#146 Thank you, Bill "Two Face" Johnson ....

#147 You made a big point about kilfile (or whatever it is) me. It takes 2 to communicate. Are you hot, or are you cold? Enquiring minds want to know.

#55 "#49 is fake quotes"

Here's the thing... they're as fake quotes, as say, these:

Philip "Benny Squint" Lombardo

Greg "The Grim Reaper" Scarpa Sr.

Aniello "Allie Lamont" Giannattasio

Joseph "Joe Red" Merlo Jr.

Michael "Mikey Scars" DiLeonardo Sr.

Girolamo "Bobby Doyle" Santuccio

Nicholas "Nicky Black" Grancio

Joseph "Junior Lollipop" Carna

Generoso "Jimmy the General" Barbieri

Thomas "Tommy Sneakers" Cacciopoli

Nicholas "Nick the Blade" Virgilio

Dominick "Big Trin" Trinchera

Felix "Skinny Razor" DiTullio

You certainly round out THIS definition, BJ boi: thin-skinned
/THinskind,THinskind/
adjective
sensitive to criticism or insults.
"these bloggers sure are a thin-skinned crowd"

I wish this was more difficult.

If you were to look into the refrigerators and pantries of pundits and everyone else talking about how the Democrats in the Senate "caved," I've no doubt that you would find those refrigerators and pantries full of food, and no concern among any of them about being able to afford to buy groceries the next time they need them, at whatever cost the groceries are.

I suspect the exact same thing is true for most - if not all - of the Drudge Denizens ... zero food insecurity.

Meanwhile, I'm willing to wager that if you were to look into the refrigerators and pantries of those who were relieved at what the "8" did (not only the food insecure, but also the furloughed/fired federal workers), you would find more than 42,000,000 American people who are grateful that now they might be able eat.

While affordability, and especially affordable health care, affects all Americans, hunger and food insecurity is a potential fear of human beings everywhere.

A person who has the flu might postpone a visit to their primary care physician for a few days because of the cost. If your refrigerator and pantry are full, it is easy to concentrate on affordability.

If your refrigerator and pantry are bare and your stomach is empty, or you have to listen to the cries of your child because they're hungry for food, a fight over affordability is a luxury you simply do not have. In this case, you are in survival mode.

#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)

#35, #36, etc ...

Here's a convenient checklist to ascertain to which BJ boi you're reading/responding to:

[ ] BJ "I'm a sensitive gay incel married in a sexless marriage to a "woman" boi

[ ] BJ "I have an Internet connection and a browser so I do 'research'" boi

[ ] BJ "I'm just pulling your leg" boi

[ ] BJ "_______________" boi

........

Provided as a community service as dictated by the Trump administration (or the DeSantis administration) ...

Your milage may vary.

#8 He didn't?

God bless him... Right?

#7 What a wonderful view of the future. Thanks.

#42 Apparently, BJ boi feels safe now to continue to castigate the lowly non-incel gays, like him (see: self-loathing).

Let us all rejoice.

#70 Which is disappearing.

Didn't you hear?

The Trump did away with all of that AI and Cyber Security stuff.

#62 People seem to be content with Ratf*cking the Democrats, without realizing that it ONLY HELPS REPUBLICANS.

For some reason, the perfect has become the enemy of the good.

So, Ratf*ck the Democrats seems to be the order of the day.

#39 But weren't we always taught that suffering helps build character?

By the billionaires?

Which reminds me...

Because you are a character doesn't mean you have character.

Yeah, sometimes I feel like Winston Wolf.

#60 So?

Eye on the prize: The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution has done nothing for the United States of America.

Absolutely nothing.

#51 Trump gloats over his bowel movements.

Trump gloats even when it makes him look ridiculous.

So why get your bowels in an uproar over what the Trump might gloat about?

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 Schumer (who definitely NEEDS to go) or Senate Democrats, at this time, is counterproductive.

Eye on the prize, people.

Eye on the prize.

This seems to be a recurring theme here.

#20 Is there some point to this?

Generally speaking, most people don't wallow in what they consider to be a "sewer."

And from just the first couple of responses to your post so far, the consensus is with #22:

Then leave if you hate it here. No one is forcing you to stay here.

Perhaps Elon's Nazi bar, the former Twitter, is more to your liking.

Or maybe, the Goyim Defense League website would feel as comfortable as home to you.

Or, perhaps, the Atomwaffen Division (AWD) / National Socialist Order (NSO) message board is up your alley.

Since you really cannot differentiate between what does and what does not constitute an on-line sewer, you should fit in nicely there.

Where shall we forward any future responses (j/k) that might trickle in?