₦airaland Forum

Ballzproblem2:
clout chasing or not a simple clap will suffice , this is Trump last term ,he has absolutely nothing to gain from for propaganda.

He has nothing to gain from propaganda? oh do I have news for you.😮‍💨

But the clap or no clap is not a hill I’m willing to die on so I’ll be moving on.

Ballzproblem2:
clout chasing or not a simple clap will suffice , this is Trump last term ,he has absolutely nothing to gain from for propaganda.

He has nothing to gain yet he is still doing it? LOL
He still has to keep people on his side or his party will lose the midterms.
If they lose Dems will gain subpoena power and can investigate all his scams.
That alone is enough to keep the propaganda going.

Pay attention to what he does not what he says.
This is a good discussion of what is happening because he cut funding to Congressionally approved organizations overnight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kD5tljceqM

IjeBos:
Yeah, I would have left it alone as well.
But it's tough as this is all propaganda. And attempts to normalize him.
Finding the line is going to be hard the next few years.

Right. At this rate, we’ll get to the point where no one can get any services or benefits that we used to take for granted as Americans then when he doles out a nugget of goodwill, we’ll be expected to applaud and praise him for it.

They’re just getting this poor sick kid and his family mixed up in their mess when he should be resting up.

Ballzproblem2:
propaganda but bunch of white Democrats politicians wearing Ankara scarf and kneeling for George Floyd is what then? Real sympathy ,open your eyes I'm not here to support Republicans or Democrats ,but it won't take anything for Democrats to simply clap it is inhumane full stop ,they dealing long term blow to their image in case you don't know.

It is what they believe.
If a person performs/speaks what they do and believe in, what is that?
Dems genuinely believe in those causes.
Trump is cutting funding to Cancer Research, pardoning J6 felons who hurt police officers, and screeching about rape while being credibly accused of Rape. His actions do not match his words.

I'm not arguing the clap.
Dems are trying to fight a battle with someone who lies when he is talking.
They are unaccustomed to fighting this way and will make some mistakes.

I'm saying that you should do your research and if that image meant so much to you, you should support the policies and programs that allowed that child to live.
Trump is cutting those.

basilico:
Ibime, I've been told that Zelensky didn't understand that the deal was a .mIneral deal not a ceasefire agreement. Don't forget Rice went on every Sunday show saying the raid at Benghazi was sparked by a YouTube video that noone had watched.
They know suckers like you are born every minute,they lie without batting an eyelid.

Her denial is your proof.

Bro, sometimes I want to help them ferret truth out but they don't want to be helped.

Ibime still wants to believe people who got FBI Agents who authenticated Hunter's laptop yet swore an OATH (they perjured themselves) denying the authenticity of said laptop.

Like, if you would still refer to same type of people as evidence, then there's no point arguing.

Bear in mind:

- he wouldn't take Trump's own words as truth
- he wouldn't accept Trump's denials as truth

But he will easily do so for Susan Rice who lied about Beghazi only to walk it back few days later. Her reputation is still in tact to him.

But Scott Perry read off a doc from DOGE about USAID and Boko Haram sponsorship. He dismissed it as a Conspiracy Theory even though Scott Perry reading it off in a hearing can be admissible in court as he is a Congressman.

basilico:
This is $2 billion for works already completed by Feb 2025. The order doesn't block future USAID it's but leaves a windows for further lawsuits.
If part of $2 billion was fraudulent then who's responsible

It does not.

I posted it so people will see trump Supreme Court do the right thing all the time

And I love how we don’t worship our politicians. I can call out a behavior I find unprofessional. Heck I would never support a democrat who’s been credibly accused of rape, brags about assault, lies with their every breath, is a confirmed con artist etc etc. I have a moral breaking point and I will withdraw my support for any politician who crosses that line.

Maga could never. They’ll rather mop the ocean.

IjeBos:
It is what they believe.
If a person performs/speaks what they do and believe in, what is that?
Dems genuinely believe in those causes.
Trump is cutting funding to Cancer Research, pardoning J6 felons who hurt police officers, and screeching about rape while being credibly accused of Rape. His actions do not match his words.

I'm not arguing the clap.
Dems are trying to fight a battle with someone who lies when he is talking.
They are unaccustomed to fighting this way and will make some mistakes.

I'm saying that you should do your research and if that image meant so much to you, you should support the policies and programs that allowed that child to live.
Trump is cutting those.

Ibime:
Yes it is unless you produce the video YOU claim to have of her saying she met Zelensky. She is not that stupid to do a video and deny she ever spoke within 2 days unless she is suffering from Alzheimers.

The video doesn't exist, full stop. And the person who started the rumour admitted they made it up.

Like you already agreed:

But she literally did so about Benghazi.

Did Clinton not deny having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?

I truly want to help you understand how to stop being deceived but it seems you've signed a pact with this foolishness.

So Clinton's denial was evidence right?

cococandy:
Right. At this rate, we’ll get to the point where no one can get any services or benefits that we used to take for granted as Americans then when he doles out a nugget of goodwill, we’ll be expected to applaud and praise him for it.

They’re just getting this poor sick kid and his family mixed up in their mess when he should be resting up.

Exactly and that's what pissed me off the most.

Guy just drop the video please

We don't need to enter Benghazi, Monika Lewinsky, Roswell, Shooting of JFK, Sinking of Titanic 🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶 just to watch a video you said exists, meanwhile you are dropping video on Benghazi

IjeBos:
It is what they believe.
If a person performs/speaks what they do and believe in, what is that?
Dems genuinely believe in those causes.
Trump is cutting funding to Cancer Research, pardoning J6 felons who hurt police officers, and screeching about rape while being credibly accused of Rape. His actions do not match his words.

I'm not arguing the clap.
Dems are trying to fight a battle with someone who lies when he is talking.
They are unaccustomed to fighting this way and will make some mistakes.

I'm saying that you should do your research and if that image meant so much to you, you should support the policies and programs that allowed that child to live.
Trump is cutting those.

name anything tangible the Dems have achieved with all their useless funding,usaid is a large embezzlement scheme, same goes for the unwinnable war between Ukraine a Russia ,there homeless people littered all over the states but Democrats care more about war far away from their shores .

basilico:
Who said a video? Zelensky has not denied he was on a conference call en flight to Washington with Blinken, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland and Vindman.
The other three have not denied
Show me s video of their denial

Let me tell you how he works his red herrings.

Ibime sneaks in you said "Ukrainian biolabs are used to create monkeypox to kill Russians". When he is pressed to post the evidence, he unlooks.

Go through the conversation, Ukrainian, biolabs, Russians will be in the sentence but no point was made about those labs being used to kill Russians. He makes it up on his own, disproves it, then argues that it was his opponent's opinion. Rinse. Repeat. That's his argument style.

The quote is Susan Rice is on Video exposing that she did speak with Zelensky. Nobody said she MET (which would imply physical presence to disprove plausible deniability).

If she's exposing it, it means you have to be able to read the fine lines as she's not going to willfully out herself due to the Logan Act violation.

That's why they won't accept 2020 was rigged but cannot explain why 51 FBI agents lying to favor one candidate is not election interference.

Fools, if it is election interference, You don't need a bag of more evidence to say 2020 was rigged. Just that laptop saga is sufficient proof.

That's how to think, fools.

Ibime:
Have you denied that you slaughtered a sheep for Ramadan iftar last night? Why should they deny nonsense that some eediots speculated in their bedroom?

But Susan Rice did, no?

So it is evidence when she does it. But if the others stay silent, it is because they didn't need to deny the speculation.

See how illogic works?

I'm not providing any videos.

Just go ahead and believe them.

When they admit they lied (and they will, when they try to beg Trump to fund their war again and he refuses - this is going to happen soon) just be man enough to accept that you were deceived again.

That's the honorable thing to do.

Android17:
The quote is Susan Rice is on Video exposing that she did speak with Zelensky. Nobody said she MET (which would imply physical presence to disprove plausible deniability).

Can you post the video please?

Or is there a part of the English she used below that is not Englishing?

You want to force a bored crazy housewives speculation into reality

Ballzproblem2:
name anything tangible the Dems have achieved with all their useless funding,usaid is a large embezzlement scheme, same goes for the unwinnable war between Ukraine a Russia ,there homeless people littered all over the states but Democrats care more about war far away from their shores .

Huh?
USAID was a bipartisan effort that was funded through Congress.
The current Secretary of State Rubio was a huge proponent of it. Going as far as to say it needed more funding.
Every programs has some corruption but USAID was probably one of the more tightly accounted for programs.

I see Ukraine differently.
1.) We should be paying Ukraine for what they are doing. They are fighting a war against Russia, weakening them and we are not losing any troops in the process.
2.) We eventually want Ukraine's minerals and grains. At a minimum we want to keep them away from Russia.
3.) We also were able to send Ukraine a lot of our old decommissioned weapons and clean up those stock[iles.
4.) Though we allocated the funding to Ukraine, a lot of that money was spent making weapons in the US. In fact it was spent in a lot of Republican districts making those weapons.
5.) The war has allowed us to test our weapons against a geo poltiical adversary who was supposed to have good weaponry. It also allowed us to see how new battles will be waged. Indispensable knowledge.
I'm sure that's how the politicians who gave the money saw it as well. And I don't think it's a terrible use of money if you're thinking it from that perspective.

You talk about homelessness, how do you want to fix that without funding?
Google the GI Bill.
The VA.
A lot of the programs that are so indispensable in our lives that you don't even know benefit you, the Dems created through that funding.
Once they are cut, you'll understand. But you should understand what it's like as I assume you've lived in Naija at some point.

Ibime:
Can you post the video please?

Or is there a part of the English she used below that is not Englishing?

You want to force a bored crazy housewives speculation into reality

Here's proof Susan Rice didn't lie: she said she didn't lie

Gee, the proof the laptop is fake is 51 FBI agents swore an oath. Any other thing is a conspiracy theory.

Add that to ABSOLUTELY FALSE, NO GENETIC MODIFICATION, NOT MANMADE.

LOOOOL

Good piece on why everything that Musk doing is illegal

Gift link <https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/opinion/elon-musk-trump-constitution.html?unlocked_article_code=1.1k4.7bkr.qCrhFpwI4ubV&smid=url-share>

There Is No Musk Exception in the Constitution
...

Mr. Musk’s power also is squarely at odds with concrete constitutional provisions. While the Constitution is largely silent on removal — Mr. Trump’s arguments that the Constitution gives him limitless power to fire are atextual — the document is quite specific when it comes to appointment.

Supreme Court cases make clear that individuals who serve in “continuing” positions and who exercise “significant authority” on behalf of the United States must be appointed consistent with the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. As far as I can tell, Mr. Musk hasn’t been.

The Appointments Clause — part of Article II, the source of Mr. Trump’s virtually boundless conception of presidential power — sets forth two methods of appointment of what are called “officers of the United States.” “Principal” officers must be nominated by the president and are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. For “inferior officers,” the Constitution allows Congress to give the appointment power to the president alone — that is, without Senate confirmation — or to the head of a department, or to the courts of law. Inferior officers must be subject to the supervision of someone other than the president; if you report directly to the president, you’re a principal officer.

This means that the individuals who wield the most authority — principal officers — are subject to both the public scrutiny and the check that is supposed to be imposed by Senate confirmation.

Mr. Musk appears to be wielding significant power, as evidenced by his presence at the administration’s first cabinet meeting last week. He was the first to speak after the president’s introduction. He boasted about pushing federal employees to respond to an email about their work, inveighed about the federal deficit and casually disclosed that his team had inadvertently canceled funding for Ebola prevention — an error he claims was quickly rectified, but may not have been. The email he mentioned appears to have been dashed off without advance warning even to the cabinet
...

Android17:
Here's proof Susan Rice didn't lie: she said she didn't lie

No you just entered another conspiracy saying "she never admitted meeting him, but she spoke to him" to avoid Logan Act 🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶

She said she didn't speak to him, you have a video of her saying she did, yet the whole Magaverse on Twitter could not disprove it with the video. Audio video, you probably read from qAnon

Your source of truth, a bloody Karen speculating. Clap for yourself, finder of truth. That's how you find all your "truths"

Same post he is quoting:

- president embarrassed himself - proof? IMHO
- no question, it was a set-up - proof? IMHO
- Putin supporter - proof? Russian Collusion hoax.

But the part about not being on that call, not advising Zelensky, never speaking to him?

You have to take her word for it. Susan Rice will NEVER ever lie.

IjeBos:
Everytime I read your posts I find it hard to believe you graduated college.
The cognitive dissonance and non sequiturs in your posts always make me feel 2nd hand embarrassment for you.

You read like someone who is paid to defend nonsensical things but can't really so just writes nonsensical posts.
The problem is you're not paid... you just write nonsensical posts.

Everytime I read your post, I see someone whose development stopped at age 9.

You have the mind of a child, the thought process of an infant.
You have no agency over what happens in your life, you are a perpetual victim
I am sure the name they did your christening, no one could ever believe you will turn out to be a reetard

Android17:
Here's proof Susan Rice didn't lie: she said she didn't lie

Gee, the proof the laptop is fake is 51 FBI agents swore an oath. Any other thing is a conspiracy theory.

Add that to ABSOLUTELY FALSE, NO GENETIC MODIFICATION, NOT MANMADE.

LOOOOL

It's clear he's asking you to post the evidence you clearly said you had and relied on to make your allegations.
But you're still playing your games, speaking out of turn and then writing books instead of simply posting the evidence you say you relied on.

Ibime:
No you just entered another conspiracy saying "she never admitted meeting him, but she spoke to him" to avoid Logan Act 🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶

She said she didn't speak to him, you have a video of her saying she did, yet the whole Magaverse on Twitter could not disprove it with the video. Audio video, you probably read from qAnon

Your source of truth, a bloody Karen speculating. Clap for yourself, finder of truth. That's how you find all your "truths"

It will soon shift to Trumpanzee or related. Even though, I have opinions that completely disagree with Trump or MAGA on multiple issues.

You just want to beg me to put you out of your misery but I don't want to make it easy for you.

Believe Susan Rice. The only evidence that will convince you is when the media you believe in, will make the case for you. Don't worry about me. Just wait for them.

I promise you, it won't be long this time. Even Lindsey Graham is going to be exposed. It will be very interesting.

2026: Voters, upset by the Trump recession, vote blue in the midterms.

2028: Angry at the economic collapse, voters give Democrats the White House and Congress and swear they’ll never vote GOP again.

2030: Voters put Republicans back in charge in Congress.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

IjeBos:
It's clear he's asking you to post the evidence you clearly said you had and relied on to make your allegations.
But you're still playing your games, speaking out of turn and then writing books instead of simply posting the evidence you say you relied on.

I'm incredibly devoted to logic, emotionalists or more specifically, emotional blackmailists will have a hard time coping with me. That's just a fact.

Like I said, I can't post evidence to someone who has no history of changing his opinions even when demonstrably wrong.

That guy can insult a player and call him carry-along even when said player has now been voted best player in the world. How do you argue with someone like that?

I believe you have a video to provide to a certain someone up there.

Use your time wisely and stop meandering. We can see you trying and failing to give backing to the claim you made.

Don’t use me to distract yourself from that.

Android17:
Back to it;

RUSSIAN COLLUSION. Even after it failed in 2016, 2020 and now 2025.

And I'm the conspiracy theorist.

Buahahahahahaha

cococandy:
I’m neutral about the ones who didn’t applaud. If they saw it as the clout chasing photo op that it was, I understand them not wanting to participate in the charade. Trying to use a sick kid to show the country that those who didn’t clap don’t love the country while simultaneously taking away chances for sick people to get better, leaves a bad taste in the mouth of anyone with discernment. Maybe if people stopped entertaining his insincere photo ops, he will stop doing them And focus on things that don’t hurt the country.

There are things and event that are universal where everyone does show compassion for the victim especially when they are minors and elderly. Lets even forget about the cancer survivor boy first,
How about a mother whose daughter was beaten to death by illegal immigrants who were released by the Biden admin,
Like a boy whose father was shot by criminals and got admitted to Westpoint,
like a 95yr old woman whose son was just released from a Russian prison so she can see her son before she dies
Like a girl who got a head injury from a trans athlete and survived

Non of these were applaudable but its Ukraine. Ukraine the only moment Democrats could applaud. It really shows where their mind is

cococandy:
Nicole Wallace said:
I get that she’s attempting to make a point about the Jan 6 cops who lost their lives to suicide following how Trump and republicans fvkced tbem over after the insurrection. I had to quote the full statement so we’re not walking away with the impression that she’s wishing suicide on this particular baby.

But left to me, since it’s involving a kid, I would have kept it cute and simple and wished him well. We’ll talk about the cops who died by suicide another day. Not this moment. I do believe in an appropriate time and place for everything. So in my impression it was distasteful.

Good to know you havent tilted to the other side. A boy who spent most of his life dodging death and the next best thing you can come up with is thinking he might commit suicide, How does a sane mind even go to that?

cococandy:
I believe you have a video to provide to a certain someone up there.

Use your time wisely and stop meandering. We can see you trying and failing to give backing to the claim you made.

Don’t use me to distract yourself from that.

I just scrolled to the last page I visited and started replying posts from that page. You're not a distraction. You had the first senseless post I could find so I decided to point out the (il)logic in it.

Don't worry about my evidence or lack of it. Even when I post them, you guys just look the other way. You know you're not a neutral observer so don't pretend.

Wait for MSNBC, CNN and co. I guarantee you, they'll do so like they did for Biden's mental decline. It won't take 5 years though. I promise.

I am sticking to evidence on single issue topics cos I don't want to discuss Lindsey Graham being a plant, Sinking of the Titanic or who killed Julius Ceaser and other long talks

In the last week, single issue topics were

(a.) Audio $350 bln aid. I provided evidence for my numbers from Official Govt websites, but no evidence for the audio $350bln except "the President will know"

(b.) Video of Susan Rice you claimed was available. I provided evidence on my side of the origin of the conspiracy theory stating it was lamba and Susan Rice herself stating she never met or spoke to the fella.

What I get back is Monica Lewinsky, Lindsey Graham, Fauci, Bengazi and other cobwebs instead of simple evidence you claimed to have.

Android17:
I'm incredibly devoted to logic, emotionalists or more specifically, emotional blackmailists will have a hard time coping with me. That's just a fact.

Like I said, I can't post evidence to someone who has no history of changing his opinions even when demonstrably wrong.

That guy can insult a player and call him carry-along even when said player has now been voted best player in the world. How do you argue with someone like that?

A lot of words to say "you don't have the evidence because it never existed".

- Yeah, I didn't tell you I got my opinion from a post on X but you keep referring me to it, why?

- You quoted legacy media and their fake info graphics for the Ukraine aid. I asked you why their opinions not the POTUS'S should be weightier? You have no response. You just want to take their side.

- I said good. Take their side till they retract it. That way you cannot dismiss the same source you quoted. Why is it hard to understand?

Any other evidence I provide would have been labeled or dismissed. I provided CNN, Forbes, Politico to one ediot here, he said he won't accept them but then quoted same sources to make another case against Trump. Rinse. Repeat.

You guys are in the same whatsApp group.

IjeBos:
A lot of words to say "you don't have the evidence because it never existed".

You're correct.

LOL