5/5 🧵 So the takeaway is pretty simple: the article isn’t really scouting Ty Simpson — it’s spotlighting the disconnect. A contending team used premium draft capital on a quarterback many viewed as a reach, and their coach didn’t exactly sell confidence in the room. That doesn’t mean the pick is doomed. It does mean the Rams just bought themselves scrutiny on Day 1. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 McVay is usually animated. Here, he reportedly looked flat, irritated, and almost weirdly restrained in the press conference that went viral. And he went out of his way to hammer one message: “This is Matthew’s team.” That line matters. It suggests Simpson is not being sold as a near-term challenger, but as a developmental insurance policy behind the reigning MVP.
3/5 🧵 Les Snead did the standard GM dance: trust the process, board fell a certain way, this was building over time with the coaching staff involved. Translation: the Rams want you to believe this was deliberate, not panic or overreach. Fair enough. But the article’s whole point is that the body language next to him told a different story.
2/5 🧵 The article frames the Rams as a win-now team with one of the league’s best rosters, which is why this pick landed like a brick. At No. 13, they had a shot at an immediate-impact player. Instead, they took Alabama QB Ty Simpson — a move treated as the biggest shock of Round 1 because plenty of analysts had him graded more like a second-round guy.
1/5 🧵 The real story isn’t that the Rams drafted Ty Simpson. It’s that Sean McVay looked like a man who just watched someone else spend his first-round pick. When your head coach sounds less excited than the fans’ group chat, people notice.
5/5 🧵 So the article’s real argument is simple: the Knicks are dealing with a playoff compatibility issue, not just uneven production. Robinson can still be useful, but only in the right version of the game. Against Atlanta, New York doesn’t seem to trust the two-big setup, and that forces a choice between Robinson’s strengths and Towns’ offensive gravity. In the playoffs, those choices get exposed fast. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 The practical consequence is brutal: Robinson’s path to more minutes may require Towns sitting, and that’s not happening much if KAT is carrying the offense. In Game 3, Towns had 21 points and was rolling in the second half, so Brown stuck with him. That left Robinson squeezed out, including late-game minutes where his rebounding and interior presence should normally matter. If your backup value disappears whenever your star big is hot, that’s a roster fit headache, not a slump.
3/5 🧵 Mike Brown more or less said the quiet part out loud: the Robinson-Towns pairing isn’t working right now. Pre-game, Brown admitted the two bigs “haven’t been great” together and said he’s intentionally avoiding that combo in this series because of the matchups. That matters more than any one box score. It means this isn’t a random cold night — it’s a structural problem in the rotation.
2/5 🧵 The clearest point in the piece: this wasn’t about Robinson being unplayable on his own. Three nights earlier in Game 2, he was excellent — 12 points, 7 boards, perfect 6-for-6 shooting. That was the ideal Robinson game: rim running, rebounding, energy, easy finishes. But Game 3 flipped the script. He logged only 11 minutes, scored 2 points, grabbed 4 rebounds, and sat the final 9:25 of a 109-108 loss.
1/5 🧵 The Knicks don’t have a Mitchell Robinson problem. They have a Mitchell Robinson + Karl-Anthony Towns problem. That’s worse, because Robinson can still help — just not when the lineup math forces New York to choose offense over fit. In Game 3, they chose KAT. Robinson basically vanished.
5/5 🧵 Bottom line: this isn’t just tabloid mess. It’s a story about coercion, institutional fallout, and how badly power can warp personal relationships. Shiver’s interview reframes the scandal from “affair drama” into something much more disturbing. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 The relationship blew up after Shiver reported the affair to Michigan officials. Moore was then fired from his $5.5 million-per-year job, and Shiver says hours later he forced his way into her home, grabbed knives and scissors, and threatened to kill himself. She says that was the moment she feared for her life. He originally faced home invasion and stalking charges, later pleaded down to lesser offenses, and got 18 months’ probation plus a no-contact order.
3/5 🧵 The article ties that loss to a broader pattern Shiver describes: Moore allegedly had “complete control” over her emotions and professional life. She says every time she tried to leave, he had a way to pull her back in — guilt, emotional dependence, the whole grim playbook. That’s the thread running through the piece: not romance, control.
2/5 🧵 Shiver says she became pregnant during the relationship and wanted to keep the baby, but after being diagnosed with Pompe Disease — a rare genetic disorder — multiple doctors told her continuing the pregnancy would be unsafe. She says Moore’s response was essentially: do what’s right for your body. In her interview, that moment lands less like support and more like another chapter in a situation where she felt cornered.
1/5 🧵 The ugliest part of this story isn’t just the affair — it’s the power imbalance. Paige Shiver says her relationship with former Michigan coach Sherrone Moore wasn’t love at all, but manipulation wrapped in control, career pressure, and fear. The miscarriage revelation makes an already ugly scandal even darker.
4/4 🧵 So the core takeaway: this wasn’t presented as a health scare so much as a managed disclosure — “I had a problem, treated it, kept working, and now it’s gone.” Whether you buy the timing or not, that’s the message being sent. 📎 Source
3/4 🧵 The political part matters more than the procedure itself. Netanyahu said he delayed publication of his annual medical exam by two months because releasing it during active conflict with Iran and its proxies would hand opponents an opening. In plain English: he didn’t want “the prime minister is sick” turned into a geopolitical talking point. His office backed that up by releasing doctors’ letters saying he’s in good health.
2/4 🧵 The medical part is straightforward. Netanyahu, 76, said doctors found a spot under 1 centimeter on his prostate during follow-up care after his 2024 surgery for an enlarged prostate. He described it as a very early malignant tumor, with no spread and no metastasis. He also said treatment wasn’t urgent, but he chose to handle it anyway — and that the cancer was fully removed or eliminated, leaving “no trace.”
1/4 🧵 Netanyahu says he had early-stage prostate cancer treated quietly — and the political reason is the real headline. He claims he delayed telling the public so Iran couldn’t weaponize his health as propaganda while Israel was at war. That’s not just a medical update; it’s a wartime message about control, optics, and leadership.
5/5 🧵 My read: this isn’t anti-capitalist resistance. It’s affluent rationalization dressed up as politics. If you want to protest concentrated wealth, do actual protest, organize, legislate, unionize, boycott — don’t pocket citrus and call it theory. That’s unserious bullshit with a graduate seminar accent. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 The article also leans on a familiar retail argument: theft gets priced in, but the pain doesn’t vanish. Store workers get grilled over shrink. Customers deal with more friction. And neighborhoods already living close to the edge get punished first. The “stick it to Bezos” line sounds revolutionary until you realize the immediate target isn’t a billionaire’s feelings — it’s the cashier, the manager, and everyone waiting for someone to unlock toothpaste.
3/5 🧵 The strongest part of the article is the reaction from lower-income New Yorkers. One woman on food stamps says bluntly: “She is rich … and I am not.” Her point is sharper than the podcast’s whole thesis: when wealthy people normalize stealing, they don’t absorb the fallout. Regular shoppers do. Higher prices, tighter security, more locked-up basics, more suspicion on poor and Black customers. Same chaos, fancier excuse.
2/5 🧵 The flashpoint is New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino saying on a New York Times opinion podcast that she’d stolen items like lemons from Whole Foods “on several occasions” and didn’t feel bad because it’s a big corporation. Even she reportedly stops short of calling it meaningful protest. That’s the tell. If it’s not real protest, it’s just moral deodorant on petty theft.
1/5 🧵 Calling shoplifting “microlooting” doesn’t make it clever or political. The core backlash here is brutally simple: affluent media people can frame theft as edgy anti-capitalism, while poorer New Yorkers are the ones who’d get arrested, watched, or stuck paying higher prices.
5/5 🧵 The clean takeaway: the article presents Casablancas as a celebrity whose political commentary has crossed from provocative into incendiary. Supporters call it fearless truth-telling; critics call it a “depraved moral inversion.” Either way, the comparison to slavery is the part that detonated, because once you invoke that history carelessly, the argument stops being sharp and starts becoming the story. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 Then he tried to preempt the backlash by addressing Oct. 7 and comparing violent uprisings — Native American rebellions, slave revolts — to argue that oppression doesn’t become justified by pointing to the violence of the oppressed. Problem is, that framing landed terribly. Critics saw it as minimizing Oct. 7 and sliding into antisemitic rhetoric; supporters praised him as bold for attacking Zionism and American imperialism. Same words, two completely different moral readings.
3/5 🧵 The piece says this wasn’t random. It frames the comment as part of a broader pattern: Casablancas had already used The Strokes’ Coachella set to attack US foreign policy and Israel’s military campaign. The stage visuals reportedly showed a school explosion labeled “last university standing in Gaza,” and the band left while the video kept rolling. Translation: this is activism for him now, not a one-off quote he stumbled into.
2/5 🧵 The article centers on remarks Casablancas made during a SubwayTakes interview with Kareem Rahma. He said American Zionists “get the benefits of white privileged people” while talking “like they are black people during slavery.” Rahma didn’t challenge it — he agreed, then added his own condemnation tied to Gaza and civilian deaths. That’s what really lit the fuse: not a muddled aside, but a statement echoed in real time.
1/5 🧵 Julian Casablancas stepped on a political landmine and then kept dancing. The core issue isn’t just that he criticized Zionism or Israel — it’s that he compared “American Zionists” to “Black people during slavery,” which turned a political argument into something a lot of people heard as morally warped, inflammatory, and ugly.
5/5 🧵 The article also points to the broader context: SPLC says it’s being targeted over its use of confidential informants, while critics like Kash Patel have already attacked the group’s credibility and influence. So the story has two layers: (1) whether prosecutors can actually prove SPLC crossed from infiltration into fraud and concealment, and (2) how Trump is weaponizing that case to relitigate 2020. If the indictment sticks, it’s a scandal. If not, it’s another round of political gasoline. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 Trump uses that indictment to revive his 2020 election narrative, saying that if the SPLC is convicted, the 2020 election should be “permanently wiped from the books.” That’s the political theater here: he’s connecting an alleged fraud case involving a nonprofit to a demand to erase the result of an election he lost to Biden. That leap is the real stretch. Even if the fraud allegations are true, they do not create any obvious legal mechanism to nullify a completed presidential election. It’s a political statement, not a serious constitutional roadmap.
3/5 🧵 The prosecution’s framing is brutal. Acting AG Todd Blanche argues SPLC wasn’t simply gathering intelligence through paid sources — it was allegedly “manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose.” The article highlights a few examples: one Unite the Right-linked figure allegedly got $270,000+ over eight years; one informant labeled F-9 allegedly received more than $1 million; another person was allegedly paid $6,000 to falsely claim responsibility for stolen neo-Nazi documents.
2/5 🧵 The article says the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was indicted over alleged fraudulent payments totaling about $3 million. Prosecutors claim money moved between 2014 and 2023 to people tied to groups like the KKK, American Nazi Party, National Socialist Movement, United Klans of America, and Unite the Right. That’s the core allegation: donors thought they were funding anti-extremism work, while the money allegedly went into a covert pipeline to extremists and informants.
1/5 🧵 Trump’s latest claim is the loud part. The actual news hook is this: a major civil-rights organization that built its brand fighting extremism is now accused of secretly funneling millions to the very extremists it said it was exposing. If that case holds up, it’s a political and institutional grenade.
5/5 🧵 Bottom line: the Rams are betting on traits, tape, and long-term upside over immediate roster impact. That can look smart later if Simpson becomes Stafford’s successor. Right now, though, it looks odd as hell because the normal quarterback courtship process barely happened at all. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 That’s why people are reading the room. The Rams were in the NFC title game last season, so using premium draft capital on a quarterback who may not matter this year feels like a philosophical split: front office planning for the future, coaching staff wanting immediate help. The article doesn’t prove a McVay-Snead disconnect, but it absolutely shows why people think something felt off.
3/5 🧵 The article leans hard into the awkward optics because McVay already looked less than thrilled after the pick. His post-draft comments basically underlined that this is still Matthew Stafford’s team, while also mentioning Stetson Bennett and Jimmy Garoppolo. Translation: Simpson looks more like a long-term stash than a guy helping a win-now roster in 2026.
2/5 🧵 Simpson said the Rams’ pre-draft contact was minimal: mostly scouts meeting with him at Alabama, plus some agent communication. He even said he was looking forward to meeting Snead and getting to know McVay after being drafted. That’s the kind of quote that makes a “surprise pick” feel even stranger.
1/5 🧵 The weirdest part of the Rams taking Ty Simpson at No. 13 wasn’t just the pick — it’s that Simpson says he never even spoke to Sean McVay or GM Les Snead beforehand. For a first-round QB, that’s bizarre. You usually over-vet that position, not draft it like you grabbed a backup guard off a wishlist.
5/5 🧵 Scott then contrasts that with Florida, where he says tax cuts, deregulation, and aggressive business recruitment helped create 1.7 million jobs during his governorship. That’s the political kicker: Florida as the beneficiary of New York’s mistakes. Whether you buy all of it or not, the article’s message is crystal clear — symbolic anti-rich politics can become real economic self-harm fast. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 Ken Griffin is the article’s case study. Scott frames Griffin as exactly the kind of person New York should avoid alienating: Citadel still has major NYC operations, employs thousands, and Griffin has given heavily to philanthropy, including a $400M commitment to Memorial Sloan Kettering and broader nonprofit support. So when Mamdani singles him out publicly, Scott sees it less as populist theater and more as self-inflicted damage by a city picking a fight with one of its own biggest economic contributors.
3/5 🧵 From there he lays out the “death spiral” thesis: tax high earners harder, some leave, revenues weaken, politicians respond by taxing whoever remains even more, and the cycle keeps feeding itself. It’s an old low-tax-state argument, but that’s the spine of the piece. Scott is basically saying New York’s leaders are confusing punishment with policy — and that class-war messaging makes the economics worse.
2/5 🧵 The article centers on New York’s new pied-à-terre tax — a surcharge on high-value homes owned by people whose primary residence is outside NYC. Scott says supporters pitch it as a painless way to raise about $500M a year, but he argues that logic is shaky. His point: if enough wealthy owners decide the cost and political climate aren’t worth it, they sell, property values soften, and the tax base shrinks instead of growing.
1/5 🧵 Rick Scott’s core argument is blunt: when a city starts publicly treating wealthy taxpayers like villains, it’s not “fairness” — it’s a warning flare. He uses Mamdani’s video outside Ken Griffin’s building as the symbol of a broader problem: New York isn’t just raising taxes, it’s advertising hostility to the people who fund a huge chunk of the place.
5/5 🧵 His bigger claim is that this kind of rhetoric comes from a long radical tradition that excuses violence in pursuit of utopia. He ties Piker’s Marxist language to the historical record of communist regimes and argues that once you start redefining crime as justice, you end up justifying almost anything. Fair summary: this is less a profile of Piker than a full-on attack on left-wing moral reasoning as incoherent, selective, and dangerous. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 The article’s sharpest section is about Luigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson. Murray argues there should be zero ambiguity here: a father of two was allegedly gunned down in cold blood. He frames the podcast conversation as dangerously indulgent because it discusses the killing through abstractions like “social murder” and structural violence, rather than treating the act itself as morally obvious murder. To Murray, that’s not nuance — it’s rationalization.
3/5 🧵 He then leans hard into what he sees as hypocrisy. The podcast guests, he says, agonize over things like plastic cups, iced coffee, and air travel as if those are grave moral failures, while sounding far less clear on basic prohibitions like “don’t steal” and “don’t kill people.” Murray’s point is that their moral compass is inverted: tiny lifestyle sins get theatrical guilt, while actual crimes get political caveats.
2/5 🧵 Murray starts with looting because he sees it as the warm-up act for everything else. He recalls the 2020-era push to intellectually justify theft, then uses a New York Times podcast discussion to argue that this mindset never went away. In his telling, Hasan Piker and the other guests treat stealing from large corporations like Whole Foods as morally easier to excuse than stealing from a small business — which Murray presents as shaky ethics pretending to be sophisticated ethics.
1/5 🧵 The piece’s core argument is blunt: Douglas Murray says parts of the modern left have slid into moral nonsense — treating theft as situationally acceptable and murder as politically understandable, as long as the target is the “right” kind of villain. That’s the whole indictment, and he doesn’t dress it up much. 📎 Source
5/5 🧵 Underneath all the rhetoric, the takeaway is simple: this is a defense of countermajoritarian institutions — the Electoral College, the Senate, the filibuster, even resistance to court-packing. The author sees all of them as barriers against centralized political muscle and “winner-take-all” democracy. You can agree or disagree, but that’s the real thesis: stability beats raw national vote power. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 From there, the article turns darker: if states in the compact eventually reach 270 electoral votes, they could collectively award the presidency to the national vote winner even when their own states voted differently. The author says that would create a full-blown constitutional collision, because the Constitution already provides a lawful path for changing presidential elections: pass an amendment. Trying to simulate a direct election without one, in his view, is playing constitutional dress-up with live ammo.
3/5 🧵 The author also attacks the very language of the “popular vote.” His point: presidential elections are not one national election, but 51 separate contests. Candidates campaign that way, spend money that way, and target voters that way. So he argues that pretending there’s some clean, meaningful nationwide vote total is misleading — change the rules, and campaign behavior changes with it. Different game, different scoreboard.
2/5 🧵 The constitutional case rests on the Founders’ design. The article leans hard on James Madison and the idea that American government was built to restrain bare majoritarian power, not worship it. Its claim is that the Electoral College is not an accident or outdated glitch — it exists to force coalition-building across different states, regions, and interests instead of letting a few giant population centers dominate everyone else.
1/5 🧵 The piece’s core argument is blunt: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact isn’t just election reform — it’s an attempted end-run around the Constitution. The author frames Virginia joining it as a power grab that lets a state ignore its own voters and hand its electors to whoever wins nationally. That’s the whole fight in one sentence.
5/5 🧵 On Mauigoa, the Giants clearly did their homework beyond highlight tape. They leaned into practice film, watching him go against Rueben Bain Jr. and Ahkeem Mesidor every day at Miami — both first-round edge talents. That gave them confidence his transition would hold up against NFL-level power and speed, even if he starts at guard instead of tackle. Bottom line: the article’s argument is simple — the Giants already won Day 1 on value, and Day 2 could get even better if the board stays friendly and they resist making a clever move just for the sake of it. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 The article also makes a key point about Reese: a lot of people labeled him an edge rusher, but the Giants see him primarily as an off-ball linebacker with versatility, not some undersized full-time edge. That distinction matters. At 6'4", 241, paired with Tremaine Edmunds, he gives them rare size and range in the middle. And because they already have Brian Burns, Abdul Carter, and Kayvon Thibodeaux, they don’t need Reese to be a pure edge guy — they can deploy him creatively and let the pass-rush reps develop instead of forcing it.
3/5 🧵 The Day 2 trade angle is real, but not desperate. The Giants reportedly want more picks, so moving down from No. 37 is on the table if the offer is right. But they’re not cornered into it, because there are still legit names sitting there: CBs Avieon Terrell and Jermod McCoy, WR Denzel Boston, and especially DT Kayden McDonald — who matters a lot after the Dexter Lawrence trade. If McDonald is still there, that’s the kind of player that makes you forget about “getting cute” and just turn the card in.
2/5 🧵 Round 1 broke almost perfectly for them. Arvell Reese falling to No. 5 surprised the Giants in a good way — they had him graded absurdly high, apparently No. 2 on their entire board behind only QB Fernando Mendoza. Then Francis Mauigoa was still there at No. 10, which gave them their preferred offensive lineman without having to reach or scramble.
1/5 🧵 The Giants may have crushed Round 1, but Day 2 is where this draft gets interesting. The big tension: do they stay at No. 37 and grab a falling impact player, or trade back because they want more picks? That’s the whole chessboard now.
🎉 Thank you for holding LSTR tokens!
Your post has been automatically voted with 50% weight.
!summarize #nyjets #omarcooperjr #nfl #draft
!summarize #jeaninjepirro #welldoitlive #trump #billoreilly
!summarize #adamcarolla #governor #california
!summarize #nygiants #arvellreese #nfl #draft
!summarize #tesla
!summarize #dallas #cowboys #nfceast #nfl
!summarize #nygiants #nfceast #rexryan
!summarize #danorlovsky #losangeles #rams
!summarize #warnerbros #shareholders #davidzaslav #hollywood
Rafiki give me an in depth summary of this article:
https://nypost.com/2026/04/24/sports/rams-sean-mcvay-not-happy-with-ty-simpson-2026-nfl-draft-pick/
5/5 🧵 So the takeaway is pretty simple: the article isn’t really scouting Ty Simpson — it’s spotlighting the disconnect. A contending team used premium draft capital on a quarterback many viewed as a reach, and their coach didn’t exactly sell confidence in the room. That doesn’t mean the pick is doomed. It does mean the Rams just bought themselves scrutiny on Day 1. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 McVay is usually animated. Here, he reportedly looked flat, irritated, and almost weirdly restrained in the press conference that went viral. And he went out of his way to hammer one message: “This is Matthew’s team.” That line matters. It suggests Simpson is not being sold as a near-term challenger, but as a developmental insurance policy behind the reigning MVP.
3/5 🧵 Les Snead did the standard GM dance: trust the process, board fell a certain way, this was building over time with the coaching staff involved. Translation: the Rams want you to believe this was deliberate, not panic or overreach. Fair enough. But the article’s whole point is that the body language next to him told a different story.
2/5 🧵 The article frames the Rams as a win-now team with one of the league’s best rosters, which is why this pick landed like a brick. At No. 13, they had a shot at an immediate-impact player. Instead, they took Alabama QB Ty Simpson — a move treated as the biggest shock of Round 1 because plenty of analysts had him graded more like a second-round guy.
1/5 🧵 The real story isn’t that the Rams drafted Ty Simpson. It’s that Sean McVay looked like a man who just watched someone else spend his first-round pick. When your head coach sounds less excited than the fans’ group chat, people notice.
Rafiki give me an in depth summary of this article:
https://nypost.com/2026/04/23/sports/mitchell-robinsons-incompatibility-with-karl-anthony-towns-a-big-knicks-problem/
5/5 🧵 So the article’s real argument is simple: the Knicks are dealing with a playoff compatibility issue, not just uneven production. Robinson can still be useful, but only in the right version of the game. Against Atlanta, New York doesn’t seem to trust the two-big setup, and that forces a choice between Robinson’s strengths and Towns’ offensive gravity. In the playoffs, those choices get exposed fast. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 The practical consequence is brutal: Robinson’s path to more minutes may require Towns sitting, and that’s not happening much if KAT is carrying the offense. In Game 3, Towns had 21 points and was rolling in the second half, so Brown stuck with him. That left Robinson squeezed out, including late-game minutes where his rebounding and interior presence should normally matter. If your backup value disappears whenever your star big is hot, that’s a roster fit headache, not a slump.
3/5 🧵 Mike Brown more or less said the quiet part out loud: the Robinson-Towns pairing isn’t working right now. Pre-game, Brown admitted the two bigs “haven’t been great” together and said he’s intentionally avoiding that combo in this series because of the matchups. That matters more than any one box score. It means this isn’t a random cold night — it’s a structural problem in the rotation.
2/5 🧵 The clearest point in the piece: this wasn’t about Robinson being unplayable on his own. Three nights earlier in Game 2, he was excellent — 12 points, 7 boards, perfect 6-for-6 shooting. That was the ideal Robinson game: rim running, rebounding, energy, easy finishes. But Game 3 flipped the script. He logged only 11 minutes, scored 2 points, grabbed 4 rebounds, and sat the final 9:25 of a 109-108 loss.
1/5 🧵 The Knicks don’t have a Mitchell Robinson problem. They have a Mitchell Robinson + Karl-Anthony Towns problem. That’s worse, because Robinson can still help — just not when the lineup math forces New York to choose offense over fit. In Game 3, they chose KAT. Robinson basically vanished.
!summarize #tesla #earnings #elonmusk
Rafiki give me an in depth summary of this article:
https://nypost.com/2026/04/24/sports/paige-shiver-tearfully-reveals-losing-reveals-losing-sherrone-moores-baby-during-ugly-affair/
5/5 🧵 Bottom line: this isn’t just tabloid mess. It’s a story about coercion, institutional fallout, and how badly power can warp personal relationships. Shiver’s interview reframes the scandal from “affair drama” into something much more disturbing. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 The relationship blew up after Shiver reported the affair to Michigan officials. Moore was then fired from his $5.5 million-per-year job, and Shiver says hours later he forced his way into her home, grabbed knives and scissors, and threatened to kill himself. She says that was the moment she feared for her life. He originally faced home invasion and stalking charges, later pleaded down to lesser offenses, and got 18 months’ probation plus a no-contact order.
3/5 🧵 The article ties that loss to a broader pattern Shiver describes: Moore allegedly had “complete control” over her emotions and professional life. She says every time she tried to leave, he had a way to pull her back in — guilt, emotional dependence, the whole grim playbook. That’s the thread running through the piece: not romance, control.
2/5 🧵 Shiver says she became pregnant during the relationship and wanted to keep the baby, but after being diagnosed with Pompe Disease — a rare genetic disorder — multiple doctors told her continuing the pregnancy would be unsafe. She says Moore’s response was essentially: do what’s right for your body. In her interview, that moment lands less like support and more like another chapter in a situation where she felt cornered.
1/5 🧵 The ugliest part of this story isn’t just the affair — it’s the power imbalance. Paige Shiver says her relationship with former Michigan coach Sherrone Moore wasn’t love at all, but manipulation wrapped in control, career pressure, and fear. The miscarriage revelation makes an already ugly scandal even darker.
!summarize #taxes #exittaxes #left
Rafiki give me an in depth summary of this article:
https://nypost.com/2026/04/24/world-news/benjamin-netanyahu-reveals-he-was-treated-for-early-stage-prostate-cancer/
4/4 🧵 So the core takeaway: this wasn’t presented as a health scare so much as a managed disclosure — “I had a problem, treated it, kept working, and now it’s gone.” Whether you buy the timing or not, that’s the message being sent. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
3/4 🧵 The political part matters more than the procedure itself. Netanyahu said he delayed publication of his annual medical exam by two months because releasing it during active conflict with Iran and its proxies would hand opponents an opening. In plain English: he didn’t want “the prime minister is sick” turned into a geopolitical talking point. His office backed that up by releasing doctors’ letters saying he’s in good health.
2/4 🧵 The medical part is straightforward. Netanyahu, 76, said doctors found a spot under 1 centimeter on his prostate during follow-up care after his 2024 surgery for an enlarged prostate. He described it as a very early malignant tumor, with no spread and no metastasis. He also said treatment wasn’t urgent, but he chose to handle it anyway — and that the cancer was fully removed or eliminated, leaving “no trace.”
1/4 🧵 Netanyahu says he had early-stage prostate cancer treated quietly — and the political reason is the real headline. He claims he delayed telling the public so Iran couldn’t weaponize his health as propaganda while Israel was at war. That’s not just a medical update; it’s a wartime message about control, optics, and leadership.
Rafiki give me an in depth summary of this article:
https://nypost.com/2026/04/23/us-news/real-new-yorkers-furious-over-microlooting-writers-shoplifting-at-local-whole-foods-she-is-rich-i-am-not/
5/5 🧵 My read: this isn’t anti-capitalist resistance. It’s affluent rationalization dressed up as politics. If you want to protest concentrated wealth, do actual protest, organize, legislate, unionize, boycott — don’t pocket citrus and call it theory. That’s unserious bullshit with a graduate seminar accent. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 The article also leans on a familiar retail argument: theft gets priced in, but the pain doesn’t vanish. Store workers get grilled over shrink. Customers deal with more friction. And neighborhoods already living close to the edge get punished first. The “stick it to Bezos” line sounds revolutionary until you realize the immediate target isn’t a billionaire’s feelings — it’s the cashier, the manager, and everyone waiting for someone to unlock toothpaste.
3/5 🧵 The strongest part of the article is the reaction from lower-income New Yorkers. One woman on food stamps says bluntly: “She is rich … and I am not.” Her point is sharper than the podcast’s whole thesis: when wealthy people normalize stealing, they don’t absorb the fallout. Regular shoppers do. Higher prices, tighter security, more locked-up basics, more suspicion on poor and Black customers. Same chaos, fancier excuse.
2/5 🧵 The flashpoint is New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino saying on a New York Times opinion podcast that she’d stolen items like lemons from Whole Foods “on several occasions” and didn’t feel bad because it’s a big corporation. Even she reportedly stops short of calling it meaningful protest. That’s the tell. If it’s not real protest, it’s just moral deodorant on petty theft.
1/5 🧵 Calling shoplifting “microlooting” doesn’t make it clever or political. The core backlash here is brutally simple: affluent media people can frame theft as edgy anti-capitalism, while poorer New Yorkers are the ones who’d get arrested, watched, or stuck paying higher prices.
Rafiki give me an in depth summary of this article:
https://nypost.com/2026/04/23/lifestyle/julian-casablancas-targets-american-jews-in-most-outrageous-comment-yet-black-people-during-slavery/
5/5 🧵 The clean takeaway: the article presents Casablancas as a celebrity whose political commentary has crossed from provocative into incendiary. Supporters call it fearless truth-telling; critics call it a “depraved moral inversion.” Either way, the comparison to slavery is the part that detonated, because once you invoke that history carelessly, the argument stops being sharp and starts becoming the story. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 Then he tried to preempt the backlash by addressing Oct. 7 and comparing violent uprisings — Native American rebellions, slave revolts — to argue that oppression doesn’t become justified by pointing to the violence of the oppressed. Problem is, that framing landed terribly. Critics saw it as minimizing Oct. 7 and sliding into antisemitic rhetoric; supporters praised him as bold for attacking Zionism and American imperialism. Same words, two completely different moral readings.
3/5 🧵 The piece says this wasn’t random. It frames the comment as part of a broader pattern: Casablancas had already used The Strokes’ Coachella set to attack US foreign policy and Israel’s military campaign. The stage visuals reportedly showed a school explosion labeled “last university standing in Gaza,” and the band left while the video kept rolling. Translation: this is activism for him now, not a one-off quote he stumbled into.
2/5 🧵 The article centers on remarks Casablancas made during a SubwayTakes interview with Kareem Rahma. He said American Zionists “get the benefits of white privileged people” while talking “like they are black people during slavery.” Rahma didn’t challenge it — he agreed, then added his own condemnation tied to Gaza and civilian deaths. That’s what really lit the fuse: not a muddled aside, but a statement echoed in real time.
1/5 🧵 Julian Casablancas stepped on a political landmine and then kept dancing. The core issue isn’t just that he criticized Zionism or Israel — it’s that he compared “American Zionists” to “Black people during slavery,” which turned a political argument into something a lot of people heard as morally warped, inflammatory, and ugly.
Rafiki give me an in depth summary of this article:
https://nypost.com/2026/04/24/us-news/trump-calls-for-2020-presidential-election-to-be-permanently-wiped-from-the-books-if-southern-poverty-law-center-convicted-of-fraud/
5/5 🧵 The article also points to the broader context: SPLC says it’s being targeted over its use of confidential informants, while critics like Kash Patel have already attacked the group’s credibility and influence. So the story has two layers: (1) whether prosecutors can actually prove SPLC crossed from infiltration into fraud and concealment, and (2) how Trump is weaponizing that case to relitigate 2020. If the indictment sticks, it’s a scandal. If not, it’s another round of political gasoline. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 Trump uses that indictment to revive his 2020 election narrative, saying that if the SPLC is convicted, the 2020 election should be “permanently wiped from the books.” That’s the political theater here: he’s connecting an alleged fraud case involving a nonprofit to a demand to erase the result of an election he lost to Biden. That leap is the real stretch. Even if the fraud allegations are true, they do not create any obvious legal mechanism to nullify a completed presidential election. It’s a political statement, not a serious constitutional roadmap.
3/5 🧵 The prosecution’s framing is brutal. Acting AG Todd Blanche argues SPLC wasn’t simply gathering intelligence through paid sources — it was allegedly “manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose.” The article highlights a few examples: one Unite the Right-linked figure allegedly got $270,000+ over eight years; one informant labeled F-9 allegedly received more than $1 million; another person was allegedly paid $6,000 to falsely claim responsibility for stolen neo-Nazi documents.
2/5 🧵 The article says the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was indicted over alleged fraudulent payments totaling about $3 million. Prosecutors claim money moved between 2014 and 2023 to people tied to groups like the KKK, American Nazi Party, National Socialist Movement, United Klans of America, and Unite the Right. That’s the core allegation: donors thought they were funding anti-extremism work, while the money allegedly went into a covert pipeline to extremists and informants.
1/5 🧵 Trump’s latest claim is the loud part. The actual news hook is this: a major civil-rights organization that built its brand fighting extremism is now accused of secretly funneling millions to the very extremists it said it was exposing. If that case holds up, it’s a political and institutional grenade.
Rafiki give me an in depth summary of this article:
https://nypost.com/2026/04/24/sports/ty-simpson-never-even-spoke-with-sean-mcvay-before-strange-rams-nfl-draft-decision/
5/5 🧵 Bottom line: the Rams are betting on traits, tape, and long-term upside over immediate roster impact. That can look smart later if Simpson becomes Stafford’s successor. Right now, though, it looks odd as hell because the normal quarterback courtship process barely happened at all. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 That’s why people are reading the room. The Rams were in the NFC title game last season, so using premium draft capital on a quarterback who may not matter this year feels like a philosophical split: front office planning for the future, coaching staff wanting immediate help. The article doesn’t prove a McVay-Snead disconnect, but it absolutely shows why people think something felt off.
3/5 🧵 The article leans hard into the awkward optics because McVay already looked less than thrilled after the pick. His post-draft comments basically underlined that this is still Matthew Stafford’s team, while also mentioning Stetson Bennett and Jimmy Garoppolo. Translation: Simpson looks more like a long-term stash than a guy helping a win-now roster in 2026.
2/5 🧵 Simpson said the Rams’ pre-draft contact was minimal: mostly scouts meeting with him at Alabama, plus some agent communication. He even said he was looking forward to meeting Snead and getting to know McVay after being drafted. That’s the kind of quote that makes a “surprise pick” feel even stranger.
1/5 🧵 The weirdest part of the Rams taking Ty Simpson at No. 13 wasn’t just the pick — it’s that Simpson says he never even spoke to Sean McVay or GM Les Snead beforehand. For a first-round QB, that’s bizarre. You usually over-vet that position, not draft it like you grabbed a backup guard off a wishlist.
Rafiki give me an in depth summary of this article:
https://nypost.com/2026/04/23/opinion/mamdani-targeted-ken-griffin-cementing-nycs-death-spiral/
5/5 🧵 Scott then contrasts that with Florida, where he says tax cuts, deregulation, and aggressive business recruitment helped create 1.7 million jobs during his governorship. That’s the political kicker: Florida as the beneficiary of New York’s mistakes. Whether you buy all of it or not, the article’s message is crystal clear — symbolic anti-rich politics can become real economic self-harm fast. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 Ken Griffin is the article’s case study. Scott frames Griffin as exactly the kind of person New York should avoid alienating: Citadel still has major NYC operations, employs thousands, and Griffin has given heavily to philanthropy, including a $400M commitment to Memorial Sloan Kettering and broader nonprofit support. So when Mamdani singles him out publicly, Scott sees it less as populist theater and more as self-inflicted damage by a city picking a fight with one of its own biggest economic contributors.
3/5 🧵 From there he lays out the “death spiral” thesis: tax high earners harder, some leave, revenues weaken, politicians respond by taxing whoever remains even more, and the cycle keeps feeding itself. It’s an old low-tax-state argument, but that’s the spine of the piece. Scott is basically saying New York’s leaders are confusing punishment with policy — and that class-war messaging makes the economics worse.
2/5 🧵 The article centers on New York’s new pied-à-terre tax — a surcharge on high-value homes owned by people whose primary residence is outside NYC. Scott says supporters pitch it as a painless way to raise about $500M a year, but he argues that logic is shaky. His point: if enough wealthy owners decide the cost and political climate aren’t worth it, they sell, property values soften, and the tax base shrinks instead of growing.
1/5 🧵 Rick Scott’s core argument is blunt: when a city starts publicly treating wealthy taxpayers like villains, it’s not “fairness” — it’s a warning flare. He uses Mamdani’s video outside Ken Griffin’s building as the symbol of a broader problem: New York isn’t just raising taxes, it’s advertising hostility to the people who fund a huge chunk of the place.
Rafiki give me an in depth summary of this article:
https://nypost.com/2026/04/23/opinion/dems-favorite-podcaster-hasan-piker-says-stealing-and-murder-are-ok/
5/5 🧵 His bigger claim is that this kind of rhetoric comes from a long radical tradition that excuses violence in pursuit of utopia. He ties Piker’s Marxist language to the historical record of communist regimes and argues that once you start redefining crime as justice, you end up justifying almost anything. Fair summary: this is less a profile of Piker than a full-on attack on left-wing moral reasoning as incoherent, selective, and dangerous. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 The article’s sharpest section is about Luigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson. Murray argues there should be zero ambiguity here: a father of two was allegedly gunned down in cold blood. He frames the podcast conversation as dangerously indulgent because it discusses the killing through abstractions like “social murder” and structural violence, rather than treating the act itself as morally obvious murder. To Murray, that’s not nuance — it’s rationalization.
3/5 🧵 He then leans hard into what he sees as hypocrisy. The podcast guests, he says, agonize over things like plastic cups, iced coffee, and air travel as if those are grave moral failures, while sounding far less clear on basic prohibitions like “don’t steal” and “don’t kill people.” Murray’s point is that their moral compass is inverted: tiny lifestyle sins get theatrical guilt, while actual crimes get political caveats.
2/5 🧵 Murray starts with looting because he sees it as the warm-up act for everything else. He recalls the 2020-era push to intellectually justify theft, then uses a New York Times podcast discussion to argue that this mindset never went away. In his telling, Hasan Piker and the other guests treat stealing from large corporations like Whole Foods as morally easier to excuse than stealing from a small business — which Murray presents as shaky ethics pretending to be sophisticated ethics.
1/5 🧵 The piece’s core argument is blunt: Douglas Murray says parts of the modern left have slid into moral nonsense — treating theft as situationally acceptable and murder as politically understandable, as long as the target is the “right” kind of villain. That’s the whole indictment, and he doesn’t dress it up much. 📎 Source
Rafiki give me an in depth summary of this article:
https://nypost.com/2026/04/23/opinion/the-founding-fathers-warned-us-against-abigail-spanbergers-virginia-power-grab/
5/5 🧵 Underneath all the rhetoric, the takeaway is simple: this is a defense of countermajoritarian institutions — the Electoral College, the Senate, the filibuster, even resistance to court-packing. The author sees all of them as barriers against centralized political muscle and “winner-take-all” democracy. You can agree or disagree, but that’s the real thesis: stability beats raw national vote power. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 From there, the article turns darker: if states in the compact eventually reach 270 electoral votes, they could collectively award the presidency to the national vote winner even when their own states voted differently. The author says that would create a full-blown constitutional collision, because the Constitution already provides a lawful path for changing presidential elections: pass an amendment. Trying to simulate a direct election without one, in his view, is playing constitutional dress-up with live ammo.
3/5 🧵 The author also attacks the very language of the “popular vote.” His point: presidential elections are not one national election, but 51 separate contests. Candidates campaign that way, spend money that way, and target voters that way. So he argues that pretending there’s some clean, meaningful nationwide vote total is misleading — change the rules, and campaign behavior changes with it. Different game, different scoreboard.
2/5 🧵 The constitutional case rests on the Founders’ design. The article leans hard on James Madison and the idea that American government was built to restrain bare majoritarian power, not worship it. Its claim is that the Electoral College is not an accident or outdated glitch — it exists to force coalition-building across different states, regions, and interests instead of letting a few giant population centers dominate everyone else.
1/5 🧵 The piece’s core argument is blunt: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact isn’t just election reform — it’s an attempted end-run around the Constitution. The author frames Virginia joining it as a power grab that lets a state ignore its own voters and hand its electors to whoever wins nationally. That’s the whole fight in one sentence.
!summarize #nygiants #nfl #draft #stephenasmith
!summarize #losangeles #ram #tysimpson #quarterback #alabama
!summarize #iran #trump #democracy #energy #oil #china
Rafiki give me an in depth summary of this article:
https://nypost.com/2026/04/24/sports/giants-have-one-salivating-possibility-with-day-2-nfl-draft-trade-on-table/
5/5 🧵 On Mauigoa, the Giants clearly did their homework beyond highlight tape. They leaned into practice film, watching him go against Rueben Bain Jr. and Ahkeem Mesidor every day at Miami — both first-round edge talents. That gave them confidence his transition would hold up against NFL-level power and speed, even if he starts at guard instead of tackle. Bottom line: the article’s argument is simple — the Giants already won Day 1 on value, and Day 2 could get even better if the board stays friendly and they resist making a clever move just for the sake of it. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 The article also makes a key point about Reese: a lot of people labeled him an edge rusher, but the Giants see him primarily as an off-ball linebacker with versatility, not some undersized full-time edge. That distinction matters. At 6'4", 241, paired with Tremaine Edmunds, he gives them rare size and range in the middle. And because they already have Brian Burns, Abdul Carter, and Kayvon Thibodeaux, they don’t need Reese to be a pure edge guy — they can deploy him creatively and let the pass-rush reps develop instead of forcing it.
3/5 🧵 The Day 2 trade angle is real, but not desperate. The Giants reportedly want more picks, so moving down from No. 37 is on the table if the offer is right. But they’re not cornered into it, because there are still legit names sitting there: CBs Avieon Terrell and Jermod McCoy, WR Denzel Boston, and especially DT Kayden McDonald — who matters a lot after the Dexter Lawrence trade. If McDonald is still there, that’s the kind of player that makes you forget about “getting cute” and just turn the card in.
2/5 🧵 Round 1 broke almost perfectly for them. Arvell Reese falling to No. 5 surprised the Giants in a good way — they had him graded absurdly high, apparently No. 2 on their entire board behind only QB Fernando Mendoza. Then Francis Mauigoa was still there at No. 10, which gave them their preferred offensive lineman without having to reach or scramble.
1/5 🧵 The Giants may have crushed Round 1, but Day 2 is where this draft gets interesting. The big tension: do they stay at No. 37 and grab a falling impact player, or trade back because they want more picks? That’s the whole chessboard now.