and popular liberal governor under little known Reform party.

Both candidates are heavily disliked but Biden's coalition is very very fragile. He can't afford to lose any bit of it...Trump's is likely steady, check 2016 result when 2 unpopular candidates were top of their tickets.

Biden is the less popular than Carter and viewed widely as too old, senile and incompetent.

Nothing is certain but if Ventura becomes RFK jnr's running mate then the difference between the winner and loser will be less than 2 points.

Laurene:
I completely understand your sentiment but let's not act like Biden is a popular and formidable candidate... They already expressed it in the Minnesota primary.

New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin would definitely give some chunk of votes to third party... You'll get to see that on November. Not predicting a general election winner though but I'm baffled if anyone thinks Biden got this.

Thank you for the reminder of who Ventura is. Lol. I'm kidding.

I understand your point. You have to recognize that this is a General Election, and Democrats tend to be more focused on specific issues. So, in a year where Roe v. Wade, IVF, and democracy itself are at stake, I don't see many liberal voters opting for Ventura as VP, especially when RFK is at the top of the ticket and they know neither can win.

I suggest looking at both the Democratic and Republican Minnesota primary results. Biden and Trump both received around 70% of their respective party votes. Approximately 30% of Republicans voted for Haley, and some of them expressed they would never vote for Trump. Biden had about 18% voting Not Committed, largely as a protest vote due to the Israel War. Whether all these Not Committed voters will stay home and not vote is uncertain, but it's unlikely given the perceived alternative of Trump, which many see as much worse for the Middle East.

You're referencing 2016, but 2020 provides a better indicator. Ijebos shared a good video with the electoral map from 2020 and what Trump must do to win. Trump faces a more challenging path. Consider this: Trump barely won in 2016 and lost significantly in 2020. Has he gained voters since then, especially with the events of Jan. 6th and the subsequent indictments?

I frequently hear the accusations of senility and incompetence. Do you watch a lot of Fox News? (Not meant as an insult, just curious if you've seen Biden give a speech or appear in public fully, not just in clips.) I recommend watching the State of the Union address. Biden is obviously older and has a stutter, but to argue that he is more senile than Trump is not a convincing argument.

You are correct that third parties make November less predictable.

IjeBos:
This is a great clip by Steve Kornacki that explains what states Biden and Trump need to win the Presidency. Helpful for anyone still unsure about which states will be the battleground states this election, who won them last time and how they factor into someone getting 270 electors or enough electors of the electoral college to win the Presidency.

The relevant part starts at the 1:53 mark.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCA8EnSjPcY&t=116s

Thanks for the video.
It seems we are one and the same person.

Laurene:
If he selects Ventura then Trump wins Minnesota

I would exercise caution regarding this sentiment, considering it is a General Election and Trump is on the ballot. People will likely be more deliberate and considerate in their voting choices.

budaatum:


Like maga and rationale go together?

Your colleague might claim that was not a 'weapon' or was just an American asserting the second amendment.

You are not wrong. I will find out this week. I am very suspicious of individuals who are critical in their daily lives but unconditionally support Trump. It suggests that there is some deeper emotional rationale inhibiting their thought process.

One of my colleagues would argue that there were no weapons present on January 6th. It appears he was attempting to assert that this absence of weaponry disqualified the event from being an insurrection.
While I initially believed it to be inconsequential, if it holds significance for him, then it follows that this should debunk that rationale as well.

zendi:

Please if it is America you're talking about, I'm not party to that because I don't want one wokediot to bring trans-national lawsuit against me 30 years hence for "defaming" his country.
I don't know where you saw America in my post.

But regarding some of your remarks, you're probably in an election integrity jurisdiction, wherever you live.
I hear that in some countries the electoral law differs from state to state. What I wrote applies to most of the leftopian wokedoms around the world.

You people rarely fail to jump at Nigeria anytime we touch on this topic. Nigeria is miles ahead of Woketopia in Electon Security. In one great feature, the Nigerian Jtudiciary does not hesitate to overturn the result at the slightest deviation from the guidelines of the Electoral Law. At least 5 governorship elections have been overturned in recent memory.
I hear that in the entire history of Woketopia, an election result once certified had never been overturned. Not because the Woketopian elections have been that flawless, but because the Nigerian System is governed by strict, no-nonsense rule of the law.

The great American "voting right" activist, Stacy Abrams, was in Nigeria for the last elections as an international observer and before boarding her flight home, she attested to the high integrity of the election.

Please research more info on the gap between Nigerian and Woketopian Electon security.

I am Nigerian, as I believe many in this thread are. I've witnessed both elections, and I can confidently say there's simply no comparison. I cherish my country, but what's the use of deceiving ourselves about the state of Nigeria's elections? It serves no one.

Watching the recent election, I witnessed in disgust, individuals stealing ballot boxes and people dying because of a vote. This is far from what a safe and secure election entails. Such things are unheard of in the United States.

It feels like we're being gaslighted by you, though I'm uncertain of the motive behind it.

zendi:
* Mass Mail-In Voting.
* Ballots Harvesting.
* Ballots Drop Boxes.
* Non Voter ID requirement.
* Noncitizens Voting.
* Illegal Aliens Voting.
* Prison Inmates Voting. (coming)
* 14 year-olds Voting (coming).
* Other stunts and schemes and shenanegans.

There are no "steals" in Woketopian elections because all the fraud have been codified into law.

Not sure where you obtained this list, but much of it lacks context or is inaccurate.

* Illegal Aliens, Non-Citizens, and 14-year-olds can't vote in Federal Elections.

* Prison Inmates are still citizens. The US Constitution does not bar them from voting; however, most State Constitutions do. I think this could potentially disenfranchise certain groups of people. For instance, enacting laws with disparate treatment towards, let's say, Black individuals, giving them felonies, and thereby preventing them from voting. Does that sound familiar?

I often wonder why those concerned about the myth of illegal immigrants voting aren't equally concerned about certain groups being unfairly charged to prevent them from voting.

* Regarding Non-Voter ID requirements, I'm not sure if you've mentioned whether you've voted in the US. But at my precinct, before I even entered, there were two armed police officers and a squad car stationed at the entrance. Inside, during the check-in process, there was another armed officer behind the personnel assisting me. Even when I dropped my vote into the secured steel voting machine, there was yet another armed officer present.

To commit in-person fraud, one would either need a group of individuals visiting various precincts to vote or the same person visiting the same precinct multiple times. If it's a group, they would be relying on probably not very bright, low-paid individuals. Good luck not getting caught. If it's one person at the same place, they would likely be recognized given all the personnel and police officers there.

In-person voting fraud is rare because the potential consequences, such as lengthy imprisonment, greatly outweigh the benefits. However, I understand if you extrapolated the way voting is conducted in Nigeria to the US. It's not the same at all.

* What laws are you referring?

greggng:



This story is not logical ..if your wife get hiv ...you go collect from her ...you can test negative while she test positive ...you no dey Bleep her? Abeg go redo your test abd come with a logical story

It is advantageous to keep this perspective; but whether you do collect depends upon several factors, notably the viral load and type of sexual activity. Do a Google search; you may find it enlightening.