Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
💥 “If Trump Only Cares for Billionaires… Why Did 9 Out of 10 Billionaires Back Kamala?” 💥
💥 “If Trump Only Cares for Billionaires… Why Did 9 Out of 10 Billionaires Back Kamala?” 💥
By MR-7
24 Nov 2025 9:13 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
20 posts • Page 1 of 1
24 Nov 2025 9:13 am
I wonder why you think PRESIDENT Trump only cares for billionaires… when the majority of billionaires didn’t care for him at all. In fact, nearly 9 out of 10 billionaires leaned left in 2024, openly backing Kamala Harris.
Kamala Harris: 81 billionaires supported her campaign, including heavyweights from Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Hollywood
Donald Trump: 51 billionaires backed him, concentrated in oil, real estate, and a few tech disruptors.
So why do liberals keep tying Trump to “the oligarchs”?
Because it’s a convenient narrative. But the facts show the billionaire class leaned heavily toward Harris, not Trump.
So, the next time a Slack-Jawed mother **** says TRUMP is “the billionaire’s president”
Remind that bitch that:
81 billionaires lined up behind Kamala...
Only 51 stood with Trump...
THE OLIGARCHS ARE NEARLY ALL LIBERAL LEFTISTS
Kamala Harris: 81 billionaires supported her campaign, including heavyweights from Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Hollywood
Donald Trump: 51 billionaires backed him, concentrated in oil, real estate, and a few tech disruptors.
So why do liberals keep tying Trump to “the oligarchs”?
Because it’s a convenient narrative. But the facts show the billionaire class leaned heavily toward Harris, not Trump.
So, the next time a Slack-Jawed mother **** says TRUMP is “the billionaire’s president”
Remind that bitch that:
81 billionaires lined up behind Kamala...
Only 51 stood with Trump...
THE OLIGARCHS ARE NEARLY ALL LIBERAL LEFTISTS
So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
24 Nov 2025 9:27 am
MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑ I wonder why you think PRESIDENT Trump only cares for billionaires… when the majority of billionaires didn’t care for him at all. In fact, nearly 9 out of 10 billionaires leaned left in 2024, openly backing Kamala Harris.
Kamala Harris: 81 billionaires supported her campaign, including heavyweights from Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Hollywood
Donald Trump: 51 billionaires backed him, concentrated in oil, real estate, and a few tech disruptors.
So why do liberals keep tying Trump to “the oligarchs”?
Because it’s a convenient narrative. But the facts show the billionaire class leaned heavily toward Harris, not Trump.
So, the next time a Slack-Jawed mother **** says TRUMP is “the billionaire’s president”
Remind that bitch that:
81 billionaires lined up behind Kamala...
Only 51 stood with Trump...
🔥🔥🔥 THE OLIGARCHS ARE NEARLY ALL LIBERAL LEFTISTS 🔥🔥🔥
Kamala Harris: 81 billionaires supported her campaign, including heavyweights from Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Hollywood Donald Trump: 51 billionaires backed him, concentrated in oil, real estate, and a few tech disruptors.
That would make 132 billionaires in total.
81 of them voted for Kamala, according to your numbers.
81/132 = 0.614
This is before adjusting for either scale of contribution or relative liquidity....
Like Elon tossing in a cool 280 mill, not including soft costs.
24 Nov 2025 9:34 am
Clarify the metric:Blackvegetable » 24 Nov 2025, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑
That would make 132 billionaires in total.
81 of them voted for Kamala, according to your numbers.
81/132 = 0.614
This is before adjusting for either scale of contribution or relative liquidity....
Like Elon tossing in a cool 280 mill, not including soft costs.
“We’re talking about the share of billionaires who publicly backed each candidate. On headcount, Harris had 81 of 132—about 61.4%. If you want to talk money, that’s a separate calculation.”
Headcount share:
(81 of 132) is a proportion of supporters, not money. Even if one donor gives vastly more (e.g., Elon’s hypothetical $280M), that changes the funding share, not the supporter share.
If you think the count is wrong, provide a sourced list that changes 81 or 51. Otherwise, 81/132 stands.
So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
24 Nov 2025 9:40 am
Conclusion:Blackvegetable » 24 Nov 2025, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑
That would make 132 billionaires in total.
81 of them voted for Kamala, according to your numbers.
81/132 = 0.614
This is before adjusting for either scale of contribution or relative liquidity....
Like Elon tossing in a cool 280 mill, not including soft costs.
The math is correct. Harris had about 61.4% of the counted billionaire backers; Trump had about 38.6%.
So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
24 Nov 2025 9:42 am
Are these your words?MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑ Clarify the metric:
“We’re talking about the share of billionaires who publicly backed each candidate. On headcount, Harris had 81 of 132—about 61.4%. If you want to talk money, that’s a separate calculation.”
Headcount share:
(81 of 132) is a proportion of supporters, not money. Even if one donor gives vastly more (e.g., Elon’s hypothetical $280M), that changes the funding share, not the supporter share.
If you think the count is wrong, provide a sourced list that changes 81 or 51. Otherwise, 81/132 stands.
In fact, nearly 9 out of 10 billionaires leaned left in 2024, openly backing Kamala Harris.
Do the decent thing by your children....
24 Nov 2025 9:53 am
MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 10:40 am » wrote: ↑ Conclusion:
The math is correct. Harris had about 61.4% of the counted billionaire backers; Trump had about 38.6%.
As usual, BV can cite numbers.....he just doesn't understand what they mean, he has a contextual problem.
24 Nov 2025 9:54 am
Yes, I misspoke. The 9 should be a 6. Now, the 81 vs 51 is true. EIGHTY-ONE billionaires supported heels-up.Blackvegetable » 24 Nov 2025, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑ Are these your words?
In fact, nearly 9 out of 10 billionaires leaned left in 2024, openly backing Kamala Harris.
So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
24 Nov 2025 10:07 am
harris had 30 more billionaires, than did TRUMP, donating to her failed campaign. TRUMP still won a TRIFECTA. 
So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
24 Nov 2025 10:15 am
Several Democratic mega‑donors were furious after Kamala Harris’s failed 2024 campaign, blasting her team for overspending, mismanagement, and leaving the party in debt. Some even said the fiasco should disqualify her from future office.MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑ harris had 30 more billionaires, than did TRUMP, donating to her failed campaign. TRUMP still won a TRIFECTA.
“blew through more than $1 billion” and left $20 million in debt
In another interview, Morgan said Harris should “go away and never come back” after wasting nearly $2 billion, including $900,000 for an image on the Las Vegas Sphere
So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
24 Nov 2025 10:20 am
It is also true that you are an innumerate imbecile.MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 10:54 am » wrote: ↑ Yes, I misspoke. The 9 should be a 6. Now, the 81 vs 51 is true. EIGHTY-ONE billionaires supported heels-up.
Nod.
24 Nov 2025 10:23 am
This is exactly what I do each and every time I see one of your posts. If it takes me a while to respond to a post of yours, don't take it personally. I am simply nodding.
So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
24 Nov 2025 10:45 am
Blackvegetable » 24 Nov 2025, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑It is also true that you are an innumerate imbecile.MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 10:54 am » wrote: ↑ Yes, I misspoke. The 9 should be a 6. Now, the 81 vs 51 is true. EIGHTY-ONE billionaires supported heels-up.
Nod.
If Trump is so billionaire friendly why did more of them support Harris?
BV is in question time out indefinitely, until he takes the pledge to answer questions one for one.
The Pledge viewtopic.php?f=3&t=100927
Popular Vote Totals 2024 viewtopic.php?p=2685476#p2685476
BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828
BV 33 miles: viewtopic.php?p=2747521#p2747521
Sources viewtopic.php?p=2589152#p2589152
The Pledge viewtopic.php?f=3&t=100927
Popular Vote Totals 2024 viewtopic.php?p=2685476#p2685476
BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828
BV 33 miles: viewtopic.php?p=2747521#p2747521
Sources viewtopic.php?p=2589152#p2589152
24 Nov 2025 10:49 am
The dems always out spend the repubs...by a LOT!!!MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑ Several Democratic mega‑donors were furious after Kamala Harris’s failed 2024 campaign, blasting her team for overspending, mismanagement, and leaving the party in debt. Some even said the fiasco should disqualify her from future office.
“blew through more than $1 billion” and left $20 million in debt
In another interview, Morgan said Harris should “go away and never come back” after wasting nearly $2 billion, including $900,000 for an image on the Las Vegas Sphere
24 Nov 2025 10:52 am
MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑ I wonder why you think PRESIDENT Trump only cares for billionaires… when the majority of billionaires didn’t care for him at all. In fact, nearly 9 out of 10 billionaires leaned left in 2024, openly backing Kamala Harris.
Kamala Harris: 81 billionaires supported her campaign, including heavyweights from Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Hollywood
Donald Trump: 51 billionaires backed him, concentrated in oil, real estate, and a few tech disruptors.
So why do liberals keep tying Trump to “the oligarchs”?
Because it’s a convenient narrative. But the facts show the billionaire class leaned heavily toward Harris, not Trump.
So, the next time a Slack-Jawed mother **** says TRUMP is “the billionaire’s president”
Remind that bitch that:
81 billionaires lined up behind Kamala...
Only 51 stood with Trump...
Bernie was always chanting "Millionaires and Billionaires"...then he sold his book and became a millionaire.
Now millionaires are cool and billionaires suck according to Bernie the idiot.
24 Nov 2025 6:45 pm
MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑ This is exactly what I do each and every time I see one of your posts. If it takes me a while to respond to a post of yours, don't take it personally. I am simply nodding.
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom 
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Libruls are often fascists on vacation..." 
24 Nov 2025 7:10 pm
I guarantee this **** clown backed Elon and his EV's before he bought Twitter. I guarantee it.Blackvegetable » 24 Nov 2025, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑
That would make 132 billionaires in total.
81 of them voted for Kamala, according to your numbers.
81/132 = 0.614
This is before adjusting for either scale of contribution or relative liquidity....
Like Elon tossing in a cool 280 mill, not including soft costs.
Johnny You: "Flying the pride flag is honorable".
25 Nov 2025 5:28 am
You lose.SouthernFried » 24 Nov 2025, 8:10 pm » wrote: ↑ I guarantee this **** clown backed Elon and his EV's before he bought Twitter. I guarantee it.
25 Nov 2025 5:36 am
81 billionaires lined up behind Kamala...
Only 51 stood with Trump...
THE OLIGARCHS ARE NEARLY ALL LIBERAL LEFTISTS
Only 51 stood with Trump...
THE OLIGARCHS ARE NEARLY ALL LIBERAL LEFTISTS
So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........
Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.
25 Nov 2025 6:13 am
Why is this monument to MAGA idiocy still up?MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑ I wonder why you think PRESIDENT Trump only cares for billionaires… when the majority of billionaires didn’t care for him at all. In fact, nearly 9 out of 10 billionaires leaned left in 2024, openly backing Kamala Harris.
Kamala Harris: 81 billionaires supported her campaign, including heavyweights from Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Hollywood
Donald Trump: 51 billionaires backed him, concentrated in oil, real estate, and a few tech disruptors.
So why do liberals keep tying Trump to “the oligarchs”?
Because it’s a convenient narrative. But the facts show the billionaire class leaned heavily toward Harris, not Trump.
So, the next time a Slack-Jawed mother **** says TRUMP is “the billionaire’s president”
Remind that bitch that:
81 billionaires lined up behind Kamala...
Only 51 stood with Trump...
🔥🔥🔥 THE OLIGARCHS ARE NEARLY ALL LIBERAL LEFTISTS 🔥🔥🔥
Oh, yea.....that...
25 Nov 2025 7:23 am
Cha-Ching...score one for ElonBlackvegetable » 24 Nov 2025, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑
That would make 132 billionaires in total.
81 of them voted for Kamala, according to your numbers.
81/132 = 0.614
This is before adjusting for either scale of contribution or relative liquidity....
Like Elon tossing in a cool 280 mill, not including soft costs.
20 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
In total there are 5933 users online :: 10 registered, 15 bots, and 5908 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, ROG62, Beekeeper, jerra b, LowIQTrash, SouthernFried, nefarious101, Huey, Fuelman
Bots: LCC, okhttp, Not, DuckDuckBot, Baiduspider, ADmantX, proximic, CriteoBot, Googlebot, facebookexternalhit, YandexBot, Applebot, bingbot, curl/7, Mediapartners-Google