Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 26 Oct 2024, 9:41 am » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2024, 9:41 am

Then define it....so we can compare it...

What is the purpose of comparing equal parts of time against time itself existing in series parallel positions here as existing universally evolving uniquely displaced ancestrally here, now?

It is a rhetorical question for each ancestor pretending their body isn't equally alive since conceived to replace their previous generation gap parenting next generations added so far this rotation off the planet, revolving around the star as specifically as occupying space behaving as acting in character role models saving humanity currently going on.

Fuelman » 27 Oct 2024, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑

27 Oct 2024, 8:02 am

"The 2020 presidential elections saw the highest voter turnout in U.S. election history, including among poor and low-income voters (LIV). Of the 168 million voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 58 million—or 35% of the voting electorate—were LIV. This cuts against common misperceptions that poor and low-income people are apathetic about politics or inconsequential to electoral outcomes"

Now sit down and STFU!

244 million registered voters. So what percent of that 76 MILLION that DIDN'T VOTE were "LOW INFORMATION VOTERS" as you claim??

Which is what MOST "low income voters" actually are, DICKFACE!! 

Now, sit down and SHUT THE **** UP!! THOSE numbers kick your *** and CURB STOMPS YOU into another bad day!!

And you have NO LINK to your **** INVENTION!!
 
 

Fuelman » 26 Oct 2024, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2024, 9:43 am

He thinks poor people read "The Economist" and has no idea that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 20 points on the bottom income scale.

I think you're a moron.

Blackvegetable » 28 Oct 2024, 5:39 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 5:39 am

I think you're a moron.

We KNOW you are a **** MORON, ergo, no one cares what you "think"!!

!!

*Beekeeper » 28 Oct 2024, 5:31 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 5:31 am

And you have NO LINK to your **** INVENTION!!
 

https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/wp- ... Report.pdf

• In the 2020 elections, LIV exceeded 20% of the total voting population in 45 states and Washington D.C. In tight battleground states, LIV accounted for an even greater share of the voting population, including in states that flipped party outcomes from 2016 to 2020. • Where the margin of victory was near or less than 3%, LIV accounted for 34% to 45% of the voting population: Arizona (39.96%), Georgia (37.84%), Michigan (37.81%), Nevada (35.78%), North Carolina (43.67%), Pennsylvania (34.12%), and Wisconsin (39.80%). • A closer look at the racial demographics of LIV in nine battleground states (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin) shows that white LIV accounted for a higher vote share than all other racial groupings of LIV combined. This underscores the necessity of organizing low-income white, Black, and Hispanic voters together in multi-racial political coalitions.

 

GHETTOBLASTER » 28 Oct 2024, 5:49 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 5:49 am

https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/wp- ... Report.pdf

• In the 2020 elections, LIV exceeded 20% of the total voting population in 45 states and Washington D.C. In tight battleground states, LIV accounted for an even greater share of the voting population, including in states that flipped party outcomes from 2016 to 2020. • Where the margin of victory was near or less than 3%, LIV accounted for 34% to 45% of the voting population: Arizona (39.96%), Georgia (37.84%), Michigan (37.81%), Nevada (35.78%), North Carolina (43.67%), Pennsylvania (34.12%), and Wisconsin (39.80%). • A closer look at the racial demographics of LIV in nine battleground states (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin) shows that white LIV accounted for a higher vote share than all other racial groupings of LIV combined. This underscores the necessity of organizing low-income white, Black, and Hispanic voters together in multi-racial political coalitions.

ROFLMAO!!!

You bring a LWNJ PROPAGANDA SITE to the table with ZERO FACTS OR METHODOLOGY IN THIS PAPER to prove a point???? ONLY CLAIMS with ZERO EVIDENCE as "proof" of something??? ANYONE can invent **** like this and make IDIOTS LIKE YOU BELIEVE IT!!

HOW **** STUPID ARE YOU???? Wait, rhetorical question.

*Beekeeper » 28 Oct 2024, 6:03 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 6:03 am

ROFLMAO!!!

You bring a LWNJ PROPAGANDA SITE to the table with ZERO FACTS OR METHODOLOGY IN THIS PAPER to prove a point???? ONLY CLAIMS with ZERO EVIDENCE as "proof" of something??? ANYONE can invent **** like this and make IDIOTS LIKE YOU BELIEVE IT!!

HOW **** STUPID ARE YOU???? Wait, rhetorical question.

Either disprove it or stop screaming  like a hysterical little ****** bitch....  

GHETTO BLASTER » 28 Oct 2024, 6:23 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 6:23 am

Either disprove it or stop screaming  like a hysterical little ****** bitch.... :)  

discredit a character is disproving their reality they are willing to die for daily rather than admit how evolving works in series parallel time as displaced each rotation never same total sum twice since arriving a fertilized cell.

Pride before the downfall of civilization imploding upon ancestral results sustaining reasonable doubt.

GHETTOBLASTER » 28 Oct 2024, 6:23 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 6:23 am

Either disprove it or stop screaming  like a hysterical little ****** bitch....

I did. LWNJ propaganda PROVES NOTHING!!!

Now, SHUT THE **** UP and take your CURB STOMPING like the pussified little WIMP YOU ARE!!

Run along now Junior, you're starting to get boring.

*Beekeeper » 28 Oct 2024, 6:35 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 6:35 am

I did. LWNJ propaganda PROVES NOTHING!!!

Now, SHUT THE **** UP and take your CURB STOMPING like the pussified little WIMP YOU ARE!!

Run along now Junior, you're starting to get boring.

Either furnish your own numbers that disprove the claims that were made in that report or else continue making yourself look like a hysterical ****** Bitch.
It's up to you.....  
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 28 Oct 2024, 6:38 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 6:38 am

Either furnish your own numbers that disprove the claims that were made in that report or else continue making yourself look like a hysterical ****** Bitch.
It's up to you.....

You PROVE YOUR CLAIM THAT YOU MADE!!!

Because there is ZERO METHODOLOGY to back up your ****!!!

NO METHODOLOGY ='s NO NEED TO DISPROVE IT as it DISPROVES ITSELF!! THAT'S call "science" and how it works!!!

Sucks, huh??

GHETTOBLASTER » 28 Oct 2024, 6:38 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 6:38 am

Either furnish your own numbers that disprove the claims that were made in that report or else continue making yourself look like a hysterical ****** Bitch.
It's up to you.....

OH LOOKY!!!

They DEFINE "low income voters" as WAY above the actual POVERTY LINE in order to "prove" their ****!! We call that DATA MANIPULATION to get a "predetermined result"

From your OWN ****......

Defining low-income voters

For the purposes of this analysis, low-income voters (or poor and low-income voters) were defined as individuals whose annual household income is less than $50,000. Annual household income data is developed from commercial data sources.

You should PROBABLY ACTUALLY READ the **** you use as "evidence' before you submit it for scrutiny, huh, ASSWIPE???

                                  

You STILL want to use this **** as your "evidence" of something???

*Beekeeper » 28 Oct 2024, 5:31 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 5:31 am

244 million registered voters. So what percent of that 76 MILLION that DIDN'T VOTE were "LOW INFORMATION VOTERS" as you claim??

Which is what MOST "low income voters" actually are, DICKFACE!! 

Now, sit down and SHUT THE **** UP!! THOSE numbers kick your *** and CURB STOMPS YOU into another bad day!!

And you have NO LINK to your **** INVENTION!!
 

Calm down Skippy! There are many reasons why people don't vote and that doesn't automatically make them low income voters.

This for instance:
Based on research conducted by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University, it is estimated that 104 million people who fall under the category of people of faith, of which 41 million are Christians and 32 million attend church regularly, will not cast ballots in this election.
https://m.economictimes.com/news/intern ... 088396.cms

Consider yourself bitch slapped into next week!
​​​​
 

Fuelman » 28 Oct 2024, 7:05 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 7:05 am

Calm down Skippy! There are many reasons why people don't vote and that doesn't automatically make them low income voters.

This for instance:
Based on research conducted by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University, it is estimated that 104 million people who fall under the category of people of faith, of which 41 million are Christians and 32 million attend church regularly, will not cast ballots in this election.
https://m.economictimes.com/news/intern ... 088396.cms

Consider yourself bitch slapped into next week!
​​​​

You couldn't "bitch slap" a 2 day old baby, much less anyone on MY SIDE, DICKBREATH!!

Keep sucking that DEMOCRAT COCK and PROGGIE ASSHOLES!! It's making you look STOOPIDER EVERY SECOND!!

Do you swallow too??

Yeah, you swallowed a TON OF LWNJ JIZZ!!

*Beekeeper » 28 Oct 2024, 7:40 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 7:40 am

You couldn't "bitch slap" a 2 day old baby, much less anyone on MY SIDE, DICKBREATH!!

Keep sucking that DEMOCRAT COCK and PROGGIE ASSHOLES!! It's making you look STOOPIDER EVERY SECOND!!

Do you swallow too??

Yeah, you swallowed a TON OF LWNJ JIZZ!!

No ****. This is someone from "your side" calling you out for unsubstantiated claims.

BTY, leave me out of your fantasies!
 

Fuelman » 28 Oct 2024, 7:51 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 7:51 am

No ****. This is someone from "your side" calling you out for unsubstantiated claims.

BTY, leave me out of your fantasies!

MY SIDE? using LWNJ PRPPAGANDA AS YOUR PROOF??

WHAT I SAID WAS- 

So?? And did those same people who shoved that propaganda up your *** also tell you that these were LOW PROPENSITY VOTERS?? and that they cast ballots at FAR LOWER RATES than do others??

YOUR A **** IDIOT TOO!!

So WHY do you think they call them LOW PROPENSITY VOTERS if they vote in every election?? THEY DON'T DICKWEED and there is NOTHING THERE TO SUBSTANTIATE!! Does the ECONOMIST that you used as a "source" tell you why they are LOW PROPENSITY VOTERS?? DO THEY ALSO CLAIM THAT THEY ARE LOW INCOME?? of which I NEVER MADE REFERENCE TO PERIOD!! 

Fact is, I can show you middle class AND UPPER CLASS that are LOW PROPENSITY VOTERS!!!

So you can "prove" now that LOW PROPENSITY VOTERS cast ballots at greater rates with some LWMJ PROPAGANDA SITE???

YOU'RE A **** IDIOT AND NEED TO JOIN BV's SIDE for your STUPIDITY!!
 

*Beekeeper » 28 Oct 2024, 6:57 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 6:57 am

OH LOOKY!!!

They DEFINE "low income voters" as WAY above the actual POVERTY LINE in order to "prove" their ****!! We call that DATA MANIPULATION to get a "predetermined result"

From your OWN ****......

You should PROBABLY ACTUALLY READ the **** you use as "evidence' before you submit it for scrutiny, huh, ASSWIPE???

                                  

You STILL want to use this **** as your "evidence" of something???

You have only proven that you disagree with their definition of LIV. 
The Federal Poverty Level....[FPL]  is a loosely defined term as well..
So far all you've managed to prove is that you are a blow hard who is incapable of proving that the numbers in that study are false.

 

GHETTOBLASTER » 28 Oct 2024, 8:30 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 8:30 am

You have only proven that you disagree with their definition of LIV. 
The Federal Poverty Level....[FPL]  is a loosely defined term as well..
So far all you've managed to prove is that you are a blow hard who is incapable of proving that the numbers in that study are false.

I don't have to prove JACK **** in that LWNJ STUDY!!!

They DISPROVED THEIR OWN NUMBERS by using a "low income" number that is DOUBLE what is considered "poverty level".

THAT invalidates the ENTIRE PROPAGANDA **** "study", *******!!

We call that "using the scientific method". THEY call it "getting the results we want by any means necessary to achieve the desired outcome". ARE YOU THAT **** STUPID to agree with that ****???

*Beekeeper » 28 Oct 2024, 6:49 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 6:49 am

You PROVE YOUR CLAIM THAT YOU MADE!!!

Because there is ZERO METHODOLOGY to back up your ****!!!

NO METHODOLOGY ='s NO NEED TO DISPROVE IT as it DISPROVES ITSELF!! THAT'S call "science" and how it works!!!

Sucks, huh??

GHETTOBLASTER » Today, 4:38 am » wrote: ↑
Today, 4:38 am
Either furnish your own numbers that disprove the claims that were made in that report or else continue making yourself look like a hysterical ****** Bitch.
It's up to you..... 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 28 Oct 2024, 8:41 am » wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2024, 8:41 am

GHETTOBLASTER » Today, 4:38 am » wrote: ↑
Today, 4:38 am
Either furnish your own numbers that disprove the claims that were made in that report or else continue making yourself look like a hysterical ****** Bitch.
It's up to you..... 

Not me that has to "prove' the claims since they INVALIDATED THEIR OWN "study" BY USING NON-STANDARD NUMBERS TO GET THE RESULT THEY WANTED!! THAT I PROVED!!

Next. YOU GOT PWNED. AGAIN!!