Bam
@bamer1can.bsky.social
Predominantly in the Fediverse, but bridging from there @[email protected]
Join the Bluesky-Fedi bridge and help make a real social web! @ap.brid.gy
Join the Bluesky-Fedi bridge and help make a real social web! @ap.brid.gy
Check out Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s Strongmen. It’s a feature.
November 20, 2025 at 3:29 AM
Check out Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s Strongmen. It’s a feature.
They were, rightfully, hot about it when the Senate replacement was transmitted for sure. It’s pretty egregious self-dealing pork for those few Senators to sneak in.
November 20, 2025 at 3:27 AM
They were, rightfully, hot about it when the Senate replacement was transmitted for sure. It’s pretty egregious self-dealing pork for those few Senators to sneak in.
When deciding between mistake and conspiracy, stick with mistake until proven otherwise.
But for an attorney, who does understand the significance, to sit there and say nothing when the MJ has gotten factually incorrect information is absolutely inexcusable.
But for an attorney, who does understand the significance, to sit there and say nothing when the MJ has gotten factually incorrect information is absolutely inexcusable.
November 20, 2025 at 3:22 AM
When deciding between mistake and conspiracy, stick with mistake until proven otherwise.
But for an attorney, who does understand the significance, to sit there and say nothing when the MJ has gotten factually incorrect information is absolutely inexcusable.
But for an attorney, who does understand the significance, to sit there and say nothing when the MJ has gotten factually incorrect information is absolutely inexcusable.
I’d guess that the foreperson, who is a lay person and not an attorney, didn’t understand the significance of the precision of the MJ’s question and figured that, if the GJ voted on and true billed the substance of the two charges, that meant they voted on the indictment that has them.
November 20, 2025 at 3:20 AM
I’d guess that the foreperson, who is a lay person and not an attorney, didn’t understand the significance of the precision of the MJ’s question and figured that, if the GJ voted on and true billed the substance of the two charges, that meant they voted on the indictment that has them.
I think the House wanted the government funded, so they just passed the Senate replacement. Had they amended the bill it would have had to go back to the Senate (or conf.) for passage.
So they’re doing a single subject repeal instead, then getting bicameralism, as there’s far less urgency for it.
So they’re doing a single subject repeal instead, then getting bicameralism, as there’s far less urgency for it.
November 20, 2025 at 3:15 AM
I think the House wanted the government funded, so they just passed the Senate replacement. Had they amended the bill it would have had to go back to the Senate (or conf.) for passage.
So they’re doing a single subject repeal instead, then getting bicameralism, as there’s far less urgency for it.
So they’re doing a single subject repeal instead, then getting bicameralism, as there’s far less urgency for it.
Jerusalem: The Biography by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
November 19, 2025 at 11:28 PM
Jerusalem: The Biography by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And, just out of curiosity, what is his reference to a Jewish lawyer being paid from the Soros piggybank?
You know, since we are asking questions.
You know, since we are asking questions.
November 19, 2025 at 11:22 PM
And, just out of curiosity, what is his reference to a Jewish lawyer being paid from the Soros piggybank?
You know, since we are asking questions.
You know, since we are asking questions.
November 19, 2025 at 11:21 PM
And, just out of curiosity, what is his reference to a Jewish lawyer being paid from the Soros piggybank?
You know, since we are asking questions.
You know, since we are asking questions.
Sure, but having your result tossed by the SCOTUS on Purcell because “yeah, you’re right. It’s unconstitutional, but darn it, that election is coming” is another problem the majority has to grapple with.
November 19, 2025 at 10:30 PM
Sure, but having your result tossed by the SCOTUS on Purcell because “yeah, you’re right. It’s unconstitutional, but darn it, that election is coming” is another problem the majority has to grapple with.
Almost double the times MLK said “I have a dream.” 😳
November 19, 2025 at 10:25 PM
Almost double the times MLK said “I have a dream.” 😳
AIPAC’s (which is again a 501c4) *separate* 527 is called AIPAC PAC. They list information about it on their website.
November 19, 2025 at 8:59 PM
AIPAC’s (which is again a 501c4) *separate* 527 is called AIPAC PAC. They list information about it on their website.
I explain differences in the rest of the thread replies.
November 19, 2025 at 8:56 PM
I explain differences in the rest of the thread replies.
They’re not a PAC. They have a PAC, but they’re not a PAC. For campaign finance purposes a PAC is a political action committee. AIPAC means American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
November 19, 2025 at 8:53 PM
Tokenizing certain Jewish movements tor individuals to undercut that malleable aspect of antisemitism distracts from the point, that it is the caricature of “the Jew” in the mind of the antisemite that is the source of the antisemitism.
November 19, 2025 at 8:32 PM
Tokenizing certain Jewish movements tor individuals to undercut that malleable aspect of antisemitism distracts from the point, that it is the caricature of “the Jew” in the mind of the antisemite that is the source of the antisemitism.
Mort is right. Not because Israeli socialism didn’t exist or because HaAvoda or Mapai weren’t the governing power of the nation, as kibbutznik can attest. Mort is right because for that group, their caricature of “the Jew” is antithetical to what they value, irrespective of reality.
November 19, 2025 at 8:22 PM
Mort is right. Not because Israeli socialism didn’t exist or because HaAvoda or Mapai weren’t the governing power of the nation, as kibbutznik can attest. Mort is right because for that group, their caricature of “the Jew” is antithetical to what they value, irrespective of reality.
To the progressive, the Jew is a white settler. To the Christian, the Jew is a deicider. Jews become Schrödinger characters in the minds of others, with one throughline—the epitome of what a society believes is its biggest problem.
November 19, 2025 at 8:22 PM
To the progressive, the Jew is a white settler. To the Christian, the Jew is a deicider. Jews become Schrödinger characters in the minds of others, with one throughline—the epitome of what a society believes is its biggest problem.
Professor, your comment seems to highlight the malleability of “the Jew” in antisemitism. To the capitalist, the Jew is a dangerous socialist & communist. To the communist, the Jew is a huckster capitalist that worships a god of money. To the white supremacist, the Jew is a race polluter.
November 19, 2025 at 8:22 PM
Professor, your comment seems to highlight the malleability of “the Jew” in antisemitism. To the capitalist, the Jew is a dangerous socialist & communist. To the communist, the Jew is a huckster capitalist that worships a god of money. To the white supremacist, the Jew is a race polluter.
Total incompetence. They present the GJ with a three count indictment. The GJ approves (true bills) two of the charges. She writes up a *new indictment* with the two true billed charges and has the foreperson sign it without having the GJ approve it as newly written. And she does this at the SOL. 🤦♂️
November 19, 2025 at 5:21 PM
Total incompetence. They present the GJ with a three count indictment. The GJ approves (true bills) two of the charges. She writes up a *new indictment* with the two true billed charges and has the foreperson sign it without having the GJ approve it as newly written. And she does this at the SOL. 🤦♂️
So the “operative” indictment is supposed to be the last one approved by the GJ. The problem here is the one they are charging under wasn’t approved by the GJ.
November 19, 2025 at 5:15 PM
So the “operative” indictment is supposed to be the last one approved by the GJ. The problem here is the one they are charging under wasn’t approved by the GJ.
An indictment can be superseded by subsequent indictments. For example, the GJ can charge some things and learn more and charge in a new indictment. Here, the GJ rejected a charge, so Halligan created a new indictment without the rejected charge, but never had the GJ approve it.
November 19, 2025 at 5:15 PM
An indictment can be superseded by subsequent indictments. For example, the GJ can charge some things and learn more and charge in a new indictment. Here, the GJ rejected a charge, so Halligan created a new indictment without the rejected charge, but never had the GJ approve it.
Anthony Scaramucci was reaching out to Jeffrey Epstein to mend his relationship with Steve Bannon.
#EpsteinFiles
#EpsteinFiles
November 18, 2025 at 9:28 PM
Literally came here for these answers.
November 18, 2025 at 8:24 PM
Literally came here for these answers.
www.supremecourt.gov
November 18, 2025 at 3:36 AM
They did file one. Look at the docket again.
November 18, 2025 at 3:35 AM
They did file one. Look at the docket again.