Moist Cr1tikal PirateSoftware Situation is Crazy, Bizarre Fox News Meltdown, & Today’s News
PDS Published 06/26/2025
-
Gamers are drawing lines in the sand right now because an initiative to fundamentally change the industry is about to fail after repeated attacks by one of the biggest names in the industry, Pirate Software…
It’s called Stop Killing Games and it’s meant to start a conversation in legislatures around the world about how to let users keep playing the games they paid for even after a company has completely shut it down.
Since then, it’s struggled to get over 50% of the required signatures to even be considered by legislatures like the EU parliament… and the deadline for that is fast approaching. []
One of the reasons for this lack of movement is that the guy who started the whole thing -- a creator named Accursed Farms -- admitted in a video this week that he didn’t push it hard enough.
But he also blames the streamer Pirate Software, who has been critical of the whole premise behind Stop Killing Games and whose coverage was by far the most viewed.[][]
He first talked about it on stream nearly a year ago and made it clear that even if he COULD sign it, he wouldn’t.
(If you’re wondering why he can’t, it’s because he’s not an EU citizen).
In that video, he mentions that the whole point of an initiative is to start a conversation, but…
“The reason I have an issue with stop killing games is because it starts the wrong conversation. If we’re trying to kill off the practice of developers putting together a live service game, pitching it as a single player experience and then taking away support in the future… this ain't it.”
He goes on to read the first few lines of the initiative, which essentially just wants developers to give users a way to play their games once the publisher no longer wishes to support it.
Pirate Software saying: @1:57
“This isn’t always possible in all videogames and it doesn’t call out the specific practice that this is trying to defeat. It is incredibly vague and would damage all live service games. How would you keep League of Legends in a functional, playable state? You’d have to restructure the entire game.”
He goes on to give technical details about why that’s the case, but you get the idea.
In his other video, he addresses two of the main concerns brought up after his stream.
Right, people had pushed back that yeah, if a live service game is being sunsetted, people should get the ability to play it if they want to still.
And that could either be by making it a single-player experience OR by releasing the tools players would need to make their own, private servers.
To this Pirate says: @0:55
“Now, many of you are requesting that ‘yes, I should get the server binaries so I can make a private server for this.’ But that doesn’t make a lot of sense in the real world. The reason why is because it leaves developers open to abuse.”
He then gets into this hypothetical situation where a bad actor wants to make a private server of a game -- let’s say an MMO -- and monetize it.
But obviously a studio wouldn’t allow that for as long as the actual game is still alive.
So this bad actor attacks the game’s social media, bots the game until it’s miserable to play, figures out exploits, etc.
This eventually leads to the original game dying and then Pirate claims that under this initiative, the bad actor would get access to the server tools needed to start that private server.
At which point they can monetize it.
And Pirate claims that the initiative does nothing to stop any of this.
He made other comments on stream throughout the past year, but you get the idea.
Which brings us back to this week’s video by Accursed Farms.
In it, he details how the initiative is essentially right up against the wall here with just a few weeks to go.
Flat out, he doesn’t think he’ll get enough signatures in the UK to be considered.
And he’s SLIGHTLY more optimistic about the EU, which had around 50% of the 1 million signatures needed.
So with that in mind, he decided he needed to address Pirate Software’s claims, which Accursed Farms says are categorically false…
And he didn’t even want to do it since he felt it was internet drama-y, but felt he had to since it was hurting the initiative.
“Okay, I really don’t want to do this next part but it’s become a liability for the campaign not to. Our biggest critic, by far, is YouTuber and streamer Pirate Software -- who also goes by Thor. @18:30 ish
If your only exposure to Stop Killing Games is this video, then you’ve been misinformed. This video is by someone who does not understand the campaign, has been trying to stop it, and has been making up what it is about.”
He goes on to give examples of how Pirate Software fundamentally got things wrong about Stop Killing Games, like here’s just one example:
[Thor doesn’t understand what stop killing games is] @21:18-22:42
The short version is that Pirate allegedly made strawman arguments about everything that Stop Killing Games wants to do.
Now despite this, people are reaching out to Accursed Farms to work with Pirate on something, since Pirate is allegedly pro developer and consumer, etc.
But Accursed didn’t really want to because of how rude Private Software was when speaking about the project.
Right, if you just watch the two videos Pirate made on YouTube, you’d think he was pretty reasonable and calm… because he is in those.[][]
However on stream he had a different tone, saying things like:
“Oh shit, this is actually really dumb. It’s used car salesman garbage.”
“It’s shit, it’s shit. Not only do I not want to back this, I’m going to actively tell people not to. That is awful. That is [a] horrible god damn direction. That is awful dude, eat my entire ass.”
“The level of stupid that I just had to receive was like sitting on twitter for 12 hours.”
“This shit sucks.”
“That’s a really stupid ass move. That’s an incredibly stupid ass move.”
“I think this is ass. It’s complete. Garbage.”
“All of this can eat shit. I drop the mask entirely. I have no qualms about that. They can eat my entire ass. ” @35:20
So you can see why Accursed Farms was not thrilled to talk with Pirate Software and frustrated that the guy he thinks fundamentally doesn’t understand the initiative is the dominant voice about it online.
Also, it’s not like creators hadn’t tried to defend Stop Killing Games in the past.
Streamer Josh Strife Hayes made two videos that got about 400k views total reflecting on the situation and some of Pirate Software’s claims.
But things really took a turn this week.
For example, Moist Critikal came to the defense of Stop Killing Games and now his video is the most viewed. []
One important thing he does is near the start of the video he tries to make it very clear what Stop Killing Games is about: @3:30
“I’ll pause right there. The simplest, bare bones, birthday suit, butt ass naked explanation for what this is. Stop destroying things that people have paid money to own.”
“I think that is a very understandable, very reasonable take. Very agreeable.”
He was also highly critical of Pirate Software’s explanation of Stop Killing Games, saying: @6:12
“He didn’t even get the cliffnotes summary right. He missed all the QTE’s and got the bad ending on understanding the initiative from the jump here.”
And he makes sure to clarify that “it is about the whole practice of destroying games that consumers have already purchased and that have no end-of-life plans for being sunset.” @7:00
Moist is hardly the only one coming out in defense of the initiative.
Mew-tah-har (Mutahar) from SomeOrdinaryGamers made a similar video and largely bashed Pirate Software for getting things wrong about the initiative or how infeasible it would be for consumers to set up things like their own private servers.
However, he did agree with Pirate Software about one thing:
“Now one thing that I will agree with Thor on over here is sometimes it may not be easy for a game to cut itself off. So for instance. Let’s say you’re designing an MMO game. Whenever you make an MMO like World of Warcraft you launch a client. Your client communicates with a server. Now sometimes on that server there could be other technologies that don’t belong to Blizzard for instance that they need to license to interface with in order to run their game.
So obviously it may be a problem down the road that when World of Warcraft ends -- if it ends -- to release that binary they need to call up some of these companies and be like ‘hey by the way can we release some of your code that we licensed?’ and that company may or may not agree right?” @17:02
Taken together, all of these videos over the last few days has meant millions of views… and most of them critical of Pirate Software.
So of course you’d expect a response, and he has touched on it over on Twitter.
His first tweet about it seems to have been deleted, but his other response is still up and it’s a fucking dissertation.
Even though it would help make this video even longer, I’m not going to read all that out loud so here’s the short version.
He explains what he said in his two videos about the topic and then writes: [read]
“My main issue with this initiative is that it is broad in its approach to change the industry and the exact language of the initiative, not the FAQ, requests that all games stay in a "Functional Playable State".”
This is not feasible for all games at a technical level and could potentially restrict developers from making online-only games like MMOs, MOBAs, and User Generated Content games in the future. That list is not exhaustive and it doesn't matter if you do or don't like those kinds of games.
Effectively this has the potential to restrict future developers from making kick-ass experiences because it locks a weight on their designs.”
He also addressed claims that he was opposed to Stop Killing Games because of his professional life.
Right, in addition to streaming he makes a game and is the director of strategy at Ludwig’s Offbrand Games and that he’s paid minimum wage for the gig because he cares more about helping games succeed.
Additionally, the games they make are all offline anyways so this wouldn’t even affect them, but “...Not all games are like this and not all games can be like this.” []
And this post has driven all this even further, but one thing that people like Josh Strife Hayes pointed out was that:
“One of the main issues is when you go from attacking the argument with reasoned, sourced counterarguments, to attacking the person with demeaning, bullying insults.
Even if people WANTED to listen to your side and even support you, your attitude is driving people away.” []
That led to a bit of a back and forth where Pirate Software argued that people shouldn’t be supporting a legal initiative based on whether they like the person bringing it to the table but based on what it says.
Many have felt that Pirate is just being stubborn about his positions and that’s causing a ton of friction.
Right, MoistCritikal made an update video yesterday and said: @4:50
“No one hates Pirate Software because he doesn’t agree with Stop Killing Games. The reason so many people are angry at him -- myself included… -- but the reason, myself included, don’t like how Pirate Software is handling all this is he is outright refusing to admit any level of fault.”
He then claims that the tweets we just covered are sent him off the rails.
But apparently Moist, alongside Josh Strife Hayes, had some DMs with Pirate Software that caused him to at least issue a kinda-apology:
“Just talked to Charlie and Josh Strife Hayes for a bit in DMs.
If you're mad at me for being a dick to Ross I get it and I'm sorry for that. I should not have lashed out but I had an emotional response due to how important this subject is to me.”
He also went on to say that this is a personal topic for him and that “If you want all games to be left in a "Functional Playable State" then you need to listen to people when they talk about how infeasible that will be in a lot of situations. Since this is the initiative's PRIMARY goal as listed on the ECI page it's kind of important to resolve that.” []
(However he still hasn’t admitted getting anything wrong like people claim).
So with that much coverage… has it helped the initiative?
Kinda… It now has 55.5% of the signatures it needs in the EU, which is a pretty drastic rise in just a couple days.
But at the same time it’s really far off from its goal of 1 million by the end of July.
So if you’re an EU citizen and want to support this we’ll put a link down below.
And to remind you, this is an INITIATIVE -- urging lawmakers to start a conversation -- about how to deal with games when companies want to shut them down.
People like Pirate are concerned the language is too vague and will steer lawmakers in the wrong direction and hurt developers.
While supporters think it’s a great start to actually getting some protections for consumers who spend money on games and then lose access to them.
And getting this passed in the EU is a big deal because it’s a big enough market that it would essentially change the gaming industry worldwide.
So let me know your thoughts down below and in particular if you agree with Josh Strife Hayes that even if you’re right you also need to not be a dick to convince people?
-
Pete Hegseth just gave a press briefing that some are calling “deranged,” and he seems real mad at a journalist from, of all outlets, Fox News.
Right, so the briefing was about the bombing of Iran’s nuclear plants Sunday, and specifically the question of how effective they actually were.
Right, because while Donald Trump claimed they absolutely “obliterated” the plants, and some reports do support that claim, others have cast doubt.
With Iran’s supreme leader going on state television today and disputing Trump’s claims, saying, “They attacked our nuclear facilities, but they were unable to do anything important.” [Quote/image]
And adding, “They could not do anything, they could not achieve their goal, and they are exaggerating to cover up the truth.” [Quote same link and same image]
Then, CNN reported that an early assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency suggested the attack did not destroy the core components of Iran’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by a few months. [Headline]
And then, CNN reported that preliminary intelligence assessments in Europe suggest the enriched uranium was moved out of Fordow before the attack. [Headline]
So people were left wondering, okay, we probably can’t trust Trump or Iran, and the credible evidence is mixed; what actually happened at Fordow?
And in response, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth scheduled an early morning press briefing today to clear the air. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 32:27 - 32:41, 32:52 - 33:00] Caption: “President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history, and it was a resounding success resulting in a ceasefire agreement and the end of the 12-day war. … Decimating, choose your word, obliterating, destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”
With him then undercutting the credibility of the assessment drafted by his own DIA, stressing that it’s only preliminary.
[Clip, 33:35 - 33:50, 33:58 - 34:03] Caption: “It points out that it’s not been coordinated with the intelligence community at all. There’s low confidence in this particular report. It says in the report there are gaps in the information. It says in the report multiple lynchpin assumptions. … And yet still, this reports acknowledges it’s likely severe damage.”
Then, he quotes statements from the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, the Israel Defense Forces, the UN Atomic Energy Agency, the Iranian foreign minister, intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliff, all saying Iran’s nuclear facilities suffered significant damage.
With the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine giving the caveat that the joint staff does not do battle damage assessments; they leave that to the intelligence agencies. [Lead B roll into clip]
But nevertheless, he offered what he claimed to know about the attack. [Lead B roll into clip]
Including that the bombs were built, tested and loaded properly, that they were released on speed and on parameters, that they hit their targets, and that they all exploded. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 54:34 - 54:42] Caption: “All six weapons at each vent at Fordow went exactly where they intended to go.”
With him playing a video that purported to show one of the bombs detonating in slow motion, sending a huge fireball up through the ventilation shaft. [B roll, 00:52]
But those were the relatively normal parts of the briefing; in other moments, it went completely off the rails.
With Hegseth using the pulpit to bash what he called the “fake news” — CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, even Fox News at a couple of points. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 36:59 - 37:46] Caption: “Because you, and I mean specifically you the press, specifically you the press corps, because you cheer against Trump so hard — it’s like in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump — because you want him not to be successful so bad, you have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes. You have to hope maybe they weren’t effective. Maybe the way the Trump administration has represented them isn’t true. So let’s take half truths, spun information, leaked information, and then spin it. Spin it in every way we can to try to cause doubt and manipulate the public mind over whether or not our brave pilots were successful.”
With him saying that the media should instead be writing stories about how hard it is to fly a plane for 36 hours, or to shoot a drone from a fighter jet, or to man a Patriot battery, or to refuel mid-air. [Continue B roll]
And then seeming to suggest that media reporting has harmed the valor of the soldiers who carried out the attack. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 38:47 - 38:58] Caption: “And what’s really happening is you’re undermining the success of incredible B2 pilots, and incredible F-35 pilots, and incredible refuelers, and incredible air defenders who accomplished their mission.”
Now in response to this, many have countered that the media did cover all of the things he talked about, from the details of the mission to the reports and statements suggesting the bombs caused significant damage.
As well as the fact that the DIA report was very early and might be revised as more information comes out.
But also, some of what Hegseth claimed lacked key context, something he accused the media of.
So for example, when he quoted the UN Atomic Energy Agency as saying that Iran’s nuclear program “suffered enormous damage,” he left out that it also said claims of complete destruction were overblown.
And notably, during his initial speech, Hegseth addressed the DIA report but not the European reports suggesting the uranium was moved.
So understandably during the Q&A, Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin brought that up.
But Hegseth just ignored the question and instead honed in on the reporter. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 01:08:52 - 01:09:25] Caption: [Pete Hegseth:] “Jennifer, you’ve been about the worst, the one who misrepresents the most intentionally what the president says. I’m familiar.” [Jennifer Griffin:] “I was the first to report about the ventilation shafts on Saturday night. And in fact, I was the first to describe the B2 bombers, the refueling, the entire mission with great accuracy, so I take issue with that. You have issues …” [Pete Hegseth:] “I appreciate you acknowledging that this was the most successful mission based on operational security that this department has done since you’ve been here, and I appreciate that.”
And bizarrely, in their reaction to the briefing, Fox & Friends fawned over Hegseth, but then they brought on Griffin herself to talk about it as if nothing happened. [Quote, find “cheering” and “browbeaten”]
With nobody acknowledging that she had just been scolded like a puppy who shit the rug by the secretary of defense.
Though to be fair to Fox, an hour later senior political analyst Brit Hume said Hegseth’s attack on Griffin was unfair and undeserved. [Quote same link, find “Hume”]
And indeed, you have some arguing that Griffin is the last person you could accuse of disrespecting the military.
Because for years, she’s repeatedly taken heat from the far-right for defending service members.
Right, during his first term, for instance, Trump called for her to be fired after she confirmed The Atlantic’s report that he had disparaged veterans. [Headline]
Then, in 2022, she was the target of what some perceived to be veiled jabs by Tucker Carlson for her fact-checking of anti-Ukrainian talking points.
Then this month, Trump supporters got mad at her for criticizing ICE for arresting a former U.S. Army interpreter at his asylum hearing, writing, “This should anger every American.” [Post]
And a few days ago, Carlson renewed his attack. [Lead B roll into clip]
And finally this morning, without naming Griffin, Trump took aim at the press, writing on Truth Social:
“Rumor is that the Failing New York Times and Fake News CNN will be firing the reporters who made up the FAKE stories on the Iran Nuclear sites because they got it so wrong. Lets see what happens?”
But Trump did more than just gossip about the media; he also went after the legislative branch.
With Axios reporting that the White House is planning to limit how much classified information it shares with Congress going forward. [Headline]
This because, according to sources, the DIA assessment was leaked one day after it was put on CAPNET, the system the administration uses to share classified information with Congress. [Quote same link, find “late Monday”]
Meanwhile, the FBI is reportedly investigating the leak, with a senior White House official stating “We are declaring a war on leakers” yesterday. [Quote same link]
But while many Democrats agree the leak should be investigated, they’re also outraged by the Trump administration’s move here.
With Chuck Schumer telling Axios, “This isn't about national security—it's about Trump's insecurity. President Trump is cutting off intelligence to Congress, raising one clear question: what is he hiding?” [Quote]
And House Intel Committee ranking member Jim Himes adding that it’s “unacceptable for the Administration to use unsubstantiated speculation" to "justify cutting off Congress.” [Quote same link]
Stating, “The law requires the congressional intelligence committees to be kept fully and currently informed, and I expect the Intelligence Community to comply with the law.” [Quote same link]
And all of this comes as lawmakers were already furious with the White House for not informing certain Congressmembers ahead of Sunday’s attack.
But Thursday afternoon, several top White House officials were scheduled to brief the Senate on the attack.
With those including Hegseth, Cain, Rubio and Ratcliffe.
Though very notably not Tulsi Gabbard, who provoked Trump’s criticism early on by claiming that Iran was not close to developing nuclear weapons.“But with all that, Representative Himes also cut through all the noise with a thread on X saying:”
“All this caterwauling [Pronounce 00:06] about whether the Iranian nuclear sites were ‘obliterated’ or not completely misses the point. The only question that matters is whether the Iranian regime has the stuff necessary to build a bomb, and if so, how fast.” [Post]
“So the smart questions are: 1) Did the regime move or retain the uranium? 2) Did they move or retain centrifuges? 3) Did they preserve the metallurgy and other engineering required to build a bomb? 4) If yes, is all that stuff at an unknown location?” [Post]
“If the answer to these questions is yes, it’s possible that Iran’s nuclear program was barely set back. In that case, the Iranians will be thrilled to abide by Trump’s ‘ceasefire’. The Israelis probably less so, to say the least.” [Post]
“But later in the day, Trump sought to put the uranium rumours to bed, writing on Truth Social:”
“The cars and small trucks at the site were those of concrete workers trying to cover up the top of the shafts. Nothing was taken out of facility. Would take too long, too dangerous, and very heavy and hard to move!” [Post]
“With White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt [Lev-it] backing that up in an afternoon press briefing.” [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 08:25 - 08:38] Caption: [Karoline Leavitt:] “So we were watching closely, and there was no indication to the United States that any of that enriched uranium was moved prior to the strike.” [Reporter:] “From any of the sites.” [Karoline Leavitt:] “Correct.” [End of clip]
“So there’s a lot of claims and counterclaims; hopefully with time a clearer picture will start to emerge.”
“But in the meantime, I’d love to hear your reactions and opinions on everything we’ve seen and heard thus far.”
-
The Supreme Court just paved the way for states to gut funding for Planned Parenthood.
And while today’s ruling centers on Planned Parenthood, and therefore involves conversation on reproductive care and abortion, the case itself actually hinges on Medicaid and the rights Medicaid patients have when selecting providers.
Right, the federal Medicaid Act allows patients to choose their doctors so long as they are considered qualified and willing providers.[]
But in 2018, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster claimed the state had the right to disqualify providers,
And he ordered officials to block Planned Parenthood clinics in the state from receiving Medicaid funds, arguing that because the group provides abortions, this forced tax payers to cover care they may not agree with.[]
But Governor McMaster argued that any taxpayer dollars going to a clinic that provides abortions, no matter the reason, “results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life.”[]
So that meant that Medicaid patients in South Carolina who turned to Planned Parenthood for a variety of other reasons like pregnancy planning, STI screening, vaccines, and other preventative care were SOL.[]
And so Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a patient whose contraceptive care was disrupted by this decision sued the director of the State’s Department of Health, and a federal trial judge initially blocked that directive. []
But we are talking about it today because it made its way up to the Supreme Court, and as you can probably predict, the Court voted along ideological lines, ruling 6-3 that Medicaid patients do not have the right to sue to states for disqualifying providers like Planned Parenthood. []
With Justice Neil Gorsuch providing the majority opinion, saying that the law does not "clearly and unambiguously" give the right to sue in these matters.[]
Writing that private suits to enforce federal statutes require clear congressional authorization, and further adding:[]
“private enforcement does not always benefit the public, not least because it requires States to divert money and attention away from social services and toward litigation. And balancing those costs and benefits poses a question of public policy that, under our system of government, only Congress may answer.”
And South Carolina’s Governor McMaster celebrated the ruling, writing that:
“Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values – and today, we are finally victorious. The legality of my executive order prohibiting taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood has been affirmed by the highest court in the land.”[]
But obviously, there is pushback to the decision, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing the dissenting opinion, saying that:
“Today’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people. At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians—and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country—of a deeply personal freedom: the “ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.”
Because it is worth noting that the stakes of this case extend well past South Carolina, because the ruling overall makes it easier for any state to cut Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding, so there is a lot of concern that red states will do just that.
In fact, Axios reported that some have actually already made that move. []
With Planned Parenthood South Atlantic accusing Governor McMaster of using this case to “weaponize anti-abortion sentiment to deprive communities with low incomes of basic health care.”[]
And Alexis McGill Johnson, the President and CEO of Planned Parenthood releasing a statement saying:
“Today, the Supreme Court once again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted health care provider and making your own health care decisions. And the consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures. Patients need access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more.”
“Currently, 20% of South Carolinians — over 1 million — receive health care services through the Medicaid program, and approximately 5% of those recipients sought sexual and reproductive health care services at PPSAT so far this year.”
With her noting this comes as lawmakers in Congress are already trying to “defund” Planned Parenthood in a larger effort to fully shut it down and ban abortion nationwide. []
With many pointing to the current budget bill in Congress, which would cut Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, and the Associated Press reports this could force around 200 centers to close. []
So you had a law historian and professor writing that this case:
“on its own will likely harder for plaintiffs to enforce other civil rights in federal court. And as far as Planned Parenthood and comparable providers are concerned, this case could be part of a one-two punch if Trump's Big Beautiful Bill passes.”[]
Tons of Democratic Congress members also speaking out against the decision, with the likes of Senator Amy Klobuchar writing:
“Planned Parenthood provides lifesaving medical treatment to millions of women—from reproductive health care to cancer screenings and I strongly disagree with this decision. We will continue to fight against Republican attempts to defund Planned Parenthood in Congress.”[]
You also had some Governors of blue states vowing to protect Planned Parenthood and reproductive care for residents of their states.[][]
But I would love to know your thoughts on this one, especially if you live in a state that is more likely to want to cut Planned Parenthood from receiving medicaid funds.
Download Cal AI and use code DEFRANCO for a 3 day trial!
-
Trump is reportedly planning a “victory tour” to celebrate the passage and signing of the Big, Beautiful Bill.
And if you’re thinking: “wait a minute, when did it get passed by both chambers and signed by Trump?” — yeah… it hasn’t…
In fact, the legislation is still facing some massive hurdles in Congress.
But apparently that doesn’t matter because, according to Axios, a White House source has said that Trump’s team met this week “to discuss a victory tour” shortly after the 4th of July —
Which is the deadline Republicans have set for themselves to pass the bill.
And specifically, the outlet reported that Team Trump is planning, quote:
“a whole-of-government mobilization, with the president, Vice President JD Vance and top cabinet officials doing a lap around the country, visiting target states and congressional districts.”
But there are still a number of things that need to happen before the Trump administration can spend taxpayer money parading around the country.
Right, first of all, the bill hasn’t even been passed by the Senate at all.
And while a version was passed by the House, because the bill is changing a good deal in the Senate, the lower chamber will have to vote again.
Which will likely be a tricky feat given the fact that it only passed by a single vote the first time, and since then, there have been a number of changes House Republicans object to.
But all that aside, just passing the Senate version itself has been a challenge.
Right, because Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process, they are able to bypass the 60-vote filibuster normally required for passing legislation.
But that still means they can only afford to lose three votes to pass the bill without support from any Democrats, which is expected.
And already, at least four Senators — Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis, and Josh Hawley — have all expressed some objections to the Medicaid cuts in the bill.
Which are even more extreme than the already steep cuts proposed in the House version.
With Hawley even going as far as to tell reporters that he doesn’t think the current version of the bill has enough votes.
Beyond that, some of the Republican fiscal hawks have also voiced concerns about the massive amount of money Trump’s tax cuts and border security increases will add to the deficit, which they argue needs to be cut more deeply.
With some of the most vocal critics there being Rand Paul and Ron Johnson.
But it will be very challenging — if not outright impossible — for leadership to reconcile those two major concerns, because so much of the cuts being made to fund this bill would come from Medicaid.
And while they can nickel and dime around a bit, it’s really unclear where else they could make substantial enough cuts to appease the fiscal hardliners.
What’s more, the already tough negotiations are just further complicated by the fact that there are very strict rules about what can and cannot be included in bills passed using the reconciliation process.
Rules that have resulted in several key provisions being forcibly removed by the Senate Parliamentarian — the official in charge of interpreting the rules and procedures.
Right, specifically, the Parliamentarian struck down a measure that would shift some of the burden for food stamps — AKA SNAP benefits — from the federal government to the states.
Beyond that, the Parliamentarian also cut other notable provisions.
Including measures that would have gutted multiple environmental regulations, limited the power of federal judges, and eliminated funding for the consumer protection agency created after the 2008 recession, among other things.
With USA Today also reporting that the official has, quote:
“carved a category of immigration-related provisions out of the Senate Republicans' bill, including a restriction on grant funds for ‘sanctuary’ cities.”
And adding: “The loss of these and other items complicates the already difficult endeavor for Republicans.”
And just this morning, you had Democrats cheering because the parliamentarian ruled out two big Medicaid provisions: []
The first being cuts to the Medicaid provider tax, “which includes a fund to aid states' efforts to improve health care access for rural residents.”[]
And the second being provisions meant to block the use of Medicaid for gender-affirming care, as well as to prevent adults and kids whose immigration status can’t be immediately verified from getting healthcare coverage. []
Right, this is now $250 BILLION off the table unless Republicans can retool these provisions in a way that satisfies the parliamentarian’s guidelines, []
And so with that, we’ve seen people like Senator Tommy Tuberville calling for the parliamentarian to be fired. []
And so yes, this is a pretty massive setback for Republicans, but as Axios explains, it’s also a bit a double-edged sword at the same time:
One one hand, “it removes a thorny political problem” for the Republicans who were opposed to such deep cuts, []
But on the other, “it will also force the Senate to find additional spending cuts to pay for the tax cuts that are the centerpiece” of this bill.
But even if Senate Republicans work it out, they face many of the exact same problems in the House.
Right, several lawmakers in swing districts have also echoed the same concerns about cuts to Medicaid that go further than the initial House version of the bill.
With a group of 16 House Republicans writing a letter to leadership warning that deeper cuts to the program would jeopardize their support.
Meanwhile, conservative fiscal hawks in the lower chamber have also been raising warning flags about the Senate version of the package — particularly members of the far-right Freedom Caucus.
And while many have echoed the concerns of their hardliner counterparts in the Senate about dramatic increases in the federal deficit, it also goes beyond that.
With Fox News reporting that this faction is also “wary of additional dollars being spent on raising the debt limit,” which the outlet claims has been increased from $4 trillion to $5 trillion in the Senate’s proposed version.
And those are just concerns shared by Republicans in both chambers — the GOP members in the House have also raised a whole host of other issues.
Right, according to The Washington Post, arguably the biggest wedge between the two chambers is the state and local tax deduction — AKA SALT — which lets itemizing tax filers deduct state and local taxes from their federal returns.
And in the House version of the BBB, lawmakers approved a $40,000 deduction for filers earning $500,000 or less — a provision that was VERY hard fought and almost tanked the bill altogether.
But the Senate proposal would keep that deduction at its current level of $10,000, which was set under Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.
And, according to The Post:
“Blue-state Republicans in the House say they will vote against the legislation if it arrives back in their chamber without the $40,000 deal.”
Beyond that, some more right-leaning House Republicans are also pissed about the Senate’s decision to postpone the elimination of certain green energy tax credits approved during the Biden administration.
And those are just some of the main, overarching issues — there are also plenty of other smaller problems that could arise from any number of individual lawmakers who could functionally tank the BBB.
Like, for example, Marjorie Taylor Greene — right, she openly admitted that she didn’t read the bill in full and didn’t realize there was a provision that would ban states from regulating AI for the next decade.[]
With her saying that she wouldn’t have voted for it if she had done her fucking job and read the massive bill she helped approve.
And I flag that specifically because, in a surprise move, the Senate Parliamentarian found that it didn’t violate reconciliation rules despite widespread conjecture that it wouldn’t be allowed to stay in.
And then to add a whole other layer to this, numerous different polls — including by conservative media outlets — have found that Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public.
With at least five different surveys finding that, on average, just 1 in 3 respondents actually had a favorable view of the bill.
Though the numbers did have quite a range: Fox News found that 38% approved of the legislation, while a poll by The Washington Post and Ipsos put the number at just 23%.
And those dismal polling numbers aren’t lost on Republicans, so it’s hard to imagine it won’t influence how at least some of them vote.
Right, so there are a lot of different moving parts, a lot up in the air.
Which is likely why we’ve seen Trump repeatedly weighing in over the last few days and urging Republicans to pass the bill.
With him ramping up his demands in a post Tuesday, where he wrote:
“Now that we have made PEACE abroad, we must finish the job here at home by passing ‘THE GREAT, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL,’ and getting the Bill to my desk, ASAP.”[]
With him going on to call for the Senate to “GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK,” and adding:
“Work with the House so they can pick it up, and pass it, IMMEDIATELY. NO ONE GOES ON VACATION UNTIL IT’S DONE.”
So clearly, the pressure is on not to disappoint Dear Leader or else risk His Wrath.
But what’s unclear is if that will be enough to speed up this process and deliver Trump this win.
Now, that said, despite everything we just talked about, we have seen Republican leaders brushing off what are objectively major concerns.
With Senate Majority Leader John Thune telling Axios that he is confident Congress will meet the July 4 deadline to get the BBB on Trump's desk.
Adding that he expects voting to start tomorrow, which would carry the process through the weekend.
And while House Speaker Mike Johnson has begged the Senate not to change the bill too much because it barely passed his chamber the first time, he has also downplayed concerns that the House wouldn’t be able to agree on the new version.
Arguing that it would be “premature to judge a product that hasn’t been delivered” and adding:
“We remain on the same page about where the red lines are on all of this. I’m very optimistic that we will have a product that both chambers can agree to.”
So for now, we’ll just have to keep an eye on this and see how it all plays out.
-
This kid is one of Petersburg’s bravest - and he’s not even old enough to drive.
Right, this is 12-year-old Ramir (Ra-meer) Parker - he’s a rising 7th-grader and his hometown of Petersburg, Virginia, is calling him a hero.
And that’s because earlier this month, he was at home with his two baby brothers and his grandmother when he heard a strange noise. []
He went downstairs to investigate and he found a thick cloud of smoke covering the lower floor.
He immediately rushes to the couch, where his little brothers are napping - saying,
[“They was on opposite ends of the couch. I grabbed them, I grabbed my 2-year-old brother, then I grabbed the 1-year-old, cause the 1-year-old is smaller and I fitted them inside my arms and we ran outside the house." 0:48-1:00]
But that wasn’t the end of Ra-meer’s heroics for the day.
He also had to work to get his grandmother out of the house as well - all while running through thick smoke and a rapidly spreading fire. []
Firefighters showed up within 4 minutes of getting the call but there is no doubt in the chief’s mind that Ra-meer’s quick thinking prevented this story from having a tragic ending - saying,
[“The bottom line is, he saved his family’s life.” 1:40-1:42]
And the department highlighted him on their Facebook page, saying,
“Ramir saved lives today. His quick thinking and selfless bravery are nothing short of heroic. In a moment where seconds mattered, he stepped up -just like a firefighter would. Just like a protector does.”
And they also named him an honorary Petersburg firefighter - with the chief even offering Ra-meer a job when he turns 18. []
But the accolades didn’t stop there - Ra-meer was also honored by the Petersburg city council with a special proclamation recognizing his bravery. [] [B Roll 0:07-0:30]
But for Ra-meer, the title of hero doesn’t really fit - with him saying he was just doing what he had to do.
[“It's my little brothers, I don't care. Cause the only thing that matters is I got my little brothers out of the house and my grandma." 1:25-1:35]
So Ra-meer, you are absolutely our BAMF of the Day - not just for your epic heroics but also for the humble way you’re accepting the praise.
Good on you, kid - keep doing what you’re doing.
Get an exclusive NordVPN deal at NordVPN. Risk free with Nord's 30-day money back guarantee!
Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes!
