Jared (hard "d")
@jaredhardd.bsky.social
🏳️🌈⚖️😈
he/him
📍Washington, DC
he/him
📍Washington, DC
Understandable, she’s gotten quite a windfall 😅
November 11, 2025 at 6:38 PM
Understandable, she’s gotten quite a windfall 😅
Fresh off his hard-hitting investigation of the *former* president, Alex Thompson is now tackling the most pressing issue of 2025—who are TX Democrats following on Instagram?
Maybe he and @jaketapper.bsky.social should quit and start a newsletter critiquing Dems’ sartorial choices.
Maybe he and @jaketapper.bsky.social should quit and start a newsletter critiquing Dems’ sartorial choices.
November 9, 2025 at 4:02 PM
Fresh off his hard-hitting investigation of the *former* president, Alex Thompson is now tackling the most pressing issue of 2025—who are TX Democrats following on Instagram?
Maybe he and @jaketapper.bsky.social should quit and start a newsletter critiquing Dems’ sartorial choices.
Maybe he and @jaketapper.bsky.social should quit and start a newsletter critiquing Dems’ sartorial choices.
Good article, though this is a very silly sentence—Mills has been in the race for like 2 weeks.
November 1, 2025 at 6:18 PM
Good article, though this is a very silly sentence—Mills has been in the race for like 2 weeks.
Hey Sophie, if this is true you need to be at an inpatient mental health clinic, not Harvard.
October 31, 2025 at 8:33 PM
Hey Sophie, if this is true you need to be at an inpatient mental health clinic, not Harvard.
Dude you gutted the premise of your article here. These are civilians, they obviously pose no threat of imminent violence, and the US is neither at war nor in an armed conflict. It's murder.
Your story is literally "Critics say it's murder because it's murder."
Your story is literally "Critics say it's murder because it's murder."
October 31, 2025 at 2:52 AM
Dude you gutted the premise of your article here. These are civilians, they obviously pose no threat of imminent violence, and the US is neither at war nor in an armed conflict. It's murder.
Your story is literally "Critics say it's murder because it's murder."
Your story is literally "Critics say it's murder because it's murder."
"Simply following orders"
Huh, where have I heard that one before... 🤔
Huh, where have I heard that one before... 🤔
October 31, 2025 at 2:47 AM
"Simply following orders"
Huh, where have I heard that one before... 🤔
Huh, where have I heard that one before... 🤔
This one is even better—“If we want OUR lives to improve,” as if he even vaguely knows what would improve New Yorkers’ lives.
Though if the “our” is “NY billionaires,” he’s certainly right about Cuomo.
Though if the “our” is “NY billionaires,” he’s certainly right about Cuomo.
October 29, 2025 at 1:48 PM
This one is even better—“If we want OUR lives to improve,” as if he even vaguely knows what would improve New Yorkers’ lives.
Though if the “our” is “NY billionaires,” he’s certainly right about Cuomo.
Though if the “our” is “NY billionaires,” he’s certainly right about Cuomo.
I love how NYT will say this in one story while breathlessly, baselessly reporting every few weeks that Harvard is “close to reaching an agreement” with the regime 🙄
October 21, 2025 at 10:13 PM
I love how NYT will say this in one story while breathlessly, baselessly reporting every few weeks that Harvard is “close to reaching an agreement” with the regime 🙄
Um, no @prosser.bsky.social, that’s not actually how federal court works.
For one thing, if what you’re saying is true then Apple’s attorneys submitted materially false documents to the court.
For one thing, if what you’re saying is true then Apple’s attorneys submitted materially false documents to the court.
October 21, 2025 at 7:18 PM
Um, no @prosser.bsky.social, that’s not actually how federal court works.
For one thing, if what you’re saying is true then Apple’s attorneys submitted materially false documents to the court.
For one thing, if what you’re saying is true then Apple’s attorneys submitted materially false documents to the court.
Imagine being this guy and thinking you’re a member of some master race.
October 14, 2025 at 10:36 PM
Imagine being this guy and thinking you’re a member of some master race.
I encourage you to read the article again, because it says nothing remotely close to what you claim it does. The upshot:
October 7, 2025 at 5:41 PM
I encourage you to read the article again, because it says nothing remotely close to what you claim it does. The upshot:
Holy shit wtf is this?! “My sense is that you have illicitly (?!) inferred my support for conversion therapy from my active participation in a group that supports conversion therapy.” 😂
October 6, 2025 at 3:29 PM
Holy shit wtf is this?! “My sense is that you have illicitly (?!) inferred my support for conversion therapy from my active participation in a group that supports conversion therapy.” 😂
So @nytimes.com KNOWS these strikes are illegal but chooses a mealy-mouthed headline.
October 3, 2025 at 7:30 PM
So @nytimes.com KNOWS these strikes are illegal but chooses a mealy-mouthed headline.
Then why the fuck would you resign? He has no authority to fire you!
October 2, 2025 at 10:13 PM
Then why the fuck would you resign? He has no authority to fire you!
This is (roughly) Jeffries’ district, which includes all of Bed-Stuy, probably the most pro-Mamdani neighborhood in NYC. Pretty clear to me.
And even if that weren’t true, HE’S THE FUCKING NOMINEE!
And even if that weren’t true, HE’S THE FUCKING NOMINEE!
September 29, 2025 at 4:59 AM
This is (roughly) Jeffries’ district, which includes all of Bed-Stuy, probably the most pro-Mamdani neighborhood in NYC. Pretty clear to me.
And even if that weren’t true, HE’S THE FUCKING NOMINEE!
And even if that weren’t true, HE’S THE FUCKING NOMINEE!
Always knew Pete Davidson was a POS. Here’s his “defense.” Like yeah, Pete, that’s exactly why we’re criticizing you.
September 27, 2025 at 11:38 PM
Always knew Pete Davidson was a POS. Here’s his “defense.” Like yeah, Pete, that’s exactly why we’re criticizing you.
@bradlander.bsky.social is a *municipal officer* and he’s been far more successful in fighting fascism than Schmuck and his band of misfits.
September 26, 2025 at 4:57 PM
@bradlander.bsky.social is a *municipal officer* and he’s been far more successful in fighting fascism than Schmuck and his band of misfits.
Hey @pocketcasts.com what’s up with these massive new banner ads? I’ve been a user for ~10 years and this will absolutely make me switch to a different app.
If you had been open about adding ads I probably would have subscribed, but I really don’t like you thinking you’d pull one over on me.
If you had been open about adding ads I probably would have subscribed, but I really don’t like you thinking you’d pull one over on me.
September 23, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Hey @pocketcasts.com what’s up with these massive new banner ads? I’ve been a user for ~10 years and this will absolutely make me switch to a different app.
If you had been open about adding ads I probably would have subscribed, but I really don’t like you thinking you’d pull one over on me.
If you had been open about adding ads I probably would have subscribed, but I really don’t like you thinking you’d pull one over on me.
Damn, all it took for @nytimes.com to stop writing in code is Trump openly violating the First Amendment to threaten media companies.
September 22, 2025 at 9:58 PM
Damn, all it took for @nytimes.com to stop writing in code is Trump openly violating the First Amendment to threaten media companies.
I’d guess it’s pretty high, at least outside of the top and bottom handful. Using UChicago as an example, it was #1 in 2022 and 2023, then #13 in 2024 (bc of a single report) and now #43. And the explanation is nonsense:
![his year, UChicago's ranking dropped again, nis time to 43. This decline is primarily due to wo incidents that occurred after Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack on Israel. In one instance, medical students attempted to disrupt a speaking event featuring the newly elected president of the American Medical Association.
14] In the other, students successfully disrupted an organized protest of the Hamas attack that was supposed to feature multiple speakers, 1151
To UChicago's credit, on both of these occasions students, not the administration, suppressed speech. The attempted disruption failed because university security escorted the protesters out of the event so that the speaker could complete his remarks successfully. And, in the aftermath of the disrupted event, the university president reiterated the school's famous Chicago principles - a positive action that mitigated the penalty applied because of the disruption and which is reflected in the school's rankings score.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:g4sipwczb6v2s6bfg37iq4xo/bafkreihndeayje5jd2wkpwgdd6qnvjeqwnym7h55ab7zn2itgwlq4sgt7y@jpeg)
September 20, 2025 at 8:50 PM
I’d guess it’s pretty high, at least outside of the top and bottom handful. Using UChicago as an example, it was #1 in 2022 and 2023, then #13 in 2024 (bc of a single report) and now #43. And the explanation is nonsense:
So many “First Amendment defenders” coming out of the woodwork to proclaim they know absolutely nothing about the First Amendment.
Pro tip: if you start a sentence with “I support the First Amendment, but…” then you do not, in fact, support the First Amendment. www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/u...
Pro tip: if you start a sentence with “I support the First Amendment, but…” then you do not, in fact, support the First Amendment. www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/u...
September 20, 2025 at 5:22 PM
So many “First Amendment defenders” coming out of the woodwork to proclaim they know absolutely nothing about the First Amendment.
Pro tip: if you start a sentence with “I support the First Amendment, but…” then you do not, in fact, support the First Amendment. www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/u...
Pro tip: if you start a sentence with “I support the First Amendment, but…” then you do not, in fact, support the First Amendment. www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/u...