Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Commenter_XY]

Did the government shut down yet? The world has not ended, so I figured I'd ask. 🙂

[Martinned]

FAFO

You can negotiate and find a solution that satisfies as many segments of the electorate as possible, or you can go full blast "give Trump what he wants or GTFO". Your choice.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, by all means....let's find out, eurotrash.

Pink slips go out Friday.

[Martinned]

Not my problem. At this point, the rest of the world only benefits when the US Regime undermines its ability to do anything. US state capacity is bad for the rest of the world, so the less of it the better.

Of course, it would be nice if eventually the Regime were removed from power. And it would be good if, at that point, there were still some US state capacity left.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s like the Ojibes say, you Eurotrash go around in Pity while a great (Amurican) wind carries you across the Sky.
Only reason you’re not speaking German in Greater Germany is millions of Amuricans died getting you your country back, same with Russian, can’t wait until Putin cuts off your Natural Gas this Winter. How much does Belgium produce? (Or Luxemberg, what ever insignificant shithole you call home)

Frank

[CountmontyC]

Actually the USA was so superior on the field of combat that we only lost around 400,000 dead.
We also liberated Jews from death camps ( including quite a few sent there by the supposedly "superior culture" of the Netherlands).
Oh and Martinned weren't your ancestors NSB who helped send Jews to Nazi death camps?

[Martinned]

I agree that the world was better when the US still thought that fascism was bad.

[CountmontyC]

Fascism is a European thing created by an Italian socialist.

[Martinned]

Yes. And then we decided it was bad and tried very hard to banish it from our societies.

And then we had a visit from a fascist US Vice-President who came here to tell us that we should spend more time listening to fascists.

I believe that dismissing people, dismissing their concerns, or, worse yet, shutting down media, shutting down elections, or shutting people out of the political process protects nothing. In fact, it is the most surefire way to destroy democracy.
And speaking up and expressing opinions isn’t election interference, even when people express views outside your own country, and even when those people are very influential.
And trust me, I say this with all humor, if American democracy can survive 10 years of Greta Thunberg’s scolding, you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk.
But what German democracy — what no democracy, American, German, or European—will survive is telling millions of voters that their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their pleas for relief are invalid or unworthy of even being considered.
Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There is no room for firewalls. You either uphold the principle or you don’t.
Europeans, the people have a voice. European leaders have a choice. And my strong belief is that we do not need to be afraid of the future.
You can embrace what your people tell you, even when it’s surprising, even when you don’t agree. And if you do so, you can face the future with certainty and with confidence, knowing that the nation stands behind each of you.
And that, to me, is the great magic of democracy. It’s not in these stone buildings or beautiful hotels. It’s not even in the great institutions that we have built together as a shared
society.
To believe in democracy is to understand that each of our citizens has wisdom and has a voice. And if we refuse to listen to that voice, even our most successful fights will secure very little.

[ThePublius]

I don't get it, what's fascist about that?

[Martinned]

@Publius: The part where Vance is telling the Germans they can't ban fascist parties from running in elections.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, Martinned, it's fascist to ban parties from running!

[Malika la Maize]

This is dumb, Mussolini was expelled from the socialist party and was very critical of them when he created fascism.

https://www.history.com/articles/mussolini-italy-fascism

[DDHarriman]

Do you believe a prominent, lifelong Socialist, who Benito was, did a complete 180 politically when he created Fascism? That he flipped from far left to far right?

Or that Fascism was a leftwing increment on Socialism?

[Malika la Maize]

Yes, because of all the evidence. People often change.

[loki13]

I dunno.

Do you believe that Donald J. Trump, who spent decades giving money to the Democratic party, who announced he was in favor of universal health care in 2000, and who registered as a Democrat in 2001 in order to run as a Democrat ... did a complete 180 when he chose to run as a Republican in 2016?

That he flipped from being pro-Democrat and pro-universal health care to being for the GOP and against Obamacare?

Or is the MAGA movement just a leftwing increment of the Democratic party?

[Joe_dallas]

Fascism is still bad - its just that you dont recognize the much higher level of fascism from the left - simply because you agree with that fascism.

I would suggest a mirror, though it would shatter from the extreme level of hypocrisy from woke leftists

[Malika la Maize]

This is to be stupid. Fascism is an ideology on the right full of bad things. There are also ideologies on the left that are full of bad things. No need to co-opt the first for the latter.

[Joe_dallas]

Do you have any concept of fascism?

The left has been proactive with censorship
The left has been proactive encouraging illegal immigration
The left has been proactive in impeding the enforcement of illegal immigration laws.
The left has been pro active in encouraging riots.
The left has been proactive in supporting the side who is actively committing genocide.
The left is proactive in it condemnation of the side trying to prevent actual genocide

enforcing democratically enacted laws is not fascism
Quelling riots is not fascism.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s you that demonstrates a questionable grasp of fascism. Fascism historically is very nationalistic and opposed to immigration on ethnic grounds. It’s a movement that prizes militarism, nationalism, glorifying the national past and such. That’s not the left. And rioting is not uniquely fascist.

[CountmontyC]

Malika nationalism is neither left nor right wing in and of itself. Fidel Castro was both a communist and a nationalist who often spoke of the "Cuban man."
To judge if Mussolini's Fascist party was socialist/communist one would look at their economic policies and Mussolini's policies included state control of industries and trade with the USSR .

[Riva]

No it’s going to be the democrats’ problem. I hope they enjoy their little elite vacation in California wine country. President Trump on Democrats: "We can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible that are bad for them and irreversible by them, like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things they that they like, cutting programs that they like."

Oh and fun fact, when they fly out, assuming they’re not using their own private jets (so much for the climate change bullshit), they won’t have to worry about the Quiet Skies program used by Biden to spy on political opponents. The Trump administration has discontinued that, along with other gross abuses of power this country endured during the Biden years.

[Malika la Maize]

“We can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible that are bad for them and irreversible by them, like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things they that they like, cutting programs that they like."

Yes, that kind of talk is going to play very well with the “don’t blame the GOP, the other side is taking the government hostage” lines!

[Riva]

You’re confused. Democrats refused a CR. Democrats want a shutdown. That President Trump will use this time as productively as possible does not excuse the democrats’ irresponsible and radical behavior.

[Malika la Maize]

Again, talking about trying to hurt people for political reasons in the shutdown is going to go nicely with the “Radical Left is taking the government hostage” line. He’s basically saying he’s going to intentionally start killing the hostages the supposed hostage takers like.

[Riva]

No. Bad for wasteful and burdensome government programs democrats like to grift on.

[loki13]

"Yes, by all means....let's find out, eurotrash.

Pink slips go out Friday."

Charming. Gratuitous nationalist insult to one of the few commenters here who actually manages to post something of substance occasionally (even if I don't always agree with it).

PLUS ... utter glee in gratuitous misery inflicted on others for no reason. Remember- it's not enough that actual Americas are being harmed by not getting paid (Americans who have to pay mortgages and rent, their kids' college tuition, food, and so on) ... but are being threatened with being fired because ... Trump has claimed dictatorial powers and loves acting like a mob boss.

Final note- unless you are a veteran of WW2 (and I know the people here skew old, but not that old) ... it might be time to realize that "Derp, we did a good job in WW2!!!!" isn't quite the PWN you think it is.

WW2 ended in 1945. That was eighty years ago. Look around you now, instead of trying to think of such awesome and current references.

[Estragon]

One really has to wonder about the political acumen of people crowing about pink slips. What is going to remain funded? ICE and bailing out Argentina. What’s getting cut? Healthcare premium support, rural hospitals. People are about to see up close the true theory of government of the Trump administration: ICE kidnapping grannies and bailouts for Argentinian friend-of-Trump lunatic scam artists and crypto swindlers. The same guy who is undercutting American farmers on soybeans, btw. People’s premiums are going astronomical and we’re sending out $20 billion to prop up ARGENTINA’S healthcare system!

Nobody knows how this will go. But it’s Russell Vought’s turn in the barrel. And with allies like XY it will be more unpleasant.

[Bwaaah]

Whenever people say "we" did this and "we" did that, all I can usually think is that "I" didn't do any of it. And who is "we?" And for whom does the speaker purport to speak?

Suspiciously blusterful, overreaching stuff, it usually is.

But we sure did trash each other's opinions in online discussions, eh? (My hit rate should be pretty high on this "we.")

[loki13]

I've been thinking a lot of my father recently (who passed just prior to Covid) and what he would be thinking of ... all of this. I recently talked about how he, as a lifelong (AuH20) Republican, turned on Trump during the first term because of how terrible he thought Trump was.*

Specifically, I was thinking about the Ryder Cup. My dad was a great golfer (he was a scratch golfer his entire life, and even toward the end he still was a 5) and one of the things he despised about Trump was that he cheated at golf. Anyway, he loved the Ryder Cup. We rooted for America, but he taught me how important respect and decorum were. I still remember watching the 2004 Ryder Cup with him, and while he was really upset about the result, he spent most of the time regaling me with stories about Bernhard Langer and explaining what was happening (I wasn't nearly the golfer he was).

This weekend was an embarrassment. It was the first time I rooted for Europe. If this is what Trump has made us into, I won't root for what we have become.

Trump does not sell his product to the consumer, he sells the consumer to his product. He does not improve and simplify the country, he degrades and simplifies Americans.

*Albeit with the caveat that he still wouldn't have voted for Hillary.

[Mr. Bumble]

AuH2O, clever.

[Estragon]

“My dad was a great golfer (he was a scratch golfer his entire life, and even toward the end he still was a 5)”

That is truly remarkable. Non-golfers don’t realize how difficult it is to consistently achieve that level of play. Which, I suspect your father would agree, makes Trump’s golfing claims so infuriatingly absurd to those of us who do play regularly. Claiming to have shot 69 at Bedminster in a tournament setting, where the ball should be touching the bottom of the cup on every hole (I.e. no gimmies) is so far outside the realm of plausible one genuinely has to wonder about the mental state of someone claiming it. Of course with Trump it’s example 5,000 or whatever but the patent absurdity of it may, in fact, be the point.

Rick Reilly was all over this years ago, the book is very amusing for a golfer like me.

[loki13]

Well, other than the many videos of Trump's caddies placing his balls for him, any golfer knows that he is as full of it as Kim Jong Un. He might as well claim to be hitting 18 holes-in-one.

But my father was an amazing golfer. Back in the day (and for anonymity reasons, I can't say the specific one) he won, as an amateur, an Open. It wasn't one of the two big "name" ones, but it still had a field of professionals in it that you'd recognize if you were familiar with the '70s.

(For those who don't know, an "Open" is a golf tournament that allows competition by professional and amateur golfers.)

[Commenter_XY]

I met Barry Goldwater; a gracious man. Spoke with bluntness.

[Bwaaah]

My father loved to play golf. He was more like a 12 handicap, but he did work at it for most of his adult life and until close to the end when he could play no longer.

He raised me and my older brother to play golf, which I did avidly until I went to college. The etiquette of golf, in all its regards, was important to my father, and he raised us in that spirit. That included not only the courteous behaviors of a "gentleman," but the rules of the game. My brother and I both knew the rules pretty much inside and out, and he always carried a rule book in case we had any questions. We played that way, quite strictly according to the rules, all the time. That was part of the game for us.

Here's an admission: I never once cheated at golf. (Excepting gimmes; I took the gimmes only if they were really close, and only if somebody told me to take it away, and only because of the etiquette of behaving like a gracious gentleman.)

A friend of mine, an avid Republican, had been lobbying me to support DJT in 2016. I was quite opposed to a Trump presidency, and he tried to move my position using a bunch of different angles. But I never liked DJT's ways, and my friend's arguments failed to move me.

One day, in a moment of full disclosure, my friend told me that a good friend of his once played golf with DJT, and that DJT had cheated. (My friend did not know that I grew up as a golfer. And he didn't know how significant that remark was to me.)

"Seriously? He cheats at golf?" I asked my friend. "I grew up as a golfer. And the way I understand it, cheating at golf is an especially low-life kind of thing, a tell, about a person. That fact alone is pretty damning to me."

He responded, "I didn't know you played golf. But I decided to tell you because when I heard it, I felt just like you described. It's not an insignificant thing. It's a serious thing."

(No offense intended to DJT or cheating golfers. I have friends of many colors.)

[loki13]

...yep. You get it.

[Joe_dallas]

loki13 42 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Yes, by all means....let's find out, eurotrash.

Pink slips go out Friday."
"PLUS ... utter glee in gratuitous misery inflicted on others for no reason. Remember- it's not enough that actual Americas are being harmed by not getting paid (Americans who have to pay mortgages and rent, their kids' college tuition, food, and so on) ... but are being threatened with being fired because .."

Am I supposed to feel bad that overpaid government employees are in departments getting downsized? . Fiscal responsibility - isnt it taxpayer money ?

[Malika la Maize]

Again, thanks for demonstrating the disingenuous of “Radical Left is holding the government hostage!”

[bernard11]

Fiscal responsibility - isnt it taxpayer money ?

Like flying 800 senior officers in from all over the world to listen to two hours of claptrap from Trump and Hegseth?

Yeah. I know. It wasn't a lot of money in the scheme of things. So what? It was still a lot of money and a pure waste, not to mention these people might have other things to do.

And how do tax cuts figure into your great fiscal responsibility?

[Joe_dallas]

Are we surprised you complain about a single incident while not complaining about an overpaid bloated government bureaucracy that has been embedded in government spending for a few decades and accelerated under the democrat administration

[bernard11]

Am I surprised you have nothing concrete to say and can only spew some bullshit.

No. I am not.

[David Nieporent]

Final note- unless you are a veteran of WW2 (and I know the people here skew old, but not that old) ... it might be time to realize that "Derp, we did a good job in WW2!!!!" isn't quite the PWN you think it is.

Plus, it's mostly coming from people who'd have been on the "Not our problem; we should stay out of it" side back then. What was their self-description? Two words, on the tip of my tongue. Can't quite think of it. Oh yeah: "America First."

[loki13]

True.

Of course, consistency is not exactly the hallmark of their arguments. At some point, I keep expecting that the cognitive dissonance will become so great that the internal pressure in their skulls will force their eyes open.

Alas, I continue to be disappointed.

[Brett Bellmore]

"or you can go full blast "give Trump what he wants or GTFO". "

Of course, in this case it's more a matter of full blast "Give Schumer what he wants or GTFO"...

[Malika la Maize]

Didn’t Trump cancel negotiations?

[Brett Bellmore]

Didn't Schumer make the demands in the first place?

[Malika la Maize]

Both sides made demands iirc, one ended negotiations.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ Didn’t Trump cancel negotiations?”

You’re right. Trump should have insisted on a provision is the CR eliminating the department of Ed or something, then given it up.

[John F. Carr]

I hope traffic will be lighter this morning.

[Armchair]

It did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhGeNPJlIK4&list=RDNSAhGeNPJlIK4&start_radio=1

"No more dudes in dresses" -- I love this.
What scares me though is he sounds like he's thinking WWIII.

[Martinned]

Yes, it was definitely necessary to summon all these people from all over the world to a single room so that their idiot boss could tell them they were fat.

That said, I recognise that my contributions on Monday and yesterday didn't take into account the other possibility that always exists with the US regime: that they're idiots. Hegseth clearly thinks that he's the CEO of the second biggest chain of furniture stores in Wisconsin, who periodically needs to gather his regional salesmen together for an inspirational speech.

[Commenter_XY]

What it was not was a demand for a loyalty oath. That was just nonsense. Leftist fabulism.

[Martinned]

Indeed. Silly us for thinking that fascists were gonna fascist.

[Jerry B.]

Apparently, all it takes for someone to be a fascist is for someone else to call them a fascist, you fascist.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot racist.

[Martinned]

No, what it takes for someone to be a fascist is for them to say stuff like this:

“We are under invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy, but worse—they don’t wear a uniform.”

[Michael P]

Leftists project. It's almost all they do between the rioting and looting.

[ThePublius]

Martinned, there is no way you could have watched Hegseth's remarks (about 48 minutes) and come to the conclusion that he's an idiot. It was a brilliant speech, and the direction he's leading the armed forces is exactly what is needed. The armed forces have become bloated, literally and figuratively, have lowered standards over the last 40 years, and in particular over the last 10, they are corrupt at the highest levels, and it is time for an overhaul, which is what he's doing.

You just hate America and everything about it, apparently, and your constant droning on about US fascism and corruption and idiocy is really annoying, and not at all enlightening. You're not convincing anyone, you're playing to your echo chamber on here, and annoying everyone else.

[Malika la Maize]

A brilliant speech if you like trying to parade a tough guy persona in a federal cabinet level official, yeah. It reminded me of the stereotypical speech the rogue cop makes in so many action movies.

[loki13]

"Martinned, there is no way you could have watched Hegseth's remarks (about 48 minutes) and come to the conclusion that he's an idiot. It was a brilliant speech, and the direction he's leading the armed forces is exactly what is needed."

Serious question- I assume you haven't served. Do you have any friends that are currently serving that are ... I dunno, O-6 or above? Have you asked them if they thought it was a "brilliant" speech? That it would be well-received by the intended audience?

Did you ask any of them how it would compare to prior speeches by prior Secretaries of the DoD*? Or, for that matter, did you ask them about Trump's speech?

*While there is an executive order renaming it, to officially rename it requires Congress. Like so much going on, it's poorly thought out, expensive to implement, and not even correct.

[Martinned]

You're joking, right? It is difficult to imagine what Hegseth could have done that would have made him look more unqualified for his job than that speech. Maybe mooning his audience?

[Riva]

Command staff following the orders of the commander in chief. Pretty sick huh? Please explain to me, what do you dislike about civilian control of the armed forces? Would it stand in the way of authoritarian agendas you like?

[hobie]

What happens to troops that develop bone spurs? Should they just suck it up?

[Malika la Maize]

They shouldn’t take Tylenol!

[Joe_dallas]

One of my employees father is a retired f15 lt col. ret (2015). One of the comments he made was that the military brass were adopting quite a few policies (woke policies) that greatly impeded effective fighting. Woke policies such as dei, military planning based on future conflicts caused by climate change, military logistics based on increased use of bio fuels and renewable energy. etc. The afghan fiasco is an example. Other comments were that military brass were too focused on politics instead of core mission. He also mentioned the purging of military brass who didnt conform to the woke. (purging may be a little strong) Though a high priority for promotion was placed on compliance with woke concepts throughout the obama years.

[Frank Drackman]

Youngest Daughter flies F-16's with the Air Farce, she's about as "Woke" as Louis CK, and only stays in because you don't get to pull 7G's in 757's. Get's about 20hrs/month, that's alot with Fighters as every hour in the air requires 1-2 hrs of preflight briefing, and 1-3 hrs post flight de-briefing, she gets more flight time than alot of the dudes/beeotches because she's never sick and would rather fly than do her (redacted) ground job.
Older Daughter flies F-5 Tiger II's on weekends with the Marine "Aggressor" Squadron in Yuma (and 737's fulltime with Delta) she's a bit more Diplomatic, but went to the Reserves/Airlines because she'd rather fly a Jet than a Desk.
And it's pretty rare when you have to land a 737 on an Aircraft Carrier.

Frank

[Joe_dallas]

That was another comment he made - something about having no interest in landing on a carrier.

[Frank Drackman]

and F-15's are the ultimate Fighter, that's all they were built for, to shoot down Enemy (and occasionally Friendly) Fighters. "Not a Pound for Air to Ground" was the Motto, of course it didn't take long for them to build a Ground Attack Version (the "Strike Eagle" or "Mudhen") Even the landing gear's the bare minimum to support it's weight.
It's why they're still making them, in a 1v1 vs an F35 (I'd tell you....) my money would be on the Eagle

Frank

[Joe_dallas]

The point the lt col / f15 pilot made was that the top brass is heavily infested with woke ideas and ideals that impede effective military operations.

Thus its time to weed those out.
Reports are that the Generals dont like new chief where as the lt cols and below are quite enthusiastic.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think a significant part of the motive for this meeting was to identify anybody who didn't think they had to show up if their boss called a mandatory attendance meeting.

[loki13]

...seriously? Do you even understand how the military works?

That this was a bizarre thing is undisputed. No one has ever done something this stupid, which is why there so much speculation about what it could mean. That it was done for ... this? Makes it even crazier.

But what you're saying might be the stupidest thing ever. No, these were orders. Which is why so much friggin' money was spent getting all of these people from around the world there.

[Joe_dallas]

The meeting was called possibly because of the perception that woke policies /ideas/ideals have infested the top brass of the military. Along with the possibility that the woke brass will actively seek to undermine a return to the core mission of the military. Granted my source of info is limited to the one ret lt col f15 pilot, though reports are that what he described was fairly consistent among large segments of the top brass.

[Malika la Maize]

Looks like it’s a tranny!

[Mr. Hook]

All due respect, but Mr. Bellmore is an expert in the military, its culture, and its history, as well as in labour relations and political tactics. He knows that it's absurd that the high brass would disobey this order. Rather, Mr. Bellmore was applying his keen analytical skills to give insight into what Hegseth and Trump, who have never demonstrated any understanding of the military, would have thought about this gathering. He was, in fact, revealing the blinkered MAGA binary view, dividing the world into the loyal and the disloyal to the leader, not of competence or commitment to professional duty.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, I'm just assuming that the current administration wouldn't assume up front that everybody would obey an order to show up.

[loki13]

So you are assuming that the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief do not understand how the military works?

....Brett, I think we can agree on something.

[shawn_dude]

I believe this was Mr Hook's core point. The regime is dumb enough to think that that career officers would disobey a legal order. It says more about the regime than it does about the officers.

[John F. Carr]

The Onion and The Babylon Bee both took on this speech, each in its own way.

The Onion: Hungover Hegseth Struggling To Remember How He Ended Up In Room Full Of Generals.
The Babylon Bee: 10 Changes Hegseth Is Making To Military Health Requirements.

[John F. Carr]

I remember a statement in a book by somebody who served in the army in the 1970s. Probably General Schwarzkopf, possibly Oliver North. The substance was, the army was every bit as hollow as people said it was.

I wonder if the Army is back to that state.

[shawn_dude]

Outside of the dumb culture war BS, what gives you that impression?

[Moderation4ever]

Skip worrying about guys in dresses and WWIII how about he just complete the audit of the Pentagon that never gets done.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or the Fed including Ft Knox.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhGeNPJlIK4&list=RDNSAhGeNPJlIK4&start_radio=1

"No more dudes in dresses" -- I love this.
What scares me though is he sounds like he's thinking WWIII.

[Frank Drackman]

You obviously weren’t listening, you prepare for WW3 so you don’t have to fight one.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't really worry much about WWIII because nobody wins that war, everyone loses.

[Commenter_XY]

Will hamas take the deal offered to end their war? No chance.

Why? They will never agree to disarm, leave, and never return.

Am I wrong about that?

[hobie]

'Deal' doesn't include recognition of Palestinian state, so why should they accept?

[Krayt]

Will hamas take the deal offered to end their war? No chance. Why? They will never agree to disarm, leave, and never return. Am I wrong about that?

'Deal' doesn't include recognition of Palestinian state, so why should they accept?

You're both right! Hamas are not freedom fighters. They are dictatorship-kleptocracy fighters, to lord over a new, proper Palestinian state some day.

If they leave, no palaces for them! And if there's no state, nothing to lord over, and again, no palaces for them!

[Don Nico]

Then they will see the war continue. They have never cared that Gazan civilians will be killed in the meanwhile.
In fact they want to maximize those deaths.

[Martinned]

Will hamas take the deal offered to end their war? No chance.

Why wouldn't they? Hamas never keep their promises anyway. It's just like Trump, who also doesn't understand the concept. They might as well promise stuff left and right. And they do.

[Moderation4ever]

Well right now Israel is losing the high ground. Now, Hamas never had the high ground. It the absence of real military objectives Israel's continuing the conflict seems unnecessary and pointless. Hamas has lost but its adversary is losing ground so it not really likely to take the deal.

[Don Nico]

M4,
I am also skeptical that they will accept the deal. However all the surrounding Arab states plus other Muslim states are backing the proposal. So as long is Iranian help is blocked they a playing a rapidly losing hand.

[Josh R]

While they officially back the plan, there are rumblings the Arab states are mad at last minute changes insisted upon by Netanyahu.

[David Nieporent]

Can we stop sanewashing Trump by calling his effusions a "plan"? The first item in his proposal is "Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors." That's not a "plan." That's barely a PowerPoint slide.

[bernard11]

Am I wrong about that?

No. you are absolutely right.

[Commenter_XY]

Where are the protests and demonstrations demanding hamas accept a deal?

G'mar Hatima Tovah.

[Bwaaah]

TRUMP wants Hamas gone. Half the U.S. couldn't possibly loudly endorse Hamas being gone because that would signal an endorsement of TRUMP.

TRUMP must not be endorsed IN ANY MANNER OR FORM. It is too painful for them. Even if they want Hamas gone, they can only admit that modestly, incidentally.

They are The Resistance. Almost half this country is The Resistance. They are pure reactionary partisan action. Even if the killing has to continue, they will not signal any support of anything TRUMP. Anything.

Poor Gazans. Poor Israelis. Poor Gazan children. They too are now a lost cause of The Resistance. There are things more important than their plight. Things across the ocean. BIGGER things.

Nothing TRUMP. Nothing. Ever.

[hobie]

Fox News [from 2 AD to 2025 AD] - 'Kneegroes cause crime. Mexican rapist immigrants bring crime. The Left has a violence problem.'

Don Lemon [last week] - "White men, something is broken. Something is cracked deep inside when so many of you believe the answer to fear, to loss, to change, is violence."

...and in one of the most severe pearl clutches of all time...

Also Fox News [yesterday] - "Don Lemon Makes Disgustingly Racist Comments About White People And Violence"

https://www.outkick.com/culture/don-lemon-white-men-violence-claim

[Brett Bellmore]

Any argument where one of your major premises has to be a lie is a bad argument...

As somebody pointed out recently, Lemon's remark last week is pretty hard to square with actual murder statistics, which have black men committing murder at about 5-7 times the rate white men do.

Here's a chart from 2019. For reference whites were 58.9% of the population, blacks 12.6%. The only crimes for which us white guys outperformed black guys were DUIs, drunkenness, and liquor laws in general.

Which really suggests that if there's some correlation between 'being broken inside' and color, it ain't us white men who are broken. Though maybe we're lousy at holding our booze.

[hobie]

"...which have black men committing murder at about 5-7 times the rate white men do"

Correction, 'black men getting charged more for murder' [exonerations often follow]

And, yes, kneegroes commit murder. Mexican-rapist-antisemitic-terrorist immigrants also commit murder [except the ones picking radishes in Iowa]. But guess what? White men also commit murder.

[Frank Drackman]

What % of the Kneegroes charged with murder are Innocent?
It’s like Vertical Jump, Rhythm, and Penis Length, some Races are better at things than others, it’s just with the Kneegroes it includes Violent Crime.

Frank

[Martinned]

There's only the tiny detail that crime correlates with income and wealth, and that structural racism in the US means that people of colour are disproportionately poor.

[Frank Drackman]

Except for those Damn Asians.
And it’s “Colored People” not what you said.
Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a fair comment, except for the idiot "structural racism" bit.

[Martinned]

Must be a coincidence that black people are still disproportionately poor, a century and a half after slavery ended...

[Brett Bellmore]

It can not be coincidence, AND not be "structural racism", you know.

The "War on Poverty" did enormous cultural damage to people living in communities where jobs were leaving, by enabling people to remain anyway. It is historically the case that blacks were, disproportionately, living in those places, but the whites who lived there ended up just as damaged.

[Frank Drackman]

and the Vietnamese refugees aren't, yes, a big coincidence.

[Michael P]

Correlation is also not causation. People who are likely to commit murder are also more likely to be poor, because they have low executive function or other common-cause characteristics.

On top of that, the fact that Blacks are about 1/8 the population and Whites are more than half means that there are a lot more White people in poverty than Black people in poverty, so poverty (or any other income or wealth quantile) isn't sufficient to explain the differences in murder rates.

[Martinned]

On top of that, the fact that Blacks are about 1/8 the population and Whites are more than half means that there are a lot more White people in poverty than Black people in poverty, so poverty (or any other income or wealth quantile) isn't sufficient to explain the differences in murder rates.

You may want to think about that one again. And, in doing so, pay attention to the fact that you ended that sentence with "murder rates". (As opposed to "absolute numbers of murders".)

[Michael P]

The difference in murder rates is starkly worse than the difference in murder counts. That's why there are more total murder victims and murderers among Blacks than among Whites, even though there are about twice as many poor Whites than poor Blacks.

[hobie]

Yes. I believe that if you correlate all murders by all races, you'll see that probably 95% of all murders are committed by poor folks

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, they are. I don't believe that financially secure blacks are any more likely to commit murder than financially secure whites. Blacks are just a lot more likely to live in the circumstances that lead to high murder rates.

But there are historical path dependent reasons that led to that, it's not a product of racism TODAY.

[loki13]

"But there are historical path dependent reasons that led to that, it's not a product of racism TODAY."

Historical path dependent reasons? Wow. That's quite a euphemism!

By that, do you mean ... oh, let's see. Jim Crow. Actual racism spanning scores of decades after Reconstruction. Specific policies enacted by states and the federal government that ensured continued favoritism to whites when it came to jobs, health, and wealth accumulation (everything from redlining to transportation to urban planning). Labor policies. I could keep going on ...

And, of course, these have continuing effects through today. And I assume you don't mean that there isn't any racism today, right? You're just saying that it's de facto, not de jure. And by "de facto," we mean not just individual (and sometimes group) actors, but also structural elements- such as criminal justice, or health studies (that often have white-skewed results) or tech products, or ...

I honestly think that a true small-c conservative argument would be, "Yes, there are serious problems- much moreso in the past, but even continuing today. But the best way to deal with it is to remove any and all de jure issues to the extent that they remain (such as criminal justice issues) and then let people flourish as individuals. We acknowledge the problems that did exist, because they did, and recognize that the solution cannot be from government."

But instead, we get this convenient ... whitewashing.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually I don't mean Jim Crow, except indirectly. I mean the War on Poverty.

Jim Crow led to a migration to urban centers, but when jobs moved away from those urban centers, the War on Poverty enabled people to stay there, which resulted in a culture of joblessness for those who stayed.

It's a common perspective on the problem, on the right.

[Malika la Maize]

You know lots of people didn’t (couldn’t?) move, right, and had to endure terrible oppression?

Before the War on Poverty over half of black families were below the poverty line. It’s around 1/5 now.

[loki13]

Just because it's a common perspective on the right, doesn't mean it's accurate. There's a lot of retconning of history that people like to do on the right. See also, "FDR made the Great Depression worse!*" or "Fascism is actually the Left!**"

The War on Poverty did reduce poverty- especially among the elderly. Recent econometric analyses show that various programs included under the umbrella terms had various impacts from "great" to "eh..." Programs like Head Start were amazing. Amazing work was done to improve the food security of poor Americans. Family planning programs greatly decreased the poverty rates of children.

Once you control for the structural factors in America, the War on Poverty was successful. Does that mean that all aspects of it were equally successful? No. Some parts of it produces a much high bang-for-the-buck- some did not. Moreover, like any and all government intervention, simply being "good," is not sufficient reason for the government to spend money on it.

I don't think that the "culture of dependence" argument is well-supported- I do think that we need to differentiate between the desire to institute hurdles to simply deny people benefits, and the concomitant desire to design programs that only provide benefits for people that truly need them.

In short, I eschew simplistic answers- and I think that anyone arguing that the War on Poverty is the reason for the structural issues we see today has happened to find a "just so" answer that doesn't actually fit the question at all.

*Not everything he did was successful, but the interventions succeeded in keeping America from turning to fascism or communism until WW2.

**This is so beyond stupid. Not only would it make history unintelligible (a battle between the left, fascists, and the left, communists, erupted) it also makes the present unintelligible. "Antifa is a bunch of radical leftists that are against fascism, which is, of course, radical leftism."

[Brett Bellmore]

If you look at victimization surveys, too, no. It's committing.

Never said every race doesn't commit murder. Just that it's hard to square whites being the "broken" race, when blacks are outperforming whites in every area of crime except getting drunk.

[hobie]

So why is Don Lemon's comment 'disgusting racism'?

[Frank Drackman]

You mean besides the fact he's a Disgusting Race-ist?
Doesn't he have a Malaysian Airlines Flight to catch?

[hobie]

It is encouraging to see you against racism, Frankie.

[Martinned]

From judge Young's judgment, on masks:

And there’s the issue of masks. This Court has listened carefully to the reasons given by Öztürk’s captors for maskingup and has heard the same reasons advanced by the defendant Todd Lyons, Acting Director of ICE. It rejects this testimony as disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable. ICE goes masked for a single reason -- to terrorize Americans into quiescence. Small wonder ICE often seems to need our respected military to guard them as they go about implementing our immigration laws. It should be noted that our troops do not ordinarily wear masks. Can you imagine a masked marine? It is a matter of honor -- and honor still matters. To us, masks are associated with cowardly desperados and the despised Ku Klux Klan. In all our history we have never tolerated an armed masked secret police. Carrying on in this fashion, ICE brings indelible obloquy to this administration and everyone who works in it. “We can not escape history,” Lincoln righty said. “[It] will light us down in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.” Abraham Lincoln, Second Annual Message to Congress (Dec. 1, 1862).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282460/gov.uscourts.mad.282460.261.0.pdf

[Frank Drackman]

Not so long ago I had to wear a mask to get on an Airplane.
Until they brought me my drink, then you could take it off. I sat next to people who fell “Off the Wagon” purely because of the (redacted) Masks.
Now some peoples actually have a good reason to wear one and they can’t?
(Redacted) that

Frank

[hobie]

Do you have to wear the pointless apparati in the OR, Frankie?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, because of Tradition like how they have to wear Caps in MLB and not in Softball. Difference is everyone knows it’s Bullshit.

[hobie]

"Difference is everyone knows it’s Bullshit." Have anyone over the last hundred years ever done a study of surgeries with masking vs without?

[Frank Drackman]

Only a few thousand, they not have AlGores in your Ghetto?

[Frank Drackman]

Here's one study, ask one of your Homies if you can borrow their Internets.
"Clinical relevance of masks in the operating room? A systematic review"
Clinical Infection in Practice
Volume 12, November 2021, 100087
Abstract
Background
Face masks are recommended for sterile procedures, while the data supporting this recommendation is lacking. Here we systematically review randomized control trials on mask efficacy in the operating room as a means to preventing surgical site clinical infection.
Methods
PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Publications and Products were searched and articles were included if they fit the criteria of 1) randomized control trial, 2) clinical patient outcomes, 3) mask efficacy, 4) surgery setting, 5) in vivo, and 6) article was in English.
Results
The results indicate no difference in surgical site infections between the operations where masks were worn versus the operations where no mask was worn.
Conclusion
With such limited evidence and the great cost that accrues from purchasing face masks for all surgical staff, we hope for larger, well designed randomized control trials to evaluate the true clinical efficacy of surgical masks in the operating room.

[hobie]

You see, Frankie. Isn't it much nicer to lead with facts?

[Malika la Maize]

One should definitely take medical advice from someone who Writes like
)This

[Michael P]

I thought one benefit of surgical masks is that the workers are less likely to have blood spurt into their mouth or nose. Is there evidence about that, or about indirect benefits of it (less patient-to-physician infection)?

[Frank Drackman]

Not so much the spurting blood (not as big a problem with the move to Laparoscopic/Endovascular Procedures, there's still spurting Blood, but it stays safely inside the Victim, I mean Patient.)
And of course it's always "Anesthesia's Fault" the Blood wouldn't spurt so high if you'd let the Blood Pressure drop like the Surgeon intended.
And it's long been a joke that we wear Gloves/Masks to protect us from you unhygienic nasty Rubes, not the other way around, I remember some of the older Docs in the 80's, trained when Gloves weren't disposable, would just examine Patients with their bare hands, (and not wash them afterwards, I kept track, One Surgical Attending examined every single patients feet and belly's on rounds, 20-25 Patients, didn't wash his hands until the end (he was scrubbing for Surgery)

Frank

[Joe_dallas]

surgical masks have a benefit from a reduction in transmission of bacteria.
Respiratory virus not so much due to inability to get a good seal, thus basic fluid dynamics means the air flow bypasses the masks and goes out the sides.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, spurting fluids; I still vividly recall flushing out a hemotoma on my father's shin with saline, and ending up with saline spraying into my foolishly hanging open mouth.

Being a rational guy, I waited until I was done before running to the bathroom to gargle... I knew quite well that saline was sterile.

[John F. Carr]

Judge Young was overly dramatic. "This case -– perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court".

An attitude I wish more litigants and judges would take: "The plaintiffs can challenge the implementation of an Executive order without challenging the order itself." (pp. 126-127, cleaned up) These lawsuits should not all be captioned Guardians of Democracy v. Trump. Trump is not subject to injunctions (p. 158). Trump is not an agency. Sue the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Rendition instead.

Part of plaintiffs' problem is that the policy being challenged is not written down. The written orders do not say "criticism of Israel is forbidden." The DC case against ICE has the same difficulty because there is no written directive saying "arrest people without probable cause." Judge Young was convinced the policy was not too slippery to get a grip on.

Eugene Volokh's case NRA v. Vullo makes an appearance.

[Martinned]

Is there another case that's been heard in the Federal District Court for Massachussetts that you would rate as more important?

To start answering my own question, the Wikipedia page of that court lists two notable cases:

- Ghen v. Rich (1881) (a whale is the property of the whaler who killed it, and not the person who found it dead on the beach).
- 2019 college admissions bribery scandal (2019)

Neither of those immediately strikes me as more important than this free speech case.

[John F. Carr]

The busing case,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_desegregation_busing_crisis

[Michael P]

This case seems likely to join Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard as a case where D. Mass. gets overturned on appeal. A case like that is important even when the district court gets it wrong.

[Martinned]

Fair enough.

[John F. Carr]

The birthright citizenship case pending in the District of Massachusetts will decide a more important issue. Is it more important as a case when other judges in other districts are piling on? Maybe not. The case in the Second Circuit about immigrant free speech has jurisdictional problems.

[Kazinski]

What's the over/under for federal worker layoffs announced this week*?

If I were setting the line, I figure it should be about 200k.

And were I betting, then I would take the over.

I think they will probably be front loaded towards the beginning of the week to get them in before the shutdown can end.

* that doesn't include the 100k who accepted the February or April buyouts, and who got officially separated at mitnight.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, I'll gladly agree with you on the over. DC might become a deserted wasteland after the shutdown RIFs. Oh, what will those K street lobbyists do with themselves? 😉

Pink slips go out Friday. For the about to be unemployed, call Chuck Schumer's office, and tell him what you think. In great detail.

You can find Schumer's DC office number easily enough.

[Martinned]

Oh, what will those K street lobbyists do with themselves?

Bribe Trump, just like now, presumably.

[Malika la Maize]

Homans can carry the bags!

[Don Nico]

What is with the childish school yard taunting?
Don't you guys L&R get tired of it?

[Kazinski]

They are frustrated and impotent and that's all they have now.

[John F. Carr]

A lawsuit has been filed to stop layoffs. There is a distinct possibility of a nationwide injunction against termination.

[John F. Carr]

Here is the lawsuit: American Federation of Government Employees v. OMB.

"the administration has threatened to inflict punishment on, and further traumatize, federal employees throughout the nation."

[Kazinski]

Bit there is no injunction yet, and almost all the injunctions forbidding layoffs have been stayed.

And the Supreme Court has pointed out the remedy is not in federal courts but the Merit System Protection Board, so it probably won't take too long to get the Supreme Court involved.

[Frank Drackman]

The Real (Redacted) is every time a new General/Admiral takes over their new Unit, they have the same kind of talk with all of their Underlings.
The Army currently has 218 Generals, at the end of WW2 there were 181, there’s certainly a lot of extra “Weight”.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Oh yeah, the Army of WW2 included the Air Farce, so the difference is even more stark. USAF currently has about 200 Generals, so the Army/Air Farce of WW2 had 181 Generals, today over 400.
And that was with an Army/Air Farce of 11 million, compared to the under a million of today.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

In fairness Frank, look at the number of men it took to crew a Battleship during WWII and then look at the number of men it took to crew the same battleship in the 1980s. (About a third less.)

And then look at the number of (small) aircraft carriers we had during WWII versus the number of big ones today, the number of bombs a WWII bomber could carry versus a bomber today, our ability to bomb Iran with planes based in Missouri, etc.

[Frank Drackman]

Killing has got more efficient, except where it hasn't, Enola Gay had a Crew of 12, took out 150,000 Japs (Feel bad for the Airman who had to paint 150,000 Jap Flags on the Fuselage afterwards)
Minuteman Missiles have a 2 man crew controlling 10 Nuke-ular Missiles from their underground Launch Control Center, above ground there are 5 or 6 Security/Maintenance guys/gals.
Still, it was a guy with a Machinegun who gave Obama Bin Laden a 5.56mm Lobotomy.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, it’s not like there’s been a general (no pun intended) increase in specialized areas in those decades, that’s why the number of general practitioners in the medical field is the same as it was back then! Lol, what a dolt.

[Frank Drackman]

Even for you that doesn't make any sense.

[Malika la Maize]

Increased areas of specialization leading to an increase in managers of these specialized areas is as mysterious as the basic rules of English writing to Francis.

[Frank Drackman]

Sure you don't have a touch of the Ass-Burger's yourself? Worrying about (redacted) Grammatical Rules is like complaining that your Cardiologist is wearing Flip Flops, you're going against the grain of History.
Purpose of the Military is to Kill People and Break Things, (HT Rush Limbo) certainly there are various ways to accomplish that, and there is a need for "Beans, Bandages, and Bull-wets (HT E. Fudd)" to Feed, Bandage, Supply the guys/girls doing the Killing/Breaking, but no way a Military that's 1/10 the size of the one that beat the Japs/Huns needs more Generals/Admirals.
OK, I know you've got your Panties in a Wad because Pete called out "Dudes in Dresses" and "Beard-O's"

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems as if being promoted to flag rank has become a participation prize.

[Malika la Maize]

The military, like most modern organizations, has become more specialized and thus there are going to be more managers because there’s more areas to manage. This isn’t rocket science or even bottle rocket science.

[Keldonric]

That’s probably the case — every time the Pentagon funds something new it usually creates another oversight layer, and at that scale it tends to mean a general or flag officer slot. Recent examples include the Army’s next-gen command and control push, USCYBERCOM’s expanding mission set, Pacific Deterrence Initiative projects like the Tinian upgrades, and big joint exercises such as Northern Edge and Super Garuda Shield. Specialization plus new programs naturally drives more GOFO billets, even without growing the overall force.

[Malika la Maize]

Transcription of the rant of that guy pushing a shopping cart full of his stuff in it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

People wounded today live -- during WWII they died.

[Frank Drackman]

During Corea they died, during Vietnam they died, in Beirut they died,
"Battlefield Medicine" didn't really advance until the "Unpleasantness" of the last 25 years. One of the few good things to result from 9-11.
OK Losers, go ahead and say I said some good things resulted from 9-11. It's the Ass-Burgers, we're the ones who'll say the Baby's Ugly.

Frank

[Swede425]

True enough.
I was a combat medic during my first tour in Iraq.
The equipment/materiel carried and the training medics and CLS had meant that casualties that would have died in previous conflicts survived instead. QuikClot and CAT tourniquets were game changers early on.
War has always been a testing lab for medical advances.

[Malika la Maize]

Near the front line, Ukraine's neurosurgeons are on the cutting edge

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/29/nx-s1-5496258/near-the-frontline-ukraines-neurosurgeons-are-on-the-cutting-edge

[Ska]

I saw Chick Corea live, but unfortunately it was some scientology peddling trio - not a trio or quartet playing typical jazz. We left after the first set when we saw him hawking scientology books - which answered the question of why he was playing such spacey, ambient type shit.

[Jazzizhep]

I was visiting family out in LA in the early 90s. Picked up some rag that listed all the live entertainment. There was a trio playing with some pianist headlining I had never heard of. The other two in the trio were Dave Weckl and John Pattitucci. Got to see them for the cost of a two drink minimum.

BTW, they played Cherokee and the pianist crashed and burned. Had to stop the song and move on to the next chart. Never seen that before or since.

[Bob from Ohio]

"lot of extra “Weight”"

Reducing the incredible number of ribbons on their uniforms would cut some weight too.

[Malika la Maize]

We wouldn’t want to give people who don’t deserve it too much promotion. Pete “Hic” Hegseth gets that from serving on the Fox and Friends front for so long.

[Frank Drackman]

Only thing missing from Hedge-Sexes “Come to Jesus” talk was
“Put that Coffee down, Coffees for Closers”

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

And random capitalizations is for morons or sad, pathetic internet buskers.

Or, in Fakeman speech:

and Random Capitalizations is for
Morons )or Sad, Pathetic internet Buskers)

[Frank Drackman]

You don't win the Steak Knives.
And I done tole' you, done lost my job, how I sposed to pay dis Rent? Can you let me slide it on? I'll have it for you tomorrow, next week, I don't know.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He didn't mention sodomy.

[Frank Drackman]

You would be the one to notice that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, because I supported the ban -- "don't ask don't tell" was a fair comprimise

[jb]

Wonder how the folks that were insisting that Hyundai and LG Follow. The. Law. are going to react to this news:

The U.S. has agreed to allow South Koreans to work to set up facilities at U.S. investment sites under existing temporary visas and open new channels to help its ally send workers to do business there, Seoul’s foreign ministry said on Wednesday.

So, the Trump administration is allowing Korean companies to do exactly what they just arrested and publicly humiliated a bunch of Korean engineers for. Not that surprising, since Trump already offered to let them stay after he realized what a dumb move that was. But of course his cheerleaders here were insisting that the arrests and deportations were the right way to do things the whole time. Will be curious to hear the latest spin now that Trump has changed his mind!

[hobie]

I thought the whole premise of 'national emergency' was that these antisemitic-terrorist-rapist Koreans were here raping and antisemitizing. Have to update my list on immigrants that are no longer raping:

Radish pickers in Iowa...check
Mar a Lago tween masseuses and dishwashers...check
Koreans...aaaaaaaaaaaaannnd check

[Frank Drackman]

The Asians do mostly contribute, if it wasn't for the Quotas they'd be 95% of Med School Classes instead of 20%. It's almost like they come from a Civilization that goes back a few thousand years.

[hobie]

The Mexicans had a far more advanced civilization than most peoples of the world, but whitey came along and fucked it

[Mr. Bumble]

Seriously. The "Mexicans"
I suspect you mean the Aztecs and Maya.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If they were so advanced, how did they get fucked by a couple of boatloads of honkies?

[not guilty]

When did Spaniards become "honkies"?

[Life of Brian]

Now that we've been graced with the situationally convenient term "white Hispanic," why in the world would people qualifying for that label not also qualify for a classic white-people slur?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"When did Spaniards become 'honkies'?"

At the same time they became whitey. Please try to keep up.

[not guilty]

I don't think so. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=honky&page=1

[shawn_dude]

South Korean news has been brutal on Trump and the US. There isn't much political room for SK leadership to take advantage of any of Trump's capitulations.

[Malika la Maize]

A couple awful mass shooters recently, not much discussed here. Let’s take the first.

One suit, filed in May, claimed the Generations Church was behind a “civil conspiracy” masterminded by the LGBTQ community and white supremacist pedophiles to kill Edge because he’s “a straight man.”

https://nypost.com/2025/09/29/us-news/southport-mass-shooting-suspect-nigel-edge-was-decorated-marine-and-purple-heart-recipient/

What do you think Kaz, did he do it because a Democrat state rep voted to cancel benefits for illegal aliens? Or joe dallas, was he trans?

[Malika la Maize]

And the second.

With flags flying from the back as Sanford drove it through town, “you couldn’t miss the truck,” Allen said. Sometimes, he said, Sanford would “switch one of his flags out for a ‘F*** Biden’ flag.”

A Google Street View photo from June 2025 shows a “Trump Vance” campaign sign on his home’s fence, and a social media photo from 2019 showed Sanford wearing a Trump shirt.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/28/us/thomas-sanford-michigan-shooting-suspect

Clearly trans or upset about immigrants getting their benefits cut, amirite Kaz & joe?

[hobie]

More rightwing trannies shooting things up

[Frank Drackman]

More like Combat Vet's with TBI's and prescribed multiple Psychotropic medications. Surprising it doesn't happen more often. And they really hate little Worms that steal Valor and call them Rightwing Trannies.

[Malika la Maize]

Would these TBI’s cause symptoms like random capitalizations, disjointed sentence structure, lack of punctuation and such?

[hobie]

Why Frankie, I don't think you've gotten the MAGA memo. All recent left-wing violence is tranny related

[Frank Drackman]

Stolen any Valor lately?

[Malika la Maize]

Francis was injured in service (janitor at a government building) in Baghdad (FL).

[Swede425]

Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Slow down, peaches.
That's my gig, remember?

[Malika la Maize]

Plenty of janitors to go around.

[Michael P]

How should we count "no longer pretending to be royalty" in terms of stealing valor?

[Mr. Bumble]

Closet queens are royalty?

[Malika la Maize]

You called your dad king?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Be careful Malka, you may find feminazis involved.

[Malika la Maize]

Pray tell?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who broke up the engagement.

[Malika la Maize]

What?

[Estragon]

OMG this is one of my favorites. He did this for the Idaho undergrad murders too: the real culprit was the professor who convinced the victims they were lesbians!

[Malika la Maize]

Incels gonna incel.

[bloocow2]

I've been lurking around a few comments threads here, and just wanted to observe that:

"We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic"

and

"We do not moderate"

are not really compatible. Yes, it would sure be nice if everyone looked at that first part and decided to be civil and talk to each other like actual human beings, but it doesn't work. The comments that are thoughtful and civil get drowned out by idiotic, hateful trolling, and people responding to that with more of the same. It's an absolute garbage fire, on a site called "Reason" of all things.

There is a "report abuse" bottom, but if I used that on every comment I thought was abusive or uncivil, I'd be flooding that email inbox haha.

Anyway, I have no real opinion about whether you *should* moderate comments or not. It's not an easy thing to do! But if you don't, you are at least partly responsible for the kind of community that decision creates, even if you're not legally responsible for the bile that community generates.

Here's hoping this open thread goes better!

[hobie]

'Here's hoping this open thread goes better!'

[Mr. Bumble]

Will you stop posting? That would be a start.

[Frank Drackman]

Are you serious? That's like asking Shit not to stink.

[John F. Carr]

I use the "report abuse" button in cases of spam. Spam is sometimes removed. I use the "mute user" button in cases of overly annoying people (based on my own inconsistent and unreviewable subjective judgment).

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course you could also "flag comment" FWIW.

[Estragon]

“partly responsible for the kind of community that decision creates”

I would say it a little more forcefully: the choices the proprietor has made over the years intentionally cultivated the kind of community we can now observe here. Without getting into a long discussion about editorial choices, I can point to one objective factor. The Open Threads are the worst. We have gone from one to two to three to now four weekly in pretty short order. Cultivating a thoughtful discourse about legal issues is not the objective here and I suspect has not been for some time.

[David Nieporent]

To be fair, I think the Open Threads are not intended to cultivate this particular commenting community, but rather are an attempt to respond to the fact that the substantive part of the VC is fading away. How many of the contributing bloggers blog here regularly? If there were 15 different professors posting regularly, there would be plenty of content for commenters to review/discuss and we wouldn't need open threads to keep us coming back. But there's really, what, 3 regulars? Professors Volokh, Somin, and Blackman.

[Armchair]

In other news, in New York a black female journalist was assaulted and sucker punched, requiring hospital time, stitches, and more than $3,000 in bills. Since the entire thing was caught on video, it seemed like an easy case.

The attacker was charged with assault. But then the charges were somehow dismissed as the prosecutors failed to turn over the evidence on time.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/da-braggs-office-drops-case-against-woman-who-allegedly-sucker-punched-pro-life-activist

Huh. OHH... The reporter was a pro-life supporter. Guess that makes sense why it wasn't a priority to prosecute her assailant.

[Malika la Maize]

Why mention “black female” when the attacker appears to have been the same?

[Armchair]

So you're saying it's OK to drop charges when the victims are black, as long as the attacker is also black?

That explains so much....

[Malika la Maize]

lol, that’s pathetic. I’m saying what I said, so why not try to answer it?

[Armchair]

Malika's point really does deserve talking about.

Violence against journalists is never good. But especially against our minority populations, which often have much higher crime rates, this is something to be especially cognizant of.

But Malika's immediate point was "But the attacker is black".

Does that matter? Not really to the oppressed. But it mattered to Malika. Since the attacker was black, the crime was of less interest to her. And I have to wonder, how many other people share her convictions? How many prosecutors? They see a white person assaulted, and it's important. They see a black woman assaulted by a white guy...and it's a priority. But they see a black person assaulted by another black person. And it's...eh, push it down the priority stack. Not important. Just another day.

That makes a difference in how minority communities see law enforcement. If they come, and the prosecutors just drop cases because "well, the attacker is black, meh"...what does that do their communities?

Items to consider.

[Malika la Maize]

“But especially against our minority populations, which often have much higher crime rates, this is something to be especially cognizant of.”

Seems woke to me.

[Armchair]

One of the differences between "woke" and honestly caring about our minority populations is looking at some of the core issues facing our minority populations.

Being "woke" focused on finding differences to politically exploit. "Defund the police" was a key example of this. Politically useful. In practice, it was disasterous towards these populations.

Honestly caring about our minority populations understood that intra-racial violence was a major contributor towards systemic issues. Polls demonstrated African Americans wanted the same amount or more police presence by an 81:19 ratio. More African Americans wanted MORE police, not less.

Being "woke" and "defund the police" didn't care about that. And as Malika's comment pointed out, because the attacker was Black...the violence wasn't as important to her. It couldn't help politically to exploit it. But actually addressing it, would help the African American community as a whole.

[Malika la Maize]

“Being "woke" focused on finding differences to politically exploit.”

Like highlighting the victim’s race and gender?

[Frank Drackman]

You used "Gender" incorrectly, the word you're supposed to use is "Sex"
It's natural, it's good, not everybody does it, but everybody should.
OK, well maybe not you.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Is Gender a town or something? If you mean gender, then no I didn’t misuse it.

[Frank Drackman]

There is an "Intercourse" Alabama, I went there once but it was just "In and Out"

Frank

[Michael P]

It's really no surprise from the left. They have to keep Those People on the plantation. See also up-thread, where someone else seems to think that we should look at total murder counts, rather than per capita rates, when comparing different populations (because using rates would make Black people look worse).

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why mention “black female” when the attacker appears to have been the same?"

Why deflect with an irrelevant comment about mentioning the race of the victim when you could be criticizing Bragg for dropping the ball on a clear-cut case of political violence?

[Malika la Maize]

No deflection, I just wondered why mention the victim’s race and gender? I guess it might have been relevant if he wanted to say there was some racism going on but here that’s not the case it seems.

As to the merits the case looks mismanaged at best.

[David Nieporent]

Why call her a reporter when the very article you link to calls her an activist?

[Frank Drackman]

Why call you coherent when every post shows you to be anything but?

[Malika la Maize]

Is he saying )Something incoherent Francis
?

[Mr. Bumble]

There's a difference?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s the same reason he highlights her race and gender, it’s a pathetic “political judo” attempt common to right wing trolls. They think “oh, these lefties value minorities, women and journalists so much, how do they like it when the worm is turned?” It’s obviously disingenuous.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Reporters can't be activists?

Next you'll tell us professors can't be activists.

[Michael P]

I thought the left was all about intersecting identities. Is DaMN suggesting that being an activist should disqualify someone from also being a reporter (or professor or whatever else)?

[Malika la Maize]

DaMN

Wouldn’t be a day ending in Y without some Mikie P hypocrisy!

Also, long time commenters here may recall DN isn’t a leftie iirc.

[Malika la Maize]

I don’t think good reporters or professors are activists when they mix the two, do you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I don't think activist reporters do a good job of keeping me informed, but that usually isn't their goal.

[Armchair]

Technically speaking, the article called her both a journalist and an activity. "Brianna Rivers, 30, of the Bronx, allegedly punched pro-life activist Savannah Craven Antao while the journalist was interviewing her"

I appear to have used "reporter" as a synonym for "journalist"

Why does the use of such a synonym concern you so? Do tell. Should "Reporters" not be assaulted but "journalists" or "activists" should be readily assaulted?

[Malika la Maize]

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and House Republican leaders refused requests from Democrats to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) on Tuesday, saying she will be sworn in when the House returns to regular session.

The move deprives a petition of the last signature it needs to force a vote on a bill to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein, a push that Republican leaders and President Trump oppose.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5529055-republicans-grijalva-swearing-in-house/amp/

[Armchair]

She can sign it just as easily when the House is in session.

[Martinned]

Not today she can't.

[Armchair]

Technically she "can" sign it today, just doesn't mean much.

But a couple days until the House is in session and she can be formally sworn in, isn't really that big a deal.

[Martinned]

So you don't think the question of whether the President of the United States is a paedophile "isn't really that big a deal"? Wow...

[Armchair]

No, these files have been sitting around for literally years.

Another 3-5 days won't make a difference

[Martinned]

Wow, you sound pretty relaxed about all that paedophilia.

[Malika la Maize]

"Listen, that Jeffrey Epstein story is a big deal, please do not let that story go. Keep your eye on this,"

Dan Bongino

[hobie]

We must honor Charlie Kirk's wishes and release the files

[Frank Drackman]

I'm gonna get Will Smith to slap Charlie Kirk's name out of your mouth.

[Krayt]

"Why don't you let it go?" -- Fox "Benghazi" News

[Joe_dallas]

There is no evidence that Trump is a pedophile unlike bill clinton

[Malika la Maize]

Then why is MAGA working so hard to keep the files secret?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe Dallas — The notion of a pedophile unlike Bill Clinton is intriguing. Can you say more?

[Joe_dallas]

SL - the lolita express flight logs

[jb]

Only a big deal because it shows that Trump and Johnson will use any tool available to them to avoid releasing the Epstein files.

I hear a lot of people are calling him Pedo Prez these days.

[hobie]

I hear they've released two red state versions of Encanto.

'We don't talk about J6, no, no'
'We don't talk about Jeffrey, no, no'

[shawn_dude]

"Diddler on the Roof" has been my favorite so far.

[Malika la Maize]

Delay, delay, delay. And work on the three Republicans during that time.

[Michael P]

50% of immigrants in one metropolitan area seem to have committed immigration fraud. Was Ilhan Omar one of the ones with a sham marriage?

https://nypost.com/2025/09/30/us-news/bombshell-ice-sweep-in-minneapolis-st-paul-finds-50-of-immigrants-had-committed-immigration-fraud-after-massive-arrival-uptick-from-somalia/

[Mr. Bumble]

So brotherfucker is the new pejorative?

[Michael P]

I don't recall anyone ever accusing her of consummating that marriage.

[Armchair]

Whelp...Democrats shut down the government. They tried to hold the government hostage, and demanded more than a trillion in new spending as a condition to keep the government open for 7 weeks at current funding levels.

This never works. Didn't work when the GOP tried it (and at least when they did, they had at least one house or branch of government). Not going to work now when Dems are fully in the minority.

And yes, government shutdowns are unproductive.

And no, our resident trolls don't have good arguments. Nor links to them.

[Martinned]

Are you high?

[Malika la Maize]

I’m not sure not accepting the Republicans take it or leave it offer is taking the government hostage.

[Armchair]

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of government contractors who may not get paid.

[Malika la Maize]

I would, I’d say the Republicans refused to even pretend to negotiate.

[Frank Drackman]

You don't negotiate with Terrorists.

[Malika la Maize]

Is that a band, “the Terrorists?”

[Frank Drackman]

No, but there was one honoring you,
"Anal Cunt"
Do you get residuals??
And I mean the money you get when they play a song you wrote not your residual AIDS related Dementia/Bowel Disease/Cancer

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t you mean the “Money?” That TBI Francis got in Baghdad (FL) must’ve been something!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, those eight letters are inappropriate.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm a Contractor for the VA, I get paid. Nice to be an "Essential" person, my question is, why pay the Non-Essential in the first place??

[Malika la Maize]

Medicaid recipients are not contractors.

[Frank Drackman]

Talk about your random non pertinent statements, you're right, and not many 62 yr old Physicians are on Medicaid.
OK, some of the Pediatricians/FP's maybe.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

No one thinks you’re a doctor, Francis. Quincy is more real than that fictional character you portray.

[Frank Drackman]

Keep telling yourself that, maybe you'll believe it some day.
And was "Quincy" his first name or last name? I always figured it was his last name, because not like that Prick Detective who was always busting his Balls, and Quincy's Boss "Dr. Astin" would be on first name bases with him.
Almost went into Pathology, people said I had the perfect personality for it.

Frank "these damn Patients never say anything!"

[Malika la Maize]

Pretty easy to believe a person who can’t write as well as a third-grader isn’t an MD.

[Frank Drackman]

You'd like Pathology, it's got a "Y" but it's not the one you're familiar with.

[Malika la Maize]

Shouldn’t that be the One, Francis?

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of a selective enforcement defense. The defendant argued that Lowell police were targeting black people on Snapchat. Police would pretend to be fellow black residents, become online "friends", and use incriminating statements.

In short, the defendant's claim that his Snapchat account was monitored at least in part because of race falls squarely within the scope of Long's selective enforcement framework. [...]According to census data credited by the second judge, Lowell's population during the relevant time period was approximately fifty percent nonwhite and approximately fifty percent white. Yet, one hundred percent of those ensnared by Lowell's Snapchat monitoring were nonwhite.

The defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing where the trial court judge will decide if the selective enforcement defense is viable.

The SJC also rejected a claim that the gun licensing scheme at the time of the offense was facially unconstitutional. At least some of it holds up, the ban on felons getting gun licenses.

[Malika la Maize]

A Florida man killed, cooked and ate two of his pet peacocks amid a feud with one of his neighbors, according to law enforcement officials.

The man, Craig Vogt, 61, of Hudson, Fla., was arrested on Sept. 23 and charged with a felony count of aggravated animal cruelty after he placed a letter in a neighbor’s mailbox telling her that he had killed two of his peacocks “because she continued feeding them,” according to an affidavit prepared by the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office.

According to the affidavit, Mr. Vogt described killing one of the birds by “cutting the peacock’s neck with a knife and then cooking it in a frying pan.” He delivered the letter to his neighbor’s mailbox to “prove a point that he will continue to kill his pet peacocks if she continues to feed them,” the document states.

While he was being taken to jail, Mr. Vogt said that “upon his release, he plans to kill all his pet peacocks to prevent anyone from taking custody of them,” according to the affidavit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/29/us/florida-pet-peacocks-killed-cooked.html

[Moderation4ever]

We all love peacocks but I m guessing that eating them is not illegal and it doesn't sound like he did anything different than killing a chicken or turkey. He does however sound a bit nutty. Not sure I would much care for a neighbor like him.

[shawn_dude]

We love them unless we live next to them. I had one nearby at one of my former residences and their loud cries sound a bit like a crying baby. It can be annoying. Beautiful birds, though.

[Frank Drackman]

Most Cereal Killers began by killing defenseless Animals (Including Dexter Morgan, the Cereal Killer who only kills other Cereal Killers)
I'd like a "Dexter" who kills people who kill defenseless Animals (Unless they're delicious(the Animals, not the people)
Remember that Matador who took a Horn to the Chin*? (Horn entered under the Chin, exited the Creep's mouth, knocking out a bunch of his teeth, and like "Tony Rocky Horror" the guy developed a bit of a Speech Impediment)
Loved the story last week of the 2 Great Hunters struck by Lightning in Colorado, Jay-Hovah works in strange and mysterious ways.
Wait a minute, was expecting a Lightning Bolt.

*Julio Apricio Diaz, 2010, still living, of course the poor Bull was killed.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, "cereal" is a grass cultivated for its edible seed, e.g. wheat.
"Serial" means in sequence, i.e. one after another.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks Dr “doesn’t have a sense of Humor Gene”
I know it’s “Serial” just like I know it’s “Statute” of Limitations, I just like the idea of somebody murdering Frank n Berry, and a Statue of Limitations running.
And don’t tell anyone, but when Bugs Bunny says “What’s up Doc?” To Elmer Fudd, Elmer isn’t a real Doctor.
Sort of like you, Jeezuz, Apollo13 didn’t go as far as I just did to get to that punchline

Frank

[ThePublius]

What part of "stop feeding my fucking birds" did his neighbor not understand?

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, sure, but what a crazy response!

[Brett Bellmore]

I expect there's more to the story, but I really don't see how it's a crime to slaughter your own poultry.

[shawn_dude]

Good thing he doesn't have children?

[hobie]

I wouldn't think killing and eating your own poultry would be a crime at all. Maybe the guy is an antisemitic terrorist Haitian. We apply different standards for them.

[ducksalad]

You mean this case, also in Florida?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Dave Barry is getting darker these days.

[ReaderY]

There are reports of hundreds of inmates missing from ICE detention centers. Lawyers are required to talk to their clients in person and give advance notice of appointments, and then the appointments are cancelled on grounds the clients were moved. It appears some have gotten deported entirely without contact with lawyers or legal process. Others may simply be “disappeared” and kept from contact with the outside world.

There appear to be the makings, still on a relatively small scale, of a complete bypass of the judicial system. This is what a true concentration camps is. A concentration camp is a place that lies entirely outside the legal system, where inmates have no legal rights, no contact with the outside world, and are completely at the mercy of the guards.

There are also reports of beatings and abusive behavior by guards as well as miserable conditions. Perhaps some inmates are being kept incommunicado and beaten until they “voluntarily” agree to be deported.

[Mr. Bumble]

"There are reports..."
Voices in your head?

[ReaderY]

https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article312042943.html

[Michael P]

As of the end of August, the whereabouts of two-thirds of more than 1,800 men detained at Alligator Alcatraz during the month of July could not be determined by the Miami Herald.

"We aren't competent reporters" should hace been the lede.

[Mr. Bumble]

"It’s possible that some of the men who couldn’t be located were still at Alligator Alcatraz. Unlike most immigration detention centers, Alligator Alcatraz is state-run and detainees often do not appear in the database run by the federal agency. Florida does not maintain a system to look up those detained at the site either."

[ReaderY]

So when the moving company explains it lost your furniture because it hasn’t developed a system to keep track of it, that’s just OK?

[Krayt]

Alligator Alcatraz is state-run and detainees often do not appear in the database run by the federal agency.

Umm, ok, fair enough.

Florida does not maintain a system to look up those detained at the site either."

Not helping the case any!

[ReaderY]

Could you explain why not just reporters but family members, lawyers, and everyone else also gets told that nobody knows where they are? Are you saying this shows that the family members, lawyers, etc. are also incompetent?

https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/mystery-deepens-hundreds-of-immigrants-disappear-from-infamous-florida-ice-prison-alligator-alcatraz/amp_articleshow/124128176.cms

[Dr. Ed 2]

And ReaderY didn't speak up when they did this to the Jan 6thers.

[ReaderY]

Evidence this actually happened to them?

[Moderation4ever]

Military training in American cities? Hope that Jake Tapper is out there working his sources for his next book. So be an interesting read.

[shawn_dude]

I don't think Trump's threat was to train them "in" as much as "on."

[ThePublius]

"The demands reportedly being made by Democrat leaders to keep the government open, including healthcare for illegal aliens and funding for public broadcasting stations that consistently peddle harmful falsehoods about conservatives, are unpopular and unreasonable requests."

I do not want my tax dollars going to fund healthcare for illegal aliens. Period. Reason enough to let the government shut down. I support the administration in this. This is what I voted for.

[Malika la Maize]

With Congress at an impasse over federal spending, Republicans have emerged with a new and misleading talking point: Democrats are shutting down the government to fund free health care for unauthorized immigrants.

It is a message repeated by Vice President JD Vance, the official X account of Senate Republicans and Speaker Mike Johnson.

The Democrats’ budget proposal seeks to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire at the end of the year, and roll back Medicaid cuts in the tax cut and domestic policy law signed by President Trump in July. But the proposal does not provide free health care for unauthorized immigrants.

Unauthorized immigrants are largely barred from federally funded health care programs. They cannot buy health care plans on government exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act and therefore cannot receive any subsidies. They are also ineligible for Medicaid, Medicare and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The Democrats’ budget proposal does not make them eligible for these programs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/29/us/politics/republicans-shutdown-fact-check-health-immigration.html

[Brett Bellmore]

So, what then do you claim the shutdown was over? What was the additional spending Democrats were demanding?

Here's their proposal.

I see part of it was demanding that temporary pandemic health care subsidies be extended. Despite the pandemic being over...

[hobie]

Let's ask Grok. Since this AI has been programmed to skew white supremacy/MAGA, this should be a satisfactory answer:

"For the purposes of the government shutdown, are the Democrats proposing free healthcare for immigrants?"

"No, Democrats are not proposing free healthcare for undocumented immigrants as part of the government shutdown negotiations. This claim, amplified by President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and other Republicans, is false and stems from a misleading interpretation of Democrats' push to extend Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies and reverse certain Medicaid cuts."

There you go, Pubes. Nothing to worry about.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, this "healthcare for illegal aliens" thing is 100% made up. (Not by ThePublius.) Not, "Well, if you squint you could see where they're getting that," but just fabricated out of whole cloth. Democrats are not seeking any such thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was actually pretty sure it was mostly made up, until you wrote that...

"Mostly", because illegal aliens fraudulently pretending to be citizens in order to get benefits they're legally not supposed to get, (Just like they're not supposed to even be here...) IS a thing.

But the way you flatly denied it got me suspicious that there HAD to be some factual basis behind the claim. Flatly denying the easily documented being your specialty.

So, what's that basis?

Under the ACA, states are allowed to expand Medicaid coverage beyond federal limits, with the federal government picking up most of the cost. And, surprise: The federal government picks up most of the cost even if a state decides to let illegal aliens get that coverage!

So, yeah, the federal government IS paying for healthcare for illegal aliens, after all.

And this subsidy for state extensions of Medicaid expires at the end of the year. So, at the end of the year, the federal government was going to stop paying for the healthcare of a substantial number of illegal aliens.

Democrats were demanding that the subsidy for state extensions of Medicaid eligibility, including to illegal aliens, be made permanent.

Wow, your flat denial actually was a clue that the claim had some factual basis after all!

[Mr. Bumble]

The clue was "to be clear".

[Magister]

So the obvious thing for Republicans to negotiate for would be to exclude federal money to be used to extend Medicaid benefits to undocumented immigrants. Since the thing Brett Bellmore claims is happening is not actually happening, Democrats would be unlikely to object to continuing to have it not happen. But the Republicans are more interested in rhetorical points to feed ignorant supporters like Brett Bellmore than in actual policy.

[Mr. Bumble]

The real problem is the failure of both parties to return to regular order and approve appropriations to fund the government rather than CR after CR.

[jb]

This is true at a macro level. Didn't Johnson say he was going to fix that? And in the House he can't even blame the filibuster, just his own caucus's inability to govern.

[Mr. Bumble]

As I said, both parties haven't been able to do it no matter who has a majority.

[Brett Bellmore]

Start from a false premise, end with a false conclusion.

Medi-Cal Immigrant Eligibility FAQs

"Adults (19 and older) are currently eligible for full Medi-Cal coverage, regardless of immigration status."

[jb]

That's state money, not federal money, according to Michael P's sources below.

[Magister]

If you don't let Brett Bellmore lie, he has nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Dipshit, the federal government reimburses states for most of the cost of that expansion. You DO know what "reimburse" means, right?

[jb]

You are either confused or intentionally lying. There is a Medicaid expansion that the federal government pays for; that is to extend Medicaid to people that are relatively less poor (up to 138% of the poverty level).

There's a separate expansion of Medicaid by a few states to provide limited coverage to some undocumented immigrants. As Michael P's link below makes clear, the federal government doesn't pay for any of this.

[Michael P]

Money is fungible, and states have been very bad at following federal law in this area -- apparently intentionally so.

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-increasing-oversight-states-illegally-using-federal-medicaid-funding-health-care-illegal

[Mr. Bumble]

So then how is the loss of federal money affecting states' coverage?

[jb]

Of undocumented immigrants? It's not! That's the whole point.

[David Nieporent]

Under the ACA, states are allowed to expand Medicaid coverage beyond federal limits, with the federal government picking up most of the cost. And, surprise: The federal government picks up most of the cost even if a state decides to let illegal aliens get that coverage!

No. The federal government does not pick up the cost for illegal aliens. States are required to use their own money. (And no, the cliché "money is fungible" doesn't work here.)

(Note that your first point isn't even coherent; if they're getting money by successfully pretending to be citizens, then they get the money regardless of whether money is allocated for them.)

[jay.tee]

Yes. The federal government does pick up the cost for illegal aliens.

Aside from the proof provided by others in this thread, the “provider tax” racket bilks the federal government (i.e., us) for Medicaid “reimbursement” untethered to actual care. States then use those funds on things that typically fall outside of permissible Medicaid expenditures, namely healthcare for illegal aliens.

[loki13]

So what you're saying is that states are bilking the government when it comes to Medicaid.

And therefore, states are using some of that money for other stuff.

Because money is fungible.

Two things-

1. Obviously, you'd have to actually provide some numbers. You know that right? What SPECIFICALLY are the Democrats demanding, and what are the amounts?

2. The "money is fungible" argument would apply to absolutely ANYTHING that goes to the states. You understand that as well, right?

Do you understand why this is a dishonest argument yet? And why it's just been ginned up now? I'm guessing you don't (because you won't bother looking at the actual facts), or that you do and you don't care. Your choice.

[jay.tee]

I think you’ve responded to the wrong post…otherwise, you completely misunderstood what I wrote.

[David Nieporent]

Aside from the proof provided by others in this thread,

No such proof was provided. We have people asserting it with no support, or people providing links saying exactly the opposite — that states pay for it out of their own funds, or people quoting thirdhand comments about Democrats supposedly "admitted" this.

[ThePublius]

David and Mailka,

You are both wrong.

"California isn’t alone in handing out taxpayer-funded health benefits to illegal immigrants. According to Newsweek, a total of 14 states have programs that provided some form of health coverage to illegals: California, New York, Illinois, Washington, New Jersey, Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, Rhode Island, Maine, and Vermont. Even Washington, D.C., is on the list.

"Here’s the bottom line: state healthcare programs aren’t just funded by state tax dollars — they’re heavily bankrolled by Washington. Medicaid is a federal-state partnership, and the federal government typically covers 50% to 75% of the cost. The One Big Beautiful Bill finally closed the loopholes that let states hand out free healthcare to people who aren’t supposed to be eligible — like illegal immigrants. Democrats fought to reopen that loophole, and when they didn’t get their way, they shut down the government.

So when Republicans say Democrats shut down the government to give free healthcare to illegals, that’s not spin. It’s the plain truth."

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/10/01/yes-democrats-shut-down-government-to-give-illegals-free-healthcare-n4944329

[David Nieporent]

Well, who can argue with a trained architect who is the author of both The Scandalous Presidency of Barack Obama and the bestselling The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama? Even if he completely fails to understand that while the federal government does reimburse states for a portion of their Medicaid expenditures, it does not reimburse states for the money states expend on coverage for illegal immigrants?

[ThePublius]

"...while the federal government does reimburse states for a portion of their Medicaid expenditures, it does not reimburse states for the money states expend on coverage for illegal immigrants?"

That's bullshit. Do you expect me to believe they keep these monies separate? Ha, ha. And, if they weren't spending on illegals, they would need less reimbursement overall, no?

Why can't you guys just admit you are wrong on this?

[David Nieporent]

Do you expect me to believe they keep these monies separate?

Do I expect you to believe that? Probably not. Doesn't mean it's not true, though.

Ha, ha. And, if they weren't spending on illegals, they would need less reimbursement overall, no?

No; indeed, the very phrasing of that question just evinces confusion. Let's say that California spends $50 billion (purely hypothetical number for illustrative purposes) on Medicaid for legal residents, and $10 billion on Medicaid for illegals. California can get reimbursed for a portion of the $50 billion, but not for the separate $10 billion. It's no different for federal reimbursement purposes than if the state spent $50 billion on Medicaid for legal residents and $10 billion on housing subsidies for legal residents. Of course California would need to fund those housing subsidies in some manner, but it can't do it by asking the federal government for more Medicaid funding just because it "needs" money. It still gets reimbursed for the federal portion of the eligible $50 billion.

[jay.tee]

Again, this is incorrect. California is one of the states that engages in the “provider tax” racket to leech Medicaid funds untethered from actual healthcare spending. It turns around and spends that “reimbursement” on things typically disallowed by Medicaid rules, such as healthcare for illegal aliens.

So yes, the federal government funds Medicaid coverage for illegal aliens.

[ThePublius]

"In March 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom's administration requested billions in additional state funding for California's Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. The requests were not for more federal reimbursement but to address a growing shortfall in the state's budget for the program.
Key details of the Medi-Cal funding situation:
Initial shortfall and borrowing: In March 2025, Newsom's administration told legislators that California needed to borrow $3.44 billion to cover the state's Medicaid bills for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Second funding request: A week later, the administration asked for an additional $2.8 billion from the state's general fund.
Cause of the budget hole: Much of the deficit was attributed to higher-than-expected costs for providing full health coverage to undocumented immigrants. This was a significant part of Newsom's plan for universal healthcare coverage. [emphasis mine]
Diverting other funds: As part of budget revisions in May 2025, Newsom also proposed diverting $1.3 billion in funds from a voter-approved measure (Proposition 35) to help close the state's deficit. This faced backlash from healthcare advocates, who argued the move was illegal.
Potential enrollment freeze: In response to the budget pressure, the May 2025 budget also proposed freezing new enrollments for certain undocumented adults in full-scope Medi-Cal starting in 2026."

[David Nieporent]

Um, yes? Do you understand that what you bolded establishes the opposite of your position? It expressly says that California had to come up with its own funds to pay for Medicaid for illegal immigrants — because the feds don't pay for it.

[ThePublius]

Typical, attack the source. And then assert that "the federal government does reimburse states for a portion of their Medicaid expenditures, it does not reimburse states for the money states expend on coverage for illegal immigrants" without providing any evidence of that.

[Michael P]

Old and busted: libtards complaining about 2025 laws removing eligibility for parolees and asylees (https://www.kff.org/immigrant-health/1-4-million-lawfully-present-immigrants-are-expected-to-lose-health-coverage-due-to-the-2025-tax-and-budget-law/), or even states going farther (https://apnews.com/article/medicaid-immigrants-california-illinois-minnesota-ice-f43d5681a6e9d45d274790c2eae716ee). New hotness: pretending illegal immigrants don't get government funded healthcare (https://benefitsbystate.com/blogs/do-illegal-immigrants-get-medicaid-all-you-need-to-know/19752/), and therefore that pushing for a repeal of those changes in law isn't intended to use tax dollars to pay for free healthcare for illegal immigrants.

I bet some idiot will do something like cite an encyclopedia for a factual claim in this area.

[jb]

We could just cite your own source, no?

At the federal level, the answer is no—undocumented immigrants are not eligible for full Medicaid and other healthcare programs, including Medicare.

The exception is emergency Medicaid, which sounds like it would just end up reimbursing hospitals for care that they'd otherwise have to provide for free.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore ought to insist that red state governors demand an end to federal reimbursement for unpaid rural emergency room services, and see how that goes over. The Ds would be smarter to get rid of that on their own.

Without that reimbursement, a critical mass of political support for single payer healthcare would assemble PDQ. On that issue, red state governors have been closet socialists forever.

[Michael P]

You could try not being a blatant denialist.

A growing number of states are opening taxpayer-funded health insurance programs to immigrants, including those living in the U.S. without authorization, even as Republicans assail President Joe Biden over a dramatic increase in illegal crossings of the southern border.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/12/29/1221780712/more-states-extend-health-coverage-to-immigrants-even-as-issue-inflames-gop

[David Nieporent]

You could try learning to read. This is from your own link:

Immigrants lacking authorization are ineligible for federal health programs. But states can use their own money to provide coverage through Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for low-income people.

[David Nieporent]

Which part of "lawfully present" in "1.4 Million Lawfully Present Immigrants are Expected to Lose Health Coverage due to the 2025 Tax and Budget Law" confused you?

[Michael P]

It didn't confuse me at all, I just know more than you do. States have been illegally using federal funds to pay for healthcare for illegals for years. You don't have to take my words for it; you could have asked the Autopen administration.

https://oig.hhs.gov/reports/all/2024/california-improperly-claimed-527-million-in-federal-medicaid-reimbursement-for-capitation-payments-made-on-behalf-of-noncitizens-with-unsatisfactory-immigration-status/

[David Nieporent]

Sigh.

1) If states had been illegally doing something, then it's irrelevant to this discussion.
2) Your link does not say that "states have been illegally" doing anything. It says that one state, seven years ago, incorrectly applied a formula,¹ and that once HHS determined this, California agreed to pay back the tiny amount of money² at issue.

¹ "Specifically, the proxy percentage (39.87 percent) that California applied to capitation payments did not correctly account for the costs of providing nonemergency services to noncitizens with UIS. This proxy percentage was 8.49 percentage points lower than the percentage that we calculated (48.36 percent)."
² Yes, tiny amount: the claim by the GOP is that Dems are demanding to spend a trillion extra dollars on funds for illegal immigrant healthcare; this audit found $51 million — not billion, million — in overpayments.

[shawn_dude]

If emergency healthcare is only available to tax-payers, then residents of any stripe--citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented immigrants--all pay taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay more in taxes than they're able to consume through government services.

But set that inconvenient truth aside and consider what it would look like if non-citizens get ill or injured in the US and couldn't get emergency treatment. You might think homeless drug users are annoying when they lay about the street in a chemical stupor, but wait till we upgrade them to gangrene and communicable diseases! I jest, that isn't the goal here--cruelty is.

[SRG2]

Following the top brass meeting, evidently there's a new Department of War rule : no general or admiral may be fatter than the Commander-in-Chief.

Those cultist who think that the mere suggestion that the meeting might require a loyalty oath was incontheivable are, of cuorse, wrong. We know that Trump prizes loyalty ahead of any other virtue and there was no obvious mechanism to forestall such a request. Still, at least XY said he'd disapprove - though not a single other cultist had guts emough to agree with him.

What we got was worse - Trump's statement that US cities will be training grounds for the military. That is utterly wrong on a number of levels, e.g., that law enforcement does not require the same skills as military invasion and occupation, and that sending troops in against American citizens en masse is dictatorial - not that his cultists mind that.

There was, of course, some authentically Trumpian egregious stupidity and ignorance, like his complaining about the appearance of stealth vessels
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-goes-off-about-ugly-stealth-warships-us-military-summit-2025-9

[Malika la Maize]

I will give Trump credit that he seems willing to to deploy in cities in Republican led states as well as Democratic ones.

[DDHarriman]

All Democrat run cities though. Thats why they are so crime ridden Trump has to do something to protect people.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s almost like state power > city power

[hobie]

I guy with multiple deferments telling troops to toughen up.

[mulched]

Where are the loyalty oaths? I was assured that there would be loyalty oaths.

[Malika la Maize]

Will loyalty tests do?

https://apnews.com/article/trump-loyalty-white-house-maga-vetting-jobs-768fa5cbcf175652655c86203222f47c

[Joe_dallas]

not much different than the woke loyalty oaths during the Obama and Biden administration , albeit informal loyalty oaths , but adherence to woke policies none the less

[Malika la Maize]

Informal meaning cannot be demonstrated?

[Joe_dallas]

blind - dont let that mirror shatter from your hypocrisy

[Mr. Bumble]

Who knew that being Des Moines Public Schools superintendent was one of the jobs Americans won't do?

[John F. Carr]

I wouldn't want to be a school superintendent in Des Moines.

[Moderation4ever]

Obliviously he made a good impression on the Des Moines school board. Doesn't sound like he was on welfare. Wondering if he was doing a good job? I don't think he be my first choice to deport and wondering they have all the criminals yet.

[Mr. Bumble]

So his gun possession doesn't count as a crime?

[Brett Bellmore]

By virtue of his being an illegal alien Trump wants to deport, any criminal record ceases to be admissible so far as Democrats are concerned.

I don't think they're letting facts get in the way of their party line on this.

[Mr. Bumble]

By the way, your remora is noticeably missing today.

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh, so he is. Maybe he's updating his resume?

[Mr. Bumble]

One could hope so.

[jb]

From https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2025/09/26/des-moines-public-schools-superintendent-in-ice-custody-after-arrest/

Roberts did plead guilty to unlawful possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle after a November 2021 offense, a fifth-degree penalty, according to court records from Erie, Pa.

Fifth degree penalties in Pennsylvania are "summary offenses" and not considered crimes. So to answer your question: in this case, no.
You guys want to call people carrying their loaded guns while hunting criminals now?

[Life of Brian]

You guys want to call people carrying their loaded guns while hunting criminals now?

When those people are illegal immigrants that can't lawfully possess firearms or ammunition? What would you call them?

[Michael P]

It's a federal felony for anyone not lawfully present in the country, plus many aliens present with non-immigrant visas, to possess a firearm or ammunition. What do you think we should call those offenders?

[Frank Drackman]

You know how dangerous Des Moines is.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Let’s not forget it was Biden who got a removal order on him. And it looks like he has other issues, including lying about his degree.

[Michael P]

Degrees, plural. https://www.dmschools.org/2024/11/ian-roberts-inducted-into-csu-athletics-hall-of-fame/ is representative of his claims:

Roberts excelled academically and was a 1998 CoSIDA Academic All-American and completed education programs at Coppin, St. John’s, Morgan State, Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business and an MBA at MIT’s Sloan School of Management.

MIT denied anyone with his name ever attended. Morgan State said he didn't get any degree there. Harvard and Georgetown have not commented (AFAIK).

[Michael P]

The school board is probably wishing they had picked an American, after all the settlements they've had to pay out under that superintendent's leadership.

[John F. Carr]

In other immigration enforcement news, the Second Circuit heard oral arguments yesterday in the Mahdawi and Ozturk cases. The court will decide whether the District Court had jurisdiction over their habeas petitions. This is not supposed to be a decision on the merits of petitioners' detention. One judge appeared likely to side with the government.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/09/30/ozturk-mahdawi-appeal-hearing
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69936547/ozturk-v-hyde/

[hobie]

"Trump Wants a U.S. Navy Battleship Comeback: Reality Has Other Ideas"
https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/trump-wants-a-u-s-navy-battleship-comeback-reality-has-other-ideas/

"‘Mine, Baby, Mine’: Trump Officials Offer $625 Million to Rescue Coal"
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/29/climate/trump-coal-revival.html

Does anyone else see a way to combine these two obsolete dreams?

[jb]

Time to bring the USS Texas out of retirement!

(Although it looks like they replaced the coal-fired boilers back in 1925. Sad!)

[Ska]

I figured you'd just throw some 16 inch guns close enough to a mountain range and fire away.

[loki13]

While I appreciate the work of others, I increasingly see the following dynamic on these threads-

Comment (by the usual crowd): U KANT BELIEVE THIS!

Response: Of course you can't believe that. It's not correct. It's factually wrong.

Remainder of threaded list: (Insults) (Directionally correct or "Vibes") (etc.)

Rinse, repeat. Over and over again. Here's the thing- if you want to know what is going on, you can inform yourself. There are ways to do so. You can find your own trusted news sources. You can look at source documents. You can educate yourself about issues.

...but if you want to be fooled, you will keep getting fooled. The information ecosystem we have around us? It's thrives on engagement- on outrage, on division, and on anger. If you are looking to be outraged by things, and you keep finding things to be outraged about (that aren't actually true, or are loosely based on truth but or reported in a way that distorts the actual facts), then the real problem? It's you.

I mean this in all seriousness- if you come here regularly and you keep saying things that feel good to say but keep ... turning out not be true, make a note of it. And STOP using those sources.

Branch out. Go back to first principles. Separate yourself from the daily news cycle and DEFINITELY separate yourself from social media. Do a little research - read some books (or kindle, whatever) on topics. Talk to smart people that know things. View media from other countries in the world for a change in perspective. And find sources that try to provide correct information- not just clickbait.

Try it for a week. See how it goes. Maybe you might want to keep doing that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Poor Loki.

Bellmore wouldn't take 5 minutes trying that before he concluded everything you say is full of crap.

[Ska]

I'm just going to start selling replacement scroll wheels.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I appreciate the generals who realized they had a responsibility not to buy into the desire of the Secretary of Defense (sic) and their commander-in-chief (my sympathies) to make that thing into a political rally. That is the sort of responsibility of our government, sneered at by some as if it is the enemy, not ultimately "We the People," that so many honorably practice.

It was very ill-advised to put so many generals into one room & if you did so, it should have been for a good reason. Not the embarrassing anti-woke show mixed with some vile pro-war crime rhetoric. Hegseth seems to be the sort who pines for the days when women in the military were harassed or worse.

[Bob from Ohio]

"very ill-advised to put so many generals into one room "

Why? Seems like you are suggesting a bomb in the room.

[OpinionsVary]

A bomb does seem a valid concern. Or someone drops a plane on the meeting. Or a mass shooting. Or, well, you get the idea. Of course security around such an event is going to be tight but when you're dealing with this kind of stakes, is 'tight' good enough. By way of comparison, there's a concept called the designated survivor, where at least one person in the presidential line of succession must be absent from a group gathering. I'd hope that the chain of command means the military can absorb even a decapitation strike like this hypothetical. But it does seem something you'd want to avoid unless you had a compelling reason for such a gathering, which there doesn't seem to have been.

[mulched]

Where were the loyalty oaths? All the best people said there would be loyalty oaths.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah? Who?

[Martinned]

I admit. I underestimated the possibility of Hegseth and the rest of the Regime just being wildly incompetent instead.

Then again, there was still stuff like this:

“We are under invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy, but worse—they don’t wear a uniform.”

[Joe_dallas]

Very much an invasion from within. Started accelerate under obama.

[hobie]

Drink!

[mulched]

Got it. You can only admit you were wrong as a way to make another insult.

[shawn_dude]

Besides the threat to discharge anyone that left rather than clap for the President?

[Joe_dallas]

Apparently you appreciate who believe their responsibility to plan for the next war caused by global warming, or some other woke military BS.

perhaps you should be reminded what is the core function of the military.

[John F. Carr]

Russia claims to have struck a scammer call center.

"Hello, this is Joe from the bank, I'd ... is that a moped outside my window?"

[ThePublius]

Oh, I'd love to hear the details!

[Martinned]

That's going well:

More than two years into a conservative takeover of New College of Florida, spending has soared and rankings have plummeted, raising questions about the efficacy of the overhaul.

While state officials, including Republican governor Ron DeSantis, have celebrated the death of what they have described as “woke indoctrination” at the small liberal arts college, student outcomes are trending downward across the board: Both graduation and retention rates have fallen since the takeover in 2023.

Those metrics are down even as New College spends more than 10 times per student what the other 11 members of the State University System spend, on average. While one estimate last year put the annual cost per student at about $10,000 per member institution, New College is an outlier, with a head count under 900 and a $118.5 million budget, which adds up to roughly $134,000 per student.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/10/higher-education-is-not-that-easy.html

[loki13]

In legal news, the Supreme Court agreed to take the Lisa Cook (federal reserve) case on an expedited basis for oral argument in January. Until then, she continues in her position.

Brief thoughts-
1. From a policy perspective, I am glad that she is continuing in her role. With everything else going on ... the last thing we need is a Trumpist shock to the markets.

2. Moreover, with the revelations regarding the "mortgage fraud" issues that continue to reverberate, I am sure that SCOTUS is a little nervous about allowing her removal. Facts matter even when they aren't supposed to.

3. That said, from a purely legal perspective, this administration has put the Supreme Court in an uncomfortable position legally, because ... they have to explain their reasoning. Let me go into detail.

a. Humphrey's Executor is still good law.
b. The Supreme Court has been allowing other agency heads to be removed and lifted injunctions with no reasoning.
c. The Fed requires independence. But from a legal and doctrinal perspective, it really is no different than the NLRB, MSPB, FTC, and so on.

So SCOTUS has kicked the can down the road a little and bought themselves some time. But they are faced with a dilemma... how do they square this circle? There are (AFAICT) three alternatives for the majority opinion (I am ignoring some subtleties in remedies, like equitable issues, etc.)-

A. Unitary Executive Uber Alles. No independence allowed, the Executive can do whatever he wants with the Fed (and all other agencies). Now I think that this is wrong, but it is, at least, consistent. But this opinion will IMO have terrible bad not-good and dramatic impacts on the economy. Then again, it will happen before the mid-terms, so you reap what you sow? Still, and IMO, this would be bad enough that I wouldn't wish it. The idea of Trump having full control of monetary policy, and what that would do ... I like money, and my fellow Americans, too much for that.

B. The Fed is, like, Special and Stuff. The Supreme Court could just make something up. A bunch of new facts (they've been really good at the recently) and BS "history" that is a cover for the fact that they also know that this would be a terrible idea, and carve out a special exception for the Fed, because they can. Basically, they'd announce that when push came to shove (or, um, their bank accounts and their principles conflict) they'll abandon what they claim to believe in to preserve some semblance of a functioning economy.

C. My Bad. Announce a new rule that isn't quite as expansive as Humphrey's Executor but grandfathers in the Fed and allows some agencies to operate with independence, and that might apply to some of the other cases that they refused to enjoin previously- but claim that the issue has now "percolated" enough. Or something.

I dunno. It's all Calvinball now.

[David Nieporent]

The fact that they didn't give emergency [sic] relief to the Trump administration on this calls into stark relief the Calvinballness of the situation. The Fed's different Because Reasons.

To be fair (yes, I try to be no matter what), in this case Trump isn't claiming a unitary executive right to fire Cook, so SCOTUS can dodge that for a bit longer. He's claiming that, in essence, all executive decisions are unreviewable, and that she can be fired even consistent with Humphrey's Executor.

[Kazinski]

But one big difference between the Lisa Cook firing and the others is that the Administration isn't arguing that the federal reserve act requirement of "for cause" is constitutional, they are arguing that the President has determined there is cause for firing her, and Cook is arguing there is not sufficient cause.

So because the issue to be decided, based on what the parties themselves are arguing, is on different grounds than the other cases, like Slaughter, or the inspector generals, they don't provide much guidance because the issue there was inherent removal power without cause.

[David Nieporent]

But one big difference between the Lisa Cook firing and the others is that the Administration isn't arguing that the federal reserve act requirement of "for cause" is constitutional, they are arguing that the President has determined there is cause for firing her, and Cook is arguing there is not sufficient cause.

Um, that's literally what the second paragraph of my two-paragraph comment says.

[Kazinski]

But you are still calling in Calvinball?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Because, as has been noted in this thread, the question of equitable relief is a separate one from the issue of cause.

[OpinionsVary]

The court has already put dicta in a past ruling about how the Fed's special history yadayada yada allows removal protections yadadada. They're willing to fudge that point.

More interesting, in my view, is the injunction. Because, in the FTC removal case, the court looks set to rule that injunctions can not restore wrongly removed officers. But they're letting the injunction in this case stand.

It's one thing to make the Fed an island for removal protections. It's quite another to make it an island to the basic principles of equity relief.

[loki13]

I'll be honest- this is why I said I was ignoring equitable issues.

When it comes to this, I ... I can't even. Is the Court really TRYING to send up a flare saying, "Just do things that are wrong really quick, so there will never be a meaningful remedy."

It's like this ... if I say I'm going to punch you, the court might do something. But if I just punch you, you're SOL. But also? If I say I'm going to punch you, the court can't do something, because I might not punch you. Whaddya gonna do about it, punk?

[Mr. Bumble]

Does starting a comment with "I'll be honest" imply that you aren't always so?

[OpinionsVary]

That is the start of a skit about poor communication skills - not an actual argument.

[DDHarriman]

lol, great comment.

[John F. Carr]

There is a lot of road left to kick the can down. The Supreme Court only agreed to decide whether to grant a stay. The government did not argue this case well and the Supreme Court should refuse to decide questions not properly presented below. I would rule that because Trump purported to remove Cook for cause, the case is to be tried on that basis. Trump has not made a strong showing that she was properly removed for cause. See Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermil.

The court will be forced to tackle the real issue head-on if Trump later re-fires Cook citing his inherent power as the chief executive.

[ducksalad]

D. Run away. Declare the whole issue a political question. Chaotic situation where various major players disagree on who the "real" members of the Federal Reserve are, both the maybe-fired and maybe-new members are announcing their votes in public, and the undisputed members are taking sides.

[Kazinski]

Why would Humphrey's Executor apply to the Federal Reserve?

By no stretch of the imagination can the Federal Reserve be described as either Quasi-Judicial or Quasi-Legislative, which was the explicit carveout from Myers in Humphrey's.

[ducksalad]

Could the legislative branch regulate interest rates or monetary policy? I think the imagination could stretch that far.

[Keldonric]

Might be a little slow and clunky, but sure — Congress could put it on rails if they wanted to. They could even remove government from the equation altogether. The Constitution delegates them the authority to coin money and regulate its value, so in principle the choice is theirs.

[Kazinski]

They would have to pass legislation to set interest rates when they want them changed, so yes that would work.

But Congress can't set up another body to regulate interest rates and call it legislative, article 1 makes that clear:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

If Congress does delegate powers for the Federal reserve bank to set interest rates it would have to be an executive agency.

[OpinionsVary]

Article I vesting clause means Congress must have the unilateral right to remove any officer wielding delegated Article 1 authority via simple majority, such as regulation making powers! /s

[Kazinski]

B and C are Calvinball, A is a consistent principle as you acknowledge.

Your arguments for B and C are policy, not constitutional principles.

But what the President is arguing in the Cook case, and only the Cook case is that mortgage fraud is sufficient cause under the Federal reserve act to fire Cook, so there is no need for the court to address the constitutional issue.

That isn't Calvinball, that's as standard a basis as things get, even if it is a novel question of law since the court has never decided what "for cause" means under the Federal Reserve Act.

[Zarniwoop]

Judge Kacmaryk's parting shot in the Texas mifepristone suit is a masterclass in whining (result: transfer it to E.D.Mo).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.273.0.pdf

[M L]

Would you take a bump on the head for $17 million? I would.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/30/nakia-porter-police-settlement-solano-county-california

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends a lot on how hard. Any time you're knocked unconscious you're risking permanent brain damage, it's not like your brain has a "pause" switch.

The deputies responsible had better never work as cops again.

[M L]

The risk from getting knocked out generally isn't great, but that's fair. Suppose it is "just hard enough to knock you out."

Agree.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it would be more accurate to say that just barely being knocked out one or twice isn't a huge deal, but the evidence from boxing is that even short of knocking you out, there's cumulative damage from heavy blows to the skull.

[David Nieporent]

The deputies responsible had better never work as cops again.

From the link:

The Vallejo Sun, an independent news outlet, reported that one of the deputies who arrested Porter and was named in the lawsuit, Lisa McDowell, had since been promoted to sergeant.

Another officer, Dalton McCampbell, was named as defendant in a previous excessive force lawsuit, which settled for $14,700, the Vallejo Sun reported.

McCampbell subsequently shot and killed a man in Fairfield in 2023, the Vallejo Sun reported.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The deputies responsible had better never work as cops again."

Oh my sweet summer child.

[Kazinski]

NPR's Scott Simon says the sky didn't fall:

"This is the first day since NPR was founded it has not had federal support. And we're here, strong, vital, and with an audience of millions we will keep on serving, no fees, no paywalls, and across all divisions. We hope you'll support your local stations to serve all America."

Everyone should be happy at the outcome Conservatives and Liberals realizing that people with a vision can succeed without government funding or interference.

https://x.com/nprscottsimon/status/1973334674232779104?t=p5z199owfGRH4-4dd3mS4w&s=19

[shawn_dude]

You should have ended that last sentence at "funding."

Media companies that publish information deemed to be anti-Trump are experiencing "interference" on the regular. See: Kimmel.

[ducksalad]

New frontiers in telemarketing:

The Israeli army launched a military incursion on Sunday in Syria’s southern village of Saida in the Quneitra countryside, Syrian media reported.... Israeli forces searched homes and attempted to force residents to answer surveys in several neighborhoods for allegedly distributing aid before withdrawing from the area.

[shawn_dude]

Even the bad guys have to worry about marketing.

[not guilty]

Politico has an article about Pope Leo's comments on the Chicago Archdiocese’s plan to honor Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who supports abortion rights, with a “lifetime achievement award” for his work on immigration policy. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/09/30/congress/pope-leo-dick-durbin-00589172 This passage caught my eye:

“I understand the difficulty and the tensions,” he said. “But I think as I myself have spoken in the past, it’s important to look at many issues that are related to the teachings of the church.”

More pointedly, the pope said, “Someone who says, ‘I’m against abortion,’ but is in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life. Someone who says, ‘I’m against abortion but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States,’ I don’t know if that’s pro-life.”

What will the blastocystophiles who hate immigrants and death row inmates have to say about that?

[shawn_dude]

Catholics are not first-class members of the Christian Nationalist movement. The Pope's comments are easily dismissed.

[SRG2]

גמר חתימה טובה to my fellow tribespeople here, and wish you an easy fast.

I will have a couple of slices of pizza before the fast, washed down with an electrolyte drink.

To break the fast tomorrow, first, a cup of coffee with a slice of TJ's chocolate babka, then get cooking. Before the meal I will then have a glass of apple vodka and some home-cured tuna - when my father z"l was still alive he and I would have a glass of some schnapps or eau de vie with schmaltz herring, but it's hard to find proper sugar-free schmaltz herring nowadays, so I go for either lox or other home-cured fish.

Then soup - not sure what, yet - and a ribeye steak with veg and saute potatoes, and to finish, another slice of babka.

[Commenter_XY]

Gmar hatima tovah....chicken, quinoa, cheesecake and wine to break fast.

[Mr. Bumble]

A very quiet open thread. Even got bumped out of the top 10.

[Life of Brian]

Well, when Sarc's completely absent and NG just drops in one halfhearted trolling effort mid-afternoon that doesn't get any traction, that probably nixes about a quarter of the usual volume right there.

[Estragon]

"Some have chosen to deride the increasingly evident signs of climate change, to ridicule those who speak of global warming, and even to blame the poor for the very thing that affects them the most […] God will ask us if we have cultivated and cared for the world that he created for the benefit of all and for future generations, and if we have taken care of our brothers and sisters - what will be our answer, my dear friends?"

[ThePublius]

So you quote someone, provide no context, and don't attribute the quote. Poor form.

Of course, it's Pope Leo. I will not be taking scientific advice from any pontiff.

[Estragon]

“scientific advice”

That you would reject, out of hand, what Pope Leo has to say is of course overdetermined.

But I find this framing curious. Where exactly do you find the scientific advice here? Because, to me, this sounds like moral advice— something that perhaps it might be worth listening to coming from the Pope. YMMV. Frankly to me it almost sounds like he’s describing you!

[Kazinski]

The problem with that statement is that so far the balance of the effects of climate change have been positive.

Here is a recently released study which shows that, the natural world responds positively to higher CO2, which isn't surprising because those are the conditions plants evolved in.

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/latin-america/amazon-rainforest-giant-trees-bigger-carbon-dioxide-climate-change-rcna234064

As for people:

"Life expectancy globally and in the United States has approximately doubled since 1880, with the world average rising from around 32 years in 1900 to about 73 years by 2023. In the US, life expectancy at birth went from roughly 39 years in the late 19th century to nearly 80 years in 2025."

And while correlation is not causation, it would be absurd to argue the benefits of cheap energy and the internal combustion engine in raising standards of living and increasing agricultural productivity aren't mostly responsible for doubling life expectancy over the same period of time CO2 has increased from .0290% of the atmosphere to 0.0420%.

[Brett Bellmore]

"because those are the conditions plants evolved in."

In fact, before we started returning carbon to the atmosphere, we were on the verge of a major extinction event, because during the last bout of glaciers, the CO2 level in the atmosphere actually got down to about 180 PPM.

At about 150 PPM, plants using C-3 photosynthesis die.

Literally, we were only about 30 PPM away from most photosynthetic plants going extinct.

[Zarniwoop]

Article about LDS members making donations to help the family of the LDS church shooter. I’m not personally religious, but I respect this approach. It’s what actual Christianity looks like, IMHO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2025/10/01/lds-mormon-church-shooting-fundraiser-sanford/

[M L]

Joy Reid is onto us guys . . .

https://www.facebook.com/NickFreitasVA/videos/joy-reid-discovers-our-evil-plan/1869636803960274/

[loki13]

In actual legal news that will likely not be covered here, a judge disqualified the USA in Nevada (Sigal Chattah) from handling cases as she is not validly serving as Acting U.S. Attorney.

This is the second USA (so far) to have such a ruling (Alina Habba was the first, although that is on appeal).

It's truly sad to watch the DOJ be destroyed like this.

ETA- oh, and we should mention that the DOJ also fired our top national security prosecutor! Why? Because another moron (sorry, "Right Wing Activist") made a false social media post claiming that he was involved in not indicting James Comey. You can't make this up. It would have been stupid enough to fire someone for not agreeing to file an indictment that they should not file; it's crazyland to fire someone that we need for actual serious reasons for a reason that was made up by a rando on social media for the clickz and the lulz.

[David Nieporent]

Because another moron (sorry, "Right Wing Activist") made a false social media post claiming that he was involved in not indicting James Comey.

Actually, I think Recipe Blogger/Child Molesting Apologist Julie Kelly's false claim was that the guy had been involved in investigating/prosecuting Trump at one point.

[ThePublius]

To summarize, after our little back and forth on this topic here, there is absolutely no doubt that:

1. States - at least 14 f them, plus the District of Columbia, provide free healthcare for illegal immigrants;
2. Federal funds subsidize this.

We even have some Democrat politicians acknowledging this, including, on page one of Breitbart this morning as he reported to Fox News, "Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) admitted that the government shutdown fight is over Democrats seeking to provide free health care to illegal aliens — paid for by American taxpayers."

Trump shut off this spigot when he entered office on January. A large part of the fight that led to the shutdown is Dems desire to turn this back on. The administration said no. Hence the shutdown.

The folks here who vehemently denied this, or even made ridiculous arguments when conceding it in part, that states kept state and federal funds separate, are either in complete denial, or are being intentionally deceptive or obtuse.

So, that's it. It's about funding healthcare for illegals. I support the administration's position. That's what I voted for.

It's almost funny to hear the screeching Dem pols on this. AOC says Trump wants to see children die. Warren says 'if Democrats vote to open the government without concessions on healthcare from Republicans, people “are going to die.”' People will die. It's for the children. Did you ever hear such pitiful appeals in your life?

In addition, "Democrats are seeking close to $200 billion, over the course of a decade, for healthcare benefits for illegal aliens to reopen the federal government, a new White House memo states." I'll leave it to you to search and find the memo, etc. But the thrust of this seems to be Dems supporting for, advocating for illegals in many ways. Why? Well, if they don't vote now (and some do), they all will soon, in Dem's minds.

[loki13]

FFS. I will try this one last time. Go and try searching for things other than what you want to believe is true.

Here, let me help you.

Start with this- instead of relying on what Breitbart said was "admitted" on Fox, why don't you go and view what Rep. Ro Khanna actually said, IN FULL. Go on. Then come back and post the TEXT of his admission. We'll wait.

Next, why don't you actually look at what the funding fight is about, and determine ON YOUR OWN (not from what you want to believe is true) how this all works, and what is actually at stake. Finally, to the extent you are deliberately confusing what is well-known about the laws that are in place (including EMTLA, Medicait, CHIP, and the ACA), feel free to explain in exactly what is going on instead of continually lying about it.

M'kay? Seriously, use words (what are the law and the amounts) and numbers. Since this is something you care so deeply about, DO THE FRIGGIN' WORK ALREADY.

PS- It always helps to actually look at issues with the goal of trying to understand something, and not just googling and latching on to sources that tell you what you want to believe.

[ThePublius]

Oh, get lost with your insulting"do the work" bullshit. Tell me: do ilegals get free healthcare in the U.S." Do federal funds subsidize this? That's all we need to know.

[loki13]

You literally just posted an obvious lie (go on, don't just post that "Breitbart says that this guy admitted something on Fox," post what he said in... in context).

You also refuse to engage in any actual critical thought or analysis. You can probably just think this through. Do you think that the Democrats are fighting over "health care for illegal immigrants?" Do you think that's really the case?

Really?

Do you think that it's strange that we suddenly ... like, in the last three days, get all of this consistent messaging from the same right-wing sources? All at once? That there's a political issue that the Democrats are passionate about, and that isn't good for the GOP, so they are trying to tell people, "THE DEMS ARE SHUTTING DOWN THE GUMMINT FOR ILLEGALS!"

Did you also know that gullible isn't in the dictionary?

Just look a few posts up. Try and expand your media diet and do your own research for once. Don't look for stuff that you want to be true- try and learn something. For crissakes, educate yourself. The only way this country gets out of this mess is if we can agree on what it is we're fighting about.

[loki13]

By the way, I should note the following given my history-

1. I am 100%, all the time, against any kind of brinkmanship that involves default (debt ceiling). That's just ... friggin' irresponsible. Always. That is NEVER something that either party should be using to play poker.

2. I am ... eh, 95% against shutting down the government. Honestly, I don't understand how we've gotten to the point where this has become a semi-regular occurrence. It's another symptom of a much larger disease that shutting down the government is treated so cavalierly.

That said, if people can't even talk intelligently about what is actually being asked for, then it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation.

(FWIW, I am not sympathetic on policy grounds to what the Democrats are asking for in terms of the ACA tax subsidies, as are many in the GOP. I am not sympathetic to the means they are using because I am generally against government shutdowns. I am, however, sympathetic to the background issue which isn't being discussed nearly as much, which is the recissions/impoundment issue, and that is something that a normal Congress in the past would be up in arms about regardless of party affiliation.)

[loki13]

Ugh. I am sympathetic on policy grounds.

The "not" shouldn't be in that sentence.

[Commenter_XY]

I agree with #1 = don't use debt default threat, it is irresponsible

[David Nieporent]

I am, however, sympathetic to the background issue which isn't being discussed nearly as much, which is the recissions/impoundment issue, and that is something that a normal Congress in the past would be up in arms about regardless of party affiliation.)

Yes. Indeed, unlike the fake claim about what Ro Khanna said, there's a couple of GOP members of Congress who actually said, "Given what was done with rescissions, Democrats are being reasonable in opposing this CR."

[Estragon]

It’s like Judge Judy always says: if something doesn’t make sense, it’s probably not true. It’s very reminiscent of him insisting one has a duty to retreat from an assailant in ones own home in Massachusetts — a truly tyrannous rule instituted by perfidious Dems to ensnare brave patriots like himself from protecting his house and family!

Except, of course, that wasn’t true. And pretty obviously so, if one could just engage critical thinking faculties for like 5 seconds. But no— he read a news article in the Berkshire Eagle, misinterpreted a quote, and then literally gave it not another thought other than to, again, be mad at Dems. I don’t know if people like this are reachable. It’s so much easier to hate the other than think for 5 seconds “does this make any kind of sense?”

[Estragon]

"THE DEMS ARE SHUTTING DOWN THE GUMMINT FOR ILLEGALS!"

To me, this is yet another example of Trumpists not really thinking things through. Miller and co have gone to the well so many times on the anti-immigrant stuff it’s reflexive. And, as we can see from our resident denizens, it still plays well with and sexually thrills the ultras.

But for this to make any sense, Trump has to actually BOAST about stripping out premium support like it’s a good thing. Which is how we end up with quotes like this:

“Now, with that being said, we can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible — that are bad for them and irreversible by them. Like cutting vast numbers of people out. Cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like.”

Got that? Cutting vast numbers of people out is a GOOD THING, because it hurts Dems. Except there is one problem. Dems aren’t the only people getting premium support! And when voters, Trumpists included, see their health insurance bills skyrocket, are they going to blame “illegal immirgrants” or the people OPENLY BOASTING about “cutting people out?” I wish I knew the answer.

Did you know fully 25% of farmers and ranchers get their healthcare through the ACA?

[Life of Brian]

I mean, instead of just relaying "does to"/"does not" from our politicians and/or pundits of choice, we could always go look at the text of the Dems' counterproposal CR and see what it actually says. From page 57 of the linked PDF:

Subtitle B of title VII of the Act titled ‘‘An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14’’ (Public Law 119–21) is repealed and any law or regulation referred to in such subtitle shall be applied as if such subtitle and the amendments made by such subtitle had not been enacted.

The referenced subtitle of Public Law 119-21 includes the following:

SEC. 71109. ALIEN MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY . . . in no event shall payment be made to a State under this section for medical assistance furnished to an individual unless such individual is—(A) a resident of 1 of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or a territory of the United States; and (B) either—(i) a citizen or national of the United States [other minor exceptions, which pretty clearly don't include illegal immigrants, clipped for brevity - Ed.]

So the Dems' proposed CR sought to repeal the current law that limits federal Medicaid assistance payments to a universe of individuals that excludes illegal immigrants.

That doesn't seem obscure or ambiguous at all. Let me know if you think I overlooked something.

[Estragon]

Two things.

1) My understanding is that this is re-expanding eligibility to certain classes of people who were newly excluded under the Big Ugly. I could be wrong but my impression is that it is in essence a return to the status quo ante.

For the claim of “healthcare to illegals” to be accurate, therefore, ISTM one would have to show either: a) this proposal is an expansion of people beyond the pre-Big Ugly status quo or b) the status quo ante WAS ACTUALLY “healthcare for illegals.” Incidentally— this is why you see all the hard work from your fellow travelers in the surrounding thread saying things like “Mayorkas” and “quasi-legal.”

2) it’s not really germane to my political point. Lots of people— voters and not just Democrats— are going to get absolutely fucked when the premium support expires at the end of the year. Trump has put himself and the rest of MAGA in the position of actually having to brag about doing this. I realize that many of the ultras around here would likely gladly pay 300% increases in premiums to more quickly achieve their… demographic… goals for this country. But it does not strike me as particularly politically savvy to assume there are millions of people who share these views, no matter how strongly people like Steven Miller adhere to them.

[Life of Brian]

For the claim of “healthcare to illegals” to be accurate, therefore, ISTM one would have to show either: a) this proposal is an expansion of people beyond the pre-Big Ugly status quo or b) the status quo ante WAS ACTUALLY “healthcare for illegals.”

I don't think there's any reasonable question that b) is correct; and not long ago at all we used to be quite frank about it.

Incidentally— this is why you see all the hard work from your fellow travelers in the surrounding thread saying things like “Mayorkas” and “quasi-legal.”

While others seem to be spending much energy trying to reduce the discussion to one of overall Medicaid eligibility, rather than the broader, bottom-line question of whether federal Medicaid dollars are being paid to states in reimbursement of medical services that were provided to illegal immigrants.

And I suspect that bottom-line question is ultimately why they're trying to pull back the recent amendment I quoted: it eliminates the possibility of gamesmanship by simply saying reimbursement will not be allowed for any individuals other than the ones recited, period, without regard to whatever circuitous path the services to illegal immigrants might be laundered through (e.g., disproportionate share payments as discussed in the Forbes article).

[Josh R]

I can't read the Forbes article because I block ads. What are disproportionate share payments?

As far as I know, the only reimbursements for health care provided to unauthorized aliens permitted under pre-OBBB law was for services in emergency rooms.

[Life of Brian]

I block ads too, but didn't have a problem reading it. Maybe try this.

In a nutshell and as laid out in 42 USC 1396r-4, disproportionate share payments go to hospitals whose proportion of inpatient days for individuals eligible under the state's Medicaid plan is at least one standard deviation above the mean.

This is a direct and indisputable way that states are compensated for care provided under their own state Medicaid admission criteria, not the feds'. So 42 USC 1396b(v)(5) as enacted this summer directly limits any amount paid to states for medical assistance under 1396b(a)(1) (including disproportionate share adjustments, as shown by the cross-references between 1396b(a)(1) and 1396r-4(f)) to the enumerated categories of individuals, not illegal aliens. That stops the party previously allowed under 1396r-4, where a state could open up its eligibility criteria to include illegal aliens and then hold their hand out to the feds because of the resulting surge of services.

Is it really any surprise they're desperate to roll it back?

[Josh R]

Are you claiming that the OBBB has reduced DSH payments to states based on how many unauthorized immigrants hospitals served? Citations beyond vague cross-references, please.

[Life of Brian]

As you yourself noted, the new 1396b(v)(5) restrictions don't come into effect until October 2026, so there's no "has reduced" rock to bring you. And you still haven't responded to the Forbes article I already provided, which has a decent explainer on how hospitals count illegals to boost DSH payments.

[Josh R]

Are there any regulations in place to effectuate what you claim?

How hospitals count unauthorized aliens has no bearing on whether the Democrats' bill has additional federal money going to subsidize their healthcare.

[Life of Brian]

Are there any regulations in place to effectuate what you claim?

The goalposts, they keep moving. Again, the underlying statutory change only happened this summer and doesn't come into effect until a year from now. I'm not sure why you would think there would already be any regulations in place, or why there would necessarily be any at all.

How hospitals count unauthorized aliens has no bearing on whether the Democrats' bill has additional federal money going to subsidize their healthcare.

This is backwards. The law enacted this summer takes away federal money that has historically gone to subsidize illegal immigrant healthcare. The Dems' CR is trying to restore that money by scrubbing the recently passed law and returning to the prior status quo.

[Josh R]

So, your interpretation is a supposition.

[Josh R]

And, OBBB's new section denying payments to states for service provided to unauthorized aliens still does not apply to emergency rooms, "beginning on October 1, 2026, except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (4)." Paragraph 2 is emergency rooms.

The new paragraph (5) does not appear to change the pre-OBBB status quo.

[Josh R]

You made a claim about what Khanna said. You need to back it up with his actual words.

do illegals get free healthcare in the U.S." Do federal funds subsidize this? That's all we need to know

By this logic, anyone (which is just about everyone) who supports Medicare, Medicaid, or ACA subsidies supports federally-subsidized healthcare for the unlawfully present because these monies may indirectly be funneled to providing care for these people (e.g., in emergency rooms). What a nonsense argument.

[ThePublius]

It's not just emergency rooms. Any illegal in Massachusetts, for example, can sign up for Mass health care, and they get it, and it was subsidized by the feds until Trump shut it off. The dems want it back on.

[Josh R]

Any illegal in Massachusetts, for example, can sign up for Mass health care, and they get it.

Citation (and waiting for the Khanna citation)?

[M L]

I don't know about MA, but it appears they could in NY and CA.

https://x.com/SenMullin/status/1973468648309194936
https://x.com/RichardGrenell/status/1973442511642464265

This discussion is weird to me because I remember a ton of headlines from the 2020/Biden era where blue states and cities were doing this and Democrat politicians were all over it. Now it's like "No that never happened, we disown it?"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics/undocumented-immigrants-health-care-democrats
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2024/states-expand-access-affordable-private-coverage-immigrant-populations

[Josh R]

In addition to my comment below that federal funds cannot be used to compensate states that have a waiver to extend Medicaid benefits to the unlawfully present, Mullin's tweet is in response to Schumer's accurate claim that ACA subsidies (not Medicaid) are not available to the unlawfully present.

[M L]

When you say "unlawfully present" are you excluding (and saying that Schumer is excluding from "undocumented people") the 3 million illegals to which Mayorkas gave some sort of temporary parole status?

One weird trick.

[Michael P]

He's also excluding the illegal immigrants who get healthcare paid through weird tricks like the Autopen administration declaring that California can get illegal reimbursements.

[David Nieporent]

Any illegal in Massachusetts, for example, can sign up for Mass health care, and they get it,

Possibly.

and it was subsidized by the feds until Trump shut it off.

No. This is fiction.

The dems want it back on.

I am sure that some Democrat somewhere wants the federal government to pay for Medicaid for illegal immigrants. But "the Dems" do not in fact want that.

[Bunny495]

Loki13 there is no dispute that illegals are getting free medical care. Almost all health care providers get federal funds for some of the care they provide. There are requirements that health care providers have some portion of their patients on Medicare and other federal programs. The classic example if anyone who shows up in a hospital's emergency room gets treatment with no questions ask (there does seem to be questions about the extent of the treatment and once the patient is "stable" they can be discharged even if more follow up care is indicated). Another classic example if a patient is pregnant and ready to deliver (sometimes premature delivery) they get care (but one issue many of these women have had no prenatal care and the delivery is complicated to the extent much longer than normal hospital care is required).

(Disclaimer: my father was a medical doctor who did not provide abortions, along with most other doctors. His reasoning was liability insurance would literally more than double if it included him doing abortions and from a business standpoint it makes no sense for him, and most other doctors, to have an insurance rider covering performing abortions, same goes for hospitals who often decline to allow abortions. Not to mention often times females seeking an abortion have limited economic resources and it is common for them to have other health issues due to general poor health and lack of any medical care. Bottom line is from an economic standpoint abortions are a money loser with the result that most are performed by "abortion mills" that do little or nothing else using "traveling doctors" who service multiple locations. Often times the result is taking on poor women who have no, or limited, medical history and commonly suffer from alcohol or drug addiction with a result that problems requiring emergency room care.

Bottom line is there is much greater demand for medical care than the current supply. No question illegal aliens are able to get medical care.

[loki13]

This is, again, non-responsive to the actual issue.

Look, I get it. Now that we have the current crisis (it's so tiring) the White House is banging the drum of "illegal immigrants" again. Fine.

But that's not what the demand is actually about. No one is disagreeing that, yes, in America "illegal aliens are able to get medical care." Okay? But that's not what the policy debate (e.g., extending the ACA tax subsidies) is about.

If you are against the actual demand made by the Democrats, that's fine. But you should be able to state, WITH SPECIFICITY, what they have asked for and what it means, without throwing in nonsense.

The only way to have actual reasonable disagreements about policy issues is to understand what is being discussed.

[M L]

It's crazy that Democrats want our hard earned tax dollars to pay for illegal immigrants' health care. Can anyone defend this?

For example, President Joe Biden’s pro-migration border chief, Ali Mayorkas, granted a quasi-legal status to roughly 3 million illegals via the “humanitarian parole” and “Temporary Protected Status” programs. This legal maneuver allowed the illegal migrants to legally get federal healthcare aid.

Similarly, Biden’s deputies allowed California to get a legal waiver from federal rules, so allowing the state to be compensated with federal funds withen it spends state funds on healthcare for illegals.

Pro-migration lobbies want the healthcare funding for the millions of hard-working migrants imported by Democrats from poor countries with little healthcare.

“There is no California without Latinx Californians, and recent state and federal cuts put their health and well-being at serious risk,” the California Immigrant Policy Center claimed on September 4. “State leaders must take bold action to protect and restore access to food, housing, health care, and education for all Californians.”...

Since the July bill-signing, “2.3 million ineligible enrollees have been kicked off of Medicaid … [and if the Democrats get their way,] American taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars would be paying for benefits for illegal aliens again,” Speaker Mike Johnson told CNN on October 1. “We’re not doing that.”

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2025/10/02/democrats-demand-healthcare-funds-for-migrants-amid-deportation-pressures/

[Josh R]

People under Temporary Protected Status are lawfully present and thus eligible for federally-subsidized healthcare.

The link in your article says federal funds cannot be used to reimburse states that use a waiver to extend Medicaid benefits to the unlawfully present, thus directly contradicting your article's claim these states are compensated with federal funds.

[M L]

Whether state or federal, various temporary statuses or not, I'm addressing the broad issue of American's hard earned dollars paying for illegal (or quasi-legal, I guess) immigrants' health care. Do you support this?

I don't even support government health care for citizens, because I think we could make things better and more affordable for everyone by moving to more of a free market system. So naturally I would not be in favor of extending that to illegal immigrants (or probably even other non-citizens), even assuming we are going to have it for citizens.

Which link are you talking about, this one? https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-department-of-health-and-human-services-medicaid-waivers-illegal-immigrants That's an interesting link, do you agree with it generally?

To your specific point, I see what you're saying, however, I don't think the two articles contradict each other.

"The link in your article says federal funds cannot be used to reimburse states that use a waiver to extend Medicaid benefits to the unlawfully present"

Federal funds can be used to reimburse states that use a waiver to extend Medicaid benefits to illegals. That's the point of the waiver - to allow federal medicaid reimbursement when a state would otherwise be disqualified by doing something like extending medicaid to illegals.

Your point is well taken, though, that the specific cost of extending coverage to illegals is not federally funded. The original article, while accurate, could have someone thinking otherwise if you read it quickly and make assumptions.

It's also interesting that federal taxpayers do foot the bill for some state choices to expand medicaid under these waivers, like CA's move to have no asset test at all for medicaid.

[Josh R]

People in temporary protected status are not quasi-legally present. They are legally present.

Federal funds can be used to reimburse states that use a waiver to extend Medicaid benefits to illegals.

Generally speaking, no:

Hospitals and other providers can get Medicaid reimbursement for emergency care provided to all individuals who meet Medicaid income limits, regardless of immigration status. [...] About 14 states and DC provide some form of coverage to some immigrants, usually children, regardless of immigration status using only state dollars. These state programs do not use federal Medicaid dollars.

California's Medicaid expansion to the unlawfully present is not funded by, or reimbursed by federal dollars.

[M L]

I didn't say that California's Medicaid expansion to illegals is funded by federal dollars. I said the waiver allows California to get federal medicaid funding in general, notwithstanding (but not specifically for) the expansion to illegals, which would otherwise disqualify them.

In addition, as your link indicates, Democrats use the "emergency care" loophole to make sure tons of federal dollars goes to illegal immigrant health care.

That's apart from ACA subsidies, state level spending, very high built-in costs for EMTALA losses for 20 million illegals, etc.

You haven't addressed my questions or anything I was actually trying to discuss but ok . .

[Josh R]

I am addressing whether Republicans are telling the truth when they say the Democrats' bill to keep open the government will make taxpayers pay for healthcare for the unlawfully present. They are not telling the truth. The bill does not change who among the unlawfully present is or is not eligible to receive health care benefits. Perhaps the bill will keep some rural hospitals open that would otherwise close enabling some additional unlawfully present people to get federally-funded health care benefits. But, that's not what the GOP is saying (I dare them to argue that emergency room care is a loophole).

[Life of Brian]

The bill does not change who among the unlawfully present is or is not eligible to receive health care benefits.

I just walked through what appears to be the relevant provision in the Dems' proposed CR in another thread. The bill to my eye explicitly seeks to repeal the currently enacted law that excludes illegal aliens from the universe of people for which a state can seek federal Medicaid reimbursement. Do you read it differently?

[M L]

Ok, but I was discussing the general topic of whether taxpayers should pay for health care for illegal immigrants (or, even parole/TPS immigrants). This is something that, obviously, a lot of Democrat politicians support and a lot of blue states have done.

Now to your point, which is a different discussion...

I guess the big argument from you and others here is, "Well yeah, maybe we support that, but that's not why we're shutting down the government! We don't want it that bad! We're not supporting it that hard! Except for the TPS/parole/etc categories of course, then yes."

Is that right? Fair enough. However..

First, it looks like you are having bit of a cute semantics argument with your "lawfully present." You call them that, because you can't call them legal immigrants, which they're not. Point is, this all reflects political language-making infused into statutes and regulations, and using technical definitions versus colloquial usage, depending on which benefits your side rhetorically.

A substantive debate would be, OK, should we federally fund health care for this group? And Democrats would say, yes, we want to make sure this group has access to federal dollars for benefits. And Republicans would say, no, we want to reserve our health care resources for citizens and legal immigrants. Instead we have a lot of jibber jabber.

Second, the only reason 3 million people are considered "lawfully present" instead of illegal immigrants, is because of the flick of a pen by open-borders nuts like Mayorkas. Obviously that's part of the debate here.

Third, you referenced "emergency room care" but looks like the term is "emergency care" which is quite different and not limited to emergency rooms.

Last, this document seems to have some interesting info. I don't know all the ins and outs of medicaid and ACA funding. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/WFTCA-Illegal-Immigrant-Healthcare-Memo-FINAL.pdf

[M L]

Reporter: "Are Democrats demanding healthcare for illegal aliens?"

Rep. Waters: "Democrats are demanding healthcare for everybody."

https://x.com/AlexPfeiffer/status/1973163714242289964