Charlie Board
@chboar.bsky.social
Reposted by Charlie Board
When I worked for Reason magazine during Trump's rise to power in 2016, I was explicitly forbidden by the editor in chief from writing about Trump's racism, or the violence and racism at his rallies.
It was a "sideshow," I was told.
It was a "sideshow," I was told.
February 9, 2026 at 2:10 PM
When I worked for Reason magazine during Trump's rise to power in 2016, I was explicitly forbidden by the editor in chief from writing about Trump's racism, or the violence and racism at his rallies.
It was a "sideshow," I was told.
It was a "sideshow," I was told.
Reposted by Charlie Board
SEN. OSSOFF: “.. why are roving gangs of masked men — who look like they couldn’t pass the Army physical exam — dressed up like pretend Delta Force operators, on our streets, demanding papers, dragging people from their cars, and shooting people to death?”
@acyn.bsky.social
@acyn.bsky.social
February 7, 2026 at 7:38 PM
SEN. OSSOFF: “.. why are roving gangs of masked men — who look like they couldn’t pass the Army physical exam — dressed up like pretend Delta Force operators, on our streets, demanding papers, dragging people from their cars, and shooting people to death?”
@acyn.bsky.social
@acyn.bsky.social
Actually, yeah I forgot about Tropicana.
Nevermind.
Nevermind.
February 6, 2026 at 12:50 AM
Actually, yeah I forgot about Tropicana.
Nevermind.
Nevermind.
Where in the world does one find OJ that isn't from concentrate? Everything I see in a 'normie' grocery store is.
Maybe Whole Foods?
Maybe Whole Foods?
February 6, 2026 at 12:45 AM
Where in the world does one find OJ that isn't from concentrate? Everything I see in a 'normie' grocery store is.
Maybe Whole Foods?
Maybe Whole Foods?
Of course, the flip side is "which of the non-reforms you get if you don't pass even a minimal a reform bill instead is going to stop it?"
February 5, 2026 at 12:13 AM
Of course, the flip side is "which of the non-reforms you get if you don't pass even a minimal a reform bill instead is going to stop it?"
Reposted by Charlie Board
I think a big part of the problem is that historically consumers have never paid directly for that labor and the death of the ad industry has now left no one else paying for it....
February 4, 2026 at 6:21 PM
I think a big part of the problem is that historically consumers have never paid directly for that labor and the death of the ad industry has now left no one else paying for it....
Exactly! I can only afford a handful of individual substacks/newsletters but I do wonder if a 'bundle' of them as a collective might draw enough subs to both justify a higher price and keep the journalists eating and housed.
February 4, 2026 at 6:18 PM
Exactly! I can only afford a handful of individual substacks/newsletters but I do wonder if a 'bundle' of them as a collective might draw enough subs to both justify a higher price and keep the journalists eating and housed.
I most definitely did NOT say ANYTHING was an unreasonable ask. Not even close.
January 30, 2026 at 5:33 PM
I most definitely did NOT say ANYTHING was an unreasonable ask. Not even close.
I'd counter by saying they DID start out asking for much more than they have any reasonable chance of getting. They'll be very lucky to get even half of this ask
This IS a strong opening position, but not one so 'strong' as to end negotiations before they start.
This IS a strong opening position, but not one so 'strong' as to end negotiations before they start.
January 30, 2026 at 3:56 PM
I'd counter by saying they DID start out asking for much more than they have any reasonable chance of getting. They'll be very lucky to get even half of this ask
This IS a strong opening position, but not one so 'strong' as to end negotiations before they start.
This IS a strong opening position, but not one so 'strong' as to end negotiations before they start.
Kind of.
Only:
1) They already have funding through 2029 from the One Big Murder Bill. Dems just don't have any leverage at all to take that away.
2) Trump would designate them essential and keep them going even without any funding. Note they operated through the entire last shutdown
Only:
1) They already have funding through 2029 from the One Big Murder Bill. Dems just don't have any leverage at all to take that away.
2) Trump would designate them essential and keep them going even without any funding. Note they operated through the entire last shutdown
January 29, 2026 at 11:37 PM
Kind of.
Only:
1) They already have funding through 2029 from the One Big Murder Bill. Dems just don't have any leverage at all to take that away.
2) Trump would designate them essential and keep them going even without any funding. Note they operated through the entire last shutdown
Only:
1) They already have funding through 2029 from the One Big Murder Bill. Dems just don't have any leverage at all to take that away.
2) Trump would designate them essential and keep them going even without any funding. Note they operated through the entire last shutdown
"Two Arnold Palmers, please!"
January 25, 2026 at 7:53 PM
"Two Arnold Palmers, please!"
There's an entire subreddit devoted to extremely large chickens?
January 25, 2026 at 7:49 PM
There's an entire subreddit devoted to extremely large chickens?
" I have talked to many journalists today, and they all made the same observation"
They need to PUBLISH it.....
They need to PUBLISH it.....
January 22, 2026 at 1:07 AM
" I have talked to many journalists today, and they all made the same observation"
They need to PUBLISH it.....
They need to PUBLISH it.....
The way I'm looking at it (or at least what I'm telling myself) is:
1) If we don't rid of Trump in 2028 it doesn't matter
2) if we do, then we have a lot of catching up we can do:
1) If we don't rid of Trump in 2028 it doesn't matter
2) if we do, then we have a lot of catching up we can do:
January 21, 2026 at 11:16 AM
The way I'm looking at it (or at least what I'm telling myself) is:
1) If we don't rid of Trump in 2028 it doesn't matter
2) if we do, then we have a lot of catching up we can do:
1) If we don't rid of Trump in 2028 it doesn't matter
2) if we do, then we have a lot of catching up we can do:
Even then......presumably you expect your retirement to LAST 15-25 years.
January 21, 2026 at 11:14 AM
Even then......presumably you expect your retirement to LAST 15-25 years.
I only did it once. Last April.
My rate of return for the year clawed back to 0.1% by 12/31
But that massive downward hump in the graph of my 401k value is forever.
My rate of return for the year clawed back to 0.1% by 12/31
But that massive downward hump in the graph of my 401k value is forever.
January 21, 2026 at 11:12 AM
I only did it once. Last April.
My rate of return for the year clawed back to 0.1% by 12/31
But that massive downward hump in the graph of my 401k value is forever.
My rate of return for the year clawed back to 0.1% by 12/31
But that massive downward hump in the graph of my 401k value is forever.
The longer before the VRA gutting, the better.
The longer before the tariff uncertainty holds, the more disastrous.
The longer before the tariff uncertainty holds, the more disastrous.
January 20, 2026 at 3:24 PM
The longer before the VRA gutting, the better.
The longer before the tariff uncertainty holds, the more disastrous.
The longer before the tariff uncertainty holds, the more disastrous.
Imma be honest....I had to google 'gritter'.
Never heard that before.
Never heard that before.
January 8, 2026 at 11:13 PM
Imma be honest....I had to google 'gritter'.
Never heard that before.
Never heard that before.
They mostly are. Pretty vocally.
You'll never get unanimity....
You'll never get unanimity....
January 4, 2026 at 3:41 PM
They mostly are. Pretty vocally.
You'll never get unanimity....
You'll never get unanimity....
So it HAS 'been proven in court' (YOUR threshold, YOUR exact words, remember? See above?)
Just to a different standard than criminal conviction.
But the damn judge himself says it's FAIR to say he's an adjudicated rapist.
Facts matter. And that is one.
Just to a different standard than criminal conviction.
But the damn judge himself says it's FAIR to say he's an adjudicated rapist.
Facts matter. And that is one.
December 30, 2025 at 2:44 AM
So it HAS 'been proven in court' (YOUR threshold, YOUR exact words, remember? See above?)
Just to a different standard than criminal conviction.
But the damn judge himself says it's FAIR to say he's an adjudicated rapist.
Facts matter. And that is one.
Just to a different standard than criminal conviction.
But the damn judge himself says it's FAIR to say he's an adjudicated rapist.
Facts matter. And that is one.
??
(Paraphrasing)
Me: How does one get evidence for a non-political reason for spying on her?
You: She played a big role in gathering evidence.
How the hell am I NOT supposed to infer that your meaning was 'spying on her was to steal her information instead of as politics'?
smdh
(Paraphrasing)
Me: How does one get evidence for a non-political reason for spying on her?
You: She played a big role in gathering evidence.
How the hell am I NOT supposed to infer that your meaning was 'spying on her was to steal her information instead of as politics'?
smdh
December 30, 2025 at 2:42 AM
??
(Paraphrasing)
Me: How does one get evidence for a non-political reason for spying on her?
You: She played a big role in gathering evidence.
How the hell am I NOT supposed to infer that your meaning was 'spying on her was to steal her information instead of as politics'?
smdh
(Paraphrasing)
Me: How does one get evidence for a non-political reason for spying on her?
You: She played a big role in gathering evidence.
How the hell am I NOT supposed to infer that your meaning was 'spying on her was to steal her information instead of as politics'?
smdh