Sammie Lipscomb 🫘
@sammierl.bsky.social
Reposted by Sammie Lipscomb 🫘
On the other hand: It was out in public. July 24. (Link in ALT)
November 20, 2025 at 7:41 AM
On the other hand: It was out in public. July 24. (Link in ALT)
Reposted by Sammie Lipscomb 🫘
I know someone elderly with several health issues who can't work. They qualify for $97 a month in SNAP.
Not even a full $25 a week and Republicans would withhold this SMALL bit of help while endlessly enriching themselves.
Disgusting.
Not even a full $25 a week and Republicans would withhold this SMALL bit of help while endlessly enriching themselves.
Disgusting.
November 13, 2025 at 5:19 PM
I know someone elderly with several health issues who can't work. They qualify for $97 a month in SNAP.
Not even a full $25 a week and Republicans would withhold this SMALL bit of help while endlessly enriching themselves.
Disgusting.
Not even a full $25 a week and Republicans would withhold this SMALL bit of help while endlessly enriching themselves.
Disgusting.
Reposted by Sammie Lipscomb 🫘
„You don’t have to embarrass our guest“
November 19, 2025 at 7:02 AM
„You don’t have to embarrass our guest“
Just heard your interview on Daily Beans. You are the example of the New Democrat we all need to put in Congress. Thank you, Kat! I’m a fan!!!!
November 5, 2025 at 12:47 PM
Just heard your interview on Daily Beans. You are the example of the New Democrat we all need to put in Congress. Thank you, Kat! I’m a fan!!!!
Reposted by Sammie Lipscomb 🫘
PS: Illinois is arguing that “regular forces” means the military. Trump argues that regular forces are local civil police like ICE and DHS. So it seems like a good sign that SCOTUS wants the parties to define “regular forces.”
October 29, 2025 at 8:29 PM
PS: Illinois is arguing that “regular forces” means the military. Trump argues that regular forces are local civil police like ICE and DHS. So it seems like a good sign that SCOTUS wants the parties to define “regular forces.”
Reposted by Sammie Lipscomb 🫘
One of the governments arguments to deploy the National Guard is that the local and state police are unable to prevent 100% of crime (which is ridiculous), but is that what “regular forces” means? SCOTUS wants to know. END/
October 29, 2025 at 8:12 PM
One of the governments arguments to deploy the National Guard is that the local and state police are unable to prevent 100% of crime (which is ridiculous), but is that what “regular forces” means? SCOTUS wants to know. END/
Reposted by Sammie Lipscomb 🫘
