Signal: @djlavoie.99
They're less than 2% of the population!
They're less than 2% of the population!
Shouldn't consumers be slowing down at some point? fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE
Shouldn't consumers be slowing down at some point? fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE
They're trying to find non-Trump-related differentiators for their grifts and it's taking their audiences in extremely disturbing directions.
And it's also, sadly, working.
They're trying to find non-Trump-related differentiators for their grifts and it's taking their audiences in extremely disturbing directions.
And it's also, sadly, working.
It’s whoever is trying to put “a ceiling” on the top-earning Americans.
That should be the Democratic Party. It's a slogan that runs against its own party base!
For @gilduran.com and @george-lakoff.com's @theframelab.bsky.social, I wrote about why DC Dems won't appeal beyond the donor base.
There's another way to put an expiration point on Trumpism.
Jalen Brunson got more write-in votes for mayor than Aaron Judge.
Jalen Brunson got more write-in votes for mayor than Aaron Judge.
This is just appallingly selfish stuff.
Ayanna Pressley won’t challenge Ed Markey, will run for re-election
www.bostonglobe.com/2025/12/02/n...
This is just appallingly selfish stuff.
time.com/7335723/auto...
They mix some very important and solid reporting with sensationalistic, misleading headlines.
The only "sources" saying this in the story are former JAGs and retired experts -- ie. No one with any actual power to make this happen.
They mix some very important and solid reporting with sensationalistic, misleading headlines.
The only "sources" saying this in the story are former JAGs and retired experts -- ie. No one with any actual power to make this happen.
It forces readers to rely on the whispered words of likely liars with zero context to empower a reader's own analysis.
"Five US officials" could be virtually anyone. It tells me nothing.
Are they political appointees? Uniformed military? Active participants?
Anonymous sources can be fine, but readers need some context to evaluate sources' trustworthiness
It forces readers to rely on the whispered words of likely liars with zero context to empower a reader's own analysis.
"Five US officials" could be virtually anyone. It tells me nothing.
Are they political appointees? Uniformed military? Active participants?
Anonymous sources can be fine, but readers need some context to evaluate sources' trustworthiness
Are they political appointees? Uniformed military? Active participants?
Anonymous sources can be fine, but readers need some context to evaluate sources' trustworthiness