🍄
LightNews LightNews
banner
rulesfollower.bsky.social
🍄
@rulesfollower.bsky.social
290 followers 390 following 2K posts
God, bless this cocaine to give me the gas to beat this demon.
Posts Replies Media Videos
rulesfollower.bsky.social
Every book on the New Yorker, Economist or WSJ year end list is assuredly the worst slop you're about to read. This particular book is so poorly reported that people literally quoted in it are coming out to call bullshit on it. It's a fabrication!
December 24, 2025 at 10:28 PM
rulesfollower.bsky.social
sorry you got roasted in the comments section
comment on the article by RapidRob, 13 hours ago: Came here to find new interesting podcasts. Not a single one of these qualifies.
December 24, 2025 at 3:26 PM
Reposted by 🍄
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
Also, Justice Kavanaugh sounds like he really, really wants a second try at his decision authorizing Kavanaugh Stops.

He's now insisting that immigration enforcement should not be like EXACTLY WHAT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IS LIKE UNDER TRUMP'S THUGGERY.
arrests in Illinois. The State and the Government disagree about whether the immigration officers have violated the Constitution in making certain immigration stops and arrests. The basic constitutional rules governing that dispute are longstanding and clear: The Fourth Amendment requires that immigration stops must be based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, stops must be brief, arrests must be based on probable cause, and officers must not employ excessive force. Moreover, the officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity. Cf. Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813 (1996) (“[T]he Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race”). This application does not require us to delve into the parties’ underlying dispute and to determine whether any particular immigration encounter or series of encounters in Illinois has violated those basic constitutional principles.
December 23, 2025 at 8:50 PM
rulesfollower.bsky.social
The number of liberals on this app who defend this man as some kind of nebulous good, when he was actually a terrible person—one of my enemies that helped create the hellscape we now live in—sickens me. Let the man die as he lived, horribly.
December 23, 2025 at 5:38 PM
Reposted by 🍄
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Again, from Michael Grynbaum, here is Sharyn Alfonsi's full email.

It must be read:
News Team, Thank you for the notes and texts. I apologize for not reaching out earlier. I learned on Saturday that Bari Weiss spiked our story, INSIDE CECOT, which was supposed to air tonight. We (Ori and I) asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy/opportunity. Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now-after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision, it is a political one. We requested responses to questions and/or interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department. Government silence is a statement, not a VETO. Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story. If the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a "kill switch" for any reporting they find inconvenient. If the standard for airing a story becomes "the government must agree to be interviewed," then the government effectively gains control over the 60 Minutes broadcast. We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state. These men risked their lives to speak with us. We have a moral and professional obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories. Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic tenet of journalism: giving voice to the voiceless. CBS spiked the Jeffrey Wigand interview due to legal concerns, nearly destroying the credibility of this broadcast. It took years to recover from that "low point." By pulling this story to shield an administration, we are repeating that history, but for political optics rather than legal ones. We have been promoting this story on social media for days. Our viewers are expecting it. When it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship. We are trading 50 years of "Gold Standard" reputation for a single week of political quiet. I care too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled without a fight. Sharyn
December 22, 2025 at 4:00 AM