Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

Post that map and we'll see who can read it..

You have already posted it and I have explained what it is telling you. 

If you feel differently, start yapping.

Blackvegetable » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

Why do people with brains consider him the worst ever?

Doing so proves they DO NOT have brains!

Just like you!
 

MR-7 » Today, 8:46 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:46 am

 Wasn't it the NOAA that said TRUMP was right on the Alabama prediction?

It was unsigned....and coerced.

On September 6, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published an unsigned statement in support of Trump's initial claim, saying that National Hurricane Center (NHC) models "demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama."[5] 


Two agencies investigated allegations that the Trump administration exerted political influence over NOAA. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report, released on June 15, found that Neil Jacobs, the acting NOAA administrator, and Julie Kay Roberts, the former NOAA deputy chief of staff and communications director, twice violated codes of the agency's scientific integrity policy with their involvement in the NOAA statement. On July 9, the inspector general of the United States Department of Commerce issued a report confirming that Commerce officials had responded to orders from the White House which resulted in the statement issued by NOAA.[6]

@*tinyvictim took that bait as well.

You two are idiots.
 
 

Zeets2 » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

Doing so proves they DO NOT have brains!

Just like you!

But they have PhDs..

You're a moron.
 

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Zeets2 » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

Doing so proves they DO NOT have brains!

Just like you!

But they have PhDs..

You're a moron.
 

 

Their PhDs don't block their bias.

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

It was unsigned....and coerced.

 

It was official. It was public. It was NOAA HQ. It backed Trump’s wording. Everything else is context, not erasure. NOAA’s own investigations proved the statement was pressured, but pressured or not, NOAA HQ still issued it backing Trump, and that’s the part you keep pretending didn’t happen. NOAA backed TRUMP....say it BITCH.

Huey » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Their PhDs don't block their bias.

Why do you insist they are biased?

MR-7 » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

It was official. It was public. It was NOAA HQ. It backed Trump’s wording. Everything else is context, not erasure. NOAA’s own investigations proved the statement was pressured, but pressured or not, NOAA HQ still issued it backing Trump, and that’s the part you keep pretending didn’t happen. NOAA backed TRUMP....say it BITCH.

They lied...on behalf of a liar.

Huey » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

19 minutes ago

You have already 

Post the map to which you refer..

 

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Huey » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

Their PhDs don't block their bias.

Why do you insist they are biased?

 

The makeup of the survey was posted.  And then placing Biden 13th?  What a **** joke.  But keep posting about it.  It amuses me.

Blackvegetable » 22 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

22 minutes ago

It was unsigned....and coerced.

 

The NOAA statement confirms NOAA backed him Slack Jaw. The investigations only explain why they did it, not that they didn’t.
 

Huey » 25 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

25 minutes ago

I didn't post a narrative, Pinocchio.  I posted a link to a reply I made to you with the requested information.  Fact of the matter Trump won the popular vote.  The margin is not relevant.  And actually, the popular vote is not relevant either.

Why do you believe that you know what is "relevant"?

You're a moron.

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Huey » 24 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

24 minutes ago

You have already 

Post the map to which you refer..

 

 

I have already replied to it.  You infamous Dorian projected path map from 8 or so days out from landfall.

How **** stupid are you...

MR-7 » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

The NOAA statement confirms NOAA backed him Slack Jaw. The investigations only explain why they did it, not that they didn’t.

no...it confirms they issued a statement that misrepresented the facts.

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

Why do you believe that you know what is "relevant"?

You're a moron.

Won't be long now til one of your BUTT BUDDIES "Butts" in here to help you.
 

Huey » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

I have already replied to it.  

I don't see the map to which your narrative makes reference. 

 

Huey » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

Their PhDs don't block their bias.

Nor does it indicate they have even a modicum of common sense.
 

Huey » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

I have already replied to it.  You infamous Dorian projected path map from 8 or so days out from landfall.

How **** stupid are you...

He can't articulate that, we're just gonna have to keep dropping the clues to him.

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

no...it confirms they issued a statement that misrepresented the facts.

I am very disappointed to see this statement come out from NOAA," University of Oklahoma assistant meteorology professor Jason Furtado told The Associated Press. He said the controversy over the president's tweets and the NOAA statement undermines public confidence in meteorologists...  
 

MR-7 » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

I am very disappointed to see this statement come out from NOAA," University of Oklahoma assistant meteorology professor Jason Furtado told The Associated Press. He said the controversy over the president's tweets and the NOAA statement undermines public confidence in meteorologists...

they....the NOAA....