Liberal Forum

LowIQTrash » 11 Nov 2024, 8:29 am » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2024, 8:29 am

I can already see R “Eggplant” Suave will be the one gloating…he will have to be patient in the meantime but assuming he is here in 2026…
 

Zeets2 » 11 Nov 2024, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2024, 10:34 am

You sound pretty pissed off about it, but it's time you learned to put the blame where it belongs!
And here are the facts:


 

LowIQTrash » 10 Nov 2024, 11:02 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 11:02 pm

I suggested the Dems threw the election deliberately by nominating a weak candidate (about 1 mo before the election) so Trump gets in, and you said that was very plausible

The Democrats foresee terrible events down the line, within the next 4 yrs (likely 2), and they would rather not take the blame

Here’s another subtle detail:

Kamala doesn’t seem fazed by her loss either, unlike Hillary who threw a tantrum. The Democratic leadership (not the rank and file sheeple or media personalities) are so far eerily “accommodating” 

If something looks too good to be true…

(The script is already written, it just needs time to play out sort of thing)

We shall revisit this in due time…and I’ll be waiting for some greenies from you   

Cannonpointer » 11 Nov 2024, 9:24 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2024, 9:24 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEmf780PGCA&t=5s

LowIQTrash » 10 Nov 2024, 11:02 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 11:02 pm

I suggested the Dems threw the election deliberately by nominating a weak candidate (about 1 mo before the election) so Trump gets in, and you said that was very plausible

The Democrats foresee terrible events down the line, within the next 4 yrs (likely 2), and they would rather not take the blame

Here’s another subtle detail:

Kamala doesn’t seem fazed by her loss either, unlike Hillary who threw a tantrum. The Democratic leadership (not the rank and file sheeple or media personalities) are so far eerily “accommodating” 

If something looks too good to be true…

(The script is already written, it just needs time to play out sort of thing)

We shall revisit this in due time…and I’ll be waiting for some greenies from you   

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...

Cannonpointer » 11 Nov 2024, 9:21 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2024, 9:21 pm

Be patient?

That *** is going to be A patient soon. He took the myocarditis shot.

GHETTOBLASTER » 11 Nov 2024, 8:54 am » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2024, 8:54 am

Team Trump is aware of this situation and so  they need to use their social media outlets to get the word out [in a tactful way] to those who are willing to listen.

Vegas » 11 Nov 2024, 9:43 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2024, 9:43 pm

It's an interesting theory, but I have my reservations about it. For one, Harris spent over 1 billion dollars on her campaign. That is a lot of money to spend if they just wanted to lose. Second, if they wanted to choose a weak candidate, then why not just leave Biden in? His approval ratings were so bad, that he wouldn't stand a chance.

Beakman » 11 Nov 2024, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2024, 10:52 am

I am not well lately, too sick to discuss.Almost died laST night!

LowIQTrash » 12 Nov 2024, 3:04 am » wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2024, 3:04 am

1) A lot of campaign money is laundered for unknown purposes. There is no method to ascertain how “Harris” (lol) spent the funds. There are public records but you would have to do a line item audit to know exactly where each dollar went, and nobody is going to waste their time doing that

2) I suspect Biden would have done better despite his obvious mental decline. 

You should know a couple things about Nancy Pelosi. She and her husband traded options and turned a modest 6 figure salary into 9 figures (She’s worth about $100M I believe), and she’s been in office for decades. Nobody in Congress holds a candle to her.

If I could accomplish what Nancy accomplished or better (options trading to $100M+ in a shorter time frame) I would consider myself superior, but no doubt we are talking about someone frighteningly skilled. 

Nancy knows the “Art of War” and - I expect with good faith - she would never be stupid enough to install a Democratic president / Congress right before an economic and financial collapse.

If I can see something like that coming, she already did as well.

Notice how she let GW Bush and the Republicans take the blame for 2007-2009, which led to Obama’s landslide victory. 

I do not know why she pushed Biden out. She may have inked some backdoor deals with Kamala that she could not have executed with Biden, but I assure you she didn’t believe Kamala would win. 
 
 @Cannonpointer  wondering what your take on this is

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...

DeezerShoove » 10 Nov 2024, 10:47 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2024, 10:47 pm

Sorry, but I'm not sure which thing I agreed to poison pill-wise. Need a reminder.
A Trump win can make some difference vs Harris pabulum-policy.
World leaders see a change worthy of a fresh approach.
If they see a difference, then there's a difference. What I think matters not.

I read a lot of posts doing spell checks and stuff. So, I get lost in the miasma. 

A Trump win can make some difference vs Harris pabulum-policy.
World leaders see a change worthy of a fresh approach.
If they see a difference, then there's a difference. What I think matters not.

Blackvegetable » 12 Nov 2024, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2024, 11:34 am

can you name any of these "world leaders"?

LowIQTrash » 11 Nov 2024, 8:29 am » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2024, 8:29 am

I can already see R “Eggplant” Suave will be the one gloating…he will have to be patient in the meantime but assuming he is here in 2026…

The US was destined for this fate long ago.

Too much private debt chasing ever fewer dollars that require interest AKA (((usury))) = how the THFC “relieve” the GoyiM of their property every so often    .

Jefferson warned Americans about the dangers of (((private banking))) and (((enslavement))). 

The fact that trillions have been printed by the (((Tiny Hat Foreskin Chompers))) is irrelevant because most of that money never finds its way into the “real economy.”

However it does end up inflating housing prices and worms its way into the Wall St casino 

FJB » 12 Nov 2024, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2024, 11:34 am

**** you, you can't even define the term woman

Blackvegetable » 12 Nov 2024, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2024, 11:37 am

Define "tariff"...

FJB » 12 Nov 2024, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2024, 11:38 am

as soon as you define woman

Blackvegetable » 12 Nov 2024, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2024, 11:41 am

I already did so.

You didn't like it.

Then you referred to a dictionary....because your wick is as dry as the day you were born.

Zeets2 » 11 Nov 2024, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2024, 10:34 am

You sound pretty pissed off about it, but it's time you learned to put the blame where it belongs!
And here are the facts:

The economy was already in a recession when Obama took over.  There is no argument about that.
The reality, however, is the fact that we were NOT in what was called the GREAT recession until that idiot was elected and proceeded to cause a sharp downturn that MADE the recession GREAT, and he caused us to suffer through the longest "recovery" period in US history ALL DUE TO HIS IDIOTIC POLICIES!  
Need more proof?
Find me JUST ONE journalist, political pundit, or politician who EVER claimed we were in a "GREAT" recession PRIOR TO OBAMA'S NOVEMBER ELECTION!
Look at the total number of job losses that occurred RIGHT AFTER HIS ELECTION, and continued on through the first half of 2009.  This was a direct result of his promises to raise taxes and regulations on "the rich", bring us mandated universal healthcare, (remember, 'you can keep your doctor lies'?) while making his disdain of small business ownership perfectly clear with such stupid comments as, "you didn't build that", and the socialist mantra of "we're going to spread that wealth around" and Republicans can just "sit in the back of the car while we drive it"!  

I know EXACTLY how those promises affect me in my business, and as such I took drastic steps that I deemed necessary to survive his coming onslaught, just as millions of other business owners did!  I laid off workers, eliminated all overtime, canceled all R&D and put a hold on a new product line that I was producing.  I slashed inventory, and canceled an order for new machinery I had just placed the previous month, knowing full well the kind of deep recession that we were facing.  In my communication with both my customers and other business owners that I was acquainted with, those that could WERE ALL DOING THE EXACT SAME THING!  And THAT, my liberal friend, is why we lost MILLIONS of jobs starting the minute Obama was elected, apparently in just the same way as your job was eliminated.  Care to share with me further proof of my belief by telling me exactly WHEN your job was cut?  Because I'm guessing it was likely lost within 3 months of Obama's election victory, right?

Naturally, all your left-wing fake news media sources bent over backwards to convince you that this was all the fault of GW Bush, because they could NOT let America's first black president be responsible for ANY of the problems he himself had caused.

And foolish liberal Democrats like you happily swallowed that ****, instead of believing the words of people like myself who were forced to take drastic action to survive his socialist policies.  Unlike millions of other small businesses who went bankrupt, I survived BECAUSE of those austere measures I took, and my business thrived as soon as your socialist idiot left office and the Trump economy surged. 

So please, PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS!!!

FJB » 12 Nov 2024, 11:42 am » wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2024, 11:42 am

KEEP LYING SHILLY WILLY

Blackvegetable » 12 Nov 2024, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2024, 11:43 am

Keep bleeding, inbred loser.