Oscar The Grouch Fan
@oscarthegrouchfan.bsky.social
Big Oscar the Grouch Energy. Follows sports teams that always see me on the end of winning records (Nets/Rutgers/Mets). Politics too I guess.
Centrist types are already looking to write her off for daring to try.
“If she gets close that means we needed to run a more moderate candidate and we could have won that race.”
“If she gets close that means we needed to run a more moderate candidate and we could have won that race.”
November 26, 2025 at 4:26 PM
Centrist types are already looking to write her off for daring to try.
“If she gets close that means we needed to run a more moderate candidate and we could have won that race.”
“If she gets close that means we needed to run a more moderate candidate and we could have won that race.”
I’d sign up for this in a heartbeat.
The Olivia Nuzzi story is pure soap opera. But I hope it’s the kind of soap opera that gets more liberals to realize that the mainstream press isn’t up to par.
The Olivia Nuzzi story is pure soap opera. But I hope it’s the kind of soap opera that gets more liberals to realize that the mainstream press isn’t up to par.
November 26, 2025 at 4:22 PM
I’d sign up for this in a heartbeat.
The Olivia Nuzzi story is pure soap opera. But I hope it’s the kind of soap opera that gets more liberals to realize that the mainstream press isn’t up to par.
The Olivia Nuzzi story is pure soap opera. But I hope it’s the kind of soap opera that gets more liberals to realize that the mainstream press isn’t up to par.
Media won’t come on Bluesky because they know we’ll rip apart these lukewarm takes.
They can take slurs no problem, but criticism of their reporting and takes is unacceptable.
They can take slurs no problem, but criticism of their reporting and takes is unacceptable.
November 21, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Media won’t come on Bluesky because they know we’ll rip apart these lukewarm takes.
They can take slurs no problem, but criticism of their reporting and takes is unacceptable.
They can take slurs no problem, but criticism of their reporting and takes is unacceptable.
The iconic shot of the protests is Kat Abughazaleh getting thrown to the ground by the ICE agent.
November 20, 2025 at 10:54 PM
The iconic shot of the protests is Kat Abughazaleh getting thrown to the ground by the ICE agent.
Have to agree with this take.
My real controversial take here is that Saikat Chakrabarti might be a spoiler for Scott Wiener among the younger more YIMBY crowd who does not like his I/P takes.
My real controversial take here is that Saikat Chakrabarti might be a spoiler for Scott Wiener among the younger more YIMBY crowd who does not like his I/P takes.
November 20, 2025 at 10:08 PM
Have to agree with this take.
My real controversial take here is that Saikat Chakrabarti might be a spoiler for Scott Wiener among the younger more YIMBY crowd who does not like his I/P takes.
My real controversial take here is that Saikat Chakrabarti might be a spoiler for Scott Wiener among the younger more YIMBY crowd who does not like his I/P takes.
Where is the poll saying that?
I read it as 43% don’t know enough about Biss vs. 46% for Kat.
I read it as 43% don’t know enough about Biss vs. 46% for Kat.
November 20, 2025 at 9:53 PM
Where is the poll saying that?
I read it as 43% don’t know enough about Biss vs. 46% for Kat.
I read it as 43% don’t know enough about Biss vs. 46% for Kat.
If you oppose that - by this definition you would be a NIMBY.
I think any definition of the term should allow for some nuance to say that’s not an ideal outcome for your neighborhood.
I think any definition of the term should allow for some nuance to say that’s not an ideal outcome for your neighborhood.
November 19, 2025 at 6:40 AM
If you oppose that - by this definition you would be a NIMBY.
I think any definition of the term should allow for some nuance to say that’s not an ideal outcome for your neighborhood.
I think any definition of the term should allow for some nuance to say that’s not an ideal outcome for your neighborhood.
I mean how?
You are saying the only way to not be a NIMBY is you must want housing in any way possible.
That includes for example in theory - A landlord negligently letting their property catch on fire causing people to lose their homes, and then in its wake building a luxury high rise.
You are saying the only way to not be a NIMBY is you must want housing in any way possible.
That includes for example in theory - A landlord negligently letting their property catch on fire causing people to lose their homes, and then in its wake building a luxury high rise.
November 19, 2025 at 6:40 AM
I mean how?
You are saying the only way to not be a NIMBY is you must want housing in any way possible.
That includes for example in theory - A landlord negligently letting their property catch on fire causing people to lose their homes, and then in its wake building a luxury high rise.
You are saying the only way to not be a NIMBY is you must want housing in any way possible.
That includes for example in theory - A landlord negligently letting their property catch on fire causing people to lose their homes, and then in its wake building a luxury high rise.
I don’t think it should be this hard to say, “Ok they aren’t NIMBYs. They do want housing in their backyard, but their plans won’t work because of XYZ.”
November 19, 2025 at 5:46 AM
I don’t think it should be this hard to say, “Ok they aren’t NIMBYs. They do want housing in their backyard, but their plans won’t work because of XYZ.”
So we’re back to what I said - it’s
not enough to want more housing in your backyard. You need to want more housing in a certain way or else you’re a NIMBY.
not enough to want more housing in your backyard. You need to want more housing in a certain way or else you’re a NIMBY.
November 19, 2025 at 5:45 AM
So we’re back to what I said - it’s
not enough to want more housing in your backyard. You need to want more housing in a certain way or else you’re a NIMBY.
not enough to want more housing in your backyard. You need to want more housing in a certain way or else you’re a NIMBY.
You know that’s not what someone who is PHIMBY is saying though.
November 19, 2025 at 5:40 AM
You know that’s not what someone who is PHIMBY is saying though.
Is someone saying that they want only public housing asking for more housing?
We don’t need to get into the efficacy of whether that will work. That’s a different debate entirely.
We don’t need to get into the efficacy of whether that will work. That’s a different debate entirely.
November 19, 2025 at 5:30 AM
Is someone saying that they want only public housing asking for more housing?
We don’t need to get into the efficacy of whether that will work. That’s a different debate entirely.
We don’t need to get into the efficacy of whether that will work. That’s a different debate entirely.
It’s the same kind of uncompromising dogmatic beliefs I see in leftist corners.
You must want more housing in the way I specify it or you don’t actually believe in wanting more housing.
It has parallels to the UHC or bust arguments.
You must want more housing in the way I specify it or you don’t actually believe in wanting more housing.
It has parallels to the UHC or bust arguments.
November 19, 2025 at 5:16 AM
It’s the same kind of uncompromising dogmatic beliefs I see in leftist corners.
You must want more housing in the way I specify it or you don’t actually believe in wanting more housing.
It has parallels to the UHC or bust arguments.
You must want more housing in the way I specify it or you don’t actually believe in wanting more housing.
It has parallels to the UHC or bust arguments.
I mean plenty of folks call PHIMBYs as left NIMBYs who want to avoid that label.
Are you willing to go against that crowd?
Are you willing to go against that crowd?
November 19, 2025 at 4:22 AM
I mean plenty of folks call PHIMBYs as left NIMBYs who want to avoid that label.
Are you willing to go against that crowd?
Are you willing to go against that crowd?
One is also a NIMBY if you like social housing.
November 19, 2025 at 4:12 AM
One is also a NIMBY if you like social housing.
Raskin is either representing the party in all of these types of statements or he’s just representing his own views.
It can’t be done in a way where he represents the party only when he made his bad MTG comment, while his Mamdani endorsement doesn’t represent the party.
It can’t be done in a way where he represents the party only when he made his bad MTG comment, while his Mamdani endorsement doesn’t represent the party.
November 18, 2025 at 8:25 PM
Raskin is either representing the party in all of these types of statements or he’s just representing his own views.
It can’t be done in a way where he represents the party only when he made his bad MTG comment, while his Mamdani endorsement doesn’t represent the party.
It can’t be done in a way where he represents the party only when he made his bad MTG comment, while his Mamdani endorsement doesn’t represent the party.
Would someone pointing out Raskin endorsed Mamdani be considered harassment?
Because turning off replies ensures she doesn’t get ratioed by people pointing that out.
Because turning off replies ensures she doesn’t get ratioed by people pointing that out.
November 18, 2025 at 3:16 PM
Would someone pointing out Raskin endorsed Mamdani be considered harassment?
Because turning off replies ensures she doesn’t get ratioed by people pointing that out.
Because turning off replies ensures she doesn’t get ratioed by people pointing that out.
Either Raskin represents the party when he made his MTG comment and endorsed Mamdani. Or he doesn’t represent the party in both circumstances.
You can’t have it so that he represents the party in instances where you want to use him to criticize the party but doesn’t when he makes it look good.
You can’t have it so that he represents the party in instances where you want to use him to criticize the party but doesn’t when he makes it look good.
November 18, 2025 at 3:09 PM
Either Raskin represents the party when he made his MTG comment and endorsed Mamdani. Or he doesn’t represent the party in both circumstances.
You can’t have it so that he represents the party in instances where you want to use him to criticize the party but doesn’t when he makes it look good.
You can’t have it so that he represents the party in instances where you want to use him to criticize the party but doesn’t when he makes it look good.
But the party didn’t invite her in either…
November 17, 2025 at 4:09 PM
But the party didn’t invite her in either…
“But her e-mails.”
What about the e-mails sitting on your own (at the time) e-mail servers?
At best - this is highly hypocritical. At worst - you covered up a pedo.
What about the e-mails sitting on your own (at the time) e-mail servers?
At best - this is highly hypocritical. At worst - you covered up a pedo.
November 13, 2025 at 5:20 PM
“But her e-mails.”
What about the e-mails sitting on your own (at the time) e-mail servers?
At best - this is highly hypocritical. At worst - you covered up a pedo.
What about the e-mails sitting on your own (at the time) e-mail servers?
At best - this is highly hypocritical. At worst - you covered up a pedo.
*calling attention to the issues
November 10, 2025 at 12:56 PM
*calling attention to the issues
Tell me - do you see this argument actually landing with people?
Is there any indication people are thinking the shutdown was a success because it “informed them of the issues”?
Is there any indication people are thinking the shutdown was a success because it “informed them of the issues”?
November 10, 2025 at 12:56 PM
Tell me - do you see this argument actually landing with people?
Is there any indication people are thinking the shutdown was a success because it “informed them of the issues”?
Is there any indication people are thinking the shutdown was a success because it “informed them of the issues”?
I didn’t realize “calling attention to the issues” was a serious argument when I first heard someone advance it.
To quote Kendrick Lamar, “The audience not dumb”
People will see through such an argument.
To quote Kendrick Lamar, “The audience not dumb”
People will see through such an argument.
November 10, 2025 at 12:36 PM
I didn’t realize “calling attention to the issues” was a serious argument when I first heard someone advance it.
To quote Kendrick Lamar, “The audience not dumb”
People will see through such an argument.
To quote Kendrick Lamar, “The audience not dumb”
People will see through such an argument.
Pelosi already quit lol. Saw what was coming.
November 10, 2025 at 2:48 AM
Pelosi already quit lol. Saw what was coming.
Another guy who is probably blustering and apoplectic now.
November 5, 2025 at 2:49 AM
Another guy who is probably blustering and apoplectic now.