Senate Buys Lisa Murkowski's Vote

[j-mac]

Cheap?
Only in quality.
$47.45 a month?

Yours if you purchase one.

$47.45 is about half of what the big three are charging. And yes, if you're buying Trump's phone, Straight talk, or what ever, the quality is not the same as buying the latest tech...Duh....And no, I already have a phone...It's an iPhone 16 Pro max...So, I don't need a throw away....

You're just mad because the Trump corp, which is a marketing corporation, is marketing...That makes you a really petty person.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Voting for Trump was supposed to be the end of ‘business as usual politics,’ an end to career politicians making backroom deals, buying their votes in order to pass bad legislation.

Haw!

Come on, Man!

You thought somebody promised that electing Trump would change the nature of the Senate as it has been for almost 250 years?

How could Trump stop backroom deals in the Senate?

As backroom deals go, this giving Medicaid money to Alaska to get a vote on a bill that is vital to our economic future is reasonably palatable.

Not many illegals go to Alaska. I guess Alaskans do work that illegals won't do.

 

[theHawk]

‘In order to win Murkowski’s support, Republicans had added several provisions that would sweeten the deal for her state. But at the very last second, the Senate parliamentarian struck a carve-out that would’ve expanded federal funding for Medicaid in Alaska.

All 47 Democrats voted against the bill, and they were joined by Senators Rand Paul, Thom Tillis, and Susan Collins. Had Murkowski also voted “no,” the bill would have been defeated.

Murkowski told reporters that she hoped the House would send the bill back to the Senate so they could continue working on it. “My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we’re not there yet,” Murkowski said, revealing just how misguided her support actually was.’

Senate Passes Trump Budget After Buying Lisa Murkowski’s Vote

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s last-minute “yes” vote proved pivotal for forcing Donald Trump’s budget through.

newrepublic.com

Voting for Trump was supposed to be the end of ‘business as usual politics,’ an end to career politicians making backroom deals, buying their votes in order to pass bad legislation.

She’s a RINO, aka a corrupt lefty.

Don’t you want more of her?

 

[hadit]

Murkowski is now out there hoping the House will do the right thing since she couldn't and not pass it.

Mind readers of the world unite!

 

[whitehall]

Her vote must have been for sale.

 

[g5000]

Voting no would of been giving the demafasict their tax increase

She did the right thing by ensuring their tax hike was killed

Nice spin!.

Trump's multi-trillion deficit-building tax cuts for the rich (himself) were expiring. This Budget Busting Bill continues those tax cuts which should have been allowed to expire so we would not have another $3.3 trillion added to our debt in this piece o' shit.

You cultists once again prove you only care about deficits when a Democrat occupies the White House.

Not even taking health insurance away from 11 million people will cover the cost of Trump's self-dealing tax cut.

 

[pknopp]

LOL, So, the Business with Trump's name on it, trying to move into the Walmart selection of cheap phone service triggers you?

What's the problem?

Maybe it's the fact they lied about the phone being made in the USA.

 

[struth]

Nice spin!.

Trump's multi-trillion deficit-building tax cuts for the rich (himself) were expiring. This Budget Busting Bill continues those tax cuts which should have been allowed to expire so we would not have another $3.3 trillion added to our debt in this piece o' shit.

You cultists once again prove you only care about deficits when a Democrat occupies the White House.

Not even taking health insurance away from 11 million people will cover the cost of Trump's self-dealing tax cut.

No, all the taxes cuts were expiring, the left was fighting to increase the tax on all Americans Yes, the current bill, alls them to continue, that's why the left is fighting them

I have yet to see one deficit creating by this bill.

 

[pknopp]

No, all the taxes cuts were expiring, the left was fighting to increase the tax on all Americans Yes, the current bill, alls them to continue, that's why the left is fighting them

I have yet to see one deficit creating by this bill.

Only dead beats try and get out of paying their obligations.

 

[struth]

Only dead beats try and get out of paying their obligations.

Agreed, hence why Dembots like Hunter Xiden suck, and those that defend them.

 

[g5000]

LOL, So, the Business with Trump's name on it, trying to move into the Walmart selection of cheap phone service triggers you?

What's the problem?

The Trump Phone will go the way of Trump Vodka, Golden Nugget Atlantic City, GoTrump.com, Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Atlantic City, the New Jersey Generals, the Paradox Hotel Vancouver, the Plaza Hotel, TD Trump Deutschland, Trump Communications, Trump Entertainment Resorts, Trump Fragrances, Trump: The Game, Trump Home, Trump Ice, Trump Magazine, Trump Mortgage, The Trump Network, Trump Ocean Resort Baja Mexico, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, Trump Productions, the Trump Shuttle, Trump Steaks, Trump University, and the Trump World's Fair.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The Trump Phone will go the way of Trump Vodka, Golden Nugget Atlantic City, GoTrump.com, Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Atlantic City, the New Jersey Generals, the Paradox Hotel Vancouver, the Plaza Hotel, TD Trump Deutschland, Trump Communications, Trump Entertainment Resorts, Trump Fragrances, Trump: The Game, Trump Home, Trump Ice, Trump Magazine, Trump Mortgage, The Trump Network, Trump Ocean Resort Baja Mexico, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, Trump Productions, the Trump Shuttle, Trump Steaks, Trump University, and the Trump World's Fair.

Trump unveils $249 'Trump Fragrances'​

The Hill
https://thehill.com › homenews › administration › 5378...
1 day ago — President Trump has launched a new line of fragrances called "Victory 45-47" on his Truth Social website.

President Trump began hawking a new business venture on Monday: Official Trump fragrances that retail for hundreds of dollars per 3.3-ounce bottle.

“These are only official Fragrances by President Trump!” the GetTrumpFragrances.com website reads, noting it’s also the only official place to purchase them.

 

[g5000]

Trump unveils $249 'Trump Fragrances'​

View attachment 1131428
The Hill
https://thehill.com › homenews › administration › 5378...
1 day ago — President Trump has launched a new line of fragrances called "Victory 45-47" on his Truth Social website.

President Trump began hawking a new business venture on Monday: Official Tru[mp fragrances that retail for hundreds of dollars per 3.3-ounce bottle.

“These are only official Fragrances by President Trump!” the GetTrumpFragrances.com website reads, noting it’s also the only official place to purchase them.

Perfumania, Distributor of Several Trump-Branded Colognes, Files for Bankruptcy​

​

Perfumania Holdings Inc, a U.S. retailer with exclusive distribution rights to several Trump-branded colognes, said on Sunday it had initiated a recapitalization and was filing voluntary petitions for Chapter 11 relief in U.S. bankruptcy court.
.
[snip]
.
Perfumania’s wholesale businesses, Parlux, holds the exclusive distribution rights to U.S. President Donald Trump’s fragrances Empire and Success, as well as daughter Ivanka Trump’s fragrance. The company’s portfolio also includes fragrances from celebrities such as Rihanna, Jessica Simpson and Jay Z.

 

[Edgetho]

How many of you would like to retire in your 50's? Seriously, how many?

I'd say the number is close 100% unless you really don't work for a living.

Not long after The Bastard Son of Frank Marshall Davis slithered into the WHITE House he came with a plan called the ACA, aka; Obamacare.

At first, I was all for it. I thought it mirrored the Swiss HealthCare system. But, alas, Federalsim got in the way. So instead of doing it the right way (A Constitutional Amendment) The Bastard Son of Frank Marshall Davis gave us the ACA.

And it destroyed Private Health Insurance for Individuals. It's all but gone. Unavailable. Group is till there but somewhere around Zero for Indiciduals.

Why does that matter? Because the stupid ******* ACA requires that you have an Income to qualify for coverage. EARNED Income.

So you bust your balls for 40 years and your dream comes true..... You can retire in your 50's while you're still younf enough to enjoy life.

You can live off your savings, you made sure of that. You can drain money out of your investments and draw cash from your Bank Account.

But you have to have Health Insurance. Otherwise youre taking a big chance on losing everything. In case you haven't looked at the cost of Hospitals and Doctors recently -- They ain't cheap.

THE GAP

If you fall into THE GAP, the only way you can get Health Insurance is through MEDICAID and that's only in SOME STATES. Florida, for instance, won't do it. Which is a little surprising since we have a lot of it down here. I guess most of it is people from out of State.

This is not a very good explanation but suffice it to say that, yes, Medicaid is necessary for many people. Not just the Poor. Many others.

So don't be so quick to knock it. I'm not sure what effect this legislation has on that but I suspect that's what a lot of the fuss is about,

I believe that something has to be done about "The Gap". People are staying in jobs they don't want o be in and they're keeping younger people from accessing those spots.

The Bastard Son Of Frank Marshall Davis fucked up everything he touched. Especially health insurance

Here's a better, if highly biased, explanation --

What is the Medicaid 'coverage gap' and who does it affect?

According to Kaiser Family Foundation data, there are about 1.9 million people in the coverage gap across nine states (this does not include North Carolina, as Medicaid expansion will take effect there in late 2023). They aren't eligible for Medicaid, nor are they eligible for premium subsidies...

www.healthinsurance.org

I keep hearing about the 'coverage gap' in states that are not expanding Medicaid. Can you explain what that means and who it affects?​

We'll get into the details below, but the short answer is that people with income below the poverty level are not eligible for the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) premium tax credits (premium subsidies), and if they're in a state that has refused to expand Medicaid eligibility under the ACA, they may not be eligible for Medicaid either.

That leaves them in a situation in which they're living in poverty but also ineligible for financial assistance with their health insurance. Almost 1.5 million Americans are currently in the coverage gap.<a href="What is the Medicaid 'coverage gap' and who does it affect?" title="How Many Uninsured Are in the Coverage Gap and How Many Could be Eligible if All States Adopted the Medicaid Expansion? KFF.org. Feb. 26, 2024.">1</a>

 

[Crepitus]

Mind readers of the world unite!

Dude, she posted it on her facebook.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Nice spin!.

Trump's multi-trillion deficit-building tax cuts for the rich (himself) were expiring. This Budget Busting Bill continues those tax cuts which should have been allowed to expire so we would not have another $3.3 trillion added to our debt in this piece o' shit.

You cultists once again prove you only care about deficits when a Democrat occupies the White House.

Not even taking health insurance away from 11 million people will cover the cost of Trump's self-dealing tax cut.

Why didn't the democrats end Those huge tax cut for the extremely wealthy when they had the power?

 

[Papageorgio]

‘In order to win Murkowski’s support, Republicans had added several provisions that would sweeten the deal for her state. But at the very last second, the Senate parliamentarian struck a carve-out that would’ve expanded federal funding for Medicaid in Alaska.

All 47 Democrats voted against the bill, and they were joined by Senators Rand Paul, Thom Tillis, and Susan Collins. Had Murkowski also voted “no,” the bill would have been defeated.

Murkowski told reporters that she hoped the House would send the bill back to the Senate so they could continue working on it. “My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we’re not there yet,” Murkowski said, revealing just how misguided her support actually was.’

Senate Passes Trump Budget After Buying Lisa Murkowski’s Vote

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s last-minute “yes” vote proved pivotal for forcing Donald Trump’s budget through.

newrepublic.com

Voting for Trump was supposed to be the end of ‘business as usual politics,’ an end to career politicians making backroom deals, buying their votes in order to pass bad legislation.

Yep, they sure did, they are no different than Democrats in that regard. I was hoping it would fail just as I did when Biden tried to pass his $6.4 trillion monstrosity.

The two party system is corrupt but morons like yourself support it, so I am not sure why this is news to you.

 

[Edgetho]

<snip>

The two party system is corrupt but morons like yourself support it, so I am not sure why this is news to you.

What's your alternative, genius?

Show your work. Give us some real-world examples. Come on, it shouldn't that hard for a smart person like you.

 

[Nobody911]

‘In order to win Murkowski’s support, Republicans had added several provisions that would sweeten the deal for her state. But at the very last second, the Senate parliamentarian struck a carve-out that would’ve expanded federal funding for Medicaid in Alaska.

All 47 Democrats voted against the bill, and they were joined by Senators Rand Paul, Thom Tillis, and Susan Collins. Had Murkowski also voted “no,” the bill would have been defeated.

Murkowski told reporters that she hoped the House would send the bill back to the Senate so they could continue working on it. “My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we’re not there yet,” Murkowski said, revealing just how misguided her support actually was.’

Senate Passes Trump Budget After Buying Lisa Murkowski’s Vote

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s last-minute “yes” vote proved pivotal for forcing Donald Trump’s budget through.

newrepublic.com

Voting for Trump was supposed to be the end of ‘business as usual politics,’ an end to career politicians making backroom deals, buying their votes in order to pass bad legislation.

The wealthy members of the U.S. Congress and their families understand how to generate wealth legally, and they have the potential to revitalize the U.S. stock market. lol.

The claim that the Senate "bought" Lisa Murkowski's vote regarding Trump's "big beautiful bill" is partially true in the sense that extensive negotiations and concessions were made to secure her crucial support, but it was not a straightforward "buying" in a corrupt sense.

Lisa Murkowski was the decisive vote that allowed the Senate to pass Trump's sweeping $3.3 trillion tax and spending bill, officially called the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," by a narrow 51-50 margin with Vice President J.D. Vance casting the tie-breaker145. The bill faced strong opposition from several Republicans and all Democrats.

Why Murkowski flipped her vote:

• Murkowski engaged in intense, prolonged negotiations with Republican leadership, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, to secure specific provisions benefiting her home state of Alaska68.

• Key concessions included doubling the fund for rural health from $25 billion to $50 billion, protections against cuts to Medicaid and SNAP (food assistance) programs for Alaska, and dropping a proposed tax on wind and solar energy2356.

• Murkowski described the process as a "mighty struggle" and "agonizing," emphasizing her effort to mitigate the bill's negative impacts on vulnerable Alaskans while ultimately supporting the legislation to avoid its failure68.

• Despite her eventual "yes" vote, Murkowski urged the House of Representatives to reconsider and fix the bill due to concerns about Medicaid cuts and tax impacts3.

Context:

• The Senate vote came after more than 24 hours of backroom negotiations, last-minute amendments, and a desperate hunt for votes to meet President Trump's self-imposed July 4 deadline14.

• The bill now faces an uncertain future in the House, where divisions among Republicans over the deeper Medicaid cuts and a larger projected deficit persist13.

Summary:

Lisa Murkowski's vote was secured through hard-fought negotiations that resulted in targeted benefits for Alaska and some policy changes, reflecting the leverage a moderate senator can wield in a narrowly divided Senate. While this process involved political deal-making and concessions, it was part of normal legislative bargaining rather than outright "buying" of a vote in a corrupt sense.

Therefore, the statement that the Senate "bought" Murkowski's vote is true in the sense of political negotiation and concessions but false if implying unethical or illegal purchase of her vote. Her support was contingent on securing tangible benefits for her state and addressing her concerns about the bill's impact123568.

sources:

1. House Republicans Set To Vote on Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’
2. What happened right before the Senate’s big vote on Trump’s big bill
3. Republican Senator tells House not to vote on bill she just voted for
4. Senate Republicans narrowly pass Trump's 'big, beautiful' spending bill
5. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/art...s-big-beautiful-bill-as-vance-breaks-tie.html
6. https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/01/politics/lisa-murkowski-alaska-trump-agenda-bill
7. Senate sends revised GOP agenda bill to the House; Trump feuds with Elon Musk
8. 'Agonizing': How Alaska's pivotal Republican senator decided to vote for Donald Trump's bill
9. Senate Passes Trump Budget After Buying Lisa Murkowski’s Vote
10. “Special treatment”: How Republicans bought Lisa Murkowski’s vote
11. https://www.politico.com/live-updat...-murkowski-repulican-megabill-alaska-00435150
12. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025...-bill-passes-senate-whats-in-it-who-voted-how

Senator Lisa Murkowski and/or her family have indeed been involved in stock market investments. According to recent data, Murkowski made an estimated $62,600 in stock market gains just last month (June 2025), with about $1.1 million invested in publicly traded assets that are trackable through platforms like Quiver Quantitative16.

Regarding her trading history over the last six months, detailed transaction data is limited in publicly available sources, but the following points summarize what is known:

• Quiver Quantitative tracks her stock portfolio and estimates her net worth at around $2.5 million as of July 1, 2025, with active trading activity reflected in recent months12.

• MarketBeat and Capitol Trades show no publicly tracked trade activity in the last three years, which suggests that either her trades are not always disclosed publicly or are conducted through family members or investment vehicles that do not require direct disclosure35.

• She has co-sponsored legislation aimed at banning congressional stock trading, indicating awareness and involvement in the topic of stock investments by members of Congress78.

In summary, Lisa Murkowski has active investments in the stock market and has realized significant gains recently, but publicly available detailed trade-by-trade history for the last six months is not fully disclosed or accessible. Some trading activity may be indirect or through family holdings, which is common among members of Congress.

sources:

1. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/net...i-made-estimated-626k-stock-market-last-month
2. https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/politician/Lisa Murkowski-M001153
3. https://www.marketbeat.com/congress-stock-trades/profiles/lisa-murkowski/
4. https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblo...dgets-impact-on-americas-most-vulnerable.html
5. https://www.capitoltrades.com/politicians/M001153
6. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lisa-murkowski-net-worth-2025-064727316.html
7. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1908
8. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1879/committees

 

[Edgetho]

The wealthy members of the U.S. Congress and their families understand how to generate wealth legally, and they have the potential to revitalize the U.S. stock market. lol.

The claim that the Senate "bought" Lisa Murkowski's vote regarding Trump's "big beautiful bill" is partially true in the sense that extensive negotiations and concessions were made to secure her crucial support, but it was not a straightforward "buying" in a corrupt sense.

Lisa Murkowski was the decisive vote that allowed the Senate to pass Trump's sweeping $3.3 trillion tax and spending bill, officially called the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," by a narrow 51-50 margin with Vice President J.D. Vance casting the tie-breaker145. The bill faced strong opposition from several Republicans and all Democrats.

Why Murkowski flipped her vote:

• Murkowski engaged in intense, prolonged negotiations with Republican leadership, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, to secure specific provisions benefiting her home state of Alaska68.

• Key concessions included doubling the fund for rural health from $25 billion to $50 billion, protections against cuts to Medicaid and SNAP (food assistance) programs for Alaska, and dropping a proposed tax on wind and solar energy2356.

• Murkowski described the process as a "mighty struggle" and "agonizing," emphasizing her effort to mitigate the bill's negative impacts on vulnerable Alaskans while ultimately supporting the legislation to avoid its failure68.

• Despite her eventual "yes" vote, Murkowski urged the House of Representatives to reconsider and fix the bill due to concerns about Medicaid cuts and tax impacts3.

Context:

• The Senate vote came after more than 24 hours of backroom negotiations, last-minute amendments, and a desperate hunt for votes to meet President Trump's self-imposed July 4 deadline14.

• The bill now faces an uncertain future in the House, where divisions among Republicans over the deeper Medicaid cuts and a larger projected deficit persist13.

Summary:

Lisa Murkowski's vote was secured through hard-fought negotiations that resulted in targeted benefits for Alaska and some policy changes, reflecting the leverage a moderate senator can wield in a narrowly divided Senate. While this process involved political deal-making and concessions, it was part of normal legislative bargaining rather than outright "buying" of a vote in a corrupt sense.

Therefore, the statement that the Senate "bought" Murkowski's vote is true in the sense of political negotiation and concessions but false if implying unethical or illegal purchase of her vote. Her support was contingent on securing tangible benefits for her state and addressing her concerns about the bill's impact123568.

sources:

1. House Republicans Set To Vote on Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’
2. What happened right before the Senate’s big vote on Trump’s big bill
3. Republican Senator tells House not to vote on bill she just voted for
4. Senate Republicans narrowly pass Trump's 'big, beautiful' spending bill
5. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/art...s-big-beautiful-bill-as-vance-breaks-tie.html
6. https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/01/politics/lisa-murkowski-alaska-trump-agenda-bill
7. Senate sends revised GOP agenda bill to the House; Trump feuds with Elon Musk
8. 'Agonizing': How Alaska's pivotal Republican senator decided to vote for Donald Trump's bill
9. Senate Passes Trump Budget After Buying Lisa Murkowski’s Vote
10. “Special treatment”: How Republicans bought Lisa Murkowski’s vote
11. https://www.politico.com/live-updat...-murkowski-repulican-megabill-alaska-00435150
12. Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ passes Senate: What’s in it, who voted how?

Senator Lisa Murkowski and/or her family have indeed been involved in stock market investments. According to recent data, Murkowski made an estimated $62,600 in stock market gains just last month (June 2025), with about $1.1 million invested in publicly traded assets that are trackable through platforms like Quiver Quantitative16.

Regarding her trading history over the last six months, detailed transaction data is limited in publicly available sources, but the following points summarize what is known:

• Quiver Quantitative tracks her stock portfolio and estimates her net worth at around $2.5 million as of July 1, 2025, with active trading activity reflected in recent months12.

• MarketBeat and Capitol Trades show no publicly tracked trade activity in the last three years, which suggests that either her trades are not always disclosed publicly or are conducted through family members or investment vehicles that do not require direct disclosure35.

• She has co-sponsored legislation aimed at banning congressional stock trading, indicating awareness and involvement in the topic of stock investments by members of Congress78.

In summary, Lisa Murkowski has active investments in the stock market and has realized significant gains recently, but publicly available detailed trade-by-trade history for the last six months is not fully disclosed or accessible. Some trading activity may be indirect or through family holdings, which is common among members of Congress.

sources:

1. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/net...i-made-estimated-626k-stock-market-last-month
2. https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/politician/Lisa Murkowski-M001153
3. https://www.marketbeat.com/congress-stock-trades/profiles/lisa-murkowski/
4. https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblo...dgets-impact-on-americas-most-vulnerable.html
5. https://www.capitoltrades.com/politicians/M001153
6. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lisa-murkowski-net-worth-2025-064727316.html
7. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1908
8. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1879/committees

Link??