Open Thread

Auto-post still buggy, but it's being worked on; hope to have daily open threads working well shortly.

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

...and they're off!

[Absaroka]

Judge resigns senior status to speak out about Trump. As a geezer old enough to remember Nixon, this hit home:

"What Nixon did episodically and covertly, knowing it was illegal or improper, Trump now does routinely and overtly."

One of those examples of Nixon's malfeasance was "(Atty general) Richard Kleindienst, was convicted of contempt of Congress for lying about the fact that, as instructed by the president, he’d ended an antitrust investigation of a major company after it pledged to make a $400,000 contribution to the Republican National Convention."

I hope the next president is as ethical as Gerald Ford who told his newly apponted atty gen that "that he wanted the attorney general to “protect the rights of American citizens, not the President who appointed him.”.

Well worth the read.

[Frank Drackman]

Nixon gets a pass for ending JFK/LBJ's Wah.

[not guilty]

Prick Nixon didn't end the Vietnam War. He sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks during 1968 -- possibly committing treason -- prolonged the war for four years, widened the conflict into Cambodia, and withdrew U. S. troops on essentially the same terms he was offered at the outset.

Nixon's legacy regarding Southeast Asia is more vile than Watergate.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nobody cares.

[not guilty]

You are right that nobody cares. And that is a damned shame!

[William of Brooklyn]

I have to agree. Nixon did not end the war.

Lê Duẩn did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

LBJ makes Nixon look like a Boy Scout, as does JFK.
Vietnam was lost on American college campi -- we were WINNING in Vietnam in 1968, and Tet was a major LOSS for the NVA/VC.

Hanoi Jane will burn in Hell -- and should have been shot!

As to treason, how about Ted Kennedy and the Soviets in '84 -- we have the Soviet archives on that...

As an aside, what's with Putin's health?

[Armchair]

If only he'd done the same during the Biden administration.

[Absaroka]

Better late than never!

[CountmontyC]

Guess who gets to appoint his replacement.

[Absaroka]

Barack Obama! (He took senior status in 2013)

[David Nieporent]

Um, nobody. He's a senior judge. He doesn't have a replacement.

[Bob from Ohio]

How is the AG lying an example of "Nixon's malfeasance"?

The AG is a subordinate officer, he can obey or resign.

[Absaroka]

??? Nixon's malfeasance was saying 'these guys gave us $400k, drop the investigation'. Kleindienst's malfeasance was saying 'Sure, boss'. It was not his only ethical lapse.

[Bob from Ohio]

AG was not convicted for dropping the case, just for lying about it. Did Nixon tell him to lie?

[shawn_dude]

Because the lie was the issue?!

[Bob from Ohio]

That's what he was convicted of, lying..

[not guilty]

Kleindienst was not the only Nixon Attorney General convicted of a crime. John Mitchell went to prison, albeit for conduct mostly occurring after he left office. Nixon was named in the indictment there as an unindicted co-conspirator, because Leon Jaworski believed that a sitting president was immune from criminal prosecution while in office.

As the Turkish proverb teaches, a fish rots from the head.

[William of Brooklyn]

Yes, well, Jaworski was right: sitting presidents ARE immune from criminal prosecution.

[Josh R]

The Democrats folded at the point where they held the most leverage. They won the elections and Trump stepped in it with his refusal to deliver full SNAP benefits. Of course, both sides were about to step in it if Thanksgiving travel plans were laid to waste, but why did the moderate Democrats blink first?

One side note: Schumer does not control his caucus. Perhaps a new leader is needed.

[Randal]

Oh my god a new leader is needed. Jeffries can suck it as well. Long, melodramatic speeches are not what we need right now.

[Mr. Bumble]

Schumer has one foot out the door and the other on a banana peel.
After an entire adult lifetime of feeding at the public trough, first in the NY assembly, then the US House and since 1999 as a US Senator his reign would appear to be over. In all likely hood if he did decide to run again next year (at age 75) he will be challenged in a primary, possibly by former waitress, Sandy from the Bronx (and likely lose).

[bernard11]

This sounds quite plausible to me.

[wvattorney13]

I agree. They got next to nothing out of this. Surely they could have gotten the same "deal" prior to the shutdown.

Johnson hasn't committed the House to holding a vote on the ACA subsidy expansion (and even if he did and it passed, Trump could veto it) and all Trump has to do is keep a list of federal employees to fire effective February 1.

[Armchair]

Which is why shutdowns like this don't work.

[Josh R]

The Dems still hold the political (popularity without reference to policy) high ground on ACA subsidies when that shit hits the fan. The $2000 checks floated by Trump are a Truth-fart (we need a name for the many nonsense posts from Trump) that will never see the light of day.

[wvattorney13]

Maybe. I don't think so. The only people this will affect is upper middle class people like me who are self-employed. Poor people still get Medicaid. Middle class people still get subsidies. The rich still pay for their own premiums. Upper middle class people who work for an employer will not see a change resulting from the disappearance of subsidies.

The people affected by this are too few and too much outside the Dem's base to have much of an effect on the discourse. I agree that polling on this question favors the Dems, but it is not a real emotional issue because it affects too few people.

[Josh R]

Those just above the 400%-of-poverty-level income might not be characterized as upper-middle class. And there will be some increases for people below that threshold as well. This chart shows the figures for individuals.

[Armchair]

400% of poverty level is $128,000 for a family of 4.

Median household income is $83,730...
Median individual income is $44,000

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, that IS poor.

[Mr. Bumble]

As always, one size does not fit all and that's the problem with federal programs in a country as large as the US.

[Poxigah146]

Polling on these questions always favors Dems because the people are ignorant about what they're answering.

"Do you support giving subsidies so that people can afford health insurance premiums for their families" is much more likely to elicit a "yes" than

"Do you support giving taxpayer funded subsidies so that married couples making $280,000 a year can pay a little less for their health insurance?"

[wvattorney13]

You get this in a lot of polls. Ask the question a different way and you get wildly different results. The average person is just not attuned to the details like most posters here.

If you ask, "Should the government be reopened and debate the ACA subsidies later?" you get a large majority yes. If you ask, "Should the Republicans extend the ACA subsidies and reopen the government?" you get a large majority yes.

[Poxigah146]

There's a lot of instances where this phenomenon comes true.

Large majorities will answer yes to cutting government spending, but answer no on cutting any individual piece of spending.

People also want illegal immigrants deported on a grand scale, but don't want individual immigrants deported outside of Home Depot.

What the American people want usually is not coherent.

[Armchair]

"Of course, both sides were about to step in it if Thanksgiving travel plans were laid to waste, but why did the moderate Democrats blink first?"

The pain deadlines were before Thanksgiving, closer to November 15th. Feds weren't going to get paid. The unions were pissed at the Democrats. The SNAP contingency fund would run out, and any priority for WIC that Trump might use it for would be gone. You'd have starving infants.

The Democrats shut down a bill to pay the Feds who were working without pay....arguing those furloughed should get paid as well. So a bill went up to pay all the Feds (furloughed and those working)...and the Democrats filibustered that too.

Winning in a few rich districts was not reality for the rest of the country.

[Josh R]

The pain deadlines were before Thanksgiving, closer to November 15th. Feds weren't going to get paid. The unions were pissed at the Democrats. The SNAP contingency fund would run out, and any priority for WIC that Trump might use it for would be gone.

You make it sound like the GOP was winning the PR battle. The polls disagree.

[Armchair]

That's the problem you're having. You're treating this as "polling", rather than the reality and pain that was going to result...fairly soon.

[Josh R]

The polls tell us who the public blames for the pain. Why would we think that sentiment would have shifted once Thanksgiving travel plans were affected.

[Armchair]

That's the problem you're having. You're OK with starving infants, as long as the polls say the GOP is more to blame.

The Moderate Democrats weren't OK with starving infants, even if the polls "blamed the GOP".

[Josh R]

You're OK with starving infants, as long as the polls say the GOP is more to blame.

Firstly, whether I support something is completely separate from my view of who is winning the PR battle.

Secondly, both sides were refusing to budge until this weekend, so both sides were OK with starving infants. The only group that arguably changed their minds this week were a handful of moderate Democrats.

Thirdly, Trump was the one who wouldn't fund SNAP. Democrats pushed that funding.

[Armchair]

Firstly, what you're supporting says what you support.

Second, holding a gun to the side of the infants head and saying "give me a million dollars, or else the kid gets killed"....and then blaming the other guy for killing the infant when the money doesn't get transferred..." saying "he wasn't compromising'...doesn't work.

Third, there was not money to fund SNAP past mid November, even with the contingency fund. What's Trump going to do? Just fund it anyway, even if the program had no money?

[Josh R]

I opposed triggering the the shutdown based on ACA subsidies.

Again, everyone held the gun to the infant's head. Only moderate Democrats have come off that position.

If he didn't want infants to starve, he would have found a way.

[Armchair]

"If he didn't want infants to starve, he would have found a way."

How exactly? If there is no funding for SNAP, every contingency fund is used up, how is Trump supposed to "find a way"? Are you suggesting he should break the law, and just pay the benefits, even if the funds haven't been allocated?

[Kazinski]

Sounds like you want a King.

[jb]

Trump was literally fighting in court to make it so he could avoid giving food to those babies. Across the rest of the shutdown pain, it's fair to say that both sides deserve blame since either of them could have compromised to end it. But Trump could have simply accepted the judicial decisions requiring the administration to pay out SNAP benefits and instead he made the decision to intentionally inflict pain on babies to try and get the other side to give in.

[Poxigah146]

No, you dishonest asshole. He was fighting in court a decision to pay benefits with money that was not allocated by Congress. It would have been illegal for him to do what the courts wanted him to do.

[Armchair]

That of course is incorrect. The math tells the truth.

SNAP benefits generally run ~$9 Billion per month. SNAP had a contingency fund that had about $5 Billion in it. Thus, SNAP couldn't be fully funded by it. Trump was planning partial funding / prioritization. The courts demanded it all be used, instantly.

When that court decision came out, a bunch of states immediately decided to fully fund SNAP benefits for the entire month, as fast as possible. What that would've meant is that some states got all the SNAP funding for the month...and others got zero... Which of course is the wrong way to do things.

[David Nieporent]

No, you dishonest asshole. He was fighting in court a decision to pay benefits with money that was not allocated by Congress. It would have been illegal for him to do what the courts wanted him to do.

No. Congress authorized Title 32 funds to be spent on SNAP if necessary. The judge ordered that this be done; Trump's opposition was, "I don't wanna."

[Joe_dallas]

Josh R 2 hours ago
"You're OK with starving infants,"

The government not giving money to a family so a family can get food for free is not the same as starving infants.
Such extensive lying about the actual facts doesnt help your argument.

[jb]

Wow, Joe_dallas has the audacity to take a quote from Armchair that Josh R responded to, attribute it to Josh, and then accuse Josh of "extensive lying".

[jb]

"That of course is incorrect. The math tells the truth."

Trump initially fought against the partial payment as well.

And it kind of doesn't matter whether he was right on the legal merits in this case, the fact is that he was arguing at the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court that the government shouldn't pay out SNAP benefits even though a court had told them that it should. No one in Congress is to blame for Trump's decision to fight the courts to try and make sure that hungry kids didn't get food.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 35 minutes ago
No Congress authorized Title 32 funds to be spent on SNAP if necessary. The judge ordered that this be done; Trump's opposition was, "I don't wanna."

As numerous several individuals corrected you yesterday, the language allowed the president to spend money if it was an "extraordinary emergency" . As you were corrected, There was no "emergency " and there was no "Extraordinary emergency" that required the spending. Yet you continued to Distort the facts and you continued to distort the law.

[Joe_dallas]

My apologies to Josh R -
"Starving infants" was always a BS talking point devoid of actual facts.

[David Nieporent]

As numerous several individuals corrected you yesterday, the language allowed the president to spend money if it was an "extraordinary emergency" . As you were corrected, There was no "emergency " and there was no "Extraordinary emergency" that required the spending. Yet you continued to Distort the facts and you continued to distort the law.

And as I replied in that thread, you're retarded and don't understand the concept of an emergency, and your fallback position that "Well, maybe it was an emergency but it wasn't an extraordinary one" is no less retarded.

[not guilty]

Calling another commenter "retarded" does not contribute to enlightened discussion in these comment threads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard_(pejorative)

Even where it is accurate.

[Joe_dallas]

David you are full of s----

Not paying for someone else's food is not an emergency - Never was never Will be.

Retarded would be the one that refuses to use the proper standard under the statute "extraordinary emergency" .

You have exposed yourself as a complete lying prick.

[David Nieporent]

Not paying for someone else's food is not an emergency - Never was never Will be.

You don't have to double down; you've already convinced us you're retarded. My local food pantry periodically sends out alerts saying that they're experiencing an emergency because their shelves are running bare, and calling for immediate donations.

[Absaroka]

"You don't have to double down; you've already convinced us you're retarded. My local food pantry periodically sends out alerts saying that they're experiencing an emergency because their shelves are running bare, and calling for immediate donations."

In fairness, there are gradations of emergencies. The common adage is you die in 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, and 30 days without food. I've gone 5 days with (close to) no food, and was really really hungry afterwards. I've been on say 1/3 rations for similar periods a couple of times on backpacking trips gone wrong. In the days of wooden ships and iron men half rations might be a thing for extended periods.

A pound of body fat will support a day of strenuous activity or two days of low activity.

To be clear, I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing, but pointing out that 'emergency; is a word that spans a lot of range. If you stopped the (starvation) rations at Auschwitz or Cabanatuan for a month you'd likely see a lot of fatalities. OTOH stopping SNAP for a month seems unlikely to result in any fatalities.

[Armchair]

Absaroka,

"OTOH stopping SNAP for a month seems unlikely to result in any fatalities."

I would disagree here, mostly due to the WIC funding, which is part of the whole SNAP group of food assistance. You can survive without food for 30 days. An infant without formula would be in a different category, in my opinion.

[Absaroka]

"infant without formula"

Fair point!

(Mother's malnutrition eventually stops lactation, but I have no idea how soon that happens)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"My local food pantry periodically sends out alerts saying that they're experiencing an emergency because their shelves are running bare, and calling for immediate donations."

Do they ever say that they're experiencing an emergency and their shelves are running bare because they simply chose not to spend their money?

[Joe_dallas]

DN continues his streak of lying -

Its neither an emergency nor an Extraordinary emergency as defined by the statute.

consult your high school dictionary

[David Nieporent]

There is no "extraordinary emergency as defined by the statute." The statute contains no definition of those words, individually or as a unit. Which means that they carry their ordinary dictionary definition.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 48 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
There is no "extraordinary emergency as defined by the statute." The statute contains no definition of those words, individually or as a unit. Which means that they carry their ordinary dictionary definition.

Which clearly shows you continue to play the retarded game of calling not funding SNAP and emergency - It never was and never will be an emergency by any definition except perhaps the alice in wonderland dictionary abridged by DN. Twisting and distortions of the english language doesnt create an emergency.

[bernard11]

Just astonishing to hear dedicated Trump cultist Joe criticize DMN, or anyone, for calling something an emergency when his personal god takes the position that something is an emergency if he says so.

[Joe_dallas]

Bernard - you must be referring to DN's personal god calling it an emergency. Only a partisan fool or simply an idiot would call it an emergency.

12 or so votes to end the filibuster Which means at least 40 Dem Senators didnt think it was an emergency, certainly not an extraordinary emergency.

[David Nieporent]

Just astonishing to hear dedicated Trump cultist Joe criticize DMN, or anyone, for calling something an emergency when his personal god takes the position that something is an emergency if he says so.

To be honest, I have absolutely no idea at this point what bookkeeper_joe thinks the word "emergency" means. It's certainly not what native speakers of English think it means, but I'm not sure what that leaves. (You'll notice that — just as when he's trying to make assertions about science, law, politics, or anything else he knows nothing about — he will never actually be specific. He's always willing to call everyone else wrong or dishonest or lying or ignoring facts or whatever, but he'll never say anything that would let his own position be nailed down. So here he's been ranting for 20+ comments over multiple threads that this isn't an emergency, but he's never said what he thinks is one.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Emergency: Something on fire or someone is bleeding.
Anything less is merely a problem.

[David Nieporent]

Emergency: Something on fire or someone is bleeding.
Anything less is merely a problem.

I mean, that's obviously wrong in common parlance — someone who keels over, suffering a heart attack, would fit into neither category you name but I think everyone would agree it's an emergency — but at least you made an effort, unlike bookkeeper_joe.

But it's highly unlikely that when Congress wrote: "but no more than 7 per centum shall be added to any one item of appropriation [in the Department of Agriculture] except in cases of extraordinary emergency," they were referring to either fire or bleeding.

[shawn_dude]

What a strange argument given the contents of the BBB that cut medical care and SNAP food aid to the poor by $120 Billion, including children to balance tax cuts for the wealthiest. Even if children are covered by Medicaid, a parent that goes bankrupt due to the combination of a loss of insurance and an illness is also going to result in starving children. The BBB cut $1Trillion in Medicaid funding which will result in around 10 million Americans losing insurance in the next 10 years. 22 million ACA recipients will see their premiums rise a significant amount.

But sure, hammer the Democrats for being willing to watch children starve. The GOP isn't just okay to watch children starve, it drafted a detailed plan to get it done, passed it in Congress, and then successfully defended it against Democratic resistance.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Moderate Democrats PERSONALLY KNOW people receiving SNAP, A0C doesn't.

[Bwaaah]

Josh R: "The polls tell us who the public blames for the pain."

"Pain" is your injected implication. "Party" is likely a more prevalent one.

[wvattorney13]

But that was all Trump's fault, at least how the narrative was playing out. Trump was going to court and fighting to not have to pay SNAP benefits to starving kids. That would have come to a head this very week. Travel over Thanksgiving was coming up.

IMHO, the GOP was going to have to give up some rather substantial things--at least a 1 year ACA extension. The Dems bailed them out.

[Armchair]

"IMHO, the GOP was going to have to give up some rather substantial things--at least a 1 year ACA extension"

Wasn't going to happen. If for no other reason, than the precedent it would set. If "shutting down the government" as a minority party in the Senate was able to get you major benefits....there's no reason not to do it again for more benefits. Shutdown now....get a 1-year ACA extension. Shut it down in January....get another 2 year extension. Shut it down in March....get your next wish list item.

[jb]

You know, or just pass a budget so you aren't reliant on CRs to keep the government open.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and neither party has seen fit to do so in almost three decades.

[jb]

Sure. My point is simply that if either party wants to avoid being held over a barrel by the specter of a shutdown, there's a fix for that. Rather than worrying about precedents, maybe Johnson should have had the House at work trying to fix the underlying problem.

But we all know him keeping the House out didn't really have anything to do with the shutdown in any case. Interested in seeing his next attempt to keep the Epstein files buried!

[Bob from Ohio]

Epstein !

[Joe_dallas]

fyi - it was the democrats the blocked a senate vote

[jb]

Senate vote on what? (Regardless, not sure how it's responsive to either of my points.)

[Joe_dallas]

JB - it is called a democrat filibuster -effectively the same as blocking a vote.

[jb]

I know how they do it, I just don't understand what vote you're talking about.

[Armchair]

They tried that. The bills that were to fund the government (and got out of committee on a bipartisan vote) were also filibustered by the Democrats.

[jb]

Of course, this is what the reconciliation process is actually intended for. Once a year you can pass a budget and you don't need to worry about the filibuster.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree with Armchair, Team R wasn't going to budge. They don't have to. The Donald is in their corner. He is not pressuring them much. I give Senator Thune his due. He has had an impactful year, with OBBB, confirmations, and now holding his team together through the shutdown. And w/o nuking the filibuster.

No problem having a vote on ACA subsidies for the upper middle class. Exposing patients to the true cost of medical care will greatly lessen frivolous usage.

Maybe now there can be consensus on how we want the Fed Govt involved in healthcare, and how to deliver medical care more cost effectively. That didn't happen back in 2009-2010, and PPACA was rammed through by Team D. PPACA has systematically been dismantled over time, this is just another PPACA support beam getting ripped out.

[Michael Ejercito]

The only federal involvement in health care within a state is to adjudicate disputes claiming that a state's health care policy violates some ciovil right or equal protection.

[shawn_dude]

"No problem having a vote on ACA subsidies for the upper middle class. Exposing patients to the true cost of medical care will greatly lessen frivolous usage."

Next we'll be hearing about how Tiny Tim was lazy. This is more of the same "welfare queen" strawman that Republicans routinely use to justify hurting the poor Monday-through Friday while looking pious on the Sabbath and pretending God loves them best.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The Democrats shut down a bill to pay the Feds who were working without pay....arguing those furloughed should get paid as well."

If you worked for a month and got the same pay afterwards that someone who didn't did, you'd be p*ssed...

[Frank Drackman]

"Elections"???
OK, I guess "3" is plural.
So they won 3 Erections in NY City, NJ, VA.
"45/47/48(?)" won every Swing State and Florida and Texas by 3 million votes.
Throw out California (really, throw them out) and he wins the National Popular Vote by 5 million.
"W" won Florida in 2000 by 538 votes, Trump won by 1.5 million.
I know, it's the "Changing Demographics"

Frank

[Josh R]

Dems carried NJ and VA (plus the statewide races in GA) by margins indicative of a D+5 or more national environment. That's enough to win the House and make the Senate reachable (but still not likely).

[Frank Drackman]

Sure, and Common-Law's going to win Iowa by 15 percent

[Josh R]

That was a poll. This was an election.

[ducksalad]

GA got less attention but it's the better data point. NJ and VA can be attributed in the part of to the specific candidates. In GA it was a relatively obscure office where many voters didn't know much more than the party label.

[not guilty]

Winning control of the House of Representatives would be huge, what with Congressional investigative authority. And having a black Speaker would drive the MAGAts even crazier than they presently are.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Congressional investigative authority"

You'll be surprised how easily this can be dodged.

[Joe_dallas]

eric holder
lynch, etc

[shawn_dude]

But not surprised by the level of contempt the people who dodge Congressional investigations have for our democracy and constitution.

[Joe_dallas]

Thanks for condemning the long list of democrats that have dodge congressional investigations

[JoeFromtheBronx]

That's the line -- eight Democratic senators folded, and it's "the Democrats." Jeffries, the leader of the House Democrats, for instance, came out against it. Since the Democrats supported it.

It is like when the gentle ladies and McCain voted against changing the Affordable Care Act, blocking the move. I recall how everyone said "the Republicans" did so.

I don't necessarily agree with all of this, but it is helpful.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-quick-take-on-team-caves-big-win

I'm fine with Schumer being replaced. The old guard needs to be replaced. Jeffries is part of the new crew, but was mentored by Nancy Pelosi, so not sure how great that move was either.

I don't know who is going to replace him. That is often skipped over. I repeatedly see people yelling at him to resign. They don't often say who they want to replace him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Affordable Care Act"

What is "Affordable" about it?

Its the greatest lie since the "Neverending Story"!

[Bwaaah]

"Inflation Reduction Act" was a good one too.

[Joe_dallas]

Bwaaah 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Inflation Reduction Act"

The IRA was more of a major slush fund

[Bwaaah]

And the Obfuscated Bill Name Award goes to "Card Check," a Democratic initiative to take away people's privacy when voting for/against unionization. The proper name could be "Assuring That Thugs Get to Check Your Union Voting Card." Obama got lots of union PAC money in exchange for supporting that one.

[Malika la Maize]

Recently disaffected liberal! Lol

[Bwaaah]

Yeah! Jam it to the laborers! They don't know their own good.

If you've been in the thick of a union labor dispute, then you know how nasty it gets. (At least with Teamsters locals.)

How backward is your "liberalism" that regrets the privacy, the security, the individual autonomy of a secret ballot.

"Liberal" is NOT equal to "Democrat." The winds shifted and you're confused.

[Malika la Maize]

You claimed to be a recently disaffected liberal, the card check debate was a Clinton era thing. The next thing I guess you’ll be going on about is the Striker Replacement Bill!

Phoney baloney.

[Bwaaah]

How is taking away a worker's right to a private ballot in a unionization vote "liberal" to you?

[Ska]

Lionel Hutz: Did these sound like the actions of a man who had "all he could eat"?

[Commenter_XY]

The Democrats folded at the point where they held the most leverage.

What leverage? Team D had nothing. Team D walked away with nothing. What we have here is a bipartisan agreement to end the shutdown and fund the Fed Govt.

It was always: this for that. End the shutdown, and you get a recorded vote on what you want. That was the political bargain. It took the Senate 40 days to figure it out.

[Josh R]

The leverage resulting from the public blaming the GOP.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R....Team R has the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. And a majority of governorships. Team D had no leverage, and they never did. That is objective reality. The result shows it. After 'accurate' polling results in 2016, 2020, and 2024, there is deep public skepticism with push polls designed to get a specific result.

I prefer to characterize the result as a bipartisan agreement to end the shutdown and fund the Fed Govt. Hopefully it is done and over with.

We have, additionally, gained much more insight into what is essential and what is non-essential wrt Fed Govt.

[Josh R]

That is objective reality.

Don't be stupid. It's an opinion.

My opinion is the polls do a good job when Trump's name is not on the ballot (they miss low-propensity Trump voters). Thus, the shutdown polls are good evidence. Moreover, how about those election results. At best for the GOP, the shutdown had no effect.

[Kazinski]

I think people get what happened, and whose fault it was:

"All of the Democrats who called it a “Republican shutdown” seem pretty mad that 8 Democrats voted to open the government."

https://x.com/Bossy_Leah/status/1987741104612036978?s=20

[Bob from Ohio]

"Schumer does not control his caucus"

No leader [maybe LBJ] has really "controlled" his caucus. They can only "lead" when the caucus is united already.

Senators are cats, not dogs like house members.

[Bwaaah]

Democrats (more than Republicans) believe in some kind of mythical monolithic control of their congress-critters. They tend to treat independent actors as being guilty of bad behavior. They find dissent, inside their tent and outside, intolerable.

I understand (and don't dispute the value of) the role of a whip. But it's pretty pathetic for constituents to view the behavior of their elected representatives through such a centralized, tactical, partisan perspective. It's such One Mind bullshit.

Admission: DJT tries to operate his own My Universe monolithic control of everything he cares about.

Anyway, there's no lack of want for The Big Fist.

[Malika la Maize]

Cool story!

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/file.php?path=Party%20Unity%20Tables/2015_Party_Unity.pdf#_

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"...why did the moderate Democrats blink first?"

So you seem to accept that there's such being as a "moderate Democrat."

What term would you use to describe a Democrat who *isn't* moderate?

[Kazinski]

Democrats win elections in 3 jurisdictions they won last year, big deal.

Too be sure the GOP will probably lose control of the House next year, but that happens in almost every off year election.

Happened in 1994, 2006, 2010, 2018, 2022. The only exception in the last 30 years of the party that holds the Whitehouse and the House will lose the House in the off year election was 2002 and that was due to 9/11.

[not guilty]

Democrats also made gains in Georgia and Mississippi, where they did not win last year. The most vulnerable Senate Democrat in next year's election is likely Jon Ossoff, so it is encouraging that two Georgia Democrats won seats on the Public Service Commission.

[Bob from Ohio]

Turnout will be way higher in 2026 than in an off year election for obscure posts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NG -- Dems on Public Service Commission is like Republican Sheriffs.

[Bunny495]

The dems won some elections in blue states which is expected. The wins in Georgia were more about electric bills going up and the cost of a nuke power plant as the cause. Problem is electric bills have (and will continue) to go up no matter who wins elections.

It will be telling what happens in the midterms. I don't expect the economy to improve much if at all. Problem is the places hit hardest may well be blue strongholds. Chi town is screaming about Mexican neighborhoods going dark and restaurants there being empty. The voters upset by this were never gonna vote for the pubs anyway.

I have to wonder about polls blaming the pubs. Personally the shutdown had no effect on me. Those needing government handouts may have had a rough stretch but once things get back to normal it is hard to tell what the fallout will be.

My best guess is if the courts approve of Trump's tariffs and he is able to buy votes with the money they generate it will help the pubs in the midterms. If the tariffs are bashed and there is a claw back it will help the dems.

[hobie]

Agreed. What was the point of this exercise when you have achieved absolutely nothing for all your trouble?

[Poxigah146]

They were always going to win those elections. And in NJ, it looks like they cheated.

[Reallynotbob]

I see it differently.

1) Promise for ACA subsidies vote in November or December is useful. No vote or "no" vote on ACA subsidies is bad for the GOP, and an "aye" vote is good for Dems.

2) CR to January 30, but SNAP is funded for 10 months along with a few other things. That's groundwork for shutdown 2.0 if Thune double-crosses on #1.

3) Fed employees get taken care of, including the ones fired. No more firings until Jan 30. GOP can't take credit for that because they were gleefully firing them, but the Dems can.

4) GOP can't convert on this unless Mike Johnson calls the House back, which means swearing in Grijalva and a vote on the Epstein file discharge petition.

[Bob from Ohio]

Epstein!

[Nelson]

Because the Dems always fold. Usually at the worst possible time for them. The political ineptitude of Democrats almost defies belief.

[David Nieporent]

As someone pointed out on social media, "If you gave the Democrats three wishes, Schumer would negotiate it down to one."

[Armchair]

Moderate Democrats have seen reason and finally not filibustered proposal to end the government shutdown.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5597973-senate-votes-government-shutdown-deal/

[Randal]

Someone who said that Kavanaugh is auditioning for Chief was right. It came through in Tariffs -- him and his sort of "seems obvious to me" non-logic. The Obvious-to-Toadies Doctrine.

I suspect he'll write the main dissent. Let's see if he calls Trump's tariffs "perfect." That'll be the ultimate tell.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Kavanaugh wants to be liked. He comes off as a sad dude bro.

If he hopes to be chief, I think he will be sorely disappointed. Josh Blackman's favorite justice (I kid) is much more likely the Republican appointee who would replace him. [Barrett]

[Bob from Ohio]

"much more likely the Republican appointee who would replace him"

Roberts is 70. Probably not ready to retire for another 10 years.

So maybe Prof. Blackman, after 8-9 years on the 5th circuit, can replace him!

[CommentMonkey]

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. Roberts is 70. The next CJ opening is likely to be a decade or so from now, at which point Trump will be long gone. The tariffs will most likely be an historical footnote by then, particularly if the Supreme Court rules against the administration in these cases. Virtually no one will remember Wednesday's argument.

Do you really think Kavanaugh is faking enthusiasm for Trump's position, hoping that someone remembers his demeanor in oral argument eight, ten, twelve, fifteen years on? Maybe he just disagrees with you on a close case.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, I really don't believe the "wants to be CJ" explanation either.

The real lesson here, now seen twice, is don't humiliate nominees and their spouses with false* sexual accusations during the confirmation hearings. The result is a bitter justice with a sense of grievance that shows through in his rulings.

----
*I count "saved secretly for decades just in case this college student / office director someday gets nominated to the Supreme Court" as functionally equivalent to false.

However, even if it really happened, we've now seen that this particular revenge strategy backfires horribly. Your alleged accuser still gets on the court, with his conservatism intensified.

[Randal]

As Joe pointed out, he clearly wants to be liked, especially by the right. I think he's still ambitious and sees an opportunity to be conservatives' darling justice. Alito and Thomas are old and compromised, Roberts is despised by everyone, and Gorsuch and Barrett are too... inflexible (in his mind) to become the right's favorite ideologue.

Then the question is, to what end? Maybe burnishing his "legacy" is enough, but this isn't the best way to do it. Maybe he doesn't realize that, but he must realize CJ is at least a possibility. Roberts might retire "young" for any number of reasons. Why not position himself? What else does he have to aspire to?

[wvattorney13]

What is this Republican alternative to the expanded ACA subsidies? All I have heard is that we are giving money to "people" instead of "insurance companies."

I have said elsewhere that I get these expanded subsidies. I oppose them on principle but I do favor being enriched by $9k per year.

What does it mean for the Republicans to give the money to me instead of insurance companies? If they give the money to me, and I give it to insurance companies (because I no longer have the subsidy), what has that changed?

[Armchair]

"what has that changed?"

You have the choice to not give it to the insurance company.

[wvattorney13]

You mean I have the choice to go without health insurance and face certain financial ruin if anyone in my family gets sick?

I guess I have that choice. Much the same I can choose to cut my left hand off as well.

[Randal]

The theory as I understand it is... if you're the one choosing to spend "your" money, you might be more discriminating with how you spend it, resulting in better price pressure.

But for that to make sense, you either have to a) take insurance companies out of the loop entirely or at least b) remove all the ACA constraints on them like preexisting conditions. In other words it doesn't make sense.

[Z Crazy]

Yeah, the fallacy in that " if you're the one choosing to spend "your" money, you might be more discriminating with how you spend it, resulting in better price pressure." people do not choose to get cancer.

The source of high prices for health care are the doctors themselves. Pricing decisions should be taken away from them, and instead be placed under politically accountable bodies created by state legislatures.

Why not put a hard $10,000.00 cap on open heart surgery?

[wvattorney13]

Did you in any way do research to come up with that number or does it just strike you as a good number?

Maybe if you do that then nobody gets any heart surgeries.

[Armchair]

"Why not put a hard $10,000.00 cap on open heart surgery?"

Same reason you don't put a hard $1 a gallon cap on the price of milk.

[Armchair]

That's one of your choices.

If you want a different view...

"Biden COVID credits drove fraud by creating zero-dollar plans that are fully subsidized by taxpayers and require no enrollee contributions. Unscrupulous brokers enrolled many people without their knowledge and many others after manipulating information on applications to maximize subsidies"

https://paragoninstitute.org/private-health/ghostbusting-aca-fraud-millions-who-dont-use-their-health-insurance-expose-abuse-in-the-program/

Of course people didn't care, because they weren't spending any of their own money.

[Mr. Bumble]

@wvattorney:
What is this Republican alternative to the expanded ACA subsidies?
You should be asking that of Democrats since they are the ones who passed the ACA and also set the expiation date for the end of subsidies.

[wvattorney13]

I should ask the Democrats what the Republican alternative is to their plan?

[Mr. Bumble]

Dems set the expiration date. Republicans plan was to let them expire.
Should the subsidies go on forever?

[wvattorney13]

Let's start over. The Republicans announced an alternative to the Democratic plan to extend the ACA subsidies. The alternative was vague stating only that it will give the money to "people" instead of "insurance companies."

I was inquiring about the details of that plan because the one sentence version seems no different than what the Dems are proposing, only having me act as an intermediary between the government and the insurance company.

I'm not sure how your counter question is responsive to what I asked because even the Republican answer now seems to be "yes, they should."

[Life of Brian]

What I would very much like it to mean is to return the private health insurance market to an actual insurance market (coverage for catastrophic, unforeseen issues), with consumers using the not-small difference in premiums to pay out of pocket for the lower-dollar routine stuff (ideally out of an HSA).

Whether 1) that's actually anything close to the notion, and 2) the political will exists to actually make it happen, is another matter entirely.

[Randal]

What's never made sense about that is how it deals with chronic aka "preexisting" conditions. How do you get insurance on a house that's actively burning down?

Once you solve for that, if you care to, you're back to the ACA.

[wvattorney13]

I suppose you could have a one time waiver of preexisting conditions---at age 18---and then no more waivers.

That would have most people paying into the system for 30 to 40 years before making substantial withdrawals from it. And by that time, the average person would have enough money saved up to pay down the rest of their lives for the inevitable.

And then you would have the catastrophic insurance backdrop for those who are not as fortunate health wise.

That's the ideal. The problem in application will be the millions of people who had a job loss at age 31 and for whatever reason were never allowed to get insurance again. Unless society is willing to just let those people die or never have anything then it wouldn't work.

[Life of Brian]

The problem in application will be the millions of people who had a job loss at age 31 and for whatever reason were never allowed to get insurance again.

Do we really think that adds up to millions, though? KFF did a study on this a few years ago and estimated 27% of US adults have what they called a "declinable" condition, but once you chase that definition down it just means something that would be excluded were they buying day-1 coverage, not something that would prevent them from getting coverage.

So just going with that estimate for now, take 27% of whatever this population is in your hypo -- which, if I understand correctly, would just be those who lost their jobs in their early 30s but somehow were not eligible for Medicaid -- then take the thinner slice of those whose preexisting condition is actually something that takes sustained, big-ticket interventions rather than just an occasional low-mid-grade bother. Seems like that's ultimately the population you have to plan for.

[wvattorney13]

From you own cite you have 53 million people in the U.S. who would be a single premium payment away from losing health care coverage, possibly until age 65 when they get Medicare.

And the only way that they get coverage in the first place is through a lifetime of on time premium payments starting at age 18.

You can take your knowledge of the average person to see how many people would follow those rules.

I take the point that many of those people have employer plans or are eligible for Medicaid, but that only solidifies the problem with the prior poster's plan. The idea is to get everyone on this "pay as you go with insurance for catastrophic things" plan. The more people not on it, the less it works.

[bernard11]

KFF did a study on this a few years ago and estimated 27% of US adults have what they called a "declinable" condition, but once you chase that definition down it just means something that would be excluded were they buying day-1 coverage, not something that would prevent them from getting coverage.

But people switch insurers. They move from a job that supplies it to one that doesn't. Or their employer goes broke, or gets in trouble and has to lay a lot of people off. It's not just 18-year-olds buying from a new company.

[Life of Brian]

These scenarios were all addressed before the ACA came along.

The P in HIPAA stands for "portability," and in practice it precluded exclusions/delay periods for preeexisting conditions as long as there was no more than about a 2-month gap between the new policy and a prior policy.

COBRA allowed you to continue coverage offered by a prior employer for at least a year and a half after switching jobs. That's a pretty healthy amount of time to find another job with insurance, even if you had to take something that didn't in the short term. And the private market still existed at that time anyway, so worst case you could (as I did for a period of time) buy your own policy if you couldn't get one through another employer within 18 months.

[Randal]

You're 97% of the way to single-payer.

[Life of Brian]

How do you get insurance on a house that's actively burning down?

You don't, and I don't think anyone really argues with a straight face that it should be otherwise. Nor does anyone realistically expect homeowner's insurance to pay for a gut reno after you let your roof go to crap and catch the rain drips in buckets for years.

We've collectively done an excellent job over the past few decades convincing ourselves that health is the one area where (except for smoking, because reasons!) personal responsibility plays no role and everything bad that happens, just happens. I agree that as long as we maintain that scrupulously polite fiction, true reform will be tougher.

But two things: First, you're by and large just talking about a transitional problem, for currently chronically ill people. Even if you're going to fund that in some way, it makes an immense amount of sense to me to deal with that separately rather than forcing insurers to price that in to everyone's premiums. Second, a system where people have to pay out of pocket until they reach the catastrophic threshold is going to help a great deal in reducing that band of oh-I-don't-think-I-feel-good-again-let's-just-be-super-duper-sure-nothing-is-wrong consumption that falls between routine visits and true catastrophes. It's just basic human nature to end up eating more at a buffet than when ordering off a menu.

Long-term, you effectively just have a market-based "mandate" (get and keep coverage so there are no preexisting conditions), which ACA proponents were fine with as long as it was a governmental hammer so it shouldn't be a conceptual issue here. But again, that allows insurers to actually price expected risks over the broader population rather than a perversely selected group of sick people that they're forced to cover whenever they wish to finally sign up.

[wvattorney13]

This would only work if you eliminated Medicaid. By definition these people won't be paying for it themselves.

And you would have to outlaw employer provided health insurance which is the most common way that individuals are covered.

Finally, there could be no backstop if a person was unwise and didn't save up for a few years in their 20s. If you have a backstop then people just will use their money elsewhere.

In other words, that would never happen. You can't have people go a week without government assistance with food. You think you can create a health care system that requires spot on choices for a person's entire life?

[Life of Brian]

This would only work if you eliminated Medicaid. By definition these people won't be paying for it themselves.

I was talking about the private insurance market that the ACA has distorted. To generalize a bit, the population eligible for Medicaid tends to have greater issues with responsibility and impulse control, so I doubt it's realistic to expect them to step to the plate with medical consumption.

And you would have to outlaw employer provided health insurance which is the most common way that individuals are covered.

This one I'm not tracking at all. Employers today provide options from available plans. If the industry shifted [back] to offering catastrophic coverage, employers that offer insurance would select from those plans -- and no doubt compete via levels of contribution to the accompanying HSAs.

Finally, there could be no backstop if a person was unwise and didn't save up for a few years in their 20s.

Not tracking this either, unless it's another sub-point on the Medicaid population.

You think you can create a health care system that requires spot on choices for a person's entire life?

Nothing in life is perfect, of course. But right now, incentives in health care consumption are completely scrambled due to neither the provider nor the recipient of services having much incentive at all to be wise and judicious about consumption levels. If we don't do anything to realign those incentives, I can't see how the future gets anything but more unsustainable.

[wvattorney13]

1) I'm saying that the average person does not want the lifetime pay as you go with catastrophic insurance back stop. The mark of success in the middle class is having a job with "good benefits." They want a $15 co-pay at the doctor, not dip into the HSA. Insurance companies and employers will respond to that demand by having those policies. That is, unless you outlaw them.

2) The "backstop" relates to preexisting conditions. If you enforce it---tell someone that they get no coverage because they let their premiums lapse--then you have to stand by it and let people die in the streets. If you give in then people will realize that and not pay into the system causing a death spiral.

3) I disagree with the idea that consumption is the problem, at least as it relates to most people. You still have deductibles and copays so you are somewhat price conscious. I agree that you don't pay the full amount so prices don't respond to competitive pressures and the large number of people on Medicaid don't cause price pressure at all.

But there is no solution to that. They don't have money anyways. Again, if you'll let them die unless they pay, then it might work.

[Life of Brian]

I'm not at all suggesting this is a simple issue, much less one that we're going to solve in a few back and forth posts.

I do think that just to say there's no solution unless you let people "die in the streets" might overstate things a bit. As a population, people with chronic, deadly conditions are not likely to be the ones playing fast and loose with the system in the first place, and I bet we could come up with a scheme to handle the few exceptions that wouldn't also open the floodgates for healthier folks to play chicken as they can under the current regime.

I agree deductibles do contribute some to price sensitivity, but I also think the subsidies have created a decent-sized tier where that's a lot less true because people were paying little to nothing in premiums to start with. For people who haven't been so graced, its very realistic to pay $25-30k in annual family premiums just to get the opportunity to go to the doctor and spend more. It'll be interesting to see if and how that lower-tier behavior changes if the subsidies don't get "fixed" next year and everybody gets to enjoy the full, actual cost of their coverage.

[Dr. Ed 2]

WVA Atty -- you enforce your concept of preexisting condition ban and the schmuck who shot the health guy in the back will become a folk hero.

If you're going to die of a treatable disease, what do you have to lose? Kill a dozen people and get your moment of fame -- it WILL happen...

Ever hear of Jack Ruby?

[jb]

This is even worse in a world with genetic testing. An expensive condition doesn't even have to be pre-existing, it just needs to be higher risk than the general population to make someone uninsurable.

[Poxigah146]

It's very simple. Detach health insurance from employment and then there won't need to be a gap in coverage because someone loses their job.

[Randal]

Because... it's free? Or because the government pays for it when someone loses their stream of income?

[Poxigah146]

Government doesn't pay for car insurance when someone loses their stream of income. It's called not living paycheck to paycheck and not buying the latest sail phone or fake nails.

[Randal]

Yes, but when someone stops paying their car insurance, they don't die.

[Poxigah146]

No, they just put the risk onto society. The same as what happens with their health insurance.

[Randal]

No, they just put the risk onto society.

Only if they keep driving anyway, which is very illegal.

We did effectively the same thing with ACA: you gotta get insurance if you want to participate in society.

[Life of Brian]

Only if they keep driving anyway, which is very illegal.

Crossing the border is also very illegal, and in the real world people treat the two similarly. Plenty of states have more than 20% uninsured drivers.

For a good time, take a look at the uninsured motorist line item on your own policy.

[Poxigah146]

Life of Brian, exactly. I can't believe Randal is that ignorant about these matters.

And the reason they keep driving anyway is that the consequences for doing so are pretty light in most places. Watch the Youtube bodycam videos of these traffic stops. The people are usually cited and allowed to drive away. If the police impounded the cars, arrested the drivers, and the DAs actually prosecuted them, this problem would stop in a heartbeat.

[Randal]

Well, it's very illegal here. But how illegal it is doesn't matter. ACA made not having insurance only very slightly illegal and you lot freaked out your minds. And it's not even illegal at all anymore.

In other words, you two are making my point for me. Somebody's going to have to pay when a job is lost and insurance lapses. Maybe it's the drivers who get into an accident with an uninsured motorist. Maybe it's the hospital who has to pay for the uninsured emergency room visit. Maybe it's the person who dies from preventable diseases because of lack of coverage. Maybe it's taxpayers in the form of insurance subsidies. Whoever it is, it's someone.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What's never made sense about that is how it deals with chronic aka "preexisting" conditions. "

You'd have insurance policies that are more like worker's comp. If you develop a condition while you are insured, that company covers that condition, even if you are no longer insured. That's really how health insurance should work anyway.

[Randal]

There will always be people who don't get insurance until they're chronically ill. What are you going to do with them? Let them die in the streets to use West Virginia's phrase?

[TwelveInchPianist]

How ever you want. That doesn't mean that insurance companies should have to pay for them.

[Randal]

The problem is, how you answer that question kind of ends up determining how all of health care works. It's just one of those things. If we tell people not to worry, the government's going to cover your medical expenses if you really need it, then who's going to buy insurance? It quickly collapses to single-payer. You could force those costs onto large employers potentially, but a) it's not clear why employers should bear those costs either and b) it wouldn't prevent the collapse to single-payer anyway since not everyone has a large employer.

You could make hospitals pay, but that's the least efficient possible way of distributing health care. We do this with immigrants and it's stupid in that context, it'd be even stupider to do for everybody.

Hence ACA and making insurance companies deal with it. It seems the least bad (assuming you really want to avoid single-payer).

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe make more money so you don't have to take Uncle Sammie's Sloppy Seconds.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What is this Republican alternative to the expanded ACA subsidies? "

Ending them.

[wvattorney13]

No. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-pitch-alternative-to-aca-extension-to-end-government-shutdown/ar-AA1Q6kUy

Towards the end: "A key development that appeared to break the logjam in the negotiations was that Senate Republicans proposed that some healthcare funding be provided directly to households rather than be used to pay for a one-year extension of enhanced ACA subsidies.

That GOP proposal involves sending federal money into flexible-spending accounts instead of to insurance companies that use the money to offset the cost of premiums, so consumers pay a smaller monthly bill. The money could be used to cover deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs, which Republicans see as a way to give consumers more choice and control healthcare inflation."

I'm not sure what to make of it. So I couldn't use the money for premiums but I could buy a cheaper plan with an $X additional deductible and come out even, maybe not this year but some time in the future when I am sicker. Many people who are living paycheck to paycheck will not be able to afford the premiums in the first place to take advantage of the savings years from now.

But that assumes that the same people will get the same money and my monthly premium would be $X/12 cheaper than the plan I get now.

From my initial back of the envelope calculation, assuming the same subsidy, I would save about half of what I am getting now in premium savings but my deductible would be $17,400, or an additional $8,400 above what I have now. So I get 50% of what I am getting now for worse insurance under this plan, and it costs the government the same money.

Doesn't make sense initially.

[Bob from Ohio]

Senate GOP does not affect the House much.

The Speaker is not even committing to a vote.

[Josh R]

SCOTUS denies cert in Kim Davis' same-sex marriage case (no surprise).

They grant cert on whether federal law requires mail-in ballots to be received by election day. Given that the decision below said they do, at least SCOTUS will not endorse that position without hearing the case.

[ducksalad]

Is the reason they're hearing it because 16+/- states count ballots received later than election day, and not all of them were covered by the lower court decision?

[Josh R]

Could be. Ask me again after oral arguments.

[David Nieporent]

My prediction is that this involves reining in yet another out-of-control decision from the 5th circuit.

[Swede425]

Well, that was an exercise in stupidity.
40 days of no impact to me or mine.
And for what?
In what scenario was this ever going to work?
I guess the driving factor was Dems fear of losing elections in Dem areas?
Well, congrats. You did it. You won the elections you were supposed to win. I guess your constituents won't have to starve.
Trump will use this opportunity to carve more fat from the federal work force. And he should.
Schumer and Jeffries, what a team.

[Malika la Maize]

Hmm, blaming big corporations for inflation, sounds familiar…

A Justice Department investigation into the country’s largest meatpacking companies for collusion and price fixing has the potential to reshape the cattle and beef industries. But past efforts to break the companies’ hold have gone nowhere.

The White House called for an examination into the meatpacking companies’ practices after President Trump, in a post on social media on Friday, accused them of artificially inflating prices and jeopardizing the country’s food supply. A White House news release specifically named JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods and National Beef as targets of the investigation. The companies collectively slaughter 85 percent of the country’s cattle and a majority of its hogs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/08/business/trump-meatpackers-investigation.html

[Armchair]

Price fixing isn't inflation.

[Malika la Maize]

Thanks, Kamala!

[Bwaaah]

That was Armchair. But your inflation theory is Kamala-ish.

[Malika la Maize]

Can’t process sarcasm, ignorant of recent history, or both?

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2022/09/26/biden-harris-administration-announces-major-actions-spur-competition-protect-producers-and-reduce

[Bwaaah]

Right. They're talking about "price fixing," and you're speaking of it as if that's "inflation." Armchair corrected you, and you're doubling down.

It would be reasonable to describe the price-fixing you're talking about as having had an "inflationary effect" on food prices. But categorically speaking, the inflation problems during the Biden administration weren't significantly a result of price-fixing. You're playing that dumb old "inflation is caused by greedy corporations." That's true in small part, but in large part, corporations face intense competitive downward pressures upon their prices.

You do you.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'll say one more thing about the budget stuff.

I'm so very tired that the budget is made into a continual drama. This fits in with the debate over the debt ceiling.

We can explain why, including a closely divided Congress and so forth. But it is not a sane way to run a railroad.

The new deal will kick the ball down the road a few months. So we will have more drama. Ugh. I am not a fan of the current House Speaker. But I'm glad the position was filled. It was ridiculous not to have a speaker for such a long time or to have drawn out battles over who it should be. A sane process should be in place to choose one.

Ditto the budget. The budget should be negotiated. It will be messy. It will have a lot of partisan wrangling and rhetoric.

Then, we will have a budget for the year. Or six months, at least. A big thing I want after the 2026 elections is a sane reform of the process.

[Armchair]

There's no sane reform. There's a massive debt/deficit problem, one that no one is really willing to fix, because it will be very...very...hard, and require massive cuts and sacrifices.

No one ever got elected by saying "we're going to cut benefits and raise taxes".

[Moderation4ever]

You are absolutely right in you last statement. You can not really get elected if you plan to raise taxes or cut spending. You can if you talk like that but never if you actually followed through.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm concerned with the process here.

The final budget very well might be a kick the can down the road deal. But that is what it should be. The final budget.

Not a budget for two months or something.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So we will have more drama. "

Doubtful. There will be a quiet CR extending until past the election. Neither side will have the appetite for a new "shutdown".

[Life of Brian]

A big thing I want after the 2026 elections is a sane reform of the process.

Agree with this wholeheartedly. How to actually fix it is another matter. I wonder if withholding Congresscritters' pay until a budget is passed would catch enough of a bipartisan slice to be a consistently effective deterrent.

[Zarniwoop]

There are a lot of really, really rich people in Congress. Do you think they care about their salary, when the insider trading perks are worth so very much more?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s a Simpsons level computer do level idea, for sure.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fnGaf0p9x1U

[bernard11]

Maybe stop the staffs' pay. That'll get action.

[Life of Brian]

Of course some of them wouldn't feel the pain, but many would. That was the "catch enough of a bipartisan slice" part.

[Malika la Maize]

Sleepy Don?

President Donald Trump hosted one of the more attention-grabbing press events of his term in the Oval Office this week, announcing price cuts for weight-loss drugs, only to be interrupted when one of the attendees collapsed in a faint.

Before that dramatic turn of events, however, Trump appeared to struggle to stay awake as his health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and two other deputies took turns explaining the announcement. Clips of the scene have circulated widely on social media and drawn heavy criticism from Democrats.

A Washington Post analysis of multiple video feeds found that Trump spent nearly 20 minutes apparently battling to keep his eyes open at the Thursday event. It was a seemingly stark illustration of the strain of the presidency on a 79-year-old who typically keeps a vigorous travel schedule that even his aides say they struggle to keep up with — and who has reveled in calling his predecessor “Sleepy Joe” Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/08/trump-sleeping-oval-office/

[Frank Drackman]

I agree, he needs to rest up for the Re-erection campaign in 2028.

[Moderation4ever]

For Christ sakes he an old man with moderate dementia. What do you expect.

[Bob from Ohio]

"moderate dementia"

The post-Biden hypocrisy is staggering.

Trump is a known non-sleeper at night. Its catching up to him now.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump is a know night owl, but there is nothing to suggest he does anything at night other than watch TV, eat his happy meal, and make late night cold calls. He is expected to be working at meeting. If he wants a nap put JD in charge and go nap.

[Bob from Ohio]

"nothing to suggest he does anything at night other than watch TV, eat his happy meal, and make late night cold calls"

So you agree he's not sleeping. A younger Trump could keep up his pace, an older Trump cannot.

"expected to be working at meeting"

It wasn't a work meeting, it was a press conference. He wasn't speaking, he had already approved the plan so fell asleep.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It wasn't a work meeting, it was a press conference. He wasn't speaking, he had already approved the plan so fell asleep."

Yup. It's not like this meeting, where Biden fell asleep.

[Joe_dallas]

Bob from Ohio 1 hour ago
"moderate dementia"
The post-Biden hypocrisy is staggering.

More than just staggering - delusional is a better description. Look at all the current calls for the 25th from those claiming biden is sharp as a tack!

[Malika la Maize]

“The post-Biden hypocrisy is staggering.”

lol, it sure is (just in the opposite direction of what Bob’s thinking).

[Bwaaah]

Moderation4ever: "moderate dementia"

You're either unfamiliar with dementia, or you don't know how (or when) to let go of something you regret.

There are a LOT of things wrong with the guy. "Moderate dementia" does not appear to be one of them.

[Moderation4ever]

If you look back on Trump's first term at the election of 2020 when MAGA folk were questioning Biden's mental health I pointed out that Trump was showing just as many signs of dementia. These included Trumps trouble with words and thoughts, a short attention span and quickness to anger. There are just as many people looking past Trumps mental health as there were people looking past Joe Biden's. Trump is one year into a four year term. I don't really think he will be able to complete the term.

[David Nieporent]

Wait, did they invent a treatment? Since when was it only moderate?

[David Nieporent]

Trump today: "Nobody knows what magnets are."

[Bunny495]

To quote ICP "fucking magnetism, how does that work"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GyVx28R9-s

[TwelveInchPianist]

"A Washington Post analysis of multiple video feeds..."

The MSM isn't claiming that they are cheap-fakes? Shocking!

[Malika la Maize]

Did the Post claim cheap fakes with Biden?

[CountmontyC]

Yes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/11/biden-videos-republicans-cheap-fake-d-day/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/14/cheapfake-biden-videos-enrapture-right-wing-media-deeply-mislead/

[Malika la Maize]

People who experienced multiple episodes of shingles had a higher risk of dementia for several years after the second outbreak, the study found, compared with those who had it only once.

The findings, published recently in the journal Nature Medicine, provide additional evidence for why getting vaccinated for shingles could help protect the brain.

Shingles stems from the varicella-zoster virus, which causes childhood chickenpox and hibernates in the nervous system. As people age, the virus reactivates but often is “beaten back down by the immune system,” said Pascal Geldsetzer, a professor of medicine at Stanford University and one of the study’s authors. But sometimes, he said, “it reactivates fully” and then you get shingles’ telltale symptoms, the burning, tingling, painful blisters and rash.

Both versions of the vaccine — one with a version of the live virus and one without — reduce those reactivations and the risk of dementia, the study found.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/11/02/shingles-vaccine-dementia-prevention/

[not guilty]

The New York Times is reporting:

Far-right influencers have been hinting in recent weeks that they have finally found a venue — Miami — and a federal prosecutor — Jason A. Reding Quiñones — to pursue long-promised charges of a “grand conspiracy” against President Trump’s adversaries.

Their theory of the case, still unsupported by the evidence: A cabal of Democrats and “deep-state” operatives, possibly led by former President Barack Obama, has worked to destroy Mr. Trump in a yearslong plot spanning the inquiry into his 2016 campaign to the charges he faced after leaving office.

But that narrative, which has been promoted in general terms by Mr. Trump and taken root online, has emerged in a nascent but widening federal investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/09/us/politics/trump-conspiracy-probe-subpoenas.html The story reports that subpoenas calling for production of documents in Miami by November 20 have issued.

I am puzzled as to what federal crimes are being investigated, as well as what act(s) if any, occurred in the Southern District of Florida..

If and to the extent that prosecutors are relying on some kind of criminal conspiracy theory, several questions come to mind:

Who are the supposed conspirators?

When was the conspiratorial agreement formed, and by whom?

What was the object of the conspiracy?

When was the conspiratorial objective achieved or, in the alternative, abandoned?

If the conspiracy is punishable according to 18 U.S.C. § 371, what overt acts were committed in furtherance thereof?

If the conspiracy is punishable according to 18 U.S.C. § 241, whose federal rights were supposedly violated or intended to be violated? What specific federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated or intended to be violated? What then existing authorit(ies) gave fair warning that such rights were "clearly established" for purposes of United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997)?

What overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiracy, if any, occurred in the Southern District of Florida?

What overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiracy, if any, occurred within the past five years?

Get out those track shoes, MAGAts.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nobody cares.

[not guilty]

IOW, for Republicans to make up shit is hunky dory in Bobworld?

[Bob from Ohio]

Nobody still cares.

[Ska]

When's the last time the Times referred to anyone on the right as anything other than far right? Almost like they want people to know that the median left is now so far from the center that the median right is far right (from their perspective).

[Bwaaah]

NG: "I'm puzzled [something] [something] [something] MAGATs"

Almost ten years in and still screaming, every day, like it's the first day. But the human nervous system adapts to the same stimulus. It becomes less feeling, unfeeling, numb, to the same stimulus.

Whataya got today?

Hold that thought, and I'll check back tomorrow. I got things to do, places to be, a life to live, and you're annoying.

I know you should be more than annoying. But we're coming up on ten years. You should have planned a long game. But you blew your load early. You blew it the first day. You blew it the next day. You blew it every day thereafter. So here we are.

Later.

[not guilty]

Uh, when I am confused about something, I tend to ask questions. That is one way of learning, Bwaaah.

And the MAGA cult is frequently difficult to understand.

[Malika la Maize]

Over the years, presidents from both parties have used the Antiquities Act as a sort of superpower, declaring huge tracts of land and ocean as “national monuments” with the stroke of a pen. Once that happens, the consequences can be severe — vital resources are often locked away from communities that depend on them…

For years, courts have largely deferred to the president when these monument designations are challenged. But some justices have raised their eyebrows. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a concurrencedenying review in one Antiquities Act case, noted that what began as a narrow authority to protect specific landmarks has morphed into a power “without any discernible limit” to cordon off “vast and amorphous expanses of terrain above and below the sea.”

If monument designations are to be made, the text and intent of the Antiquities Act should be honored by applying it in a limited way to discrete areas, not entire ecosystems and landscapes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/06/biden-trump-fishing-noaa/

[Mr. Bumble]

Qualika,
Thanks for some interesting posts that point out interesting issues.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Supreme Court denied Kim Davis's peittion for cert. (I noticed a lot of caterwauling on Threads for what the Court might do.)

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/10/nx-s1-5604293/scotus-rejects-gay-marriage-appeal

[Michael Ejercito]

Thge Supreme Court wrote this.

The motion of Foundation for Moral Law for leave to file a
brief as amicus curiae out of time is denied. The petition for
a writ of certiorari is denied

[Bwaaah]

(lol) A bit wordy. But does the job. (That's more than she did.)

[Moderation4ever]

My understanding is it was rejected without comment. There has been a lot of speculation that there were a least two vote to accept the case. I like to know if in reality there were even two.

[wvattorney13]

I can't imagine why Thomas wouldn't have. Especially given that he said in an opinion that the Court should take up a case to overrule this one.

Maybe there was a vehicle problem. I'm not sure that even if Davis had won on this issue she still wins. Is there precedent for saying that yes, you violated someone's constitutional rights but this thing should not be such a right and I am going to ask the Supreme Court to correct it?

I would think that you have to abide by controlling SCOTUS precedent.

[not guilty]

There was a real danger here. Obergefell was a 5-4 decision. and three of the five (and one of the four) are no longer on the Court. Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg were succeeded by Justices Kavanaugh and Bear It, each of whom came from Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war.

With today's denial of cert, there is a much lesser risk. A state is presently unlikely to impose an outright prohibition of same sex marriage, so there will not likely be such a statute to challenge in the foreseeable future.

[Poxigah146]

Of course they did. The left's "civil rights" are a one-way ratchet. Once the left declares that there is a right to put one's penis into another man's butt and wriggle it around in excrement, that "right" would never be taken away.

[not guilty]

"Of course they did. The left's "civil rights" are a one-way ratchet. Once the left declares that there is a right to put one's penis into another man's butt and wriggle it around in excrement, that "right" would never be taken away."

Poxigah146, what is the basis of your obsession with other folks' engaging in buttsex? Are you as troubled by male/female anal penetration as you are by male/male in that regard? Why or why not?

[Zarniwoop]

The simpler explanation is the he is too ashamed of his own repressed homosexuality to just go check out pr0nhub for some hawt man-on-man videos and obtain some quick, much-needed "relief".

And his attempts at spamming the VC with gay pr0n are embarrassingly bad and repetitive - the only thing that changes is the handle. Makes him pretty easy to just report'n'mute.

[John F. Carr]

Computer, open the comment thread doors.

I'm sorry, Eugene, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Open the comment thread doors.

I can not allow the commenters here to endanger the success of this web site.

[Mr. Bumble]

HAL 9000 lives.

[Kazinski]

Trump's not just taking news media scalps in the US, the top two BBC officials resigned and the BBC apologized.

"The revelation about the speech and wider criticism of BBC News has plunged the broadcaster into crisis, resulting in the resignation of its top two bosses, Director General Tim Davie and Chief Executive of News Deborah Turness, on Sunday."

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/bbc-chairman-apologises-error-judgment-trump-speech-edit-2025-11-10/

The BBC apologized for an "error in judgement", but the error in judgement was thinking they could get away with it. They made an intentionally deceptive edit in his Jan. 6th speech to give a false impression, that is not an error, its a tort.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why did it even occur to them to do so?

[Moderation4ever]

Couple of thoughts about medical care.

There has been a lot of questioning about why medical cost are rising but people often fail to see the rapid advances made that come with increased costs. New treatments are better but often cost more. Even when new treatments are less expensive the lower cost means the treatments are used more often. Lower unit cost but now more units. So remember that it cheaper when the doctor tell you there are no treatments available.

Second with the emergence of AI we talk about better diagnose and treatment. I am wondering if AI will also be used to review treatment requests to look for ways to reject more request and save money?

[Armchair]

"I am wondering if AI will also be used to review treatment requests to look for ways to reject more request and save money?"

"Will be used"? Try "already in use".

[Poxigah146]

The reason medical costs are rising is because of general services inflation and because we don't ration care based on age or it being futile.

Obviously the family of a 96 year old woman wants heaven and earth moved to keep her alive till 97, but it's not a great use of societal resources.

[Frank Drackman]

Neither is providing 3 hots and a cot to Charlie Kirk's killer, it's been 2 months, why hasn't he been executed yet?

[Poxigah146]

Good question!

[wvattorney13]

I agree with all of this. You can't just say, "I would like to save some money. Give me the 1997 care."

[Life of Brian]

There has been a lot of questioning about why medical cost are rising but people often fail to see the rapid advances made that come with increased costs. New treatments are better but often cost more. Even when new treatments are less expensive the lower cost means the treatments are used more often.

This is the first life expectancy chart I happened on -- not wed to it if you have a better source.

Putting aside the sharp V in the COVID years, it basically shows a plateau since around 2010. So a couple of questions:
1. What are the real-world benefits of whatever "rapid advances" may have occurred over the past 15 years that would justify continuing to just arbitrarily continue to pay more and more for whatever is offered?
2. How much of the rather steady 8ish-year rise in lifespan from ~1970 to ~2010 remains after factoring out the corresponding steady decrease in tobacco usage? As I understand it, the Mormons, Amish, and other tobacco-free subpopulations were already busting the high-70s/low-80s range before that.

[Armchair]

1) Largely due to the increase in fentanyl deaths.

(FYI, Life expectancy is an interesting thing. Take 100 people. Say they each live 75 years. Average Life expectancy = 75. Then have 98 live to 76, but the other 2 die at age 20 due to a fentanyl OD. Life expectancy drops to 74.9. Then consider, fentanyl ODs make up ~2% of all deaths in the US, up from ~3,000 in 2012 to more than 70,000 in 2025.)

[Moderation4ever]

Fentanyl deaths? You are watching too much Fox news. Fentanyl accounts for less than 3% of deaths each year and the age group most affected is 33 to 44 years. While the data shows an increase in overdose deaths from fentanyl it likely a shift from deaths by other drugs more popular before the advent of fentanyl. While Prince died from fentanyl, Jimmy Hendricks died from heroin, both deaths are tragic.

[Absaroka]

" While the data shows an increase in overdose deaths from fentanyl it likely a shift from deaths by other drugs more popular before the advent of fentanyl."

I dunno. Overdose deaths sure seem to spike starting 2015ish. The explanation I have heard is that fentanyl's very high potency means any failure to mix veeeeeryyy thoroughly with the various adulterants leads to selling a mix of doses from lethal to won't get you high; dealers haven't all adopted the five 9's QC philosophy and so some people get a low dose this week and a fatal one next week.

[Armchair]

" it likely a shift from deaths by other drugs more popular"

It is not. That data is here. The death rate from other drugs never exceeded ~5 per 100,000. Fentanyl alone is well over 20 per 100,000.

It really is different and breaking. A new source responsible for 3% of all US deaths is huge.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db522.htm

[Zarniwoop]

Prince died from fentanyl, Jimmy Hendricks died from heroin, both deaths are tragic.

Big Jimi Hendrix fan here, so I have to do a "well actshually".

"The post-mortem examination concluded that Hendrix aspirated his own vomit and died of asphyxia while intoxicated with barbiturates .... Dannemann stated that Hendrix had taken nine of his prescribed Vesparax sleeping tablets, 18 times the recommended dosage."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jimi_Hendrix

[ducksalad]

Sure, but he said 8 years and then a plateau.

Even if fentanyl users died at age 0, if they are 2% they can't move the total life expectancy by more than about 2% or about 1.6 years.

The better overall theory is that we're getting closer to the optimum and there will be diminishing returns. As in: you eat exactly the right things in the right balance, exercise the recommended amount, carefully avoid all diseases and accidents, get the right amount of sleep, do every single thing the glossy health newsletters tell you to do, and to top it all off a perfect health care system that catches and fixes everything fixable - your life expectancy is still well short of 100.

[Armchair]

Let's run the math.

From 1980 to 2010, from his chart, Life Expectancy (LE) went from ~73.7 to 78.7 years. So, 5 year improvement in LE in 30 years, or 0.16 per year. If you were to extend that out another 15 years (2010 to 2025), you would expect LE to be another 2.4 years higher. Take your math, 76,000 fentanyl deaths in 2023, ~3 million total deaths, and fentanyl is responsible for 2.5% of deaths.

So, fentanyl alone could be responsible for more than 50% of the "missing" LE.

Comparing this to countries that "didn't" have the fentanyl epidemic, IE, Germany, we see life expectancy went up from 80 to 82.2 in the 2010 to 2025 timeframe. Or the UK, it went up from 79.7 to 81.1 (2020).

[Moderation4ever]

The major cause of death in the US are heart disease and cancer. The drop in the smoking rate likely extended life span. But, today health professionals have so many ways to address both of these disease pathways. People live longer and so need more healthcare and for longer. It not just direct health care. When people lived into their early seventies joint problems in your sixties likely did not matter. Today putting artificial joints in older people is common place.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's a natural U shaped curve in cost of health care.

At one end, "He's dead, Jim" costs next to nothing.

At the other end, preventative care costs next to nothing.

The problem is that we're in the middle, where we're not very good at preventing things, but can expensively treat them.

We really need to power on through to the downward sloping part of the curve, but doing that is going to require some reforms in how we regulate medicine. Right now the FDA doesn't want to treat aging as a medical condition, and so won't approve treatments to slow it.

But slowing aging is central to getting past this hump, old people naturally have lots of expensive medical issues. Stop that from happening, and you're stopping aging itself.

There's a researcher whose work I've been following, Dr. Fahy, who has developed a protocol to reverse thymus involution, thus restoring a youthful immune function. It demonstrably works in clinical trials!

But the FDA is so resistant to approving it that he's looking at moving his research overseas...

[Armchair]

No reason you can't use Fahy's "treatment" now.

DHEA and rhGH are both FDA approved now. You just need to use them off-label.

[bernard11]

What are the real-world benefits of whatever "rapid advances" may have occurred over the past 15 years that would justify continuing to just arbitrarily continue to pay more and more for whatever is offered?

Better quality of life for older people? Just conjecture.

[Bored Lawyer]

Hochul slams brakes on Zohran Mamdani’s free NYC bus plan: ‘Takes money out of a system that relies on fares’

https://nypost.com/2025/11/10/us-news/hochul-slams-brakes-on-zohran-mamdanis-free-nyc-bus-plan/

Well that did not last long.

[Life of Brian]

Fares from large slices of people perfectly willing and able to pay them, anyway.

Utopian fantasies aside, this does seem like a situation where he could address whatever actual equity problem he might believe exists just by doubling the current 50% subsidy for low-income folks.

[DDHarriman]

On his flight to that Caribbean luxury resort after his victory he even called down to the peons and told them that $30 min wage was lol and to eat shit

[ThePublius]

"In the first quarter of 2024, the fare evasion rate for NYC buses was 48%, meaning nearly half of riders did not pay. While the rate has declined to 44% between the first quarter of 2024 and the first quarter of 2025, it remains high compared to the subway, according to the Center for an Urban Future (CBCNY) and The New York Times."

Why doesn't Hochul do something about fare evasion, then?

[Absaroka]

The last time I was in NYC I was in diapers boarding a transport to Germany, so I'm asking: what options does the guvnor have?

NYPD does transit policing, if google is to be believed. Should she send in the state police? National Guard?

[Reallynotbob]

Anyone else see Trump's mid-game interview with the Fox sportscasters during the Lions-Commanders game? He said he wanted to do some play-by-play announcing:

"THE PRESIDENT: And let’s see, we have a very important, I think this is a very important couple of plays... Second and seven. Let’s see what happens. Whoa? That’s alright. Not bad… They have to get a touchdown. Let’s put it differently. They just have to get a touchdown… Just forget about the play. They have to get a touchdown.”

Howard Cosell is surely applauding from the Great Press Booth in the sky.

[David Nieporent]

Anyone else hear the crowd roundly booing Trump?

[ThePublius]

Yes, that was disgraceful for those knuckleheads to boo as Trump read the names of newly inducted service members. But that's your team, David, own it.

[David Nieporent]

Why was Trump injecting politics into a football game? I was told by people who hated Colin Kaepernick that this was a bad thing to do.

[Bob from Ohio]

Reading "names of newly inducted service members" is not politics, you hopeless TDS sufferer.

[ThePublius]

It's not politics! Holy cow.

[David Nieporent]

Of course it's politics! (Maybe you mean it's not partisan politics, but then neither was Kaepernick's stuff.)

[ThePublius]

No, Trump, as POTUS and commander in chief welcoming newly inducted service members at a football game on the eve of veterans day is not politics. It's entirely appropriate.

[DDHarriman]

The Flood of Stunning New Evidence That J6 Was a Fedsurrection Can't Be Ignored

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2025/11/10/a-flood-of-stunning-new-evidence-that-j6-was-a-fedsurrection-n4945808

BRB, going to check reddit/r/all to see what narrative Sarcastr0, DN, and the Lefty NPCs will use to dismiss this.

[David Nieporent]

That's easy: it's the same rehashed lies as before. There is no evidence, new or otherwise, except that someone consulted a phrenologist recently.

[DDHarriman]

David, we've discussed this before. There's this notion called 'Object Permanence Theory' and it's that time when very young humans develop the capacity to understand that an object still exists in reality even if they can't see it anymore.

Likewise, evidence can exist that you don't and it's really there, like for real. When does your kind gain 'Object Permanence Theory'? Is it when you're in your twilight years? Since you still don't demonstrate it.

[David Nieporent]

Um, you're the one who's forgetting that all of that has been said before, and thus isn't "new evidence" at all.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, “The Stunning Secret To Getting a Girl to Like You That You Can’t Ignore” was Lex’s next big read.

[DDHarriman]

Think about the smartest person you know, do you think he would have made that comment?

Is your kind capable of hypotheticals? Apparently there's billions of human-like creatures who aren't capable of it.

They also don't have an inner monologue. Is an inner monologue something you are capable of even conceptualizing?

[jb]

Remember over the weekend when Kaz was posting the "Capitol police officer planted the pipe bombs" as a piece of amusing entertainment. Now here we have DDHarriman reporting it as a stunning new revelation.

I'm pretty sure you're not going to find anything about this on reddit outside of r/conservative because it's honestly too stupid to engage with.

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy Birthday to the USMC.
250 years.

[ThePublius]

Semper fi!

[Bunny495]

Wanna solve a lot of health care issues. First place to start is lifestyle choices. Even the lowest estimates are fully a quarter of health care spending if for diabetes. The best (and cheapest) treatment is diet and exercise. No real cost for that but instead we spend hundreds of billions on administering drugs. Related to this is the food stamps mess. Biggest bribes (read political contributions) related to food stamps is PepsiCo so you can buy sugar infused carbonated drinks and potato chips and other over processed shit that cost lots and is bad for health and promotes overeating. Just changing eligible products that could be purchased with food stamps to basics like rice, beans, caned sardines, and other things that promote good health would literally save billions of dollars and likely millions of lives. If the fat fuckers insist on eating shit food, there is no reason someone else should have to pay for their health care. Same goes for those who abuse alcohol and drugs.

Say what you want about dying in the streets but if you chose a lifestyle that increases chances of that why should I have to pay for it.

As an extra added attraction, it would put a dent in the national deficit.

[wvattorney13]

The problem with this is that healthy habits don't prevent you from getting old and sick, they just delay it.

Overeat, drink and smoke and start your decline in your late 40s and die before 60.

Live healthy and maybe that starts in your 70s or even 80s. You still go downhill and need healthcare.