I just asked Grok: as of July 2, 2025, the House was still in the process of voting on a procedural rule to take up the Senate's amended version of the bill, with some Republican opposition threatening its final passage. There is no definitive confirmation in the available information that the House has passed the Senate's amended version of the bill as of my last update
Is the bill dead? Not necessarily. A failed vote on the amended resolution means the amended version of the OBBBA is stalled and cannot proceed in its current form. However, the original OBBBA, which passed the House on May 22, 2025, by a 215–214–1 vote, remains alive as the House’s baseline position. The bill isn’t fully dead unless both chambers abandon it entirely, which hasn’t happened yet.
Is there still hope of passage? Yes, there is hope. The House can reconsider the amended version with further adjustments or a revote after securing additional support (likely one or two votes given the original margin). The Senate, having passed its version with Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaker, could also negotiate a compromise. The ongoing negotiations noted in the July 2 procedural vote (the "longest vote in House history") suggest active efforts to salvage the bill. The holiday timing (July 03–04) may delay action, but post-weekend reconsideration is feasible.
In short: The amended bill is stalled, but the OBBBA itself is not dead, and passage remains possible with further legislative action. Check the House Clerk’s website (clerk.house.gov) for the latest vote details to confirm the next steps.
Burning Bright just said that Big Beautiful Bill was basically Build Back Better with a few small amendments. Any truth to that?
I’m still wondering why we ALL noticed the 666 on Build Back, but nobody cares on this one, when they’re the same, namewise.
Are we just playing party politics, or are there practical, reasoned causes for this?
(I think everyone knows it’s just, “Trump said so!” for 80+% of us… at least we had a chance to listen to this one in full, though I know I definitely can’t digest a 1000 page that quickly)
Edit: looks like he was just talking.
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/one-big-beautiful-bill-pros-cons/
The "Build Back Better" bill primarily focused on social spending and climate initiatives, while the "One Big Beautiful Bill" emphasizes tax cuts, border security, and spending reductions, particularly targeting social safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP. Additionally, the final version of the "Big Beautiful Bill" makes Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent and introduces new tax breaks, contrasting with the more expansive social programs proposed in "Build Back Better."
I still didn’t have enough time to listen to the whole bill and it would likely be hard to really understand it all even if I had. TBD with everyone else.
(I think everyone knows it’s just, “Trump said so!” for 80+% of us
Make the case that it is imperative to second-guess what Trump wants. Why shouldn't Trump just asking for it be enough?
Knowing that
there's a near unlimited amount of proofs that Trump is coordinating with Q
you're on a Q board
the premise is there's a plan in place
there are hundreds of moves and counter moves the public isn't privy to
For all we know, Trump will recover trillions that were misspent through USAID.
For all we know, we'll go back on the gold standard and Trump is milking the federal reserve in the interim before the corporate US is declared bankrupt.
Hell, for all we know there could be a jubilee and all debts being vitiated because of the entirety of fraud that underpins the entire corrupt system.
I find the notion that we need to armchair-quarterback Trump's every decision to be silly, especially after 8 years of Q proofs demonstrating there actually is a plan and things are going in the right direction.
Trump said he would join the Paris Accord if they make a few adjustments.
Trump said he would make a path for DACA dreamers to become citizens if democrats funded the wall.
We know that Trump hates McCain and Romney, that he wanted nothing to do with the Paris Accord and that he was never going to make a path for DACA dreamers to become citizens.
I think it's a mistake to judge Trump on anything in particular, because it makes no allowance for 3d chess moves.
If I had any problem at all with Biden's bill, it was mainly the pork going to NGOs. That's practically gone under Trump, so I don't see how Trump's bill could be comparable to Biden's.
And even when the money went to NGOs under Biden, I believe it was all recorded and those who took the money will have to give back the diamonds.
Thank you. Sheesh. I swear the people on this board should go back to dooming on Patriots.win.
I'm all for questioning the ethics and efficiency of any leadership, but outright denying Trump and team are in control goes against everything this board stands for.
Please read my other comments under this thread. Maybe I phrased the question poorly, but I’m not dooming. I’m trying to get at “what’s up with this” and pointing out that many of us were shouting about something before, and completely looking over it now, and both were very obviously done on purpose, so I’m simply asking what in the world is up with that?
Maybe it’s comms and the first round of pointing was in the wrong direction?
Blood brain barrier? Better business bureau? Why were we all shouting 666 when that’d be bbb not BBB, and BBB is more of an 888?
I’m asking what we aren’t looking at.
U.S. Code Title 10 Section 888, also known as Article 88, addresses "Contempt toward officials." It states that any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against certain officials, including the President and members of Congress, may be punished as directed by a court-martial.
Overview of 10 U.S. Code § 888
10 U.S. Code § 888, also known as Article 88, addresses "Contempt toward officials." This law is part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and outlines the conduct expected from commissioned officers in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Key Provisions
Punishable Actions
Contemptuous Words: The law states that any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against certain officials can face punishment.
Officials Covered
President of the United States
Vice President of the United States
Members of Congress
Secretary of Defense
Secretaries of military departments
Secretary of Homeland Security
Governors or legislatures of any State, Commonwealth, or possession where the officer is on duty or present
Consequences
Court-Martial: Officers found guilty of violating this article may be punished as directed by a court-martial.
Historical Context
The article was established on August 10, 1956, and has undergone several amendments to update the titles of officials and clarify language.
This law emphasizes the importance of maintaining respect for authority within the military structure.
Hey look at that. 888 is related to the UCMJ. Huh!
I think AE is not so much pointing at what DJT is doing, or even the bill itself, but rather "how are we approaching this? Are we thinking, or are we simply assuming?" But I could be wrong.
BB (same video, but farther on. I wasn’t aware of this with the first comment, so that’s interesting..) just phrased exactly what I’m trying to get at in, I think, a better way (I didn’t get the concept from him, but will repaste his better phrasing here).
The “Trust the Plan” people will say “See, this is proof you shouldn’t have freaked out because there was a plan to put the bill through in a different form than it’s currently in.” My response is “yes, and you all were demonizing people who were saying that a week ago.” So “Trust the Plan” has become “Wait for Trump to tell you something, and agree with him in the moment, then, when Trump reversed his position, which he does every day, agree with him on the new position, as nauseam, forever”, when what he might be trying to do is to get you to engage with the argument on the merits of the argument, so that he then has the public mandate to forward the correct argument.
Now likely most of us here are “Trust the Plan” people, but the point is that “The Plan” is likely not to get us to follow blindly as sheep, since we are “awake”, but to relentlessly question and test the principles and state of everything that gets put in front of us to see if we should agree with it, which, since we’ve been being run by a satanic cabal who is using problem-reaction-solution tomanufacture consent, would be a protection, or a “vaccine”, if you will, against that being done again so easily in the future.
So all I’m doing here is noting that I saw us point out one thing on one bill, then another bill pops up with the same thing, and we haven’t looked at it, and I’m wondering what changed other than the messenger forwarding the message, because I didn’t see any critical thinking applied to it.
FractalizingIron I’m thinking this should probably be a whole post.
I don't mind if it is!
u/magavoices, I think you have missed the point of the argument that the Amateur is putting forward.
Make the case that it is imperative to second-guess what Trump wants.
Because people who are awake and responsible (Literally: can respond, correctly), question what is put in front of them. Do we know what Trump wants, unequivocally? No. To simply follow the surface narrative is to think only superficially.
Why shouldn't Trump just asking for it be enough?
Because Trump is an absolute master of 5G warfare smack miles deep in the most intense 5G war ever to take place.
Exhibit A) Trump called DeSantis all sorts of things. Now, he's working with Desantis on X, Y and Z. (did you see their recent press conference re: Florida stuff?)
So one might paraphrase or transpose your question here to be (before the conclusion of the R-primaries for the 2024 election): Why shouldn't Trump telling us that DeSantis is a bad guy be enough? (For us to absolutely convict DeSantis of being a bad guy)
Did you miss the point? I think so. I think you have mis-characterized the Amateur's comments to mean he is questioning Trump's decision making ability, or his ability to guide the ship of MAGA and the US. ("armchair-quarterback Trump's every decision")
That is NOT what AE is suggesting. Not at all. Rather, he's suggesting that you and I and anons should all be 'armchair quarterbacking our OWN understanding and our OWN perceptions of what is actually taking place, and HOW Trump is leading the nation and the movement.
See the difference?
I find the notion that we need to armchair-quarterback Trump's every decision to be silly
Well, yes, but this is not what AE is suggesting for us.
Actually, once you start to look below the surface, take into account real events and real results, you can see how greatly the narratives diverge from them.
In short, Trump is a Master of 5G war and narrative war, he is out-maneuvering the enemy on virtually every level, and Trump is 100% trustworthy and capable of executing his office, BUT he's actually working on levels that we can really only get a glimpse of by paying close and critical attention, while understanding the actual context aka 5G war (rather than interpreting everything based on the matrix of narratives through which Trump so masterfully navigates and mobilizes to his advantage and purpose).
A public (person) that thinks for themselves [independent free-thought] is what they FEAR the most [loss of control]. Q
Art of the deal. You might want X, but ask for Y. Press for Y, demand Y, so when your counterpart offers you X, it feels like win for them, but its really what you wanted in the first place.
For example.
Personally, I'm of the (relatively uninformed) opinion that Trump wants the Big Bill to pass. But I'm certainly open to the possibility that DJT may have others reasons for pushing this or pushing the view that he so very, very much wants it.
I'd like to recommend a video that BB (no not Burning Bright but Bubble_bursts) recommended the other day at GAW. (I don't usually tune into videos or podcasts outside a certain range, but I found this one really, really interesting and aligning with a certain perspective about what is really, no really, going on. Take a listen of the first few parts, to see if its attractive. I listened to the whole thing via audio....
The real value in such podcasts and in listening to such views is NOT that they might be right or wrong, but that they provide opportunities for different perspectives and help to jiggle our brains so that we learn to look beyond the surface of things (and our own biases, too).
I’ve had a long-time thought about how, while, “If Fascism Ever Comes to America, It Will Come in the Name of Liberalism” is and was true; true liberal thought, in Christ and a spirit of humility, is probably also a key piece of rooting it back out and can help keep it out as well, which is why they’re terrified of liberals coming into the MAGA fold.
Note that this theory does not use the vernacular, partisan understandings of “liberal” and “conservative”, but my own, distilled definitions that I think are still accurate and naturally inherent mindsets that we should all strive to have both of.
This is a main argument of detractors, not saying you're one ... but the main argument is "Oh, so you'll blindly follow Trump?"
Make a good argument and I'll question Trump.
But what's the actual argument? A bill from Trump (that the guy I'm responding to didn't even read), is being directly compared to a bill from Biden (which the guy I'm responding to also didn't read), and hypothesizing they're the same thing.
Is that a good argument? No ... I'll default to Trump has done nothing wrong all day long, every day under that circumstance. Make the case he did something actually wrong that is even slightly credible and I'll research it and consider it.
And even if there ends up being a good argument against Trump, in the end, I'm not so naive to think that WW3 won't have casualties. I don't expect everything the whitehats do to be great moves without collateral damage. But if I'm still here under the notion that Q allowed half the country to have decades shaved off their lifespans through covid shots -- I doubt anyone is going to provide an example more damning against Q than that.
Magav, you're probably familiar with the idea of a strawman argument?
AE is suggest a possibility that he thinks is worth considering: that Trump setup the Big Beautiful Bill as a strawman that he deliberately wants knocked down, in order to do X. So the idea is NOT that Trump is doing anything wrong here. The idea is that Trump is doing what he's doing (which is right) but that its wrong for us to simply think that what's on the surface is the whole story.
"The choice to know will be yours"
Personally, I'm of a different opinion to AE's one, but I understand the point he's attempting to make.
P.s.
Make a good argument and I'll question Trump.
The suggestion being offered to you is not to "question Trump" but to question your own understanding of what Trump is doing. Question what Trump is doing, where Question = 'seek the truth' by thinking NOT Question = 'second guess or distrust'.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act has passed both the House and Senate, with the House approving the Senate's version on July 3, 2025, by a 220-212 vote. No further votes are needed, as both chambers have agreed on identical text. The bill is now being enrolled and sent to President
Grok: as of July 2, 2025, the House was still in the process of voting on a procedural rule to take up the Senate's amended version of the bill, with some Republican opposition threatening its final passage. There is no definitive confirmation in the available information that the House has passed the Senate's amended version of the bill as of my last update
Not to defend Grok or any AI, but they are just advanced search engines that take the first 5-10 results and script them. They are still, and will really always be, subject to garbage in garbage out. We can try to train them to ignore certain results, but at that point it's just selective editing by humans. Data Science has the luxury of time and historical data. AI has to make it up on the fly.
They'd never use something like Gateway Pundit, because they're more wrong than right, but it doesn't mean they don't break the occasional big story that would be buried.
My thoughts exactly - "subject to garbage in garbage out". I have actually found myself kind of arguing with ChatGPT. I'll ask a question that I already have a strong opinion on. It will regurgitate the "party line". I will respond with "well what about this" (stating some fact or opinion). It will respond with something like "yes you are correct" or "that's a valid point". It will then give me information that supports the answer that I believed was the truth. It's almost as if I'm pushing it to dig deeper than the first 5-10 results that it is considering when scripting it's response.
I know this will make me seem like a Luddite, but I actually prefer search engines when it comes to some things. Give me all the results and I'll read through them, or skip the ones I don't want. I don't need to have a fake conversation with a machine. I also don't want it saving my convo data for future data mining and targeted marketing, but obviously that's gonna happen anyway.
Grok: as of July 2, 2025, the House was still in the process of voting on a procedural rule to take up the Senate's amended version of the bill, with some Republican opposition threatening its final passage. There is no definitive confirmation in the available information that the House has passed the Senate's amended version of the bill as of my last update
So it gets sent back to the Senate or it goes to Trumps desk?
Going to Trump
Yay!!!
I just asked Grok: as of July 2, 2025, the House was still in the process of voting on a procedural rule to take up the Senate's amended version of the bill, with some Republican opposition threatening its final passage. There is no definitive confirmation in the available information that the House has passed the Senate's amended version of the bill as of my last update
Is the bill dead? Not necessarily. A failed vote on the amended resolution means the amended version of the OBBBA is stalled and cannot proceed in its current form. However, the original OBBBA, which passed the House on May 22, 2025, by a 215–214–1 vote, remains alive as the House’s baseline position. The bill isn’t fully dead unless both chambers abandon it entirely, which hasn’t happened yet.
Is there still hope of passage? Yes, there is hope. The House can reconsider the amended version with further adjustments or a revote after securing additional support (likely one or two votes given the original margin). The Senate, having passed its version with Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaker, could also negotiate a compromise. The ongoing negotiations noted in the July 2 procedural vote (the "longest vote in House history") suggest active efforts to salvage the bill. The holiday timing (July 03–04) may delay action, but post-weekend reconsideration is feasible.
In short: The amended bill is stalled, but the OBBBA itself is not dead, and passage remains possible with further legislative action. Check the House Clerk’s website (clerk.house.gov) for the latest vote details to confirm the next steps.
Thanks I deleted my statement.
Thomas Massie just tweeted that he has enough votes to block the bill.
That looks like a vote on an amendment. Still waiting for actual vote as of 9:54 pm Eastern
why is this stickied? Where is the sauce? Hope you are somehow right
They really have to stop the omnibus bullshit
sauce? seems premature
It was.
That’s weird. 1025 eastern and I’m looking at 206-216 with 10 republicans yet to vote meaning tie and fail.
Burning Bright just said that Big Beautiful Bill was basically Build Back Better with a few small amendments. Any truth to that?
I’m still wondering why we ALL noticed the 666 on Build Back, but nobody cares on this one, when they’re the same, namewise.
Are we just playing party politics, or are there practical, reasoned causes for this?
(I think everyone knows it’s just, “Trump said so!” for 80+% of us… at least we had a chance to listen to this one in full, though I know I definitely can’t digest a 1000 page that quickly)
Edit: looks like he was just talking.
I still didn’t have enough time to listen to the whole bill and it would likely be hard to really understand it all even if I had. TBD with everyone else.
Make the case that it is imperative to second-guess what Trump wants. Why shouldn't Trump just asking for it be enough?
Knowing that
For all we know, Trump will recover trillions that were misspent through USAID.
For all we know, we'll go back on the gold standard and Trump is milking the federal reserve in the interim before the corporate US is declared bankrupt.
Hell, for all we know there could be a jubilee and all debts being vitiated because of the entirety of fraud that underpins the entire corrupt system.
I find the notion that we need to armchair-quarterback Trump's every decision to be silly, especially after 8 years of Q proofs demonstrating there actually is a plan and things are going in the right direction.
Anything else is blackpill.
I’m not saying I think it IS 666.
Trump says things all the time that we diverge with. While we all justifiably trust Trump, this also isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a cult.
Meanwhile, many/most of us thought the WH were in control of the Biden admin as well, so there’s limited difference between the two there, either.
Basically just asking where the critical thinking and/or analysis is at, because I didn’t see it - of course that doesn’t mean it wasn’t done.
Definitely not blackpilled, nor trying to do so, just being a stickler.
Trump endorsed McCain.
Trump endorsed Romney.
Trump said he would join the Paris Accord if they make a few adjustments.
Trump said he would make a path for DACA dreamers to become citizens if democrats funded the wall.
We know that Trump hates McCain and Romney, that he wanted nothing to do with the Paris Accord and that he was never going to make a path for DACA dreamers to become citizens.
I think it's a mistake to judge Trump on anything in particular, because it makes no allowance for 3d chess moves.
If I had any problem at all with Biden's bill, it was mainly the pork going to NGOs. That's practically gone under Trump, so I don't see how Trump's bill could be comparable to Biden's.
And even when the money went to NGOs under Biden, I believe it was all recorded and those who took the money will have to give back the diamonds.
Thank you. Sheesh. I swear the people on this board should go back to dooming on Patriots.win.
I'm all for questioning the ethics and efficiency of any leadership, but outright denying Trump and team are in control goes against everything this board stands for.
Please read my other comments under this thread. Maybe I phrased the question poorly, but I’m not dooming. I’m trying to get at “what’s up with this” and pointing out that many of us were shouting about something before, and completely looking over it now, and both were very obviously done on purpose, so I’m simply asking what in the world is up with that?
Maybe it’s comms and the first round of pointing was in the wrong direction?
Blood brain barrier? Better business bureau? Why were we all shouting 666 when that’d be bbb not BBB, and BBB is more of an 888?
I’m asking what we aren’t looking at.
Hey look at that. 888 is related to the UCMJ. Huh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03UomoaO4VQ
There doesn’t seem to be anything pertaining to the UCMJ in the BBB, but still very curious.
<facepalm>
And indeed quite the very opposite of what Amateur Expert is saying.
You raise good points.
I think AE is not so much pointing at what DJT is doing, or even the bill itself, but rather "how are we approaching this? Are we thinking, or are we simply assuming?" But I could be wrong.
This is the sort of thinking I wanted, except around “what’s up with the naming convention, here?”
We are overlooking something with it and I’m not sure what it is.
BB (same video, but farther on. I wasn’t aware of this with the first comment, so that’s interesting..) just phrased exactly what I’m trying to get at in, I think, a better way (I didn’t get the concept from him, but will repaste his better phrasing here).
https://rumble.com/v6vh4lz-the-narrative-ep.-28-chaos-conductor.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a @ 1:30:00
Now likely most of us here are “Trust the Plan” people, but the point is that “The Plan” is likely not to get us to follow blindly as sheep, since we are “awake”, but to relentlessly question and test the principles and state of everything that gets put in front of us to see if we should agree with it, which, since we’ve been being run by a satanic cabal who is using problem-reaction-solution to manufacture consent, would be a protection, or a “vaccine”, if you will, against that being done again so easily in the future.
So all I’m doing here is noting that I saw us point out one thing on one bill, then another bill pops up with the same thing, and we haven’t looked at it, and I’m wondering what changed other than the messenger forwarding the message, because I didn’t see any critical thinking applied to it.
u/FractalizingIron I’m thinking this should probably be a whole post.
I don't mind if it is!
u/magavoices, I think you have missed the point of the argument that the Amateur is putting forward.
Because people who are awake and responsible (Literally: can respond, correctly), question what is put in front of them. Do we know what Trump wants, unequivocally? No. To simply follow the surface narrative is to think only superficially.
Because Trump is an absolute master of 5G warfare smack miles deep in the most intense 5G war ever to take place.
Exhibit A) Trump called DeSantis all sorts of things. Now, he's working with Desantis on X, Y and Z. (did you see their recent press conference re: Florida stuff?)
So one might paraphrase or transpose your question here to be (before the conclusion of the R-primaries for the 2024 election): Why shouldn't Trump telling us that DeSantis is a bad guy be enough? (For us to absolutely convict DeSantis of being a bad guy)
Did you miss the point? I think so. I think you have mis-characterized the Amateur's comments to mean he is questioning Trump's decision making ability, or his ability to guide the ship of MAGA and the US. ("armchair-quarterback Trump's every decision")
That is NOT what AE is suggesting. Not at all. Rather, he's suggesting that you and I and anons should all be 'armchair quarterbacking our OWN understanding and our OWN perceptions of what is actually taking place, and HOW Trump is leading the nation and the movement.
See the difference?
Well, yes, but this is not what AE is suggesting for us.
Actually, once you start to look below the surface, take into account real events and real results, you can see how greatly the narratives diverge from them.
In short, Trump is a Master of 5G war and narrative war, he is out-maneuvering the enemy on virtually every level, and Trump is 100% trustworthy and capable of executing his office, BUT he's actually working on levels that we can really only get a glimpse of by paying close and critical attention, while understanding the actual context aka 5G war (rather than interpreting everything based on the matrix of narratives through which Trump so masterfully navigates and mobilizes to his advantage and purpose).
Art of the deal. You might want X, but ask for Y. Press for Y, demand Y, so when your counterpart offers you X, it feels like win for them, but its really what you wanted in the first place.
For example.
Personally, I'm of the (relatively uninformed) opinion that Trump wants the Big Bill to pass. But I'm certainly open to the possibility that DJT may have others reasons for pushing this or pushing the view that he so very, very much wants it.
I'd like to recommend a video that BB (no not Burning Bright but Bubble_bursts) recommended the other day at GAW. (I don't usually tune into videos or podcasts outside a certain range, but I found this one really, really interesting and aligning with a certain perspective about what is really, no really, going on. Take a listen of the first few parts, to see if its attractive. I listened to the whole thing via audio....
The real value in such podcasts and in listening to such views is NOT that they might be right or wrong, but that they provide opportunities for different perspectives and help to jiggle our brains so that we learn to look beyond the surface of things (and our own biases, too).
https://greatawakening.win/p/19BZgLXQEa/trump-is-wielding-fed-to-punch-d/c/
I’ve had a long-time thought about how, while, “If Fascism Ever Comes to America, It Will Come in the Name of Liberalism” is and was true; true liberal thought, in Christ and a spirit of humility, is probably also a key piece of rooting it back out and can help keep it out as well, which is why they’re terrified of liberals coming into the MAGA fold.
u/#q4093
Note that this theory does not use the vernacular, partisan understandings of “liberal” and “conservative”, but my own, distilled definitions that I think are still accurate and naturally inherent mindsets that we should all strive to have both of.
https://files.catbox.moe/b6vxei.jpeg
This is a main argument of detractors, not saying you're one ... but the main argument is "Oh, so you'll blindly follow Trump?"
Make a good argument and I'll question Trump.
But what's the actual argument? A bill from Trump (that the guy I'm responding to didn't even read), is being directly compared to a bill from Biden (which the guy I'm responding to also didn't read), and hypothesizing they're the same thing.
Is that a good argument? No ... I'll default to Trump has done nothing wrong all day long, every day under that circumstance. Make the case he did something actually wrong that is even slightly credible and I'll research it and consider it.
And even if there ends up being a good argument against Trump, in the end, I'm not so naive to think that WW3 won't have casualties. I don't expect everything the whitehats do to be great moves without collateral damage. But if I'm still here under the notion that Q allowed half the country to have decades shaved off their lifespans through covid shots -- I doubt anyone is going to provide an example more damning against Q than that.
Magav, you're probably familiar with the idea of a strawman argument?
AE is suggest a possibility that he thinks is worth considering: that Trump setup the Big Beautiful Bill as a strawman that he deliberately wants knocked down, in order to do X. So the idea is NOT that Trump is doing anything wrong here. The idea is that Trump is doing what he's doing (which is right) but that its wrong for us to simply think that what's on the surface is the whole story.
"The choice to know will be yours"
Personally, I'm of a different opinion to AE's one, but I understand the point he's attempting to make.
P.s.
The suggestion being offered to you is not to "question Trump" but to question your own understanding of what Trump is doing. Question what Trump is doing, where Question = 'seek the truth' by thinking NOT Question = 'second guess or distrust'.
Dasting! The procedural issues on this bill have been pretty nutty.
You think there might be a connection here?
https://greatawakening.win/p/19BZkzy4uX/x/c/4eU3UB8XHWO
Did we successfully get the nfa stuff back in?
Grok
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act has passed both the House and Senate, with the House approving the Senate's version on July 3, 2025, by a 220-212 vote. No further votes are needed, as both chambers have agreed on identical text. The bill is now being enrolled and sent to President
Grok: as of July 2, 2025, the House was still in the process of voting on a procedural rule to take up the Senate's amended version of the bill, with some Republican opposition threatening its final passage. There is no definitive confirmation in the available information that the House has passed the Senate's amended version of the bill as of my last update
I believe you. Grok sucks.
Not to defend Grok or any AI, but they are just advanced search engines that take the first 5-10 results and script them. They are still, and will really always be, subject to garbage in garbage out. We can try to train them to ignore certain results, but at that point it's just selective editing by humans. Data Science has the luxury of time and historical data. AI has to make it up on the fly.
They'd never use something like Gateway Pundit, because they're more wrong than right, but it doesn't mean they don't break the occasional big story that would be buried.
That's a fact jack.
and don't you come back no more no more no more no more.
My thoughts exactly - "subject to garbage in garbage out". I have actually found myself kind of arguing with ChatGPT. I'll ask a question that I already have a strong opinion on. It will regurgitate the "party line". I will respond with "well what about this" (stating some fact or opinion). It will respond with something like "yes you are correct" or "that's a valid point". It will then give me information that supports the answer that I believed was the truth. It's almost as if I'm pushing it to dig deeper than the first 5-10 results that it is considering when scripting it's response.
I know this will make me seem like a Luddite, but I actually prefer search engines when it comes to some things. Give me all the results and I'll read through them, or skip the ones I don't want. I don't need to have a fake conversation with a machine. I also don't want it saving my convo data for future data mining and targeted marketing, but obviously that's gonna happen anyway.
Grok not suck. Grok nice. Why you no like Grok? Grok like you. Why you not give Grok chance?
lol
Reminds me of the joke:
White hunters come upon Tarzan and Jane in the jungle. The conversation goes like this:
Hunter: What's your name?
Tarzan: Me Tarzan
Hunter: What's her name?
Tarzan: Her name Jane
Hunter: What's her whole name?
Tarzan: Hole name Pussy!
er....
Thanks I deleted my statement.
And it’s dead.
What info are you seeing? Massie, Roy and the Freedom caucus chairman seem like obvious nos, but I haven't heard about the other two.
Is there an official list of all of the things they cut to get it to this point?
What does "To Proceed" mean?
Grok: as of July 2, 2025, the House was still in the process of voting on a procedural rule to take up the Senate's amended version of the bill, with some Republican opposition threatening its final passage. There is no definitive confirmation in the available information that the House has passed the Senate's amended version of the bill as of my last update