home.social

#samantha — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #samantha, aggregated by home.social.

fetched live
  1. Kyle Busch’s Widow Samantha Speaks Publicly for First Time Since NASCAR Star’s Death: ‘Greatest Heartbreak of My Life’ rawchili.com/5081541/ #CarlosRodon #KyleBusch #nascar #Samantha

  2. Kyle Busch’s Widow Samantha Speaks Publicly for First Time Since NASCAR Star’s Death: ‘Greatest Heartbreak of My Life’ rawchili.com/5081541/ #CarlosRodon #KyleBusch #nascar #Samantha

  3. Samantha Opens Up About Overcoming Challenges in Action Films and Her Production Journey |

    Samantha says producing films has given her something acting never could — creative independence. It has also helped…
    #NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #Movies #actiongenre #Entertainment #myositisdiagnosis #Samantha #Telugufilms #thefamilyman
    newsbeep.com/us/809851/

  4. Samantha Opens Up About Overcoming Challenges in Action Films and Her Production Journey |

    Samantha says producing films has given her something acting never could — creative independence. It has also helped…
    #NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #Movies #actiongenre #Entertainment #myositisdiagnosis #Samantha #Telugufilms #thefamilyman
    newsbeep.com/us/809851/

  5. Some stories hit different because they are not...
    comiccrusaders.com/podcast/354
    #Samantha Thompson #Lady Leo Films #QR CODE #QR CODE movie #Samantha Thompson interview #Lady Leo Films interview #Comic Crusaders Podcast #indie filmmaker #women in film #crime thriller movie #independent film director #filmmaker journey #producer interview #screenwriter interview #urban thriller #indie film podcast #filmmaker motivation #streaming indie films #Prime Video indie film #Tubi series

  6. Some stories hit different because they are not...
    comiccrusaders.com/podcast/354
    #Samantha Thompson #Lady Leo Films #QR CODE #QR CODE movie #Samantha Thompson interview #Lady Leo Films interview #Comic Crusaders Podcast #indie filmmaker #women in film #crime thriller movie #independent film director #filmmaker journey #producer interview #screenwriter interview #urban thriller #indie film podcast #filmmaker motivation #streaming indie films #Prime Video indie film #Tubi series

  7. Some stories hit different because they are not...
    comiccrusaders.com/podcast/354
    #Samantha Thompson #Lady Leo Films #QR CODE #QR CODE movie #Samantha Thompson interview #Lady Leo Films interview #Comic Crusaders Podcast #indie filmmaker #women in film #crime thriller movie #independent film director #filmmaker journey #producer interview #screenwriter interview #urban thriller #indie film podcast #filmmaker motivation #streaming indie films #Prime Video indie film #Tubi series

  8. Samantha Ne Rahul Ravindran Se Koi Material Mangwaya Tha #uturn #samantha #shorts #reels

    Samantha Ne Rahul Ravindran Se Koi Material Mangwaya Tha #uturn #samantha #shorts #reels Movie:- U Turn Starcast:- Samantha Akkineni, Aadhi Pinisetty, Rahul Ravindran, Bhumika Chawla Click To Watch Full Movie Here👉 ------------------------------------- For More Movies Subscribe:@ Follow Us On Facebook:@ Instagram: X:

    chutneymusic.com/samantha-ne-r

  9. #datocurioso

    ¿Sabías que el nombre Samantha no tiene miles de años de antigüedad ni aparece en textos sagrados, sino que es un invento literario del siglo XVIII?

    Los registros históricos indican que surgió en Inglaterra y Nueva Inglaterra como una creación híbrida que unió la raíz hebrea de Samuel, que significa Dios ha escuchado, con el nombre griego Anthea, traducido como flor. Aunque se han buscado conexiones con el arameo šemʿanta para darle el significado de la que escucha, no existen pruebas documentales previas al mil setecientos que lo sostengan. El nombre se mantuvo como una rareza casi desconocida hasta que en 1964 la serie de televisión Bewitched lo lanzó a la fama mundial, transformando un experimento lingüístico en un fenómeno cultural masivo.

    #Etimología #Nombres #Historia #Samantha

  10. The DOJ’s courtroom efforts to obtain voter rolls
    — which include addresses, Social Security numbers, and other private data
    — have grown from scattered early attempts
    to now include all 50 states.

    As ProPublica reported in 2017,
    the tactic had been trialed by the first Trump administration,
    which that year requested data from every state.

    But this legal fusillade is another matter;
    far surpassing past scattered challenges.

    This wide-scale legal assault,
    as The New York Times described it in September,
    “has proceeded along two tracks,
    one at the Justice Department’s civil rights division
    and another at its criminal division”

    — a full mobilization.

    Again, the Constitution mandates that election administration is the purview of states.

    Federal control of voter roll data is not only without historical precedent;
    it would also likely represent a massive breach of privacy law and disclosure obligations.

    Truthout reached out to "Voting Rights Lab",
    a policy analysis think tank staffed by election experts.

    The Lab’s co-founder and CEO
    #Samantha #Tarazi commented,
    “These efforts make it clear President Trump is preparing to use the power of his office to interfere in the 2026 election.
    What started as an unconstitutional executive order
    — marching orders for state action regardless of its fate in court
    — has grown into a full federal mobilization to seize power over our elections,”
    placing “enormous pressure” on democratic systems.

    Another leading civil rights watchdog, the "Brennan Center for Justice", has been tracking the ongoing legal battles.

    As of this writing,
    24 states, along with Washington, D.C.,
    are being sued in an attempt to force sharing of confidential data;
    💥not coincidentally, almost all are blue and/or battleground states.

    In Nebraska and South Carolina,
    👍voters themselves
    “have filed cases in state court to prevent election officials from sharing their private voter information,”
    the Brennan Center noted.

    Such widespread refusals have set the stage for a series of pitched legal battles.

    Meanwhile, some states have complied willingly.

    In December, Stateline covered how the DOJ presented 11 Republican-led states
    (which are, of course, more likely to comply)
    with a confidential proposal:

    🔥a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would give the federal government the power to review roll data and purge voters at will.

    Officials in 11 states
    — Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia
    — have expressed interest;

    Colorado and Wisconsin rejected the offer.
    (Both, of course, were then sued.)

    And four states,
    all Republican-led (Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, and Wyoming)
    “complied voluntarily” with the Justice Department’s demand,
    seemingly happy to do so;

    Still, given the Trump administration’s vindictive nature, other pressures may have been in play.
    #MassDisenfranchisement

    truthout.org/articles/trump-do

  11. The DOJ’s courtroom efforts to obtain voter rolls
    — which include addresses, Social Security numbers, and other private data
    — have grown from scattered early attempts
    to now include all 50 states.

    As ProPublica reported in 2017,
    the tactic had been trialed by the first Trump administration,
    which that year requested data from every state.

    But this legal fusillade is another matter;
    far surpassing past scattered challenges.

    This wide-scale legal assault,
    as The New York Times described it in September,
    “has proceeded along two tracks,
    one at the Justice Department’s civil rights division
    and another at its criminal division”

    — a full mobilization.

    Again, the Constitution mandates that election administration is the purview of states.

    Federal control of voter roll data is not only without historical precedent;
    it would also likely represent a massive breach of privacy law and disclosure obligations.

    Truthout reached out to "Voting Rights Lab",
    a policy analysis think tank staffed by election experts.

    The Lab’s co-founder and CEO
    #Samantha #Tarazi commented,
    “These efforts make it clear President Trump is preparing to use the power of his office to interfere in the 2026 election.
    What started as an unconstitutional executive order
    — marching orders for state action regardless of its fate in court
    — has grown into a full federal mobilization to seize power over our elections,”
    placing “enormous pressure” on democratic systems.

    Another leading civil rights watchdog, the "Brennan Center for Justice", has been tracking the ongoing legal battles.

    As of this writing,
    24 states, along with Washington, D.C.,
    are being sued in an attempt to force sharing of confidential data;
    💥not coincidentally, almost all are blue and/or battleground states.

    In Nebraska and South Carolina,
    👍voters themselves
    “have filed cases in state court to prevent election officials from sharing their private voter information,”
    the Brennan Center noted.

    Such widespread refusals have set the stage for a series of pitched legal battles.

    Meanwhile, some states have complied willingly.

    In December, Stateline covered how the DOJ presented 11 Republican-led states
    (which are, of course, more likely to comply)
    with a confidential proposal:

    🔥a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would give the federal government the power to review roll data and purge voters at will.

    Officials in 11 states
    — Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia
    — have expressed interest;

    Colorado and Wisconsin rejected the offer.
    (Both, of course, were then sued.)

    And four states,
    all Republican-led (Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, and Wyoming)
    “complied voluntarily” with the Justice Department’s demand,
    seemingly happy to do so;

    Still, given the Trump administration’s vindictive nature, other pressures may have been in play.
    #MassDisenfranchisement

    truthout.org/articles/trump-do

  12. The DOJ’s courtroom efforts to obtain voter rolls
    — which include addresses, Social Security numbers, and other private data
    — have grown from scattered early attempts
    to now include all 50 states.

    As ProPublica reported in 2017,
    the tactic had been trialed by the first Trump administration,
    which that year requested data from every state.

    But this legal fusillade is another matter;
    far surpassing past scattered challenges.

    This wide-scale legal assault,
    as The New York Times described it in September,
    “has proceeded along two tracks,
    one at the Justice Department’s civil rights division
    and another at its criminal division”

    — a full mobilization.

    Again, the Constitution mandates that election administration is the purview of states.

    Federal control of voter roll data is not only without historical precedent;
    it would also likely represent a massive breach of privacy law and disclosure obligations.

    Truthout reached out to "Voting Rights Lab",
    a policy analysis think tank staffed by election experts.

    The Lab’s co-founder and CEO
    #Samantha #Tarazi commented,
    “These efforts make it clear President Trump is preparing to use the power of his office to interfere in the 2026 election.
    What started as an unconstitutional executive order
    — marching orders for state action regardless of its fate in court
    — has grown into a full federal mobilization to seize power over our elections,”
    placing “enormous pressure” on democratic systems.

    Another leading civil rights watchdog, the "Brennan Center for Justice", has been tracking the ongoing legal battles.

    As of this writing,
    24 states, along with Washington, D.C.,
    are being sued in an attempt to force sharing of confidential data;
    💥not coincidentally, almost all are blue and/or battleground states.

    In Nebraska and South Carolina,
    👍voters themselves
    “have filed cases in state court to prevent election officials from sharing their private voter information,”
    the Brennan Center noted.

    Such widespread refusals have set the stage for a series of pitched legal battles.

    Meanwhile, some states have complied willingly.

    In December, Stateline covered how the DOJ presented 11 Republican-led states
    (which are, of course, more likely to comply)
    with a confidential proposal:

    🔥a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would give the federal government the power to review roll data and purge voters at will.

    Officials in 11 states
    — Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia
    — have expressed interest;

    Colorado and Wisconsin rejected the offer.
    (Both, of course, were then sued.)

    And four states,
    all Republican-led (Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, and Wyoming)
    “complied voluntarily” with the Justice Department’s demand,
    seemingly happy to do so;

    Still, given the Trump administration’s vindictive nature, other pressures may have been in play.
    #MassDisenfranchisement

    truthout.org/articles/trump-do

  13. The DOJ’s courtroom efforts to obtain voter rolls
    — which include addresses, Social Security numbers, and other private data
    — have grown from scattered early attempts
    to now include all 50 states.

    As ProPublica reported in 2017,
    the tactic had been trialed by the first Trump administration,
    which that year requested data from every state.

    But this legal fusillade is another matter;
    far surpassing past scattered challenges.

    This wide-scale legal assault,
    as The New York Times described it in September,
    “has proceeded along two tracks,
    one at the Justice Department’s civil rights division
    and another at its criminal division”

    — a full mobilization.

    Again, the Constitution mandates that election administration is the purview of states.

    Federal control of voter roll data is not only without historical precedent;
    it would also likely represent a massive breach of privacy law and disclosure obligations.

    Truthout reached out to "Voting Rights Lab",
    a policy analysis think tank staffed by election experts.

    The Lab’s co-founder and CEO
    #Samantha #Tarazi commented,
    “These efforts make it clear President Trump is preparing to use the power of his office to interfere in the 2026 election.
    What started as an unconstitutional executive order
    — marching orders for state action regardless of its fate in court
    — has grown into a full federal mobilization to seize power over our elections,”
    placing “enormous pressure” on democratic systems.

    Another leading civil rights watchdog, the "Brennan Center for Justice", has been tracking the ongoing legal battles.

    As of this writing,
    24 states, along with Washington, D.C.,
    are being sued in an attempt to force sharing of confidential data;
    💥not coincidentally, almost all are blue and/or battleground states.

    In Nebraska and South Carolina,
    👍voters themselves
    “have filed cases in state court to prevent election officials from sharing their private voter information,”
    the Brennan Center noted.

    Such widespread refusals have set the stage for a series of pitched legal battles.

    Meanwhile, some states have complied willingly.

    In December, Stateline covered how the DOJ presented 11 Republican-led states
    (which are, of course, more likely to comply)
    with a confidential proposal:

    🔥a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would give the federal government the power to review roll data and purge voters at will.

    Officials in 11 states
    — Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia
    — have expressed interest;

    Colorado and Wisconsin rejected the offer.
    (Both, of course, were then sued.)

    And four states,
    all Republican-led (Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, and Wyoming)
    “complied voluntarily” with the Justice Department’s demand,
    seemingly happy to do so;

    Still, given the Trump administration’s vindictive nature, other pressures may have been in play.
    #MassDisenfranchisement

    truthout.org/articles/trump-do

  14. The DOJ’s courtroom efforts to obtain voter rolls
    — which include addresses, Social Security numbers, and other private data
    — have grown from scattered early attempts
    to now include all 50 states.

    As ProPublica reported in 2017,
    the tactic had been trialed by the first Trump administration,
    which that year requested data from every state.

    But this legal fusillade is another matter;
    far surpassing past scattered challenges.

    This wide-scale legal assault,
    as The New York Times described it in September,
    “has proceeded along two tracks,
    one at the Justice Department’s civil rights division
    and another at its criminal division”

    — a full mobilization.

    Again, the Constitution mandates that election administration is the purview of states.

    Federal control of voter roll data is not only without historical precedent;
    it would also likely represent a massive breach of privacy law and disclosure obligations.

    Truthout reached out to "Voting Rights Lab",
    a policy analysis think tank staffed by election experts.

    The Lab’s co-founder and CEO
    #Samantha #Tarazi commented,
    “These efforts make it clear President Trump is preparing to use the power of his office to interfere in the 2026 election.
    What started as an unconstitutional executive order
    — marching orders for state action regardless of its fate in court
    — has grown into a full federal mobilization to seize power over our elections,”
    placing “enormous pressure” on democratic systems.

    Another leading civil rights watchdog, the "Brennan Center for Justice", has been tracking the ongoing legal battles.

    As of this writing,
    24 states, along with Washington, D.C.,
    are being sued in an attempt to force sharing of confidential data;
    💥not coincidentally, almost all are blue and/or battleground states.

    In Nebraska and South Carolina,
    👍voters themselves
    “have filed cases in state court to prevent election officials from sharing their private voter information,”
    the Brennan Center noted.

    Such widespread refusals have set the stage for a series of pitched legal battles.

    Meanwhile, some states have complied willingly.

    In December, Stateline covered how the DOJ presented 11 Republican-led states
    (which are, of course, more likely to comply)
    with a confidential proposal:

    🔥a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would give the federal government the power to review roll data and purge voters at will.

    Officials in 11 states
    — Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia
    — have expressed interest;

    Colorado and Wisconsin rejected the offer.
    (Both, of course, were then sued.)

    And four states,
    all Republican-led (Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, and Wyoming)
    “complied voluntarily” with the Justice Department’s demand,
    seemingly happy to do so;

    Still, given the Trump administration’s vindictive nature, other pressures may have been in play.
    #MassDisenfranchisement

    truthout.org/articles/trump-do