#35 Please stop helping MAGA and the Trump.

#86 I see ole BJ boi is gaslighting: The GOPyers care about Americans. LOL!

#21 Facts alone are often insufficient to change a person's mind due to deep-seated cognitive biases like confirmation bias and belief perseverance. I always thought that was the problem with MAGA, many responses I've seen has led me to believe that the exact same thing afflicts many of the same, ostensible allies.

#21 Please read and learn ...

And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.

In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.

The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.

Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision"to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)

#9 I crunched the numbers and it is NOT "where's the $400,000,000,000.00 going to come from."

Nope.

It is "where's the $600,000,000,000.00 going to come from."

Let's do the math:

US Population: 342,000,000

US population minus the 10-15% or so ~high-income~ folk: 300,000,000

So, okay, let's go ...

300,000,000 people times $2,000.00 per person is $600,000,000,000.00.

Tariff collection so far in 2025 has been around $200,000,000,000.00.

But we've already determined that that $200,000,000,000.00 was going to go to corporations for the return of the tariff money, right?

So, where will the $600,000,000,000.00 come from?

Half of Substack (and most of the top influencers here) JUMPED on what they called the "the cave" by the Senate Democrats. Left and right you see how people who are supposed to be fighting together against MAGA and the Trump, start demeaning the only viable alternative to MAGA and the Trump: The Democratic Party.

Just above, for example, a writer says that they are not going to vote for their Democratic senator again. Another writer devoted a Substack video to his leaving the Democratic Party because of "the cave." It is like they are doing the work for MAGA and the Trump all by themselves.

Unfortunately, facts alone are often insufficient to change a person's mind due to deep-seated cognitive biases like confirmation bias and belief perseverance. I always thought that was the problem with MAGA, but a few of the responses I've received has led me to believe that the exact same thing afflicts our ostensible allies.

And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.

In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.

The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.

Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision"to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)

Let us all take a deep breath here.

This "agreement" has to then be approved by the House.

And where's the House?

So, okay, the House comes back into session.

Magically, there's now enough votes to demand the release of the Epstein files.

Democrats did exceedingly well last week. And the conditions that led to this year's Democratic victories (affordability), and the Trump's inability to think beyond the next headline (and/or keep his mouth shut), will still be present a year from now.

Please let it play out. There's nothing positive we can do right now. And bashing the only viable option to the GOPyers and MAGA and the Trump is NOT a positive for America.

Meanwhile, food will go to the 42,000,000 Americans who need it

The Trump and the entire GOPyer universe is now the party of trying to keep food away from the needy, WHILE THE ADMINISTRATION IS ANNOUNCING EVEN MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY.

But bashing Schumer (who definitely NEEDS to go) and Democrats, at this time, is counterproductive.

Eye on the prize, people.

Eye on the prize.

#20 The problem with trying to blame Democrats for the shutdown is that the Trump and the GOP have let everyone know that THEY control Washington (POTUS, Congress, SCOTUS). It always seems to be "HaHaHa You lost" (from the Trump on down).

So, no matter how you slice or dice it, this is on the GOP... and the American people know it.

And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.

In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.

The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.

Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision"to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)