Shirley0401
@shirley0401
<Leslie-Nielsen.gif>
I typically just act on the assumption that College Board is a run-of-the-mill expansion-focused business that mostly wants to sell more product, but this bit a the end seems to be a stretch, considering that half of testers are still getting a 3 or lower...
A small thing but if it's irresponsible to write someone is lying, it's also irresponsible to claim to know what a politician does or doesn't actually think.
It's a great (if years-late) piece and I'm glad it seems to be trending, but I do find it curious that the link to it on the homepage has this far less demonstrative (or effective) title. I'm sure they'd say it's about "optimizing engagement" or something, but it just strikes me as weird.
Obviously this is just pure uncut propaganda and all bullshit, but even if one were to accept the premise, this passage is basically self-refuting. If we have all these billionaires and even a (notional) trillionaire walking around, isn't that evidence that regulation isn't actually excessive?
And it predates Trump by a few years. WaPo published this infamous oped way back in *2012* FFS.
Thank you for writing the article I was far too lazy and inarticulate to write.
Greenspan was a smug self-satisfied shallow thinker who told other wealthy and powerful people what they wanted to hear. I know ten year olds with a more realistic and nuanced understanding of both economics and human nature than him.
Even the study authors self-censor (or self-delude) in their "central argument." Rightwingers might not "identify themselves" as anti-democratic, but that doesn't mean they aren't. And good lord am I ever so tired of being told dealing with incurious hypocritical dipshits means coddling them more.
Of course it's fucking Gottheimer. I'm not going to lie and pretend I'm an expert on his district, and maybe he's giving the people what they want, but what purpose does it serve to say if you call yourself a socialist you're "not a Democrat?" Socialist votes count the same as anyone's, asshole.
Goddammit one of my least favorite genres of news story is the genre where I find myself agreeing with Neera Tanden.
This is my "favorite." They really do think the Democratic Party is some kind of combination social club piggy bank for themselves and their friends, and they should get to decide who is permitted to join.
Great @nytopinion.nytimes.com piece today by @laywilliams.bsky.social on wealth & greed, although it's disappointing to think about how rare a sentiment it is. www.nytimes.com/2026/06/21/o...
He's WEARING THE HAT. I'm sure there are conflicted and even regretful Trump voters, single-issue voters, or residents of a place where "everyone" votes GOP and who have absorbed the rightwing disinfo and think Dems are literal lizards or whatever. I don't think these people WEAR THE HAT.
I don't love everything about Talarico, but I do agree with what he says here and I think it's the right tack. But the wild thing, to me, is that *none* of this is specific to men. The stuff he describes is just being a decent person, a good neighbor, a responsible member of a family and community.
Pretty good pieces, but it's a shame that even a pretty good piece still seems to take as a given that "normal times" seems to always actually mean like ~1997.
Here's some rich asshole just coming right out and saying they're better than us and I'd prefer to see more explicit anti-rich rhetoric from Mamdani and other high-profile Dems. These people mostly sociopaths, they embody many of the worst qualities a person can have, and are destroying our society.
I occasionally wonder if the jagoffs from that "we can finally use slurs again" article ever second-guess their decision, and my best guess is they'd vote for him again without a moment's hesitation.
This is great, but skimming articles most quotes look like the one below. Leadership refuses to budge from idiotic "kitchen table" talking points that accepts GOP framing & will hurt them down the road when prices don't magically go down under Dems & also *isn't how a lot of these pols are winning.*
Also: article ends w/ the claim, as made by a GOP operative, that Vance is "extremely popular" in Ohio. Is this true? Feel like his nationwide approval ratings are at ~40% so while I don't have any evidence either, I doubt even in Ohio he's "extremely popular" by any normal definition of the term.
Wild that the word "corrupt" does not appear a single time in the entire article.
It's been awhile since my expectations for @npr.org were remotely high, but calling this a "crackdown on fraud" in the post is just outright administration propaganda, even if the article includes criticism. Just a total quisling operation at this point.