JessicaRabbit:


Actually, Trump did not just say that he did not do something he was accused of. He called E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of raping her in the 1990s, a liar, a loser, and not his type. He also implied that she made up the story to sell her book and that she was working with the Democratic Party to smear him. These are false and malicious statements that harmed her reputation and dignity, and that is why the jury found him guilty of defamation and ordered him to pay over $83 million in damages. This is not a matter of exercising his First Amendment right, but of abusing his power and influence to silence and discredit a victim of sexual violence.

Secondly, Trump did not just steal and misuse Michelle Obama's personal data. He also spread a baseless and absurd conspiracy theory that she is a transgender woman who was born as Michael Obama. He also did this to undermine Michelle Obama's achievements and contributions as a former first lady, a best-selling author, and a role model for millions of people. This is not a harmless joke, but a deliberate and hateful attack on her identity and privacy.

Thirdly, you are not making any sense when you say that dishonesty has something to do with defamation. Dishonesty is a moral flaw, while defamation is a legal wrong. You can be dishonest without defaming someone, and you can defame someone without being dishonest. For example, if you lie to your boss about why you are late for work, you are being dishonest, but you are not defaming anyone. On the other hand, if you tell the truth about someone's criminal record, you are not being dishonest, but you may be defaming them if you do it without a valid reason or consent. The point is, defamation is not about whether you are telling the truth or lying, but about whether you are harming someone's reputation or not.

So, to answer your questions (again), yes, Trump said and did things that harmed Michelle Obama's reputation and violated her privacy. Yes, he stole and misused her personal data, along with the data of many other people who sued him for the same reason.

Have a nice day at work 🥰.

Okay, I missed this the first time. You type a lot of things especially the Michelle Obama part which has nothing to do with what I am asking you or the case

Based on the bold, what did the jury find in the first hearing? They conclude she could not prove that trump raped her right?

So how then trump denying her claim is defamation when he was not found guilty of that?

For she to file a defamation claim against him, she has to prove that he indeed raped her.

Chck the jury verdict form, the jury concluded E. Jean did not prove trump raped her. So the jury agreed with trump saying he did not rape her

bemeruca:


Yet when trump denied accusations against him for something the accuser was unable to prove he has to pay 88million. Weldon

Again, apples and oranges.

Trump did not just deny accusations against him, he also attacked, insulted, and threatened to sue his accusers, calling them liars, losers, and ugly. He also publicly vowed to sue The New York Times for publishing the allegations, but never followed through. Furthermore, the accusers were not unable to prove their allegations, they were prevented from doing so by Trump's legal maneuvers and stonewalling! He has repeatedly tried to delay, dismiss, or avoid discovery in the lawsuits, invoking presidential immunity, arbitration clauses, and the statute of limitations.

I should clarify here that Carroll initially asked for $50,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages, but later increased the amount to $83.3 million, based on the estimated value of Trump's book sales that she claims were boosted by his defamatory statements about her. However, this is not the amount that Trump has to pay, but the amount that Carroll is asking for. The actual amount will be determined by the jury, if the case goes to trial.

JessicaRabbit:


It still amazes me how you've not collapsed in a paroxysm of embarrassment for spreading such lies and misinformation constantly.

An embarrassed basilico is like dump being embarrassed. Both know some would believe their lies and covfefe, while the time of those who don't gets wasted.

JessicaRabbit:


Again, apples and oranges.

Trump did not just deny accusations against him, he also attacked, insulted, and threatened to sue his accusers, calling them liars, losers, and ugly. He also publicly vowed to sue The New York Times for publishing the allegations, but never followed through. Furthermore, the accusers were not unable to prove their allegations, they were prevented from doing so by Trump's legal maneuvers and stonewalling! He has repeatedly tried to delay, dismiss, or avoid discovery in the lawsuits, invoking presidential immunity, arbitration clauses, and the statute of limitations.

I should clarify here that Carroll initially asked for $50,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages, but later increased the amount to $83.3 million, based on the estimated value of Trump's book sales that she claims were boosted by his defamatory statements about her. However, this is not the amount that Trump has to pay, but the amount that Carroll is asking for. The actual amount will be determined by the jury, if the case goes to trial.

Calling someone ugly, a loser and a liar is not defamation. After all the jury concluded she could not prove he raped her.
So defending your self and saying you will sue is defaming someone? You should not defend yourself again? Just accept and stay quiet when someone accuse you of tape. Are you listening to yourself?
For the bold you are a sick person. Trump is not the judge. You just prove you shouldn't be taken serious

bemeruca:


Okay, I missed this the first time. You type a lot of things especially the Michelle Obama part which has nothing to do with what I am asking you or the case

Based on the bold, what did the jury find in the first hearing? They conclude she could not prove that trump raped her right?

So how then trump denying her claim is defamation when he was not found guilty of that?

For she to file a defamation claim against him, she has to prove that he indeed raped her.

Chck the jury verdict form, the jury concluded E. Jean did not prove trump raped her. So the jury agreed with trump saying he did not rape her

You seem to be confused about the difference between criminal and civil cases.

In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime. In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant caused harm or violated a right. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal cases.

E. Jean Carroll filed a civil lawsuit against Trump for battery and defamation. Battery is the intentional and harmful or offensive contact with another person without consent. Defamation is the false and injurious statement that damages someone's reputation. To prove battery, Carroll had to show that Trump sexually abused her, which the jury found that she did. To prove defamation, Carroll had to show that Trump made false and malicious statements about her, which the jury also found that he did.

The jury did not find that Trump raped Carroll, because that was not the question they had to answer. Rape is a criminal offense, not a civil one. Carroll did not sue Trump for rape, nor did she press criminal charges against him. She sued him for battery, which is a broader term that includes rape as well as other forms of sexual abuse. The jury verdict form clearly states that the jury had to decide whether Carroll proved that Trump sexually abused her, not whether he raped her.

Therefore, your argument is based on a false premise.

Trump denying her claim is defamation because he lied about what happened and harmed her reputation. He did not just say that he did not rape her, he called her a liar, a loser, and not his type. He also implied that she made up the story to sell her book and that she was working with the Democratic Party to smear him. These are not opinions or expressions of free speech, these are factual assertions that can be proven or disproven. And the jury found that they were false and malicious.

You should check the facts before you make such baseless claims. Otherwise, you might end up like Trump, who is now facing an $83 million bill for his defamation and battery of E. Jean Carroll. That's a lot of money for someone who is not his type 🤡.

JessicaRabbit:


You are not a debater, you are a troll. And you are not a worthy opponent, you are a waste of time.

You were told, but I'm glad you bothered to confirm for yourself.

JessicaRabbit:


You seem to be confused about the difference between criminal and civil cases.

In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime. In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant caused harm or violated a right. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal cases.

E. Jean Carroll filed a civil lawsuit against Trump for battery and defamation. Battery is the intentional and harmful or offensive contact with another person without consent. Defamation is the false and injurious statement that damages someone's reputation. To prove battery, Carroll had to show that Trump sexually abused her, which the jury found that she did. To prove defamation, Carroll had to show that Trump made false and malicious statements about her, which the jury also found that he did.

The jury did not find that Trump raped Carroll, because that was not the question they had to answer. Rape is a criminal offense, not a civil one. Carroll did not sue Trump for rape, nor did she press criminal charges against him. She sued him for battery, which is a broader term that includes rape as well as other forms of sexual abuse. The jury verdict form clearly states that the jury had to decide whether Carroll proved that Trump sexually abused her, not whether he raped her.

Therefore, your argument is based on a false premise.

Trump denying her claim is defamation because he lied about what happened and harmed her reputation. He did not just say that he did not rape her, he called her a liar, a loser, and not his type. He also implied that she made up the story to sell her book and that she was working with the Democratic Party to smear him. These are not opinions or expressions of free speech, these are factual assertions that can be proven or disproven. And the jury found that they were false and malicious.

You should check the facts before you make such baseless claims. Otherwise, you might end up like Trump, who is now facing an $83 million bill for his defamation and battery of E. Jean Carroll. That's a lot of money for someone who is not his type 🤡.

I am not confusing anything.
Carroll accused Trump of tape,
Then claimed he defamed her when he said that didn't happen.

In other to prove defamation, you have to prove tape did occur. She failed to do that.

So how is denying something that didn't happened defamation? Oh he said she was ugly?

Anyway, I don't think she will see a penny

budaatum:


You were told, but I'm glad you bothered to confirm for yourself.

Bah! I'm having a bit of fun either way! 🤪

JessicaRabbit:


Bah! I'm having a bit of fun either way! 🤪

I can see, lol. And I'm having fun reading you having fun.

It is fun educating magas until it's realised they can not ever learn.

bemeruca:


Calling someone ugly, a loser and a liar is not defamation. After all the jury concluded she could not prove he raped her.
So defending your self and saying you will sue is defaming someone? You should not defend yourself again? Just accept and stay quiet when someone accuse you of tape. Are you listening to yourself?
For the bold you are a sick person. Trump is not the judge. You just prove you shouldn't be taken serious

Let me clue you into the facts of life real quick.

(1) Calling someone ugly, a loser and a liar IS defamation, given the context of the case, and especially when it is done by the president of the United States, who has a huge influence and reach. It is not a mere opinion, it is a malicious attempt to discredit and harm the reputation of the accusers. It also creates a hostile environment for other victims of sexual assault, who may be afraid to come forward because of the backlash they might face.

(2) Defending yourself is one thing, but threatening to sue and then not following through is another. It shows that Trump was bluffing and had no evidence to back up his claims. It also shows that he was trying to intimidate and silence the accusers, who had every right to speak their truth and seek justice.

(3) I am not a sick person, I am being realistic. Trump IS the judge, in the sense that he has the power and resources to manipulate the legal system in his favor. He has done so many times, by using his presidential immunity, arbitration clauses, and the statute of limitations to avoid accountability. He has also appointed loyalists and cronies to key positions in the judiciary, who may be biased or compromised in his favor. He has effectively blocked the accusers from having their day in court, where they could present their evidence and testimony.

You say I shouldn't be taken seriously? Yet, here you are, engaging with me. Fascinating, isn't it?

JessicaRabbit:


Let me clue you into the facts of life real quick.

(1) Calling someone ugly, a loser and a liar IS defamation, given the context of the case, and especially when it is done by the president of the United States, who has a huge influence and reach. It is not a mere opinion, it is a malicious attempt to discredit and harm the reputation of the accusers. It also creates a hostile environment for other victims of sexual assault, who may be afraid to come forward because of the backlash they might face.

(2) Defending yourself is one thing, but threatening to sue and then not following through is another. It shows that Trump was bluffing and had no evidence to back up his claims. It also shows that he was trying to intimidate and silence the accusers, who had every right to speak their truth and seek justice.

(3) I am not a sick person, I am being realistic. Trump IS the judge, in the sense that he has the power and resources to manipulate the legal system in his favor. He has done so many times, by using his presidential immunity, arbitration clauses, and the statute of limitations to avoid accountability. He has also appointed loyalists and cronies to key positions in the judiciary, who may be biased or compromised in his favor. He has effectively blocked the accusers from having their day in court, where they could present their evidence and testimony.

You say I shouldn't be taken seriously? Yet, here you are, engaging with me. Fascinating, isn't it?

You are sick.

bemeruca:


I am not confusing anything.
Carroll accused Trump of tape,
Then claimed he defamed her when he said that didn't happen.

In other to prove defamation, you have to prove tape did occur. She failed to do that.

So how is denying something that didn't happened defamation? Oh he said she was ugly?

Anyway, I don't think she will see a penny

You are not only confusing things, you are also misrepresenting them.

Carroll did not accuse Trump of tape, she accused him of rape. Learn to spell, or at least use spell check, before you try to debate me.

She did not claim he defamed her when he said that didn't happen, she claimed he defamed her when he said that she was lying. Learn to read, or at least use reading comprehension, before you try to debate me.

To prove defamation, you do not have to prove rape did occur, you have to prove sexual abuse did occur. Learn the law, and the difference between certain terms, before you try to debate me.

Denying something that didn't happen is not defamation, but denying something that did happen and calling the victim names is defamation. Learn the logic, or at least use common sense, before you try to debate me.

Anyway, I don't think you will see a point here, because you have none. Learn to argue, or at least use some facts, before you try to debate me.

Ciao. 😘

bemeruca:


You are sick.

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's as accurate as a horoscope written by a squirrel.

JessicaRabbit:


You are not only confusing things, you are also misrepresenting them.

Carroll did not accuse Trump of tape, she accused him of rape. Learn to spell, or at least use spell check, before you try to debate me.

She did not claim he defamed her when he said that didn't happen, she claimed he defamed her when he said that she was lying. Learn to read, or at least use reading comprehension, before you try to debate me.

To prove defamation, you do not have to prove rape did occur, you have to prove sexual abuse did occur. Learn the law, and the difference between certain terms, before you try to debate me.

Denying something that didn't happen is not defamation, but denying something that did happen and calling the victim names is defamation. Learn the logic, or at least use common sense, before you try to debate me.

Anyway, I don't think you will see a point here, because you have none. Learn to argue, or at least use some facts, before you try to debate me.

Ciao. 😘

In this thread, the more uninformed and illiterate you sound, the prouder you seem to be. Bemeruca/benalvino is case in point. It baffles me that anyone would continuously post in such a manner. Honestly, this thread baffles me.

bemeruca:


He is claiming victory for being stupid?
So you admit there is a problem, and you also admit that people who asylum and then disappear are illegal aliens. Bingo....

45 years old remember your age before you become mumu on naira land.

Questions asked up there.
How many are granted asylum?
How many that come to court?
How many that disappeared?

Are they all legal migrants? Because they said they feel threatened at home.

You are only a legal migrant if you are processed and granted asylum not when you disappear into the country.

You seem to still be confused about the definition of legal. And you seem to still be confused about the asylum process. I've posted the law.. read it. I've posted 1 site and 1 well written NY times article which talk about the asylum process.. read them.

I've corrected enough of your posts and given you enough resources to answer the rudimentary (if you followed this issue) questions you've asked. If you choose to continue to sound illiterate because you watch Youtube clips instead of reading well sourced info, that's on you.

zendi:

"The law is broken and has been broken".

This is how a bad workman quarrels with his tools.
"This tool is broken and has been broken",
Yet, past Presidents used the same tool (the law) to secure the border.

An unwilling mind finds a thousand excuses.
A willing mind finds a thousand ways.

Trump was a willing mind and he secured the border with the law as it is.
Then came the open-borders Baba Left with excuses :

"The immigration law is broken and has been broken".

What past Presidents used the same tool (the law) to secure the border?
Two part question.
1.) Tell me what tools they used
2.) Show me a chart showing how effective those tools were in securing the border.

You never post any facts or figures. But you do seem to post a lot of misinformation and glibby sound bites which seem to be gleaned from conservative propaganda.

basilico:


It's like an example I gave earlier. A lot of people in prison always claim they are innocent. The new normal is that once a jury finds you guilty of any charge, you accept the 'convict' status until a higher court acquits you .Lest you be sued for defamation.

You posted this example again like you are proud of it and as if it were somehow clever. I left you last time as it was so utterly stupid and so devoid of any understanding of how defamation works. So..

In your example who would be suing who for defamation? And what law would they be using to do so?

I find your continued arrogance in things you have 0 understanding of contemptible.

IjeBos:


Curious, what led you down that path? And what changed your mind?

I was a bit of a religious extremist back in the days and i was infatuated by the Illuminati cult. I would say i was one of the pushers of the illuminati cult online and so many people knew about them through my online sleuthing. I regret those days but i learned from them.

Damn! The US Economy is on steroids!
President Biden's economic and jobs reports have overshadowed criminal trump's + Bush + Reagan's economy.
This is amazing. I don't see Americans ditching this great thing for a syphilis infested vulgar wannabe dictator who is a perennial jobs loser.
Never!

bemeruca:


You are sick.

You are a disgrace. You got nothing else to say because your fealty is with a liar. You really have nothing to spin anymore.
So, you resort to insults. Dumb maga cultist.

basilico loco and our resident black man hater benalvino will be seething with rage.lol
President Biden is blowing off criminal trump's abysmal records off the park.
A top rate President, Biden is one top rate President.

Obrigardo:


I was a bit of a religious extremist back in the days and i was infatuated by the Illuminati cult. I would say i was one of the pushers of the illuminati cult online and so many people knew about them through my online sleuthing. I regret those days but i learned from them.

So you went from being an extreme religious nutcase to being and extreme leftist maniac. I guess that counts as progress in your insane world.

Moderation is obviously your problem - you’re the kind of person who bounces between extremes - and that’s a clear-cut sign of mental illness and instability. Just like we have always suspected. I would get off nairaland and seek treatment if I were you.

IjeBos:


You seem to still be confused about the definition of legal. And you seem to still be confused about the asylum process. I've posted the law.. read it. I've posted 1 site and 1 well written NY times article which talk about the asylum process.. read them.

I've corrected enough of your posts and given you enough resources to answer the rudimentary (if you followed this issue) questions you've asked. If you choose to continue to sound illiterate because you watch Youtube clips instead of reading well sourced info, that's on you.

You can't correct someone when you have no clue of what you are saying.

This is your words:

Most of the issue now is the legal immigration (asylum seekers). There is a huge backlog and so cases are taking years to come up

Legal immigration is what the law permits. You can be in the US illegally and still apply for asylum which would then be "legal immigration" as there is a legal process in place.

There is a reason you avoided my questions. Go back and answer them so you can expose yourself.

Legal Immigration:
Definition: Legal immigration refers to the process of moving to another country with the right documentation and clearance.
Status: Legal immigrants are foreign-born individuals legally admitted to the U.S.
Authorization: They have obtained a valid visa, been granted asylum, or have been granted citizenship.
Rights and Benefits:
Legal immigrants can vote.
They are eligible for social services from federally funded programs.
They can receive social security benefits.
They can hold United States passports.
Process: Legal immigration involves following established procedures and meeting eligibility criteria.

Illegal Immigration:
Definition: Illegal immigration occurs when someone enters a country without permission or overstays their visa.
Status: Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, fall into this category.
Authorization: They do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation.
Rights and Benefits:
Illegal immigrants cannot vote.
They are ineligible for most social services from federally funded programs.
They cannot receive social security benefits.
They cannot hold United States passports.
Consequences:
Someone who enters the country illegally is subject to detainment and deportation at any time.
Legal immigrants can also face removal if they commit and are convicted of a crime.
However, unless an undocumented immigrant has committed a crime and been convicted, they may not be immediately detained or removed from the U.S.
In summary, legal immigrants follow established procedures and have rights and benefits, while undocumented immigrants lack legal status and face limitations on their rights and access to service

If someone enters the U.S. either legally or illegally, they can apply for asylum affirmatively.
Affirmative process involves submitting Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, directly to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
USCIS conducts a non-adversarial affirmative asylum interview with the applicant.
If an individual is subject to expedited removal and found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture, the written record of this determination serves as their asylum application.
If USCIS does not grant asylum during the affirmative process, the individual may be placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge.
Result: Applying for asylum affirmatively does not automatically make someone a legal immigrant. Their status depends on the outcome of the asylum process.
Defensive Asylum Process:

Defensive process comes into play when an individual is already in removal proceedings.
Reasons for being in removal proceedings include:
Not being granted asylum during the affirmative process.
Being placed in removal proceedings by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for immigration violations.
Being subject to expedited removal and issued a Notice to Appear.
In defensive asylum, the case is heard by an immigration judge in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
If an individual was referred to EOIR by USCIS, their asylum application on file with USCIS carries over to the immigration judge.
If there is no asylum application on file with USCIS, the individual must submit Form I-589 to the immigration judge.
Result: The outcome of the defensive process determines their legal status.
Rejected Asylum Claim:

If an asylum claim is rejected, the individual does not automatically become a legal immigrant.
They may be subject to removal orders if their asylum application is denied.
However, some individuals may choose to disappear within the country, which can lead to undocumented status.
Result: Rejected asylum does not confer legal immigration status, but it does impact their ability to remain in the U.S.

To summarize this part, applying for asylum does not automatically grant legal immigrant status. The outcome of the asylum process determines an individual’s legal standing in the U.S.

IjeBos:


What past Presidents used the same tool (the law) to secure the border?
Two part question.
1.) Tell me what tools they used
2.) Show me a chart showing how effective those tools were in securing the border.

You never post any facts or figures. But you do seem to post a lot of misinformation and glibby sound bites which seem to be gleaned from conservative propaganda.

There is law governing every aspect of law enforcement, including Immigration enforcement in every country of the world. Or are saying there was no immigration enforcement in the US before the arrival of Biden? There was, Trump had a strong border in place and it was backed by the relevant, existing US Immigration Law(s).
I can go into google and start listing all the relevant existing legislations governing immigration, asylum etc, but pls note, I don't do juvenile back and forth in order to 'win'. I post my thought, my opinion, my say, my truth and go my way leaving you to make what you
like of it.

bemeruca:


Legal Immigration:
Definition: Legal immigration refers to the process of moving to another country with the right documentation and clearance.
Status: Legal immigrants are foreign-born individuals legally admitted to the U.S.
Authorization: They have obtained a valid visa, been granted asylum, or have been granted citizenship.
Rights and Benefits:
Legal immigrants can vote.
They are eligible for social services from federally funded programs.
They can receive social security benefits.
They can hold United States passports.
Process: Legal immigration involves following established procedures and meeting eligibility criteria.

I started reading this post and then stopped here.

Read this section here. I'm not sure if you wrote this or copied it. But it's clear you don't understand what you are talking about.
1.) You have a section on legal immigration (as opposed to illegal immigration).
2.) You say legal immigrants include Visa holders. Ok. True
3.) Then you go on to talk about Rights and Benefits.
4.) One of those benefits you site is that legal immigrants can vote. Another is they can get a passports? Huh?
5.) So do you think that Visa holders can vote or get a passport?
6.) So, if Visa Holders can't vote or get a passport does that mean they are not legal immigrants?

This is the continuous problem with you. You're too stupid to understand words have meaning. You're too stupid to know how little you know. So you continuously over-value your abilities and post condatrictory nonsense like you did above.

And until you can demonstrate you have a minuscule understanding of the US immigration process (unlike this nonsense you are writing here). And so I don't feel like you are my punching bag (I don't like abusing people, even idiots like you), I'm done with you.

zendi:

There is law governing every aspect of law enforcement, including Immigration enforcement in every country of the world. Or are saying there was no immigration enforcement in the US before the arrival of Biden? There was, Trump had a strong border in place and it was backed by the relevant, existing US Immigration Law(s).

I can go into google and start listing all the relevant existing legislations governing immigration, asylum etc, but pls note, I don't do juvenile back and forth in order to 'win'. I post my thought, my opinion, my say, my truth and go my way leaving you to make what you
like of it.

You made a statement and I asked you to back it up. So show me the laws that Trump used. And show me stats that show how effective those laws worked. But instead you've written more mumbo jumbo about laws enforcement.

That juvenile back and forth you are talking about is what a discussion looks like. What you seem to be accustomed to is writing some Right wing propaganda without anything to back it up and then when challenged on it, moving on.

Btw, "Your truth"? Sounds a lot like "alternative facts".

Obrigardo:


I was a bit of a religious extremist back in the days and i was infatuated by the Illuminati cult. I would say i was one of the pushers of the illuminati cult online and so many people knew about them through my online sleuthing. I regret those days but i learned from them.

Interesting.
I assume a lot of people in this thread supporting Trump are also doing it based on religious extremism/fanaticism.
Well, glad you found your way. Some people don't.

Please can anybody, preferably a leftist, hel me with the meaning of Sexual Abuse, as different from Rape, Sexual Assault and Sexual Harrassment?

Somebody in my dream was accused of rape, The charge failed, but the trial was by a fascist woke mob. They had to get him for something. In fact the trial was a conviction looking for the crime. They had to get him by forcce and fire. So they pivoted and found him guilty of this unknown called Sexual Abuse.

Sexual abuse of somebody not living in the same house with him, somebody he met inside an indoor market at noonday. And the accused was a very rich man who owned many many mansions and hotels into which he could seduce a thousand women when that be his pressure

I ran to google for the meaning of Sexual Abuse but google was even more confused than me. An entry there said 'abusive sexual behavior'.

Sexual Abuse:
Abusive Sexual......

That didn't help at all, so please, I want to be educated here, preferably by a woke leftist additionally with skill in dreams reading.

IjeBos:


I started reading this post and then stopped here.

Read this section here. I'm not sure if you wrote this or copied it. But it's clear you don't understand what you are talking about.
1.) You have a section on legal immigration (as opposed to illegal immigration).
2.) You say legal immigrants include Visa holders. Ok. True
3.) Then you go on to talk about Rights and Benefits.
4.) One of those benefits you site is that legal immigrants can vote. Another is they can get a passports? Huh?
5.) So do you think that Visa holders can vote or get a passport?
6.) So, if Visa Holders can't vote or get a passport does that mean they are not legal immigrants?

This is the continuous problem with you. You're too stupid to understand words have meaning. You're too stupid to know how little you know. So you continuously over-value your abilities and post condatrictory nonsense like you did above.

And until you can demonstrate you have a minuscule understanding of the US immigration process (unlike this nonsense you are writing here). And so I don't feel like you are my punching bag (I don't like abusing people, even idiots like you), I'm done with you.

Again, you are embarrassing yourself. You don't know the purpose of the American army, now you don't know how immigration works.

Daft. When I am free I will break it down from a person(me) who crossed the border illegal and seek asylum and a job in It 😂😂

IjeBos:


You made a statement and I asked you to back it up. So show me the laws that Trump used. And show me stats that show how effective those laws worked. But instead you've written more mumbo jumbo about laws enforcement.

That juvenile back and forth you are talking about is what a discussion looks like. What you seem to be accustomed to is writing some Right wing propaganda without anything to back it up and then when challenged on it, moving on.

Btw, "Your truth"? Sounds a lot like "alternative facts".

Let me oblige you with one last JAMB answer. You want to see stats, go to the border. Trump's Border was miles and miles far from the mindless chaos that will greet you there, as everybody from both left and right has been attesting to.

zendi:

Let me oblige you with one last JAMB answer. You want to see stats, go to the border. Trump's Border was miles and miles far from the mindless chaos that will greet you there, as everybody from both left and right has been attesting to.

Here I am wading through data and stats (you know facts) to make my case on things, when all I have to do is say "some people said" and bingo point proven. Thanks. Good to know.

bemeruca:


Daft. When I am free I will break it down from a person(me) who crossed the border illegal and seek asylum and a job in It 😂😂

God, you really do strangle the English language. Is it that hard to conjugate a verb?