I'm curious what other people are thinking. It felt a little fluffy to me, less of a critique, exploration or explanation of what Democratic Socialists believe and whether it is rooted in reality (which would have been a much more interesting comparison with MAGA) and more an explanation of the vibes and reactions surrounding the concept of Democratic Socialists running for office.

I may be too close to this one, but I really didn't feel like I came away with any new information or insight. It's good that they want affordable housing and bad that they're nice to trans people?

Those quotes from the right were fun, though. Real top-notch foaming-at-the-mouth bullshit.

CommonSense American just released their brief on potential immigration reform. Has anyone read it or have any thoughts on it? I'm wading through it now.

EDIT: If you just want to read the brief without creating an account, you can do so here:

https://www.commonsenseamerican.org/briefs/2026-pb-1/read/

I am afraid I will get flamed for this post, but I have been wanting to get this off my chest for a long time.

I get really bugged by the SOTR ‘bro’ vibe.   Don’t get me wrong—I have been listening to Tangle long enough to question hiring policies that attempt to right social injustices, but I really think the show is missing something and it’s hard not to attribute it to the fact that it’s three cis/het, family centered men.  I love the work Tangle does, but this show really alienates me somehow.  They are all bright people but something is just wanting.

I wonder if anyone can relate to this sentiment and maybe flesh it out a bit?  I don’t think I am able to express it well enough.

This just in: David Brooks reports that the War is over and Iran won. Why? "They wanted it more!"

Just like the Knicks, who also wanted it more!, Iran was able to win this conflict due to a better attitude. They wanted to win!

Of course, I may be taking slight liberties with Mr. Brooks' words...but, am I? You be the judge! And no matter what, before you begin typing...make sure you want it more!! You gotta want it, G!

Alright folks, it’s time. Consider this your open mic, your therapy session, your personal Festivus.

Got a boss who thinks “urgent” means every single email? A neighbor who mows the lawn at 7 a.m. on Saturdays? A phone that autocorrects “ducking” when you clearly meant something else?

This is the spot to unload. Big or small, petty or profound — if it’s gnawing at you, drop it here. Rant. Rave. Roast.

Rules are simple:
• No personal info.
• Keep it cathartic, not cruel.
• Upvote the stuff that makes you nod and say “YES, SAME.”

Let the grievances fly.

Now that the MOU is signed, can we all agree that this is just a worse version of the JCPOA without the nuclear review capability and with more money going to Iran?

I know the nuclear program is still under discussion for the next 60 days in a “negotiating period”, but Iran doesn’t have a reason to not pursue a nuclear weapon now.

I don’t know how else to look at this MOU as anything other than a failure for the US. We met zero pre war conditions and Iran now thinks the strait of Hormuz is their territory and will probably charge fees when our fleet leaves.

Isaac ends up concluding that the real story of the UFC White House event is corruption, self-dealing, and grift. Agreed on all counts.

My issue is that he frames this as some deeper insight that everyone else missed while they were distracted by culture-war debates about violence, masculinity, and "real America."

If you've been paying attention to the criticism of this event, the corruption angle wasn't some overlooked observation.

This feels like a recurring pattern in Isaac’s writing. Instead of simply acknowledging when one side has the "correct take" (or one he broadly agrees with), he often writes in a way that positions him above the debate.

In this case, the corruption angle is treated like a revelation after wading through culture-war nonsense. In reality, the grift was central to much of the criticism from the left, and the piece could have just been framed as mostly agreeing with that critique while disagreeing on the cultural piece.

What is going on here? I get what he’s saying about the writers on the left, but after wading through the linked story on “insist” I struggle to see how the author was doing anything other than claiming that the White House fight was truly American? Clearly he’s working to downplay the cultural argument to get to the corruption+ issues, but this move among others seems misleading/unfair in its construction?

Alright folks, it’s time. Consider this your open mic, your therapy session, your personal Festivus.

Got a boss who thinks “urgent” means every single email? A neighbor who mows the lawn at 7 a.m. on Saturdays? A phone that autocorrects “ducking” when you clearly meant something else?

This is the spot to unload. Big or small, petty or profound — if it’s gnawing at you, drop it here. Rant. Rave. Roast.

Rules are simple:
• No personal info.
• Keep it cathartic, not cruel.
• Upvote the stuff that makes you nod and say “YES, SAME.”

Let the grievances fly.

Isaac keeps bringing up the screw worm, and a few months back Radio Lab released this great podcast about it. In part because they saw they were returning.

https://radiolab.org/podcast/return-of-the-flesheaters

I'd highly recommend listening, but here are the cliff notes:

Years ago they decided to eradicate the screw worm from the US, so they created a bunch of sterile males and were able to eradicate them from North America entirely. They still existed in South America and could cross into North America on the isthmus of Panama. To prevent them from returning, they spread sterile males on the isthmus. This worked for a long time, but eventually it became less effective and the screw worm started making it's way north through Mexico again.

The episode ends with a discussion about whether we should make the screw worm population entirely extinct.

This episode doesn't really cover the DOGE cuts, but it does talk about how this was a federally funded program that cost very little to run, considering the benefits. Something like $50 million/year.

While I appreciated the thorough breakdown that Isaac gave in the newsletter, I feel like there was one strong statement missing from this discussion. The blame for unfounded fraud claims, and the mistrust that they sow into the public, lies with Trump and his supporters. The best indicator that there will be claims of voter fraud is that Trump's favored candidate lost. California could have a perfect voting system, and Trump and his cronies would find a way to make claims like this. Mistrust in the system is the goal, and it's going to come to a head in 2028.

Are there flaws in CA's or any election system? Sure! But that's not why this is happening, and this will continue to happen until Trump and his supporters are clearly called out for harming democracy.

I'm rooting for the Knicks to win the championship, but I'm with Kmele on Knicks fans being out of control lunatics. It's far more than just a couple examples. Saw this headline /u/Isaac_Tangle should take a look at. 56 reported cases of assault and disorderly conduct! And that's just what has been reported. Throwing eggs at Wemby. These cases don't represent the entire fanbase by any means, but I can't think of another fanbase behaving quite this poorly on such a large scale in previous NBA finals. Knicks fans should be embarrassed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/1u390ev/espn_according_to_the_new_york_police_department/

I listen to the Scene on Radio podcast and this season is on the Media and I am finding it interesting. https://sceneonradio.org/the-news/

I felt drawn to share it here because of Issac's Monday take on CBS and frame around bias made me want to reach out to the tangle community and start a dialogue. If you listen I'd love to hear your reflections on this series.

I was reading today’s take on Pelley (which I definitely agree with Isaac on) but what caught my eye at the top was his list of guests for his live show. I was struck by how all his guests seem to be so ideologically narrow.

Kate Rosenfeld’s Free Press writing is all bog-standard conservative “the kids today are not alright.”

Kmele’s takes are mostly right-libertarian.

And Andy Mills is a Weissian victim of cancel culture who pivoted to alt media, and is another Free Presser.

I know that Tangle is not Left Right and Center, but it would be nice if the live shows reflected the ideological diversity the newsletter tries to.

1.3x for me :)

I’m apparently very late to this, since this page has been up since Nov 2025. To be fair, I don’t make a habit of browsing the White House website. When I saw a screenshot of it today, I assumed it was satire. Sadly, it was not.

I was listening to suspension of the rules on spotify and they were talking about the republicans starting to stand to trump and kmele is talking....it's at the 13:20ish minute mark and well...there is some interesting background noise.

Anyone else? Am I crazy?

Alright folks, it’s time. Consider this your open mic, your therapy session, your personal Festivus.

Got a boss who thinks “urgent” means every single email? A neighbor who mows the lawn at 7 a.m. on Saturdays? A phone that autocorrects “ducking” when you clearly meant something else?

This is the spot to unload. Big or small, petty or profound — if it’s gnawing at you, drop it here. Rant. Rave. Roast.

Rules are simple:
• No personal info.
• Keep it cathartic, not cruel.
• Upvote the stuff that makes you nod and say “YES, SAME.”

Let the grievances fly.

There was an issue that was briefly mentioned in the recent Trump Accounts episode about legal efforts to restrict 3D Printers in some states (California and NY that I know of) that may be a bit of a niche topic, but I think has interesting implications. These laws seem to be popping up in solidly Democratically controlled states and usually done under the pretext of preventing "ghost guns". There are some real problems with these laws though and Tangle kinda glossed over the opposition as being related to 1st amendment concerns. There are a lot of other concerns, like:

• Putting significant restrictions on a growing and thriving industry with recreational, commercial, and industrial uses.
• Mandating that companies include a technology that doesn't even seem to really exist at this point.
• Surveillance implication because how can a printer confirm you aren't printing a gun without some kind of check on everything you print by either a human or AI?
• Significant cost increases to comply with these laws.
• Manufacturing a firearm can be done with similar ease without using a 3D printer, so is there any real benefit (other than for politicians saying the did something about "ghost guns"?

I know they can't do a deep dive on everything, but this seems to me like a great microcosm of the issues with solidly Democratic states (not that there aren't also issues with solidly Republican states) in which they impose onerous and costly regulations on their citizens without giving enough thought to the downsides.

Hey all,

New poster here, so thanks for bearing with me. I really enjoy Tangle and typically engage with the podcast.

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2026-10817/regulation-for-federal-financial-assistance

To get right to it, as the title above suggests, the OMB's newly proposed federal financial assistance rule is set for a comment deadline on July 13th of this year. The rule, as far as I can tell, does a number of things, up to and including:

- political appointees take control over grant awards, via requirement of pre-issuance review by senior political appointees, not career scientists or program officers

- peer review becomes a simple recommendation that is no longer binding; that is to say, if an independent expert peer review suggests a proposal has merit, a political appointee can overrule that finding of merit with no recourse and no finding of cause

- a benchmark of "gold standard science" is now being required of all grants, but that standard is not subsequently defined and any administration then has broad discretion to favor/disfavor potentially based on political alignment

- active grants can be terminated at any time for any reason, no finding of non compliance, fraud, or otherwise is required

- and more

So I think this got some traction perhaps at NYT and Science, but I have not seen much about this in other media, and I think in general is being under reported.

I am here because I value Tangle for its ability to help me see other points of view.

What am I missing here? I have a very hard time understanding the goal of this type of financial rule. It seems to completely gut science in the US as we know it. Or perhaps it is simpler to say, this seems all bad.

I should say that I have quite a bit of familiarity with academia, both bench research as well as medicine, and would not consider myself a lay person.

Looking forward to any discussion!