Where are you, Ms. Z? Where are you, Mustang? Where are you Sam Huntington, -FJ, Baysider, Jess, Jeffery, and the rest of you living souls who are part of the group of bloggers that frequents Geeez? Are any of you awake?
For years you’ve decried the Democrats for trying to bribe voters with low-cost medical care, welfare for poor people, and loads of other “free stuff.”
All of you have prattled on for years about how “buying votes” with giveaways would be the death of America.
For years you’ve called the American people stupid for falling for such craven bribery, and you’ve gone on and on about low-IQ voters falling for such chicanery.
“How can we afford such giveaways?” you always asked.
Well, where are you now?
Never in the history of our republic has a president of the United States been so brazen as to openly promise Americans cash if his party wins an election.
Until now.
Here’s what our president, the man you all helped put in office, had to say:
“If Republicans win the House of Representatives and the Senate in the 2026 Midterm Elections, I’m going to give all adult citizens in the United States of America, $5,000! Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to signing those checks!”
And it’s not the first time he’s said it, so let’s be honest.
He means it.
Because in September, he said essentially the same thing.
Back then, we could have dismissed it as another off-the-cuff Trump promise.
But now he’s repeated it.
So let me ask you: Is President Trump selling America down the river by saddling us with more than $1 trillion in additional spending just to buy an election?
Are Republicans so stupid, as you’ve all called Democrats over the years, that they’ll vote for the GOP in November just to get their checks?
Where’s your outrage now?
Where’s your disgust? Where are your furious blog posts, angry with a president and political party that care more about winning than America?
Patriotic America lovers.
That’s how you all portray yourselves.
Well, here’s your chance to prove it. Here’s your chance to show us all that your values and your words are not simply tied to a party or favored candidate.
This election, here’s what America needs you to do: Skip voting in the House and Senate races.
Go ahead and vote Republican in all your local races, but skip the House and Senate races.
If your words over the years have meant anything, if you meant it when you said bribing Americans to get their votes was an assault on the freedoms of America, you simply cannot vote for the GOP in the House and Senate races.
Because every vote for a Republican House or Senate candidate is a vote to enable more than $1 trillion in additional federal spending for the USA.
Each vote for a House or Senate GOP candidate says you are, in fact, okay with buying votes.
And it says you are not the patriots and America lovers you’ve always called yourselves.
In fact, it says you are nothing more than craven partisans, willing to sacrifice your long-held values just to win an election and hopefully get a $5,000 check.
****************************
I agree with Dave on this, and, in fact, I add this to his post:
Every time Trump promises to send Americans money in exchange for their votes, we have to do the math, because that is where the promise immediately falls apart.
There are roughly 245 million adults in this country. That is $1.20 trillion. The president does not have the authority to just send out checks on a whim, and he certainly can’t spend more than a trillion dollars without approval. That is not even taking into account the practical side of things, like where the money would come from.
Donald Trump also promised $2,000 tariff dividend checks. Those never came, and these never will either. He knows that, and he also knows that there is almost no realistic path for Republicans to hold both chambers of Congress. So the excuse and the scapegoat are already built in for when the checks are never sent. He will blame the Democrats. He will say he wanted to send the checks, but the radical left “Dumocrats” blocked him from sending them.
He will use this as another reason to further divide us.
45 comments:
The hypocrisy, the stupidity, and the lack of integrity that the MAGA supporters you cite show, and certainly there are many others, speaks to why this nation is in decline and has lost the respect of most countries on the planet.
But they'll keep praising and worshipping the malignant narcissist, insurrectionist, rapist, pedophile supporting, racist, misogynistic, 34 felonies criminal president because they are so invested in the MAGA scam it has become a major part of their identity.
Given their willful ignorance they will likely go to the polls, vote Republican, and happily accept the bribe if Republicans retain congress and the senate, and the checks are actually issued.
They have demonstrated by their comments they no integrity. Just like their Fascist Fuhrer trump.
I do see a difference. A man who offers to pay you above the table, instead of below it. Is Trump a scumbag? Yes he is. But is he hiding anything, or do you know exactly what he is?
And what about those who get paid UNDER the table? Do you see them as virtuous? And those who offer goods and services and wink? How about them.
We know what Government is. It's "force", and nothing more. Watch it being used against you above the table, instead of below it.
You claim to be good people. I don't. I have no need to virtue signal. Does Trump make you uncomfortable because he has no need to virtue signal either? Or would you prefer he were a democrat and blow smoke up your asses about all the "good" that THEY are doing? Especially for people who have no claim to the country at all. Who invested nothing in making this country what it is today. And yes, that runs into the $trillions.
Interesting about that 'banner'* blog...the little crew is rather
upset with their hero.
*banner as is far more commenters are banned than permitted.
From some of their comments today, the cookie continues to crumble.
This great giveaway sounds great but do you really believe it would or could ever happen. I think this is just political posturing and will never happen.
BTW 1.2 trillion is still way below what the government gave away during covid which was 1.8 million. Both give-a-ways would provide fuel for inflation the same as happened during 2021 which we are still paying for today because prices seldom come down.
I must have missed the outrage of the give-a-way that happened during the previous administration. Is this because it is trumps idea because the economy is strong and debt doesn't matter so it is not like the country can't afford it.
I don't want it just like the biden bribe and feel it won't happen but for those who don't pay FIT would benefit.
The little dictator MUST be getting scared as now he also promised $90.00 for every senior on Medicare! $90.00? Really? Someone commented on the Washington Post's story that $90.00 might fill up his gas tank. I was happy to read that the vast majority of commenters saw it as bribing and most said if they received if, they would turn around and send it to ActBlue or a Democrat running that needed the money.
The first two payments were during the Trump administration, the 3rd was from the Biden administration. And those payments were for people who were HURT DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC! People who lost their businesses, jobs, and other means of support. It didn't solve everyone's problems but it addressed a dire situation BROUGHT ABOUT BY A WORLDWIDE PANDEMIC.
This current promise of $5,000 from Trump is for votes, and it is a naked BRIBE. Trump said so himself. If the Republicans hold onto the House and Senate, only then will Americans get a payoff from the Briber-in-Chief. IOW, Trump is merely continuing his corruption, but in plain sight, which people who have no scruples believe is commendable. It's saying people who commit crimes out in the open are more virtuous than those who do it stealthily. Either way, it is corruption. The first way is corruption with chutzpah. And that how the Teflon Don, John Gotti, operated his syndicate.
Your comment itself is actually virtue signaling. Saying you have no need to virtue signal implies your probity is evident to everyone.
Saying that one doesn't need to "virtue signal" is an form of virtue signaling itself. This paradox occurs because the statement functions as a "humblebrag" or a meta-signal. By explicitly stating that they don't need to broadcast their good deeds, the speaker is subtly informing the audience of two things: first, that they actually perform virtuous acts, and second, that they possess the superior moral maturity to do so quietly.
And Trump, BTW, makes us uncomfortable because he's corrupt, a liar, a cheat, and fraudster, a convicted criminal and adjudicated rapist whose best friends for years, Epstein & Maxwell, trafficked children to rich powerful people to rape, and who is mentioned in the Epstein files thousands of times.
Apparently, the virtue you don't need to signal admires that.
The rest of your comment, IMO, is pure xenophobic claptrap.
I read this in her cri de coeur about Trump today and what a potty- mouthed egotist he is: "I blame his Chief of Staff for much of this….her job includes keeping him likable……………..that’s NOT HAPPENING>"
There it is. But I suppose she's a victim of her generation. Always Blame The Woman! It's Wiles' responsibility to make Trump likeable and behave like a common decent human being? Good luck with that, Susie. You'd be better off trying to get a rogue hippopotamus to behave than Trump!
So you believe covert corruption is better than overt corruption instead of believing any sort of corruption is not good? You've given up and have, IMO, become an unreconstructed cynic, someone whose cynicism is total, raw, and unyielding. You appear to reject any attempts at optimism, institutional faith, or moral reform, viewing the world with a permanent, uncurable suspicion -- which, IMO, matches perfectly with your conspiratorial mind.
So why'd you censor the 3rd comment, Shaw? Can't stand truth, I know....
Trump's latest appearance in Ohio showed us that he's a man no longer in control of his thoughts and musings in public. He was NEVER good at censoring his baser self. IMO, he's just a gigantic id in orange make-up.
I did not publish it because you made what I believe, is a wrong comparison of the government as a murderer and compared it to Lindsay Clancy. Lindsay Clancy has not been convicted of any crime.
Yes, -FJ, you've made your authoritarian personality and sociopath nature clear by now.
I don't know of anyone here bragging about being "good people". Our values are as clear as yours, and they are at polar opposites.
Say, didn't YOU vote for the admitted and adjudicated sex offender, election interference criminal, and pathological liar?
Yeah. "Values", amirite?
And please remind us who won the 2020 election. Trump wouldn't LIE about it and send thugs to terrorize Congress and beat cops bloody to overturn an election, would he? He'd at least have the decency to condemn their violence and let them serve their sentences, right? I mean, it's not like he would want to financially REWARD CRIMINALS or anything.
For a virtuous man like you would never vote for a lying criminal scumbag.
Also: "Whether it's hidden or done in plain sight, the fundamental issue is that corruption drains public resources and undermines faith in democracy. Overt corruption might make the problem easier to see, but without strong accountability mechanisms to stop it, visibility alone doesn't fix the damage. The real goal should be strengthening ethical standards so that neither version can thrive."
That never prevented you from making any accusations of Trumpian crimes. Double standard much?
So, if a virtuous person speaks of the beliefs or actions of a non virtuous person, speaking the truth as to how it potentially harms another person, group, or civilization, they are virtue signalling according to -FG.
Good to know -FJ. You've helped me understand. MAGA better now. They simply don't give a damn about anything other than their own personal self interests and selfish desires. Thanks for that.
Dearest -FJ...
You’re not denying that Trump is offering voters $5,000 if Republicans win the House and Senate. In fact, you seem to be acknowledging that he is buying votes... you’re simply arguing that doing it “above the table” is somehow better.
But for years, the argument at Geeez has been that Democrats buying votes with “free stuff” is wrong and bad for America. That people who vote for politicians because they promise them government benefits are stupid. That politicians who use the public treasury to purchase political support are corrupt.
I don’t remember the caveat back then from you, Geeez, Mustang or anyone else on the Mothership crew saying... “Unless they’re completely open about it.”
And that’s what I’m asking about.
Forget Democrats. Forget welfare. Forget Obamacare. Forget all the people you believe have been getting paid “under the table.”
Donald Trump has said, in plain English: Elect Republicans to the House and Senate and I’ll give every adult American $5,000.
So is that wrong?
Because “at least he’s doing it openly” doesn’t answer the question. It just acknowledges that he’s doing exactly what you guys have spent years condemning.
M,
The CIa was born in 1947. Overt warfare became Covert
The United States Department of War was effectively reorganized and renamed into what eventually became the Department of Defense (DoD) in two key steps:
• National Security Act of 1947: On September 18, 1947, the original Department of War split into the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force. Together with the Department of the Navy, they formed an umbrella organization initially called the National Military Establishment.
• 1949 Amendments: On August 10, 1949, an amendment officially renamed the National Military Establishment to the Department of Defense
---
The military returned to using the historic title on September 5, 2025.
President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14347, which officially designated the Department of War and Secretary of War as authorized secondary titles for the Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense.
Covert has returned to being Overt actions.
The Orwellian US Institute of Peace no longers runs the American Empire. Chatham House Rules no longer apply.
Nothing has changed but the "lying" about it.
Trump is an actual convicted criminal -- a convicted felon. And he's been found liable, by a civil court of law, to have raped E. Jean Carroll.
My statements about Trump's crimes are the truth
Lindsay Clancy has NOT been convicted of murder. My statements of Trump's crimes are the truth
There is no double standard there, except in your mind.
Look M, even the IRGC isn't lying anymore. So why can't you be honest as well. Chant "Death to America!" with them proudly.
Why the pathological need to exagerate the crime, Shaw? Why the need to lie? Sexual Assault isn't rape. Neither is consensual sex (ala Jane Doe) rape after 2 weeks of regret.
Okay, this is nuts! Check your bank account. I just logged in to pay a bill and see there is a $90.00 payment from Social Security added today!
Department of Defense name alteration:
Legal Status
According to Executive Order 14347, the Department of Defense was not legally renamed, but it was authorized to use "Department of War" as a secondary title.
📌 Key Details
• Official Name: The legal name remains the Department of Defense.
• Congressional Authority: Only an act of Congress can formally change a federal department's name.
• Executive Action: President Donald Trump signed the order on September 5, 2025.
• Usage Limit: The secondary title applies only to non-statutory communications and public websites.
All Trump did is what is known as performative bullshit. It made him feel powerful. It's nothing more than theater for him and his woefully unqualified, sexual assaulter Secy. of Defense, Hegseth.
Rape is considered a specific and severe form of sexual assault.
"Sexual assault" functions as an umbrella term used by organizations like RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) to describe any type of forced, coerced, or non-consensual sexual contact or behavior.
The main difference between the two terms involves the specific nature of the act:
• Sexual Assault: This broader category includes a wide range of non-consensual acts. It encompasses things like unwanted sexual touching or groping, forced kissing, and voyeurism, as well as penetration.
• Rape: This is a distinct legal definition under the sexual assault umbrella that specifically involves non-consensual penetration (vaginal, anal, or oral) by a body part or an object.
According to the civil trial, Trump digitally raped E. Jean Carroll. So, yes, he committed sexual assault by means of digitally raping Carroll.
Trump is on audio tape BRAGGING about sexually assaulting women.
What is it about that that you don't understand? Or willfully not CHOOSE to understand? Are you that besotted with Trump that you refuse to see what he is in front of your nose.
PS. Did the five other men who raped her while she was drugged and unconscious get her consent? No. She was raped. And your comment illustrates what's wrong with too many boys/men in this country.
Does this mean you're going to vote MAGA in November??!!!!!
Hahaha! Not bloody likely!!
-FJ, I don't want Dave M.'s post to become a discussion about the Cornell/Jane Doe rape. I may publish one on that subject in a separate post later in the week. Meanwhile, I've saved your comments to put up on that post should I have time to do that.
Again Dearest -FJ, or Joe C, or Thersites... none of your latest comment, at 5:17pm, answers the question I asked.
I’m not asking about the CIA, the Department of War, covert actions, the Institute of Peace, or the American Empire.
I’m asking about something much simpler.
For years, you and others at Geeez have condemned Democrats for what you called “buying votes” by promising people government-funded “free stuff.”
Now Donald Trump is explicitly promising Americans $5,000 if Republicans win the House and Senate.
You seem to be saying the only difference is that Trump is doing it openly.
Fine. Then let’s stipulate that for the sake of argument.
My question remains:
Is it wrong to use taxpayer money to buy votes, or isn’t it?
If it was wrong when Democrats did what you called “buying votes” two months ago, why is it acceptable when Trump openly says, elect Republicans and I’ll send you $5,000?
That’s the question.
Everything else you've posted is a distraction from it.
The great giveaway is not the issue of the post Skud. The issue is what has changed. Just a few months ago, people like you, who voted for Trump and/or his federally elected enablers, chastised Dems for offering medical insurance, welfare and other government benefits to ppl of the US.
In fact, you do that here regularly, usually connected to your calls for a "fair tax".
The question is... if it was bad for America then, if it was budget busting, if it was freedom stealing when a Dem did it, is the same true when Trump does it?
A simple yes, or no will suffice. Am I asking for too much? It seems like it.
My research and experience tells me the GOP, folks on the Mothership and people like you and -FJ would like to change the subject to anything else, rather than risk admitting your partisanship.
Need proof?
Look how -FJ is twisting the thread and himself into a pretzel to avoid the obvious. And then notice how the Mothership stops short of calling Trump unAmerican for offering essentially what is a clear bribe for a vote.
How else should I interpret those actions?
Possum... just look at all the polls the MAGA crowd says are wrong. I doubt the Blue Wave will crest as high as Dems are hoping, but it will certainly win the Dems the House, and make the Senate tighter than a tick, to quote Dan Rather.
Fair Shaw... -FJ chooses not to stay focused on a subject, because he doesn't care. As we've all seen, his MO is to disrupt. Not contribute or be part of any real discussions.
My mistake. I just reread the Cornell/Jane Doe comments and they were written by Joe Conservative, not -FJ.
Is it wrong? Is it legal? If not, impeach him. Did you object to Biden forgiving student loans? If not, why not? The explicit quid pro quo, or the implicit one?
PL, Trump must feel your are special because I got zip.
Dave, It was Ms. Shaw who cannot avoid posting that trump was found guilty by a liberal democrat judge of sexual assault.
To answer your question at 1959, yes. You always claim i voted for trump which is not true.
Politicians make promises to buy votes, Free health for all, free childcare, free money but don't provide an answer how is that going to pay for it. I know you are opposed to everyone paying their fair share and your party wants to pay for it by taxing the rich but what is the real answer. The democrats are opposed to reducing corruption and fraud in government so what is the answer?
Specific attribution is unnecessary... but thanks for trying.
skud: "Dave, It was Ms. Shaw who cannot avoid posting that trump was found guilty by a liberal democrat judge of sexual assault."
Yes. I post that often because it is astounding to me (and other Americans) that I live in a country where millions of Americans are okay with putting a sexual assaulter/rapist in office -- a man who actually BRAGGED about sexually assaulting women! Your comment implies that the only reason Trump was found liable is because the judge was a "liberal democrat," not because the jury heard the evidence. You weren't at the trial. You do NOT know what was presented, you know only what you read or heard in the media. And from your comment, it appears that your sympathy is for the assaulter and not the victim.
skud: "Politicians make promises to buy votes, Free health for all..."
NO! You're completely wrong. No Democrat that I know of promised "free health for all." They want AFFORDABLE health care for all. That's a difference that you ignore.
skud: "free money..." What are you talking about? AFAIK, it is Trump who's offering "free money!" $5,000 to every adult American is the GOP wins the mid-term elections.
skud: "The democrats are opposed to reducing corruption and fraud in government so what is the answer?"
This is a nonsensical statement. Where's the evidence to back that statement up? Because right now, evidence points to the Republican Party as the political party that is opposed to reducing corruption and fraud in government. The fact that they gave Trump another term in office -- a man who is a convicted felon! And who is lining his and his family's pockets while in office -- proves the point that it is Conservatives who are opposed to reducing corruption in government!
Joe asked... Is it wrong? Is it legal?
I'll note that Joe is functionally unable, or unwilling to answer a question.
Skud... you've stated that you did not vote for Trump in 2024. I've taken you at your word on that multiple times. I have no idea who you voted for in 2016 or 2020. But I feel pretty confident you've voted for Representatives and Senators who have enabled him to subvert the Constitution, avoid Congressional oversight and who confirmed SCOTUS nominees who found a level of constitutional immunity for him.
In the words of Charlie Kirk... prove me wrong.
And a simple statement will do.
And thanks for the straight answer. It's certainly more than -FJ/Joe C can muster.
Dave,
Authoritarians and sociopaths like JC/-FJ/etc. HATE answering questions. Like their Dear Leader, they prefer to deflect, or attack the person asking.
Exhibit A:
JC/-FJ/etc., Who won the 2020 presidential election with the largest number of CERTIFIED popular and electoral votes?
Part Two:
JC/-FJ/etc., Is their verifiable evidence Trump committed any fraud, criminal sex offenses, or crimes related to the 2020 election?
~~
What are the chances this will appear as invisible ink to him? Authoritarians are bullies. They are not interested in good faith discussion, questions, or facts they don't want to accept, only power and domination.
Interestingly enough, it seems the president's absurd promise, which IMHO, will never be fulfilled even if the GOP wins the midterms, has caught the attention of the Mothership and their sailors.
One person thought it was all a joke.
Another figured Trump was just running his mouth again.
Yet another opposes the "bribe."
And one thinks it could be a good way, paying ppl, to get them to the polls.
No one has seen this as the end of democracy, as bad precedent, as wiping out American freedoms or has called for impeachment, all called for remedies when Dems propose expanding the American financial safety net. And only one person has mentioned the effect on our deficit of doing this.
I wonder why? And I'll offer this...
Once a Dem is in the White House again, or they hold sway over Congress they will most certainly propose more spending.
How much you wanna bet that as soon as they do, the GOP will be calling any spending initiatives anywhere close to the $1 trillion these $5K checks will cost, communist, socialism, budget busting and just plain, inflationary, bad economic policy.
The opposite of "rigt" isn't "wrong". It's "left".
Ms. Shaw, Did you really mean "NO! You're completely wrong. No Democrat that I know of promised "free health for all" or were you just kidding. I do suggest you listen to the DNC/DSA candidates and sitting representatives when the promote medicare for all. That is free healthcare for all. "
"Bernie Sanders [I-VT] and 18 co-sponsors support the Medicare for All Act (S.1506) in the 119th Congress.
Over 100 members of the U.S. House of Representatives support "Medicare for All" by co-sponsoring the Medicare for All Act (H.R.3069) in the 119th Congress"
Skud,
Here's your opportunity to enlighten us.
Universal healthcare has shown to be less expensive with better outcomes than the corporate American for profit version.
NOBODY in such countries wants to trade their healthcare system for ours.
How do you change their minds?
No answer just proves you WRONG.
skud: . "I do suggest you listen to the DNC/DSA candidates and sitting representatives when the promote medicare for all. That is free healthcare for all. "
No. You're wrong! I'm on Medicare, and I've been paying into that health insurance with my paycheck since it was passed by Congress, AND I'M STILL PAYING PREMIUMS EVERY MONTH THROUGH MY SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK. Medicare is not free! We pay into the system when we begin working and even after when we earn our S.S. income at retirement.
You're probably thinking of Medicaid, which IS free for those who qualify because of their inability to afford monthly payments. That is paid through the federal and state government, with some small payments required by some states, and some co-payments,
MEDICARE FOR ALL IS NOT FREE HEALTH CARE.
I know of no Democrat who advocates health care without paying into the system.
Post a Comment