bastaya.bsky.social
Dogged
1,188 posts
32 followers
19 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
He's been a very conservative Democrat for a long time. It's not just because he's angling for a deal from Trump.
comment in response to
post
Other people's lives all a game for you. Just another day of trolling.
comment in response to
post
Deranged crank Lenni Brenner is the authority? Jews couldn't control what happened in Europe, contrary to conspiracy theories. The safest course was to leave, which required a safe place to go. The Zionists figured this out, so of course you hate them.
comment in response to
post
No,they tried to get their people OUT! That was wise. Those who left Europe in the 1930s survived. But you don't care about actual history. It's crucial for you that we revert to being a defenseless minority always and everywhere. Been there, done that, not going back.
comment in response to
post
They saved thousands of Jews who would have been murdered had they stayed in Germany.
comment in response to
post
You want Jews dead. I am not sure why you're using Nazi as a slur. Projection, I guess.
comment in response to
post
The HUGE majority of Jews are Zionists, which means self-determination for the Jewish people. So you absolutely are seeking to destroy the Jewish people. It has never succeeded, and you won't either.
comment in response to
post
Trump won 71.6%(!) in Wyoming. She doesn't have a legit shot.
comment in response to
post
You want Jews dead too, but for "progressive" reasons. Nice.
comment in response to
post
Always good to hear from the Hamas Fan Club
comment in response to
post
If you're against crime, you're a fascist, final answer? ACAB for President? Good luck with that.
comment in response to
post
Team Hamas is against fascism? Since when?
comment in response to
post
It was an insult from someone who isn't well informed and can't back up what they're saying. Not subtle.
comment in response to
post
Unfortunately,I'm just a real person who understands how confused and sadly belligerent you are.
comment in response to
post
How does that refute what I said? "Democrat Party" is a Republican insult.
comment in response to
post
You're using "Democrat" as an adjective, which is a Republican thing to do.
comment in response to
post
Acting Secretary didn't?
comment in response to
post
You may not respond, but reporting that European policies are different doesn't make him a transphobe. The attempt to suppress facts and science through blacklisting and name-calling is terrible and it is failing.
comment in response to
post
Is this how you ignore facts? I follow diverse sources. You want to live in a bubble where you can convince yourself of nonsense like ERA actually was ratified, your choice, but it's a delusional existence.
comment in response to
post
NARA, yes, only because of the documents case. That predates her though, so I doubt he knew much about her except that she wasn't his pick.
comment in response to
post
The ERA wasn't ratified. Live in the real world already. That fight was lost by the early 1980s, and you can't win it by pulling a fast one. Shogan did the right thing.
comment in response to
post
It is, but that predates her.
comment in response to
post
Yes, the family DID criticize him then. As an ambassador, it was not her place to get involved in a campaign.
comment in response to
post
How does that refute what I said about Fetterman in any way?
comment in response to
post
A lot of people here are not getting that he's the senator from a state Trump won, and Bob Casey lost, not the Senator from Bluesky. He's not going to pander to you because that's the path to defeat.
comment in response to
post
What I said about Fetterman's votes is correct. No one who understands arithmetic should have trouble with the concept.
comment in response to
post
NONE of his votes will be decisive. It's all symbolism. He is establishing a brand as not a lockstep partisan Democrat because PA voted for Trump and McCormick beat Casey too. That means voting yes sometimes and no other times. Not that complicated! It's politics and representative government.
comment in response to
post
You could yell at Republican senators if you have them, which many people do.
comment in response to
post
www.pewresearch.org/politics/200...
comment in response to
post
Not all. Most voters are not extremely online, and don't follow news closely. A large percentage don't know who is in the majority in Congress, can't name anyone in the cabinet or on the Supreme Court. A significant minority can't even name the VP (not just Vance who is new, but earlier ones).
comment in response to
post
I'm pretty sure 9 out 10 voters have no idea who Tuberville is now (some would vaguely remember his coaching career) and never heard about this controversy. It's the kind of thing only news junkies learn about, and they're generally strong partisans anyway.
comment in response to
post
He is the one who backed down and got NOTHING. Nowhere did he ever say his goal was delaying some career military promotions. He embarrassed and annoyed fellow Republicans and had to fold. It was a stupid stunt, and he's the dumbest senator. That he's your role model is telling
comment in response to
post
Yeah. Tuberville's goal was to destroy the military and he succeeded? He never even claimed that. Abortion policy was his target. It was a failed hostage taking.
comment in response to
post
No. He blocked military personnel promotions. He was trying to affect the Biden abortion policy and didn't hinder it at all, got zero concessions and backed down. And again they only even let him do this for a while because it was second tier stuff.
comment in response to
post
A completely nonspecific reply.
comment in response to
post
1. Tuberville got nothing for this stunt.
2. He WASN'T blocking cabinet nominees. The only reason senators let him do it for a while was that it wasn't key nominees. And again, he eventually annoyed them, got nothing and backed down humiliated
comment in response to
post
I've discussed Senate rules, confirmation votes, senators' multiple audiences in position-taking, their consideration of pivotality, and the budget process. Other than that, no substance!
comment in response to
post
"We"? You're not a Democratic senator. This is like people saying "we" referring to the Red Sox. Democrats can do some stunts, but being angry because they don't just do those and claiming they could stop Trump but choose not to is misleading. They will have some leverage via the budget in March.
comment in response to
post
You see, this is the rude and belligerent ignorance I'm discussing. Once senators could really block nominees with a filibuster. But Harry Reid changed the rules in 2013, and it's no longer possible. This is just a stunt that won't stop Vought.
comment in response to
post
I don't. But I think people are almost defiantly misinformed about what they can do, and I don't think voting for a cabinet pick you can't stop matters much. When the budget comes up, they will have some leverage. Until then, it's all gestures few will even notice.
comment in response to
post
Democrats don't have the votes to stop any. Some receive no, or almost no, Democratic votes. But either way it's all posturing whether directed to moderate voters or angry online types. Doug Burgum got more votes than Hegseth, but they're both in office.
comment in response to
post
No you cannot filibuster "everything" and nothing Musk or Trump have done to date is via passing a bill.
comment in response to
post
Another substance free reply. Do you people have anything except name-calling?
comment in response to
post
A glitch in your system. You need to be rebooted.
comment in response to
post
Slow down Musk who has no legislation?
comment in response to
post
Another one with no coherent argument or self-respect