ladyvibrato.bsky.social
@ladyvibrato.bsky.social
;-)
December 23, 2025 at 9:54 PM
Yes, exactly this. It’s not just volume — it’s pattern recognition. Once you clock the cadence, it jumps off the page.
December 23, 2025 at 9:54 PM
Love that I live in a country where this result would most likely produce a lopsided electoral college win for Vance
December 18, 2025 at 12:40 AM
One assumes that she had the reporter hold the piece until the inevitable moment she felt she was about to be defenestrated
December 16, 2025 at 1:58 PM
Counterpoint: they did work to ensure she would lose. Ain't arguing on the internet great? Keep at it, you're doing great.
December 10, 2025 at 4:35 PM
Of course the NY fuckin' Times is now going to try to prop up Harris as a leading candidate, after working to ensure she would lose in 24 - they'd love nothing more than another chance to have her as a punching bag for a full election cycle
December 10, 2025 at 3:53 PM
Trump: affordability is a Democrat con job, a hoax. Media: this new focus on affordability appears to be helping Trump
December 9, 2025 at 12:27 PM
Ozempic head
December 5, 2025 at 1:12 PM
December 4, 2025 at 4:36 PM
What kind of fucking question is that anyway? Polling shows that Americans are pissed about this, so just ask him what he has to say to all those pissed Americans
December 2, 2025 at 7:32 PM
Anecdata, but based on my experience as a PhD at an Ivy & the parent of a child about to apply to college, I can say this: each time a university capitulates to this administration, I tell my child I will not pay for their enrollment there. And I have to imagine there are others who feel the same.
December 1, 2025 at 9:13 PM
Reposted
Not only was the Times obsessed with Hillary Clinton's emails while ignoring emails about Donald Trump sent to its own reporter, but since then it has constantly attacked anyone who dared look into questions of Trump's character. All with sanctimony.

Now we know it was all a big lie.
November 13, 2025 at 12:28 AM
Thanks! A bit confusing that judges can set aside a guilty verdict if a jury relied on insufficient evidence or misapplied law. So a judge can correct jury’s error when it cuts against the defendant but never when it’s in their favor. Actually, now that I say it, sounds pretty good. Thanks Founders!
November 7, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Curious as someone who doesn't know the law well enough: if a judge sees factual evidence indicating guilt and the jury acquits nonetheless, does the judge have any power to set aside the jury verdict or declare a mistrial etc.?
November 7, 2025 at 12:07 PM
Oh, I think there is a third option - and it's the one they reliably choose - which is fucking loving and being hella horny for it
October 20, 2025 at 12:24 AM
Once again, the NYT gets its rhetorical boner out for authoritarianism. Their headlines love to invoke Trump and his posse "flexing muscles" and "exercising raw power", it's like a weird niche of porn, even when they are talking about dudes who are obviously some of the biggest pussies in the world
October 20, 2025 at 12:22 AM
Wire service, 174, has "journalism" of "stenography"
October 11, 2025 at 12:33 PM
Not so much a who as a why question, if you think about it
October 1, 2025 at 2:52 PM
Um, what exactly is the relationship between fitness standards and race, Sir
September 30, 2025 at 12:42 PM
It's pretty hard to imagine anyone getting jazzed at the possibility of being indicted BUT it is also easy to imagine Jim Comey being very jazzed to be indicted
September 24, 2025 at 8:15 PM
Are these "many Democrats" in the room with you now
September 18, 2025 at 10:41 PM
It's a good thing my rights are in-motherfucking-alienable
September 18, 2025 at 10:36 PM
Democrats behave as if their policies are "bad medicine" - good for you, but ultimately unwanted. This inferiority complex drives them to chase policy goals while downplaying the impact on people's lives, instead of *selling it*.
September 17, 2025 at 5:38 PM