₦airaland Forum

bemeruca:
Are you gonna take my challenge?
This will give you a clue. Conversations from last year and early this year. But take up my challenge I will show you my passport

More junks for you to save on your phone. But my conversation with these beautiful ladies will pinpoint where I am for you. It's a clue.

Bwahhhaha.. So, you lie to your friends as well. Bwahahahahah.
To prove he wasn't lying he posted screenshots of him lying to other people. Lol. You are legit degenerate. People should fear you.

What type of 419 loser goes around telling people they are in a country they are not. Lol. Holy shit you are a nut.

Let's recap the lies you told from my previous post. After I got your IP after you clumsily tried to hack my work pc and found out you were in Surrey, it was easy enough to figure where the pictures you posted were from.
https://www.nairaland.com/4508641/american-politics-thread-2024-elections/4105#129289908

1.) This is a pic you posted of where you supposedly stayed the first night you supposedly landed in the "USA". Notice the bus stops I circled. Now, in every local/city/state/country, the bus stops signs are different, and of course different from country to country. So which city/country uses this Bus stop sign you may ask? Lol.. None other than Surrey British Columbia, Canada. Lol
https://www.nairaland.com/4508641/american-politics-thread-2024-elections/3789#122962336
2.) This is the Pic of the Bus stop sign from the Surrey website (circled in Red). Notice the similarities - they are the same. Lol
3.) The Bus Stop from his original picture blown up.

After posting the pictures of your Canadian motel:

Another loser: So, this is the America they make so much noise about?
Bemeruca: Don't mind Ijebos. It's a blah place

Yeah, a crappy motel in Canada would be a blah place. Lol.
This is comedy.

You nut.
I bet you were proud of yourself after fooling Basilico and all the other idiots in this thread into believing you were in the US. lol

bemeruca:
But I do and this is what is keeping you up at night
you keep repeating yourself.

I will present the challenge to you again. If you want to know where I am and more about me, reveal yourself.
we know it is envy that is making you die on this matter and I like this state you find yourself. You are desperately trying to stay alive

Let me do it again.
You are a loser who has to lie about living in the US to your other idiot mentally ill friends like Basilico who spend their lies spreading propaganda about a place they do not live.
This is what YOU posted. Tell us again, how this was a motel in the US. If you were actually in the US, you wouldn't need to post pictures of Canada claiming it is the US. lol

How envious I must feel that you are a asylum seeker in Canada? lol

He said challenge. I know exactly where you are. I got your ip address the day you tried your half ass intrusion into my work pc.

bemeruca:
🍼🍼🍼
Take this first.
Yes I live in the United States, I am a dad you are not, gays are denerate and you are gay.
You sounded like a 3-year-old disregarding the constitution.

Isn't it ironic that Budaatum who lives in the UK is schooling you on US matters? How tempted are you to tell him he should keep quiet because he does not live in the US?

It's pride month, go spend time with your buddies. You are an underachieved noise maker on Nairaland who has a hard time with people's opinions or reality. At least, go drink Coke or Fanta in a Bar and take photos of it.

I can't imagine the broken and insecurity it takes to wake up everyday and lie about living in another country.

So let's try this again. Take it as me trying to help you, jolt you back to reality.
Here are the pictures that YOU posted on this site fromm the day you said you landed in the US. These aren't lies I made up. These are things YOU chose to post here to lie to and manipulate readers of this thread.
Tell us from these pictures when you actually landed in the US.

The picture of the crappy motel you posted and was in the US was actually in Canada. Do I need to post those receipts again?
The picture of you in the car you said was in the US was actually taking in a mall in Canada. Do I need to post those receipts again?
The car you said your company gave you belongs to the family that is hosting you. Do I need to post those receipts again?

You're a delusional person, a practiced liar and a bad one at that. A true nutcase.

bemeruca:
Dude stop making noise. In life, not everyone will agree with you. What is a right-wing Christian fascist? Why do you bring the word Christian into this? How are they fascist? They make decisions according to the constitution and you don't like it so they are fascist? 🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼 Take one of these anytime you want to cry here.

People who don't want to live in shithole New York or California move to red states. The abortion laws have been shown to favour democrats since they moved to the States. That is a democracy, people are choosing what they want and if the state's policy does not align with their beliefs or wallet, they move.

What is wrong with you? Why do you always think like a spoilt 3 year old that will always get what he wants? Ice cannot act in New York or most blue states because of state laws. Is that not the same thing?

Listen, don't presume that because I abuse you because of your lies about living in the US, that you and I are on equal footing with the understanding of the US constitution or anything for that matter. Wtf do you know about the US Constitution or US courts, that you can presume to tell me about it?

If I need your opinion on how to be a degenerate, sound and wrike like an illiterate, be a dead-beat dad, clumsily steal Nairalander's IP addresses, or clumsily lie about being in the US, I'll ask. Otherwise stay in your lane you trollish buffoon.

The fact that the prosecution immunized the gun store dealer tells you everything you need to know about the Hunter Biden prosecution. Usually there is a policy goal behind prosecutions. Ex. We want less illegal guns on the street. So, if they have an option to prosecute someone who lied on a gun form to get a gun or a gun dealer who forged a gun form to sell someone a gun, they would go after the gun store owner as it gives the government the ability to potentially get more illegally bought guns off the street. In this case they went after the buyer and gave the dealer a free pass. Makes so much sense.. NOT! Only makes sense because this Special Prosecutor wanted to go after Hunter Biden.

budaatum:
I expect this from the stupid idiot, but not from you.

If you don't understand my argument, kindly ask for clarification instead of resorting to the stupid idiot's maths is racist illogical reasoning and mischaracterisationing.

Of course, my words border more on the rhetorical, but there is a point behind them. When I argue, I hope I'm arguing from the perspective of the least amongst us. I feel sometimes your arguments wash over that perspective.

budaatum:
And this just about sums up your fear, and sounds like those in other threads who tell me that elections don't count in Nigeria that has a much less robust democracy than USA, but whom I constantly tell to get their pvcs and vote like their lifes depends on it because their livelihoods pretty much do.

If you don't trust the democratic process in the United States of America, then so be it. I can't really be bothered arguing to convince you to, because the last time I checked, the majority elected the President despite the guy with the minority votes still crying that he won.

How do votes count when the means of voting is corrupted? Say with gerrymandering? If I can choose how districts are drawn to water down certain votes, is the election really representative? I'm talking about structural impediments. Let's go further with another example, let's say we had an election where everyone voted 'like their livelihood' depended on it, but then a governor/state house decided to just select their own electors opposite of how the majority voted and the Supreme Court accepted it. Would you still say the democratic process works? Because that is a plausible situation given how some state constitutions are written to allow electors to be chosen and the Federal Constitution allows states to decide how to select their electors. I hear what you are saying from a idealized mile high perspective, but I'm arguing how easily things can change when you get into the weeds.

I think there is a real palpable fear right now about what is going on in the US, that is being expressed beyond just myself. Especially if the Supreme Court rules that a president is immune from prosecution.

budaatum:
Evidence already suggests we the people are not voting for antiabortionists, but you think we the people will now vote for segregation?

You keep forgetting that seats are apportioned by we the people who elect whom we want to those seats, and are presenting this as if the Supreme Court elects them. Do you also fear that some states would make the votes of 4 black people equal one white person's vote too, and the supreme court would agree and black lives would stop mattering and not burn down America too?

Sorry, but I just don't have this your fear that the majority in America would be that stupid. And even if they just happen to be stupid for one cycle, they'd change their mind by the next after seeing the consequences of their choice just as they did with dump after his one term, and it might even end up with the stupid party never having a majority or president for the rest of the century, to my delight.

I think who we vote for is mattering less and less. The Supreme Court is filled with Right Wing pseudo Christian fascists, though the majority of Americans aren't. The House which should have direct Representation is Republican controlled, though by the Representative vote of America it should be Democratic controlled. The Senate is Democratic controlled barely, though the majority of America is more Democratic. The only branch that is representative of where the majority of the country is, is the Presidency.

So you keep speaking of this majority, whereas the country is more and more being run by the minority. And structural impediments are being erected to keep it that way. Such as gerrymandering.

budaatum:
And if the supreme court decides to abandon reason and common sense and do what you suggest they'd do, I can see the United States at War with itself.


Yet, here I am caring about America that doesn't directly affect/touch me. Perhaps own your own seeming please.

Even most white folks in America wouldn't accept segregation in schools. And an election after it is introduced just might give the Democrats that filibusting majority is what I think, especially after many Republicans who don't buy that nonsense swop party and become Democrats.

Most may not, but if the Supreme Court pushes it back to states to decide, how many of those right wing states do you think would choose that? I'm sure there would be some like Alabama.
And here we go back to the privilege thing. My deep blue state of Massachusetts would be fine. But Massachussetts is very expensive. How many of those people in states like Alabama, if they do decide on some form of segregation, could afford to move to an expensive blue state? So, some people in these gerrymandered states, where some people have lost their representation, would be affected. Your argument is that those people are disposable and we shouldn't care about them, because people in my Blue state wouldn't be touched? I could argue they didn't work hard enough to fend off the issue, but then understand there is that privilege of mine, and not all those people have the ability nor resources to fight power.

budaatum:
See what the article described as the consequence of abolishing Roe v Wade.

"In the 2022 midterms, Dobbs cost the Republicans their “red wave.” In 2024, it may lead to another Trump loss and Democrats retaking the House. Right now, things are that close."

What do you think would happen if they abolish Brown v. Board?

What would happen? That goes back to my point.. the Supreme Court. The Democrats may retake the House, but with the Filibuster in the Senate, they would need 60 votes to change anything. They don't have that.

The Right/Republicans have captured the Supreme Court. They have a 6-3 majority of unelected justices who seem not to be concerned about rules and ethics who have lifetime appointments.
So, why care about legislation where the Supreme Court can legislate from the Supreme Court? Why care about free elections where the Supreme Court can uphold things like racial gerrymandering, given Republicans seats they wouldn't have won. The Republicans don't need to care about these things anymore because they hold the Judicial branch that has accumulated power unto itself. And as long as they hold enough seats to make sure the Congress is not functional, not able to pass laws, they can just sit back and allow the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. That's the reason the Dems have to get serious and take back the power the Supreme court has accumulated.

budaatum:
What do you think would happen if they abolish Brown v. Board? Would your alma segregate?

I understand and see my privilege. So whether my alma mater or similar schools segregate is not the issue. The issue is that will affect people without that privilege, people without the ability to make different choices. Just like the ending of Affirmative Action has already affected minority student admissions this year. The playing field is still not fair. Racism/Institutionalized racism is still alive. Talk to any successful minority. And this will affect those on the margins, making a more inclusive society further away.

You sometimes make it seem as if something has to directly affect/touch me for me to care.

Celtics 2-0

Good article
The Fall of Roe: You Thought Dobbs Was Bad? They’re Coming for Brown v. Board
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fall-roe-thought-dobbs-bad-030450771.html

Budaatum, this is what we were talking about. The same kind of thinking is still prevalent in regards to the Supreme Court. That somehow it will all work out.

The Democratic presidential nominee in 2016 acknowledges that her party underestimated its adversaries, but doesn’t point the finger at herself.
“We didn’t take it seriously, and we didn’t understand the threat,” Clinton said. “We could have done more to fight.”
“I just think that most of us who support the rights of women and privacy and the right to make these difficult decisions yourself, you know, we just couldn’t believe what was happening.”
“Our side was complacent and kind of taking it for granted and thinking it would never go away.”

Brown v. Board seems to be next. It's clear from Alito's comments and Thomas's recent comments. I don't care about Basilico or Bemeruca cheering it on, they don't live in the US. But, people like raumdeuter who have actual things to lose? It's sad.

Which all brings us back to Brown v. Board of Education and where the right goes next.
In Justice on Trial, an examination of Brett Kavanaugh’s elevation to the Supreme Court, conservative talking heads Carrie Severino, of JCN, and Mollie Hemingway, of the Federalist, trashed Brown.
According to Severino and Hemingway, social science wrongly played a role in the court’s calculus. They declared that such decisions “may have been correct in their result but were decided on the basis of sociological studies rather than legal principles.”
Notice the word “may.”
Fast forward to May 2024, when Thomas—who joined Alito’s opinion in Dobbs—turned his fire on Brown.
“Such extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design,” he wrote in a concurrence, sustaining a South Carolina congressional map in the face of voting rights challenge.

budaatum:
And then we fought a war. And slavery is not even left to a country these days not to talk of a state.

Slaves couldn't just up from those states and go to states where there were free people like I can take my body out of a state that wants to own my choice, so sorry, I don't see them as being the same thing. When they run after me and jail me for my choice, we can equate them then.

In fact, I would love those who want to own my body to be stupid and jail me for my choice so I can Rosa Park their stupid asses or even go to war, though I feel the majority would vote them out long before then or a Biden might put my body my choice in to the constitution.

In fact, the way the world is currently leaning, I wouldn't be surprised if one day in the future, my body my choice isn't eventually a right enshrined in the world constitution just like antislavery is. I just hope its sooner rather than not soon.

I think some of your privilege is coloring your argument. Not everyone can afford to just get up and leave where they are living for a short term or even a longer term. And some states are trying to actively prevent their residents from leaving to have abortions.

Obrigardo:
US politicians are so compromised in more than one ways, and rampant beuracracy has made the Senate be issuing threats than outright subpoena to Clarence and alito. I believe one of these judges will be impeached next year.

I'd settle for at the minimum a real hearing. Our courts are the differentiator between us and other countries. The Dems have to take this seriously and fight for it.

budaatum:
And isn't that why we have democracy, to sort out what we do despite our differences and disagreement?


The supreme court said the state should decide whether to protect people's rights such as a woman's right to have life saving surgery, which means the majority people in the state get to decide whether to protect people's rights such as a woman's right to have life saving surgery. But in the current end, it boils down to my body my choice, since no one can stop me leaving a state where I am in a minority and go to a state where I am part of the majority. That, is democracy at work.

Do you think slavery should have been left up to the states to decide?
In fact, states rights was the very argument used to try to prevent the end of slavery by Southern States.

budaatum:
I'm just glad that Biden is leaving the Supreme Court alone.

A lot of people disagree. The Supreme Court size is a norm. The question is what do you believe is more important, protecting a norm of 9 justices and lifetime appointments, or protecting people's rights such as a woman's right to have life saving surgery.

budaatum:
You made this personal by assuming the majority of Americans are not smart like you and will fall for maga nonsenses. Me, I have the personal faith that the majority of Americans are not that stupid, as confirmed by the last election and hopefully by the next.

You can't gain knowledge by osmosis. And how do you figure something out if you are presented misinformation? I believe that Education is the foundation of a Democracy. A lot of people in the US aren't getting that education. ANd the truth is repeated propaganda works, if it didn't we wouldn't see all the ads we do everywhere. The problem is that a majority of the US could get it and Biden wouold still lose as our elections are based on the Electoral College. And the spaces with the unfair electoral advantage are the least educated. This isn't a me thing, just look at the polls on people's beliefs on something as simple as the economy. Misinformation works. You shouldn't take it personally, but yes there are vast amount of Americans that are stupid and get easily fooled by misinformation. And those tend to be the loudest voice. It's the truth. And this thread isn't the outlier you think it is.

budaatum:
US has the silly notion of freedom of speech, and guns, both of which we definitely thankfully don't have. Would you like to migrate here perhaps?

Though we have free speech doesn't mean we can't stop protecting those who spread it. Places like Twitter can publish lies from people and not clean it up because of section 230, which gives them immunity. It may be time to tweak section 230. And also look into editing the libel/defamation laws.
I wanted to live in London after college. But my long term g/f at the time got into Harvard Law School. So stayed around for her. Probably worst decision I ever made. Never make plans for a woman who's not your wife.

budaatum:
1) If I were Biden, I'd beg Merchan.
As for enforcing the law, that is not Biden's duty, and him doing so would be an abuse of power. Besides, the law, slow as it may seem, is being enforced already.

Biden begging Meechan would be political interference. Even more egregious given the power imbalance and the interference into another branch of government. Biden shouldn't interfere either way.

As head of the Executive Branch, Biden's duty is to enforce the law. The DOJ falls under him. It's been norm that the President walls himself off given them independence, but Attorney General reports to him, so untested because of the Norm, but many people believe the President can dictate prosecutions.

Thomas would make a Nigerian judge proud.

budaatum:
Tell me what you think Democrats should do.

I told you. Start by having hearings on this.
Then a supreme court code of conduct.
Then remove life time appointments. Give them 20 years or so.

budaatum:
You words were, "what cases it takes, is controlled by Congress". And that is not what I find to be true.

Yes, that is what jurisdiction means, outside of the ones dictated by the Constitution as I stated.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution defines the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. The clause creates two types of Supreme Court jurisdiction that apply to different categories of cases. First, the clause grants the Court original jurisdiction over “Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” 1 The constitutional grant of original jurisdiction over such cases means that they may be filed directly in the Supreme Court rather than reaching the Court on appeal from another court. The Supreme Court has held that its original jurisdiction flows directly from the Constitution and is therefore self-executing without further action by Congress.2
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 also provides for Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over all other cases subject to federal court jurisdiction, “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” 3 Known as the “Exceptions Clause,” this provision allows the Court to review both decisions of the inferior federal courts and final judgments of state courts, if authorized by Congress.4 The Supreme Court has generally indicated that the constitutional grant of appellate jurisdiction is not self-executing—meaning that Congress must enact legislation to empower the Court to hear cases on appeal—and Congress has exercised its power to implement the provision by granting the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over a subset of the cases included in the constitutional grant. Congress and the Court have also construed the Exceptions Clause to provide Congress significant control over the Court’s appellate jurisdiction and proceedings.5

budaatum:
We care so that we can counter them with evidence and facts as we do here everyday. But I guess you think we are ineffective because some maga noisemakers deafen you, right?

Budaa, you're making this personal. My world involves a lot of educated people where I don't encounter the types of arguments made on this site by certain people. I'm less concerned less about me and more so concerned about the corrosive effects the large scale propaganda has on a public that, for lack of a better way of saying it, is less educated and less capable of deciphering such. I believe in the UK, you have rules which ensure or try to ensure 'fairness' in the broadcasting space. The Us has no such rules.

budaatum:
In fact, I'd be surprised if Merchan jails dump on sentencing, and I'd be even more surprised if Merchan jails dump and Biden does not have him released within 24 hours because it's the smart thing to do.

1.) Biden can't have him released. He has no control over State crimes.
2.) If he could, though he can't, why would you consider that a smart move?
3.) What evidence have you seen going higher works? Did it work in the Hillary v. Trump race? Has it worked since Trump left office? My argument is simple, enforce the laws and use the power available. Nothing in that is going low.

budaatum:
I think you don't have faith that the majority are well informed, and you seem to think the maga rubbish you read on here is what the majority of Americans believe. Sorry, but I don't share that view, and think you are buying into their noise.

There is no way the majority of Americans buy the magashit dump peddles. That was proven at the last election where he lost, and I hope it's proved at the next election when he loses again.

I don't think it's the majority but a good amount. It's loud and everywhere. And the Media is concerned that if they don't cover it they'll be called out. And by covering, you give it life. So it influences all the reporting. It's like working the refs repeatedly so you get favorable calls. It's a Maga/Republican strategy.

I showed you polling about what Americans believe about the Economy. Most of it is inconsistent with the Truth. I hear it from people I know.
How does that happen? The Media. Around 45% of the country will vote for Trump in the next election. That says it all.

You don't have to believe me, but I'm right on this. You can mark this post.

budaatum:
I guess you haven't heard of people revolting.

My point being, I think Democrats in power can do more so that isn't the option. I think using the powers the constitution gives them is preferable to violence. Right?

budaatum:
So, Congress can't dictate how they rule nor what cases they take on, just as I thought.

You are arguing your own argument. I never said Congress can dictate how they rule, but the structure and jurisdiction.

budaatum:
I so love the fact that Biden has left the Supreme Court alone and not padded it with liberals, which he might do in his second term. You already got magas lying that he weaponised the DOJ, so imagine what they'd say if he weaponised the SC, and how many Americans might believe it too.

So, why do we care what they think over protecting the rights of vulnerable communities, like women? It's white privilege over and over again. We should tailor our rights because of the lies they tell themselves? That's what Democrats in Congress are currently doing. That's what Judge Merchan did for Trump in his case. Instead of jailing him like any other defendant for breaking the gag order, he gave him privilege after privilege. How did that change his behavior?

budaatum:
A good point based on polls?

Sorry, but I'd rather wait until elections where people actually vote.

A good point how corrosive US politics is right now.
Voting doesn't change the fact that lies and untruths propagate at lighting speed, seem to be unchecked and take root. A country run on lies isn't a healthy country. Again voting doesn't change what ails our country.

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789

budaatum:
The supreme court will sort itself out in due time. They can choose to drag themselves in the mud and be ridiculed and sidelined or serve justice. Their choice.

What does this even mean? Their edicts are law. They can be ridiculed but so what? And how will they be sidelined?

budaatum:
So, dump wins in the money stakes but not in policies? I can gladly live with that since their money does not pass legislation. Besides, they do illegal stuff to get that money, and the law would be on their case to help them spend it eventually, so what exactly is it that they gain in the end?

I do not accept that "Congress controls the contours of the Supreme Court .... what cases it takes, is controlled by Congress". You are going to need to educate me how Congress controls the supreme court please, so I can understand why Congress did not dictate re Roe v Wade.

Congress can't dictate how they rule, but they can dictate the structure of the court and it's jurisdiction outside of a few cases outlined in the constitution.
A lot of this stuff is in the weeds even so for Americans. Here is a good article:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/

budaatum:
Democrats, I'm pleased to notice, do not play who can go lower. Instead they go higher and win because they can see that if going lower doesn't work for dump it likely wouldn't work for them.

If dump loses the next election, he would have proven to me and most that his so called new path is ineffective and did not work, and my hope is that they keep going down that ineffective path that doesn't work so they can keep losing.

And the lies and misinformation work. Which is going to be harder to get a handle on unless Dems and the Media understand they just can't hope people figure it out. You see the lies posted even on this thread time in and time out.

Here is a good point.

Nearly three in five Americans wrongly believe the US is in an economic recession, and the majority blame the Biden administration, according to a Harris poll conducted exclusively for the Guardian. The survey found persistent pessimism about the economy as election day draws closer.

The poll highlighted many misconceptions people have about the economy, including:

55% believe the economy is shrinking, and 56% think the US is experiencing a recession, though the broadest measure of the economy, gross domestic product (GDP), has been growing.
49% believe the S&P 500 stock market index is down for the year, though the index went up about 24% in 2023 and is up more than 12% this year.
49% believe that unemployment is at a 50-year high, though the unemployment rate has been under 4%, a near 50-year low.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/22/poll-economy-recession-biden

bemeruca:
[b]So you know the context. He is talking about time and he didn't say blacks were better, he didn't say Jim crow keep the family intact, he is saying during that time, black family was very intact... [/b]Try to comprehend you went to Harvard according to one of your lies. This should not be a problem for you.

He gave numbers that are facts... Liars like you will always coon

God, this is the gobbledygook that comes out of your mouth.
The only thing that you said that made sense is I did go to Harvard, and even there, you'd fail for this kind of reasoning. My fault, you'd have 0 chance of getting any kind of admission. This is some brain dead nonsense.

Bemeruca: During the period white people controlled our rights, lynched us, beat us, incarcerated us for nothing at all and made sure we struggled financially, black families were together. I'm not saying it was because of the fact white people controlled our rights, I'm just using that time as a reference for some reason..

budaatum:
Democrats, I'm pleased to notice, do not play who can go lower. Instead they go higher and win because they can see that if going lower doesn't work for dump it likely wouldn't work for them.

If dump loses the next election, he would have proven to me and most that his so called new path is ineffective and did not work, and my hope is that they keep going down that ineffective path that doesn't work so they can keep losing.

It's not even about going lower. It's using the power they have. Congress controls the contours of the Supreme Court. The only thing the Constitution requires is a Supreme Court, how it operates, it's size, what cases it takes, is controlled by Congress. How many hearings have the Democratically controlled Senate had on it? 0. They are so weak, that Leonard Leo, a private citizen can tell them to pound sand when they send hima subpoena.

If Trump loses it will be proven his path is ineffective to win a national election. But he still raised a ton of money. So, his path is effective at raising money and making yourself rich. So, being most Republicans are grifters (Ted Cruz, a US senator has a full time podcast), they care more about money and maintain power than policy and winning elections outside of their own.

WhizdomXX:
Think whatever you want but That was not the context he used it in.

So, what was the context?
You keep saying he was misquoted, but you've never said what he meant or what you think he meant.

The truth is Jim Crow was one of the vilest times for Black Americans. To look nostalgically at it in any way that you can use it as a basis for any example, is just lack of understanding of the history of that time. He was spreading right wing talking points he didn't understand the fullness of.

budaatum:
Poor you then. I do believe and hope the Dems are strong enough to win the next election. Once they do, dump and his maganess is countered and dead, just like the Tea Party before it and McCarthyism before that and Jim Crow and slavery etc.

Disagree. Trump has shown a new path that works and is effective. It's all about normalization and once something has been normalized, it's hard to put it back in the tube.

A lot of the progress that has been made has been turned back. From Affirmative Action to reproductive rights. Where people were uncomfortable expressing their racism, they've gained a new found comfort. This movement was a progression of the Tea Party. And just because Trump may lose, the corrosiveness of the politics he practiced won't be gone.

The Dems may win the next election but they have to push the envelope. Republicans are continuously working the officials, pushing the envelope. So much so, it worked on Merrick Garland. He was hesitant on Trump's cases and look where they are now. While in his desire to seem less partisan, he allowed a Special Prosecutor to indict the President's son on a weak case that no one really gets indicted for. Look, on Hunter's case, they gave the gun store immunity to testify against Hunter. The gun store was forging gun applications. Think about it, what should be the Fed. justice's priority there? To go after a drug user who had a gun fort 10 days who didn't use it for anything nefarious or a Gun store who was forging gun Sale forms to maybe sell guns to people who couldn't have them?

bemeruca:
You have a problem he married a white woman... You are not racist.

You are gay, you can't have a family, he is more qualified to talk about family 200 times than you. He is a felon? You worship George Floyd.

What he said is fact, it has nothing to do with Jim Crow or Till.

Another advocate for Black families. Bemeruca, the father of 4 children conceived out of Wedlock while living in Nigeria who doesn't have custody of those kids.

You are what it takes to be a Black Republican.
1.) No understanding of US history; you've never lived in the US, not studied US history. So, I'm sure you don't even understand Jim Crow.
2.) A lack of self awareness or Dementia about your life. A man who is married to a white woman or who has a Baby mamma will be the spokesman for Black Families? Don't you think you should have a black family before being it's spokesperson?

Obrigardo:
One of the most underated reporting right now is the sheer amount and droves of real voters peeling away from convicted felon trump.

This election will be historic and will Mark the worst loss of any republican presidential candidate.

The maga cult and the dumbest RNC in a generation are being haughty and stubborn as ever. They are relying on their own alternative facts and disputing or outright shunning the negative influence of a felon on the electorate.

Just take a look at all the loses of maga candidates in the primaries, but they are too stubborn to see their own Downfall in real time.

Even when Biden wins this election, this election cycle would have taken its toll on the US. Trump has effectively destroyed Trust in the Media, US law enforcement, the Presidency, and now the courts. Look at what is going on with Trump's trials. The Supreme Court, a Federal Judge (Judge Cannon) and a State Supreme court (Georgia Supreme Court) have all put their hands on the scales of justice to delay his trials. That Alito was flying flags supporting Jan 6th is nuts on its own. In another time he would resign. At the minimum, he would recuse himself from any Trump case. Neither has happened.

Trump with the support of a sycophantic Republican party is destroying the appendages of what makes the US the US. The court is the most worrisome one. I don't believe the Dems are strong enough to counter it. Worrisome days ahead.

Obrigardo:
It's been over 2 years I started calling you a xenophobic black man hater and I'm so right, not even a joke at this point.

It's wild Byron Donalds seems he's the appropriate messenger to about talking about Black families during Jim Crow.

He's a convicted felon, married to a white woman. Nothing wrong with either per se, but to be the advocate for Black families during the Jim crow era? He would have been hung 2x over. Just look at what happened to Emmett Till just for looking at a white woman. Just a total lack of any self awareness.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/05/us/politics/byron-donalds-trump-jim-crow.html?u2g=c&unlocked_article_code=1.x00.g1YB.aFZXUL240fTv&smid=url-share

bemeruca:
He did not fund Hamas, you idiot. because of Jew-hating you are now looking for all the conspiracy theories you can find.
He allowed Money Qatar was sending to Palestine in. Who is the government of Palestine, Hamas right? Europe and the US send Money to UNWRA, Hamas is the government UNWRA answers to and all that money is controlled by HAMAS. You have no understanding of the situation, it is just your hatred for jews and love for terrorists that you are displaying here.

You're getting there, Gaza is being blockaded by Israel and therefore Gaza is under military occupation by Israel. So Israel controls everything that goes in and out of Gaza. Wherever the money comes from (money is fungible), by Israel letting the money into Gaza (and they do so by allowing Qatari's into Gaza with suitcases of money), they are in fact funding Hamas. If Israel wanted to stop funding Hamas they would stop letting money into Gaza to give to Hamas. But they won't because they like the chaos. A unified West Bank and Gaza under PA leadership would force Israel to seriously negotiate a 2 state solution. They don't want that.

So, back to where we started. Netanyahu funded the terror organization that killed all those people on Oct. 7th. So, by your definition Netanyahu is a Hamas lover, terrorist and wants to kill Jews. And since you support Hamas that makes you equally responsible for all those dead on Oct. 7th.

You're a pawn in this and Israel's quest to acquire more land. The problem is you're really too stupid to realize it.

raumdeuter:
No you cant, you antimetite, anti white, Anti African Hamas lover

Shame on you once again

Bwahahah, Raumdeuter short circuiting in real time.

He said, anti white and anti African. 😂😂😂😂 Lol.
Just furiously smashing the keyboard at this point.

Must suck to understand how much of a fool you are.
Netanyahu funds Hamas to cause friction with the PA. Hamas kills Africans. You support Netanyahu. Therefore you support Hamas's killing of Africans.

Looks like you are exactly what you hate.

raumdeuter:
Hamas spokesman, terrorist lover, One day your jew hate will consume you like those before you

You seem to be short circuiting.
C'mon, you can do it. Call Netanyahu a terror lover, anti-semite and African killer. After all he was the one funding Hamas, right?
No? I imagine your mind just short circuited trying to rationalize how you can both hate Hamas and support the man funding Hamas.
You're a simpleton.

Yeah, he funded Hamas, so there would be a power struggle between the PA and Hamas and their wouldn't be a 2 state solution.
Because this violence and chaos you see is good for Israel's ability to continue taking land.
So, the October 7th massacre was a foreseeable result of this strategy. All those dead you keep bringing up, a foreseeable result of this strategy.
Hamas and Netanyahu are two sides of the same coin. A coin you seem wholly invested in supporting.