Liberal Forum

ROG62 » 26 Dec 2025, 9:56 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 9:56 am

so what's your **** point? did the picture taker guy state it was DJT to substantiate your claim? He'd be the only credible witness....dig him up and put this to bed...

The photographer was actually a "she" (this day and age, who knows, right??) and has NOT CONFIRMED that it was indeed Trump and has been asked MULTIPLE time the question.

So basically, **** BREATH has nothing and never will.

RebelGator » 26 Dec 2025, 8:34 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 8:34 am

I think it's one that everybody has wiped their *** with.      

  POST OF THE DAY...!!!    

Beekeeper » 26 Dec 2025, 10:01 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 10:01 am

The photographer was actually a "she" (this day and age, who knows, right??) and has NOT CONFIRMED that it was indeed Trump and has been asked MULTIPLE time the question.

So basically, **** BREATH has nothing and never will.

A couple of things.

1.  The guy in the pic is too short..

​​​​2.  @Blackvegetable  posted a claim that the pic was from 1979.  Trump was 33 in 79.  The guy in that pic is not 33.  Plus, just Google Trump 1979.
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 26 Dec 2025, 9:55 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 9:55 am

I think it's his "Gay Trump" photo that will inflict the most damage on Trumps chances for re-election......

Maybe we should give Bv a break...after all Trump did win 3 elections in a row. Who knows...he might go for #4 just to piss Bv off more. 


  

Beekeeper » 26 Dec 2025, 8:29 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 8:29 am

Our boy @Blackvegetable  is cut from a different cloth.

One that NO ONE would wipe their *** WITH!!

When you see hounds' tooth cloth with **** on it you know Bv is in the area.      

Beekeeper » 26 Dec 2025, 10:01 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 10:01 am

The photographer was actually a "she" (this day and age, who knows, right??) and has NOT CONFIRMED that it was indeed Trump and has been asked MULTIPLE time the question.

So basically, **** BREATH has nothing and never will.

and has NOT CONFIRMED that it was indeed Trump and has been asked MULTIPLE time the question.

This is complete ****.

Blackvegetable » 26 Dec 2025, 11:29 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 11:29 am

Beekeeper » 26 Dec 2025, 10:01 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 10:01 am

The photographer was actually a "she" (this day and age, who knows, right??) and has NOT CONFIRMED that it was indeed Trump and has been asked MULTIPLE time the question.

So basically, **** BREATH has nothing and never will.

and has NOT CONFIRMED that it was indeed Trump and has been asked MULTIPLE time the question.

This is complete ****.

 

Nope.  Way too young. And not tall enough,

Huey » 26 Dec 2025, 10:46 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 10:46 am

Blackvegetable » 24 Dec 2025, 2:08 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2025, 2:08 pm

How can people be this **** stupid?

The Photograph:

The specific photograph of Roy Cohn and Donald Trump at a social event (likely a party at Le Club in June 1979, per Getty Images metadata for similar photos) is a genuine historical document of their association. The documentary used many archival photos and footage from Cohn's personal collection to build its narrative.

What is so hard to grasp?

Trump was 33 in 79.  The guy in the pic is not 33.  Below is trump in 1979:



It is not Trump in your picture
 

 

 

Blackvegetable » 26 Dec 2025, 11:29 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 11:29 am

This is complete ****.

Bump



Where's that **** coward Fondler?
 

Blackvegetable » 26 Dec 2025, 11:29 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 11:29 am

This is complete ****.

Then you should have NO PROBLEM showing us where the PHOTOGRAPHER disclosed the subjects of your photo, right, ASSHOLE??

Run now.
      

And BTW, "metadata" from Getty images is NOT PROOF of anything OTHER than what they put in, not the PHOTOGRAPHER!! WHO KNOWS when that was uploaded to their image database. OFTEN they buy up entire portfolios of photographers and then RESELL THEM at a profit. Roy Cohn is the MAIN SUBJECT of this image, not the other person that HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER!! PERIOD!!

Beekeeper » 26 Dec 2025, 4:43 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 4:43 pm

Then you should have NO PROBLEM showing us where the PHOTOGRAPHER disclosed the subjects of your photo, right, ASSHOLE??

Run now.
      

And BTW, "metadata" from Getty images is NOT PROOF of anything OTHER than what they put in, not the PHOTOGRAPHER!! WHO KNOWS when that was uploaded to their image database. OFTEN they buy up entire portfolios of photographers and then RESELL THEM at a profit. Roy Cohn is the MAIN SUBJECT of this image, not the other person that HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER!! PERIOD!!

Where the **** did you show that the photographer hasn't confirmed it? 

Beekeeper » 26 Dec 2025, 4:43 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 4:43 pm

Then you should have NO PROBLEM showing us where the PHOTOGRAPHER disclosed the subjects of your photo, right, ASSHOLE??

Run now.
      

And BTW, "metadata" from Getty images is NOT PROOF of anything OTHER than what they put in, not the PHOTOGRAPHER!! WHO KNOWS when that was uploaded to their image database. OFTEN they buy up entire portfolios of photographers and then RESELL THEM at a profit. Roy Cohn is the MAIN SUBJECT of this image, not the other person that HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER!! PERIOD!!

So at this point, the ONLY evidence you've offered to contradict the attribution and AI Metadata analysis is "Is not!....(....sob...)" and your silly lie...

Blackvegetable » 26 Dec 2025, 5:19 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 5:19 pm

Where the **** did you show that the photographer hasn't confirmed it?

YOU made the claim it has been CONFIRMED!! and the only one who  can do that IS  the photographer!!

The ONUS is on YOU, DICKSUCK to prove she/he confirmed the SUBJECTS OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH!!

AI is NOT reliable, and YOU **** SAID SO YOURSELF ON MULTIPLE POSTS AND NO I WON"T SHOW YOU WHICH ONES SI(NCE YOU ARE A **** IDIOT AND LOSER PIECE OF ****!!

Blackvegetable » 26 Dec 2025, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 5:49 pm

So at this point, the ONLY evidence you've offered to contradict the attribution and AI Metadata analysis is "Is not!....(....sob...)" and your silly lie...

I don't need to CONTRDICT JACK ****, ASSHOLE!!

The PROOF of your claim is ON YOU, DICKSUCKER!!

roadkill » 26 Dec 2025, 11:11 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 11:11 am

When you see hounds' tooth cloth with **** on it you know Bv is in the area.    

He looks like a homeless guy who is a regular shopper at the Salvation Army.
You know for sure that those hounds tooth pajamas came from some old dead guy's estate......  
 

Beekeeper » 26 Dec 2025, 6:03 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 6:03 pm

YOU made 

Your words

and has NOT CONFIRMED that it was indeed Trump and has been asked MULTIPLE time the question.

where do you get this ****?

Beekeeper » 26 Dec 2025, 6:05 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 6:05 pm

I don't need to CONTRDICT JACK ****, ASSHOLE!!

The PROOF of your claim is ON YOU, DICKSUCKER!!

Si why do you lie trying?

*GHETTOBLASTER » 26 Dec 2025, 6:08 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 6:08 pm

He looks like a homeless guy who is a regular shopper at the Salvation Army.
You know for sure that those hounds tooth pajamas came from some old dead guy's estate......

I you sure he was dead?      

Beekeeper » 26 Dec 2025, 10:01 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 10:01 am

The photographer was actually a "she" (this day and age, who knows, right??) and has NOT CONFIRMED that it was indeed Trump and has been asked MULTIPLE time the question.

So basically, **** BREATH has nothing and never will.

It's his personal mission to cling to **** while trying to obfuscate, segue and deflect his way to a win for the home team...yet continually fails miserably...
 

nefarious101 » 26 Dec 2025, 9:56 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 9:56 am

Maybe has that mental illness where he thinks he's a baby....preferring a full load in his diaper could be one of his turn-on's

after all he is a "man in a dress" LGBTP Progressive

Agreed....
 

Huey » 26 Dec 2025, 9:54 am » wrote: ↑

26 Dec 2025, 9:54 am

I remember him as R. Suave.  He also went by "The5thHorseman" but I don't think he used it here.  I called him The5thJackasss.