Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 06 Feb 2026, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 8:57 am

Here's @Zeets2  

Of course, Zeets has no earthly idea how many people are "employed" by the federal gubmint.

Nor can Zeet determine, by looking at a simple line graph, how many were added or lost.

And Zeet went to college.

Blackvegetable » 06 Feb 2026, 9:40 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 9:40 am

What does this have to do with the OP and the facts presented?

 

Zeets2 » 06 Feb 2026, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 10:23 am

Answer the question or go **** yourself, ******!
It's a simple choice.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

RebelGator » 06 Feb 2026, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 10:02 am

Everyone was watching.
 

Vegas » 06 Feb 2026, 10:24 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 10:24 am

Veghead not answering a question? How unlike him. How many times has he demanded you to answer his by now? 

@Blackvegetable  and seriously, do you really not know the drill by now with your upcoming pic?

Zeets2 » 06 Feb 2026, 10:33 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 10:33 am

Oh, dozens of times.
Typical liberal who thinks he's above following such an annoying protocol when the answer would expose his depth of ignorance.
But every village needs an idiot and he'll continue to be elected ours, always running unopposed!

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Zeets2 » 06 Feb 2026, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 10:23 am

Answer the question or go **** yourself, ******!
It's a simple choice.

Blackvegetable » 06 Feb 2026, 8:28 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 8:28 am

MR-7 » 06 Feb 2026, 8:21 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 8:21 am

If your entire argument rests on “only 24 prosecutions,” you’re not proving the system is clean — you’re proving you don’t understand how detection, enforcement, or statistics work.

Low prosecution numbers don’t mean low violations. They mean low detection, low enforcement, and low political will to pursue cases.

How **** stupid does one have to be not to see this? End of story.

Natch, Ruby...

When confronted with allegations on noncitizens voting in Utah, Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, the state’s top election official, initiated a monthslong review of Utah’s approximately 2.1 million registered voters. She and her team found one “confirmed noncitizen.” Just one. And that one noncitizen, while registered, had never voted. 

Idaho, a state of one million voters, ran similar tests in 2024, and they found 36 “very likely” registered noncitizens. That may seem like a lot until you view it in light of claims that statewide elections are altered by such anomalies. Some, but not all, of those 36 people have previously voted, the secretary of state, Phil McGrane, said, but “out of the million-plus registered voters we started with, we’re down to 10 thousandths of a percent” of the overall count — not even close to affecting the outcome. 

Louisiana’s investigation in 2025 netted some 390 noncitizen registrants, 79 of whom had voted in at least one election over the last several decades (out of 2.9 million registrants). Just a few weeks ago, Montana found 23 possible noncitizen registrants (out of approximately 785,000 people registered). And Georgia, in some ways the model for these investigations, found in its 2024 audit 20 registered noncitizens (out of 8.2 million registrations). In my four years in office in Maricopa County overseeing voter registration, I came across a total of two possible instances of noncitizens voting out of some 2.5 million registered voters.


Ibid.

At some point, you ******* **** are gonna have to do the Walk.


 

 

Huey » 06 Feb 2026, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 11:05 am

At some point, you ******* **** are gonna have to do the Walk.

Does that include the 71% of Dems that back voter ID?

From my earlier CNN post:

Enten showed that 71% of Dems and 95% of Republicans backed voter ID, based on 2025 data from Pew.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Zeets2 » 06 Feb 2026, 10:33 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 10:33 am

Oh, dozens of times.
Typical liberal who thinks he's above following such an annoying protocol when the answer would expose his depth of ignorance.
But every village needs an idiot and he'll continue to be elected ours, always running unopposed!

he's above following such an annoying protocol

when the answer would expose his depth of ignorance.

Huey » 06 Feb 2026, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 11:05 am

At some point, you ******* **** are gonna have to do the Walk.

Does that include the 71% of Dems that back voter ID?

From my earlier CNN post:

Enten showed that 71% of Dems and 95% of Republicans backed voter ID, based on 2025 data from Pew.

MR-7 » 06 Feb 2026, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 10:20 am

Who said anything about a ballot? 
viewtopic.php?p=2851968#p2851968
You said he didn't "run"

What a Slack-Jawed Cretin.

Blackvegetable » 06 Feb 2026, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 11:09 am

"Protocol"?

Like, a rule or something? 

of what do you insist I'm "ignorant"?

You're the ******* talking out of his hat...

Blackvegetable » 06 Feb 2026, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 11:04 am

Zeet,

I have a range of choices....

But you don't. 

You MUST proceed from the facts.

Zeets2 » 06 Feb 2026, 11:18 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 11:18 am

I don't ascribe to the whims of ignorant, nappy-headed morons.
So answer the question or shut the **** up!

Zeets2 » 06 Feb 2026, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 11:16 am

Answer the question or shut the **** up!

Blackvegetable » 06 Feb 2026, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 11:13 am

If you ain't the nominee, you didn't run against the other nominee...

MR-7 » 06 Feb 2026, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 11:28 am

Joe Biden did run for president in 2024.
 That’s a straight factual point, not an opinion: he was the Democratic nominee and sought a second term.

Headlines Confirming Biden Was the Democratic Nominee
1. NPR — “Biden drops out… endorses VP Harris as nominee”This headline only makes sense because Biden was the Democratic nominee before dropping out.
2. AP News — “Biden drops out of 2024 race… ending his bid for reelection”Again: you can’t “drop out” of a presidential race you weren’t the nominee for.
3. AS USA — “President Joe Biden steps down as Democratic presidential candidate”This one is explicit: “President Joe Biden steps down as Democratic presidential candidate.”
4. Politico — “Joe Biden endorses Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee”This headline directly states Biden was the nominee and passed the torch: “Joe Biden endorses Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee.”
5. Fox News — “Democrats face tight deadline to replace Joe Biden as Democratic Party nominee”This headline is as explicit as it gets:
“Democrats face tight deadline to replace Joe Biden as Democratic Party nominee.”Five major outlets literally ran headlines calling Biden the Democratic nominee — the only people confused about it are the ones who didn’t read.

Blackvegetable » 06 Feb 2026, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 11:25 am

Just stop running your idiot mouth.

You embarrass whichever **** branch of the race you represent.

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Blackvegetable » 06 Feb 2026, 11:30 am » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2026, 11:30 am

If you ain't the nominee, you didn't run against the other nominee...

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...