Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
2-hours compilation: innocent women board the bus in crowded rush hour… hands start wandering, skirts lifted, panties pushed aside. Quiet gasps turn into muffled moans as strangers finger, grope, and quietly fuck them from behind while everyone pretends not to notice. Packed, silent, raw public use.Real sluts who fantasize... show more
160,282 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce •via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek
Benzer Videolar
!["You just hate Hichilema": The dramatic fall of Zambia's president By Sishuwa Sishuwa Hakainde Hichilema stood in the queue to becoming President of Zambia for 15 years before voters finally removed him from it in August 2021. This demonstrates how badly the man wanted this job. But it has taken him only five years in office to display his unfitness for the role. When it comes to the bigger national issues, such as safeguarding our cherished democracy, getting the best out of Zambia’s mineral wealth, respecting the constitution and the rule of law, fighting corruption beyond rhetoric, genuine promotion of national unity and equitable distribution of appointments to public service positions, sorting out the cost-of-living crisis and the deplorable conditions of life for most Zambians, Hichilema has lamentably failed. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the President has become a clear and present danger to Zambia’s economy, to our democracy, our constitutional order, our nationhood and its 'One Zambia Nation' foundation, and to the lives of ordinary Zambians. Voting Hichilema out of office will be the highest expression of patriotism. As I have previously stated, I am convinced that Hichilema will lose the election on 13 August. The only thing that can save him from defeat is pre-ballot death (of any candidate) or industrial scale vote-rigging. I really hope that we Zambians will never again elect a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag. In addition to his policy failures on major issues of public concern, one reason why Hichilema is losing the election (unless he rigs it on an industrial scale) is because of having extremist supporters, mostly Zambezi supremacists, who dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership actions as hate speech and consequently enable his continued failure to be receptive to criticism, to reflect on the feedback provided by the governed, and to change for the better. When citizens (be it the Catholic Bishops, opposition parties, civic actors, or ordinary Zambians like me) raise governance concerns, they do so in the spirit of accountable democratic governance. They do not do so because they hate the president as a person, hate his ethnic identity, or hate where he was born. I insist that a better Zambia is possible but we won’t get it if we treat criticism of presidential leadership failure as expression of hate. Unfortunately, even Hichilema himself has embraced this warped thinking that any criticism of his leadership actions is hate speech. This attitude has deprived him of the much needed feedback on his leadership performance and capacity to listen to divergent views, consequently impoverishing his presidency. We must embrace the unfamiliar, eschew haste in passing judgement, and be more tolerant and understanding. These qualities are especially essential to those in public leadership roles. I once raised concern that we seem to have prepared different standards for this president compared to those who came before him. If a leader can only provide five hours of electricity to the people in a day, they have failed. If a leader can only increase the cost of living, they have failed. If a leader…I can go on. In addition to denying the president the benefit of legitimate public feedback on his performance, misconstruing criticism as hate makes it look like the responsibility of holding our public leaders to account falls on those who either love him or hail from the region where the president does not come from. If his supporters and Tongas, Lozis and Zambians from Northwestern Province join in calling out the wrongs of Hichilema, he will no longer play the tribal card of reducing all criticism of his leadership to ethnic hatred. In the uncritical minds of some of the president's supporters, I criticise Hichilema because I hate him! Most of the individuals who hold this view are people who repeatedly criticise me on this platform, even when their criticism is quite often devoid of reason or substance. I do not think those who criticise me do so because they hate me. I think they criticise me, even if I hold no elected public office, simply because they have a different take, different opinions, on things. Why is it so hard to apply the same logic to my criticism of an elected public leader like Hichilema who is accountable to us, the public? I have been providing regular political commentaries on Zambian affairs since 2009. Why was my much stronger criticism of Hichilema's predecessors, namely Rupiah Banda, Michael Sata, and Edgar Lungu, not considered hatred of these individual leaders? In fact, many of the individuals who today accuse me of harbouring hatred for Hichilema were people who were very happy with my much stinging criticism of the leadership failures of his predecessors. When I called Sata a tribalist and undemocratic leader who did not listen to advise, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Sata's supporters said I was bitter and a Hichilema supporter. When I called Lungu a tribalist and corrupt leader, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Lungu's supporters said I was bitter and petitioned the police to arrest me for sedition. Some of Hichilema's supporters, as part of the enjoyment of their exercise of the right to free expression, even insult me, call me names, or outrightly declare that they dislike me. Of course I would prefer content-based discussion, but if the best that anyone's mind can do is to insult me, I will consider their actions as part of the right to free expression. I recognise that people have the right to dislike me, to call me names, to wish me whatever they desire, to feel however they want about me. I have no problem with all this. I do not speak to be liked or secure the validation of anyone. I speak to express myself and I respect the right of other people to do the same. As I have repeatedly stated, free speech is not just for the people or thoughts we like or agree with; it is also for people we despise and opinions that we do not support. The important point is not the position I take on a given issue of public interest. It is the reasoning advanced in support of said position. If I say Hichilema is a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag, what is important is not simply this description; it is the reasons and evidence I have adduced in support of this conclusion. Anyone is welcome to challenge my conclusions or evidence, to say "I disagree with your argument for this and that reason." What I totally reject is the idea that criticism of a president's leadership actions amounts to hate; it does not. If I point out that Hichilema is failing to ensure adequate ethnic diversity in public appointments and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema’s fight against corruption is a sham and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has eroded Zambia’s democracy and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to reduce the cost of living, as per his campaign promise, and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema (working in cohort with his friend Situmbeko Musokotwane) has facilitated the extraction of the country’s mineral wealth by multinational corporations without ensuring sufficient returns in revenue collection for Zambia and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to…and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. Simply dismissing my criticism as an expression of my alleged hatred for Hichilema is most unhelpful. Those who do so are depriving me the opportunity to learn what I do not know and Hichilema the opportunity to adjust his leadership style and change for the better. While I do not hesitate to share my opinions on matters of public concern, I also retain the intellectual integrity of one who is willing to abandon their point of view if its weakness can be shown. I have repeatedly stated that I harbour no hatred against Hichilema. What I hate is his bad leadership, whose meaning I have explained in the article below. There is no constitutional democracy in the world that requires citizens to love their elected leaders. Loving individuals is the responsibility of their spouses and family members. Once these individuals step up to hold elective public office, we owe them one thing: accountability or feedback on their performance. No elected public leader or their supporter should burden me or another person with any demand for affirmation or affection. In a functioning democracy, the duty of citizens is to hold their elected leaders to account so that they deliver basic services and do not undermine accountable democratic governance. This is what I have been doing across different administrations, including this one. As early as December 2021, when I analysed Hichilma's first 100 days in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2022, when he was celebrating one year in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2023, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2024, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In fact, as did his predecessor in 2021 in response to my criticism of the abuse of state institutions to fix critics and opponents, the president asked his supporters to report me to the police for alleged hate speech against him! In 2025, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. This year and for the many reasons that I shared in the interview on the link below, Hichilema is losing the election because he did not listen to criticism that we, as citizens, raised about his performance. He is also losing the election because of his extremist supporters who, in addition to a wilful but harmful failure to hold him to account, dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership from other people as hate speech. What a pity! What a wasted opportunity! I have just read a story on a ruling party platform casually dismissing Global Witness's report that "Ahead of Zambia's general election...First Quantum Minerals and its associates have been running a decades-long covert influence campaign distorting the copper-rich nation's democracy" and that the Canadian firm has "become his [Hichilema's] largest funder in the upcoming 2026 election after pledging up to $50 million in support." The report adds that "FQM has reaped enormous benefits: major changes to Zambia's tax regime have save the company $771 million between 2022 and 2025, and it has been shielded from legal scrutiny." Rather than interrogating these grave concerns, the publisher, the Zambian Watchdog which is run from State House, is treating the issue so casually when Global Witness, a very credible international outlet, raises serious corruption and governance allegations. In January 2019, I raised questions about Hichilema's relationship with foreign mining firms, but was told by his supporters that I just hate him. Today, we are ere. The net result is that Hichilema, who in opposition politics had positioned himself as the reformist leader Zambia needed to reclaim its democracy, eliminate corruption, unite the country, and set it on the path to economic recovery, has, in power, turned out to be nearly everything he detested about his predecessor and, in some cases, much worse. Under his watch, corruption has thrived on a massive scale, the economy is a shambles, ethnic divisions have worsened, Zambia’s previously principled foreign policy has been shredded into something unrecognisable, and democracy is essentially non-existent. The man who was expected to lead reform has instead transitioned into an aspiring despot. Unless he rigs the election, or eliminates his main rival, Zambians should prepare for a new administration after 13 August. Many voters have reached a point of no return and it is too late for Hichilema to change their mind. A combination of failure to listen and the "you just hate Hichilema" brigade has destroyed his once promising presidency. I see many people expressing surprise at the huge turnout at Brian Mundubile's rallies. What they miss is that the turnout reflects the revulsion against Hichilema rather than genuine support for Brian. Even if Brian was not there, voters would have rallied behind another candidate through which to express their opposition to Hichilema as a result of his major policy failures. As early as 2023, wen I noticed Hichilema's direction of travel, I warned that the greatest opposition that he and the UPND face is a politically alert and informed citizenry, not an opposition party: “The biggest opposition that Hichilema faces is the people, particularly if he fails to lower the cost of living and tackle the huge unemployment outside the health and education sectors. They can stop opposition rallies like Edgar Lungu and the PF tried to do but if Zambians would have decided in a year or two that Hichilema must go at the next election, there is nothing that he can do to stop them....Even if Hichilema tries to, he cannot stop the people’s will. Even if he succeeds in killing the PF and in his manoeuvres to block his main political opponents from running in 2026, another platform and another candidate to serve as the outlet of opposition will be found. The voters will support any visionary patriot they see as better placed to be used as the vehicle for removing Hichilema just like they chose him as the vehicle for removing Lungu. Please tell him”. Hichilema did not listen. Again. This continued failure to listen prompted my conclusion two years later that "Many Zambians may not know yet who they will vote for in the 2026 presidential election, but they already know who they won’t vote for." The truth is that I tried to warn Hichilema in good time and at different points that he was heading in the wrong direction. The President, dripping with arrogance, did not listen. Think of it this way. A bus (representing a political party in power) is transporting passengers (active citizens) from Intercity terminus (2021, being the departure point of where we did not want to be anymore) to Nakonde (2026, being the arrival point of destination before subsequently deciding whether to book the same bus for the return trip). After leaving Intercity, some passengers notice that the bus is heading towards Livingstone (a wrong destination that takes us back to before 2021). A few of us (active citizens) decide to stand up (holding the leader to account) and confront both the driver (the president) and his conductor (Minister of Finance), demanding an explanation for why we are heading to Livingstone when we were promised that we woud be taken to Nakonde. Other passengers, mainly those who came from the ethnic group of the driver and conductor, defended the duo even before it could respond to our concerns. They repeatedly told us that "You just hate the driver. Please sit down!" One or two relatives of the conductor joined in support, saying the "The driver and the conductor are excellent and one of them has even won awards for stellar performance on his duties, including his remarkable capacity to understand direction of travel"! That is how some passengers kept quiet. I kept on talking, especially after we reached Choma in the hope that if we turned atthat point, we woudl not wast more time. I talked because I could not get off the bus at undesigned stations, so the only solution was to appeal to the driver to change course. I explained that it would be an act of extreme irresponsibility on my part as an active passenger to wait until the bus has reached Livingstone before holding the driver to account about the direction of travel. That is why I tried to warn the driver that we were headed in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, other passengers said we should just sit back comfortably, enjoy the ride which included some morsels of food delivered by the bus, and trust the driver because other drivers before him were much worse. In the end, we arrived in Livingstone, our undesired destination. Just when we were arriving, we saw another bus, loading passing from there directly to Nakonde. The driver, upon realising the cost of his failure to listen and the disappointment in the eyes of the passengers, urged everyone to sit down, promising that he would take us to Nakonde if we give him more time. With the exception of those who came from the driver's ethnic group and the auxiliary ones, most passengers, who had shown great faith in his driving skills by paying (voting) the fare for the bus as their mode of transport from Intercity to Nakonde, have left the bus for the other. These include those who had adopted silence during the journey after realising that the driver, aided by the choir mentioned, was not a listening kind. As I write this post, the alternative bus is almost full. The same passengers who accused those of us who, along the way, advised the driver to change course, of harbouring hatred for the driver are now wondering why nearly everyone is leaving the bus we came with for an alternative one that is promising to take us directly to Nakonde. One of the driver's supporters, reiterating the driver's earlier appeal that we should stick to the bus that brought us to Livingstone, just shouted at us a moment ago: "The alternative bus will take you to a wrong destination. Its driver cannot be trusted; just stick to this one because you won't have to pay a new fare". The supporter is overlooking the point that we are already at a wrong destination, the current driver has betrayed our trust, and that we would rather repose our trust in another person. It is not good to remain on a bus, driven by a person who does not listen, out of the fear that an alternative one might be driven by someone who could be worse. Let us try the alternative bus. If its driver takes us to a wrong destination, we will disembark from the bus we are about to jump onto, as we have done before, and find another one until we reach Nakonde. For me and other active passengers, such has been the the current driver's betrayal of our trust that we have reached a point of no return. We cannot trust this driver anymore, especially that when we tried to correct him, no one explained to us why our concerns were unfounded. We were just told that we hate hate the driver or his ethic group or or the province where he comes from. Recently, Dr Lee Habasonda, a lecturer in political science at the University of Zambia, told Reuters (watch the video clip on the link below) that electoral success is a matter of thresholds – of grievances, feelings, frustrations, etc. Lee’s view is that once a certain threshold or tipping point has been reached, "no matter your manifesto, ideology, lies" or whatever those in power do or say, the voters will "decide to change government" because they would have reached a point of no return. Emotionally, many Zambian voters, including some that I know who voted for Hichilema in 2021, have passed that threshold where no matter what Hichilema or UPND does, these voters will reject him. This is because the threshold, or the point of no return, has been reached. As Lee argued, those in power "may say we have already won this election when they campaign but the political coalitions and realignment" suggest otherwise. When the opposition wins next month, we will need to advise them to get non-sycophants at State House and in the critical posts in the civil service. It is important that they understand that unless there is a clear shift away from the harmful culture we have raised concerns about, we will be compelled to challenge them with the same resolve we previously applied to both the PF and UPND governments. On my part, I promise that I will always be on the side of the people. You will not find me in government even after the election. Once Hichilema is out of office, I will leave him alone and my attention will shift to holding to account the next set of public leaders. As I made clear in 2021, I am content serving as an academic and I will work, as part of my civic duty, to hold the new Government to account as I did with previous Governments. I am not available for or interested in any form of government job. For now, Iet me continue listening to the attached song. Chalo chesu.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2078449842368483816/amplify_video_thumb/2078427007344427008/img/tCO3n_fY3sOVQlej.jpg)
![Yoram Hazony, philosopher-king of the Woke Right—a marginal movement of cranks, bigots, and meatheads that wants to roll back the Enlightenment to the sweeter, gentler, more religious Middle Ages, and has probably already doomed the Republicans in 2028—came to the Combatting Antisemitism Conference this week to recite a humble apology. “James Lindsay was right. Obviously, in retrospect, trying to create a nationalist movement on the American right was inevitably going to descend into a mess of white nationalism and Jew-hate. Trying to undo the universalism and rationalism embedded in the American Constitution, in favour of religion and ‘tradition,’ risks everything that made America by far the greatest, freest, wealthiest nation the world has ever seen, and the safest place for Jews in their 2,600 years of exile. I was blinded by ego. It is now time to call out all the white nationalists and bigots on the right, overt and covert—the ones who attack Jews openly, but most of all those who run interference for them and provide them succour. If we on the right don’t defeat these wicked clowns, the right will be defeated by the far-left. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” But that is not what he said. Instead, in an angry and accusatory tone, he upbraided the audience for their failure to prove that Tucker Carlson was actually an antisemite. Why, he demanded, had the “Antisemitism Industrial Complex” not sent him packaged, edited dossiers of evidence for his consideration? “Incredible incompetence,” Hazony declared—this from a man who had nothing at all to say about his very competent friend Kevin Roberts, who managed to turn the Heritage Foundation from the core of conservative thought into a joke by repurposing its mission to support arch Jew-hater Tucker Carlson. Hazony lambasted the assembled activists and philanthropists, telling them what a terrible mistake they were making by not allying with “nationalists”—presumably people he believes are his people. He drew a distinction between the “alt-right,” whom he concedes are antisemites, and the “liberal Republicans” like Ted Cruz, who he says do not need courting because they are already pro-Jewish. The core bulk of the Republican coalition—the evangelicals—was simply magicked away by Hazony’s novel categories, which oh-so-conveniently allow him to play both the moderating force and the good cop to whom Jews should turn if they want to make a difference. It is a total fantasy. But Hazony has form here: he routinely defines categories tendentiously to shoehorn his arguments into reality. He once wrote a book in which, inter alia, he argued that the Third Reich wasn’t really nationalist at all. Why, oh why, won’t Jews just be friends with the “nationalists”? If only Jews could be persuaded to get on board with the post-liberal project—the true future of the Republican Party for the next generation, Hazony promises us. Never mind that this project amounts to unraveling the Constitution and imposing a national religion, like in lovely old Europe, from which the American colonists fled due to—well—religious persecution. Hazony claims these “nationalists” make up 65% of the Republican base, when in reality you could probably barely fill a room with people who truly believe in, understand, or want his kooky, impractical, and undesirable theories. Even Kevin Roberts likely doesn’t understand the plan—he’s more of a sports fan, after all. Who are these “nationalist” senators and congressmen? Marjorie Taylor Greene? Is this supposed legion Jack Posobiec’s Turning Point crowd? So who, exactly? Hazony perhaps hopes it is Vance—Tucker’s mentee and friend. Does he really believe that a man willing to throw his own wife and children under the bus before Nick Fuentes will advance his ideas? It’s all so silly. The good news is that if Vance does get nominated, he will lose—and in no small part because of his association with “nationalists,” which will be kryptonite to the median American voter. The Woke Right and the Woke Left share many of the same tactics—like infiltrating institutions and corrupting them—and many of the same outcomes, including hatred of existing power structures and, accidentally, Jews. They arrive there from the same starting point: the belief that the Enlightenment, and its most powerful product, the American Constitution, binds their hands and therefore must be unravelled to give them freer rein. Every Jew with a brain and the slightest smidgen of humility understands why this would be disastrous—not just for Jews, but for the American people, who are now celebrating 250 years of the greatest nation that has ever existed, a nation built on belief in—and willingness to die for—ideas, not merely kin, clan, and nation. Hazony saved his harshest words for his fellow right-wing Jews, whose actions he called a disgrace, accusing them of “misbehaving.” The insane Jew-hate on the right is mere “agitprop,” insufficiently condemned by his own “nationalist” allies only because Jews and “liberals” have failed to make their case—or because Jews are too shrill in their complaints: “And when they [the 'nationalists'] don’t [condemn right-wing Jew-haters], this drives liberal Republicans, both Jews and non-Jews, to start misbehaving. They lash out at nationalists, accusing them of antisemitism or of protecting antisemites. It’s a disgrace. If the goal is to persuade Trump’s nationalists to build an alliance with Jews on these and other issues, it’s also counterproductive.” In short, Hazony realised that Trump was as good as it was ever going to get on the right—but it wasn’t right enough for him. So he needed to push further, and that meant building a new coalition: evangelicals out, “nationalism” in. It is a hopeless idea—a mere wrecking ball that will come swinging in 2028. But the fact that he now seeks to browbeat the Jewish right into an alliance with nationalists under a post-liberal, pre-Enlightenment banner is honestly reprehensible. It is a total and ongoing failure, hence the rage and condescension. It is all so pitiable.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2016880045776638146/amplify_video_thumb/2016878984676716544/img/l0-nsq_Hr2azY_xG.jpg)
3:37
Sensitive content
The “Hacking Myth” Continued, Crazy Chelsea & The Breakup. Killing 3 birds with one stone… Let's think this through once again. If I supposedly had access to all his devices, why didn’t I find out about his mistress ‘ThirstyDM Chelsea’ until June 18? I must be the worst hacker on the planet. Since Aidan is still out here claiming I “hacked his devices” and had access to “all of his accounts,” let’s start with one simple, undeniable fact: I didn’t even know about this trash bag until June 18. If I supposedly had access to his phone, his texts, his iCloud, his entire digital life, don’t you think I would’ve found out a lot sooner? Not just about her, but about the 10ish other women I’ve since discovered he cheated on me with after the breakup? And just to be clear- I’m not here to shame the women he cheated on me with (except Clearance Aisle Chels). They’re not the main ones to blame. But let’s be real. We had a very public relationship. Anyone pursuing him knew exactly what they were doing, and that alone tells you something about the kind of women he gravitates toward. And look at where he’s landed now, right back with the same type, including someone who spent the last year crying grape, sent him to jail, and filed BBO complaints against his attorney. That’s not on me. That’s who he is, and that’s who he chooses. But no, I didn’t know about all of them until much later on. Some, who have come forward in the last week. This alone kills two birds with one stone: It proves Aidan’s “she hacked me!!” fantasy is a lie. It exposes how ridiculous the manic tweets from ghetto Chelsea have been the last 72 hours, the same girl I’ve mostly ignored because she’s so far down the totem pole it’s basically subterranean. Here’s Aidan himself admitting I didn’t know about her until June 18. Right there, her entire “Meredith knew about our texts back in the spring!! She was harassing me!! She copied me!!” storyline collapses into dust. You can’t harass someone you didn’t know existed. I’m mortified that I ever lowered myself for a man who was cheating with women who look like they were assembled out of spare parts at a bus stop. Yes, as I said in the voice recording, I found out about Chelsea on June 18th, and I stayed with him for a little less than a month after that. I’ve never hidden that as embarrassing as it is. Like every other time he got caught, he convinced me it was “just sexting,” that nothing physical happened, and that it only happened during one of our short breaks that usually lasted a day or two. Deep down, I knew it wasn’t right, and I knew I needed to leave, and if you look at the pattern, you’ll see many days where I tried to get out and he blew up my phone, called nonstop, or physically showed up at my apartment after I begged him not to. His narrative is that he ended things in July. Sure, technically he said the words. But let’s be real. Does anyone genuinely think a man who calls 200+ times a day, spirals when he feels abandoned, and refuses to be ignored was ever going to let me walk away cleanly? I let him believe it was his decision because that was the only way I was ever going to get out safely and peacefully. I knew deep down for a long time, this was the only way. I didn’t even talk to him for a month after our break-up. The majority of contact after July was initiated by him, not me. And yes, I’m including a few more screenshots of those call logs, since whatever one-sided fairytale he’s telling on his nightly diary shows is fooling some. These weren’t isolated incidents. This was the pattern throughout our entire relationship. Even in June 2024 and earlier, during the very messages he’s now cherry-picking for his narrative, he was calling me relentlessly, sometimes hundreds of times a day. I didn’t screenshot them back then because I didn’t fully realize how unhinged it was yet. And honestly? I hope every one of his little “side quests” and mistresses takes a long, hard look at these timestamps and compares them to when he was messaging them, telling them we were broken up or “basically done.” Compare notes, ladies. The timeline speaks louder than the lies he fed each of you. Maybe that’s part of why he’s melting down now. Because after Wilbur, we weren’t speaking, and then the recording fallout pulled us back into old patterns of daily conversations about his legal issues, his documentary, and everything else he needed from me. The clip here is just days after I finally blocked him on everything, and he immediately started tweeting at Joe Flipperhead trying to bait me into responding. Same cycle. Same manipulation. I just stepped out of it. Now, back to the device-access lie: The truth hasn’t changed. I saw ONE week of texts on the Apple Watch in January, because a boob pic flashed across the screen. That’s it. If I had actually been in his phone? I would’ve seen the messages from all the women he cheated with, and I would’ve walked. Aidan knows this. He knows the exact day I found out. Yet he’s still lying his ass off about it three nights in a row now. Meanwhile, Chelsea has made her entire Twitter personality about me, tagging me, subtweeting me, creating fan fiction about “harassment,” showing zero proof of anything. In contrast, I posted our full message threads showing she was the one reaching out to me nonstop over the serious crime of a friend request. Honestly, the saddest part is watching an almost 44-year-old man keep repeating these disproven stories while trusting someone this sloppy, contradictory, and wildly unhinged to be his mouthpiece. He must be exhausted. Apparently he’s sunk to talking about my daughter on his show, a 15-year-old child. The irony is almost funny if it weren’t so disgusting. He’s so desperate and so pathetic that he’s now swinging at a teenage girl because he can’t handle a grown woman calling out his lies. And the funniest part? She saw through him from day one. She told me I could do so much better and that there was something “off” about him. Turns out the 15-year-old had more insight, judgment, and emotional intelligence than the almost 44-year-old man melting down on livestream. I could say so much about his own family situation, but I will never go there because I am better than him in every way. Honestly, I feel like I lost myself being with him. I was constantly made smaller, undoubtedly on purpose. so he could stay the center of attention at all times and keep me in the shadows. He constantly reminded me that people only liked me because I was his girlfriend. As I said last night, it’s comical and almost adorable he thinks I’m broken by not being Mrs. Turtleboy. There’s a huge world out there, who doesn’t even know who he is. Looking back now, it’s painfully clear- I made him better, and he made me worse. And for everyone who has criticized me for letting others speak for me, I was just scared. I needed time to find my voice again after being minimized for so long. But lately? Now that I’ve finally come out from under my (turtle) shell? Turns out I wasn’t quiet… I was just buried. PS- Here are my earlier posts debunking the Apple Watch “hack” and the Facebook “hack”. At this point it’s actually wild that we’re on night 3 of this circus and Aidan still hasn’t produced a single shred of proof that I hacked anything. Not one screenshot, not one log, not one receipt. Nothing. He’s just blaming a woman for his bad decisions, his lies, and his poor life choices, because deflecting is easier than taking responsibility.
The old M can’t come to the phone right now
38,412 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce
