" ... subsidies, that we were told weren't needed when the bill passed"

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Subsidies were there from day one. I know , because in my earliest training bore their tagline: You must file, to reconcile, meaning folks would either pay back a little bit of the subsidy, if they made more than they had predicted on healthcare.gov, or get a little more subsidy if they made less than they had predicted.

Are you lying because you're ignorant, or are you simply speaking out of turn on something you don't know about?

" ... and that have a sunset provision written into law by Democrats?"

You know what else was written to sunset? Trump's tax giveaways, which cost multiple times what the subsidies cost.

But Republicans had no problem extending those, did they? They chose exactly what they chose.

Stop pretending like this isn't what Republicans wanted. This is TrumpCare! Be proud of what you've enabled.

"Federal prosecutors"

So ... Trump's DOJ?

Sorry, we need more than just a claim from the Department of Lawfare.

So those " loud parents" were terrorists, agreed?

" Seriously, ditch the shovel."

Hand it up to me, if it'll reach.

It was also smack in the middle of page one.

So, is that YOUR definition?

" No wonder Jeff quotes a conspiracy theorist site called HotAir"

One of his "varied" sources.

" An article about the Minnesota fraud scandal is not a Trump puff piece."

You're right. It has nothing at all to do with Trump.

"We'll add Trump puff piece to the list"

Your list, since Trump has nothing to do with the story, until now, when he's withholding money for hungry children.

But the article didn't cover that part, did it?

Another huge help:

Ambulances now bring the ER to you. The tech in emergency vehicles has improved by leaps and bounds over the last decade.

" They cover a wide range of issues. It's not 100% about Trump.

We'll add "outlier" to the list of words you don't understand.

" This is a 3 page document breaking down how domestic terrorism is defined and categorized"

Did you read the part where it almost used my same wording?

Turns out those parents weren't being loud. They were being terrorists. BY DEFINITION.

Time to call it what it is.

What's your definition of terrorism, bellringer? I've already asked once.

" Now you're being obtuse."

Now you're pretending you weren't posting outliers.

"I know some of them got loud. "

Oh, ffs. Loud?!?

You wouldn't think it was just "loud" if it was your family getting death threats.

Try using a little humanity for once. There's a REASON it's called terrorism.

" Biden' handlers took what was a local LE issue and put the FBI on it"

Terrorism is within the purview of the FBI, dumfuq.

Should we discuss what made those folks terrorists? How about we start with the definition of terrorism?

Mine is when someone makes violent or mortal threats toward elected officials, in an attempt to change policies or actions by intimidation or fear.

Every time a parent or guardian threatened a school board with violence or death if they didn't reverse course, by definition, that is terrorism.

Please post your definition. I need to see where we differ.

#30
Those articles are stating obvious facts.

But wow ... one non-fluff a month!

And still: no mentions of the 100+ instances. Were they unaware as well, or were they aware and just hiding it from you?

" NRO is very critical of Trump"

Yet they didn't touch any of the 100+ instances ... so ... not really.

" I meant to say I also read what gets posted at Realclearpolitics."

Yet none of your sources covered any of Trump's 100+ instances.

What does that say about your varied sources?

" You need more than just his statements"

ANOTHER poster with "varied" news sources, all of whom have NEVER aired anything but pro-Trump fluff.

" I just not aware of what you are claiming."

Did y'all catch that?

It happened over 100 times, and Bellringer wasn't aware of ANY of them.

Isn't he the guy who promoted varying one's news sources?

His posts read like his "varied" sources are NRO, Redstate, and the Daily Stormer.

" You really are a sore loser

Not when I win, like I did here.

You, OTOH, are rounding first in your home-run trot while the catcher is holding strike three.

" What point does your point make?"

Well, the original point was that for the first time in our lives, we haven't had any attending physician follow-up after a presidential assassination attempt.

But now, though, the point is you're an idiot for making me explain the obvious.

"I don't know what you think that proves"

My point.

It proves my point.

" Yes, and so what? "

What a riot.

Read my damned post. I said people don't know it without looking it up.

You're Exhibit A, admitting you didn't know it without looking it up.

Thanks for inadvertently proving my point correct.

Double thanks for looking so stupid while doing it.

" If you disagree, just tell me what percentage of households in the top 20% got there thanks to gifts from unrelated households in the top 20%."

Moot point.

Unless you're suggesting the top 20% ONLY gives to the top 20%, a statistical impossibility.

The assumption is the recipient is currently in a different household by the time the last parent dies.

And there will still only be 20% in the top 20%.

"But also statistically negligible."

You're joking, right?

Married couples, on average have ~1.8 kids.

If each couple gives to 1.8 households, the wealth is spread from 20% of the households to 36%.

Even if you use 1.5, that's still 30%.

Not statistically negligible at all.