Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Batya Ungar-Sargon: “If he lost the [2020] election, what is the problem with looking at the evidence? All the evidence will suggest that. Right? All of the evidence will be there to back up that claim… There are millions and millions of Americans who feel that our elections are... not safe. Now, if I was in charge, this is not the way I would go about reassuring them that our elections are free and fair. “ “ would focus on the SAVE Act. I would focus on citizenship. I would focus on voter photo ID, which is something that the vast majority of Americans support. So this is not the avenue I would choose.” “But he is representing millions and millions of Americans who have a lot of doubts about how things went down.”show more

RedWave Press

210,324 subscribers

72,171 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Kunst Nachrichten & Politik Bildung

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

This exchange between Senator Hawley and the witness is something to watch. The witness admits that there are likely Americans that would work the jobs that illegals are working. Hawley: Why would you want to drive down the wages of millions of working Americans?

This exchange between Senator Hawley and the witness is something to watch. The witness admits that there are likely Americans that would work the jobs that illegals are working. Hawley: Why would you want to drive down the wages of millions of working Americans?

Ellie A

9,900,872 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Bret Weinstein cuts straight to the chase: "We are going to have an endless battle in which those of us who see what we believe is clear evidence of some kind of election rigging or fraud are faced with indignation from a vast array of people portraying themselves as more rigorous and careful who say, 'Where is your evidence? Where exactly is your evidence that there was something wrong with this election?' And we are gonna be caught in the following predicament. No piece of evidence is sufficient to establish that case. And the sum total of all of the evidence contains true things and false things. So it is also no good. So the question is, can you logically deduce that something has gone wrong? I believe you can easily. Can you prove it? No. And not being able to prove it means that the election will proceed. It will be validated by all of the structures, including the courts. And that means that those who take on the power that derives from these elections will be the result of whatever process we just went through, whether it was an election that happened to be anomalous through organic means, or it was the result of some kind of fraud or election rigging. That is not an accident. That is not an accident. And the point that I wanna make primarily is the primary evidence against elections that look like this being organic is not actually in the trickle of evidence that we are actually able to see, the moment by moment vote count that does something strange during the night when some large tranche of ballots is suddenly counted or something like that. The evidence is in the structure of how the elections are actually carried out. These elections are designed to allow fraud that cannot be detected and will not be prosecuted. And that's really the thing that we must focus on." Bret Weinstein

Bret Weinstein cuts straight to the chase: "We are going to have an endless battle in which those of us who see what we believe is clear evidence of some kind of election rigging or fraud are faced with indignation from a vast array of people portraying themselves as more rigorous and careful who say, 'Where is your evidence? Where exactly is your evidence that there was something wrong with this election?' And we are gonna be caught in the following predicament. No piece of evidence is sufficient to establish that case. And the sum total of all of the evidence contains true things and false things. So it is also no good. So the question is, can you logically deduce that something has gone wrong? I believe you can easily. Can you prove it? No. And not being able to prove it means that the election will proceed. It will be validated by all of the structures, including the courts. And that means that those who take on the power that derives from these elections will be the result of whatever process we just went through, whether it was an election that happened to be anomalous through organic means, or it was the result of some kind of fraud or election rigging. That is not an accident. That is not an accident. And the point that I wanna make primarily is the primary evidence against elections that look like this being organic is not actually in the trickle of evidence that we are actually able to see, the moment by moment vote count that does something strange during the night when some large tranche of ballots is suddenly counted or something like that. The evidence is in the structure of how the elections are actually carried out. These elections are designed to allow fraud that cannot be detected and will not be prosecuted. And that's really the thing that we must focus on." Bret Weinstein

The DarkHorse Podcast

696,289 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

💥NEW: Scott Jennings: “I’m not seeing any evidence of fraud — but what I have seen evidence of is a system that if you wanted to commit some fraud, this is EXACTLY what you would do: put millions of ballots on the streets, no voter ID, ballot harvesting.”

💥NEW: Scott Jennings: “I’m not seeing any evidence of fraud — but what I have seen evidence of is a system that if you wanted to commit some fraud, this is EXACTLY what you would do: put millions of ballots on the streets, no voter ID, ballot harvesting.”

Jason Cohen 🇺🇸

22,214 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

President Trump wants Congress to pass the SAVE Act. He says it's about voter fraud. Some form of voter ID could make sense. But this particular bill could also block millions of eligible Americans from casting a ballot. Meanwhile, the country is deeply divided; public faith in free and fair elections is slipping fast. Our democracy runs on trustworthy elections — and right now that trust is imperiled. Is a “grand bargain” on voting possible? What would a comprehensive agreement that restored confidence on all sides actually look like? I share a few ideas about that here.

President Trump wants Congress to pass the SAVE Act. He says it's about voter fraud. Some form of voter ID could make sense. But this particular bill could also block millions of eligible Americans from casting a ballot. Meanwhile, the country is deeply divided; public faith in free and fair elections is slipping fast. Our democracy runs on trustworthy elections — and right now that trust is imperiled. Is a “grand bargain” on voting possible? What would a comprehensive agreement that restored confidence on all sides actually look like? I share a few ideas about that here.

Van Jones

40,454 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Today, House Republicans are putting the SAVE Act on the Floor, which will suppress the vote of millions of Americans and do nothing to secure our elections. I will be voting NO.

Today, House Republicans are putting the SAVE Act on the Floor, which will suppress the vote of millions of Americans and do nothing to secure our elections. I will be voting NO.

Congresswoman Sara Jacobs

288,996 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Reporter: The 2020 election has had dozens of recounts, lawsuits, and audits. The 2024 election is widely believed to have been safe and secure. There’s not really any question about that. Leavitt: Because it was too big to rig. Reporter: There were also a significant number of votes for Joe Biden, who won in 2020. I mean, the question is: Why is the president unable to let this go? Leavitt: Well, first of all, I think part of the problem is that the media has refused to acknowledge that tens of millions of Americans across the country share the concerns of this president about the elections…

Reporter: The 2020 election has had dozens of recounts, lawsuits, and audits. The 2024 election is widely believed to have been safe and secure. There’s not really any question about that. Leavitt: Because it was too big to rig. Reporter: There were also a significant number of votes for Joe Biden, who won in 2020. I mean, the question is: Why is the president unable to let this go? Leavitt: Well, first of all, I think part of the problem is that the media has refused to acknowledge that tens of millions of Americans across the country share the concerns of this president about the elections…

Acyn

361,456 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

Nick Fuentes says he does not want a Holocaust. "If I as a Catholic profess that I would be on the 9th level of Hell." "All I care about is Americans taking the Power back from those who are Israel First.. It's Un-American."

Nick Fuentes says he does not want a Holocaust. "If I as a Catholic profess that I would be on the 9th level of Hell." "All I care about is Americans taking the Power back from those who are Israel First.. It's Un-American."

KaizerRev

455,265 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Don’t let the name fool you — the SAVE America Act would not protect our elections and would make it difficult for millions of Americans to vote. I joined LWV of Illinois and Illinois ACLU today to speak out against this attack on voting rights.

Don’t let the name fool you — the SAVE America Act would not protect our elections and would make it difficult for millions of Americans to vote. I joined LWV of Illinois and Illinois ACLU today to speak out against this attack on voting rights.

Senator Dick Durbin

40,034 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Karl: What about requiring a photo ID to vote. Are you in favor of that? Schiff: The SAVE Act is a voter suppression law. Karl: But 71% of Democrats favor requiring photo ID. Is that something that you can support? And if not, why not? Schiff: This is another way to suppress the vote. Translation: We’re going to ignore the wishes of our own voters who don’t understand that more secure elections will destroy our party.

Karl: What about requiring a photo ID to vote. Are you in favor of that? Schiff: The SAVE Act is a voter suppression law. Karl: But 71% of Democrats favor requiring photo ID. Is that something that you can support? And if not, why not? Schiff: This is another way to suppress the vote. Translation: We’re going to ignore the wishes of our own voters who don’t understand that more secure elections will destroy our party.

Western Lensman

342,076 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Nobles: "There's no evidence that fraudulent votes have changed any election outcomes. Are you trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist?" Marshall: "Americans don't feel that the elections are trustworthy." Nobles: "Part of the problem is that President Trump keeps accusing election systems of not being fair and not being secure, but there's no actual evidence of that."

Nobles: "There's no evidence that fraudulent votes have changed any election outcomes. Are you trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist?" Marshall: "Americans don't feel that the elections are trustworthy." Nobles: "Part of the problem is that President Trump keeps accusing election systems of not being fair and not being secure, but there's no actual evidence of that."

The Bulwark

174,186 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Bret Weinstein on Alex Pretti's Reckless Gun Behavior "I want people not to focus so much on the details of the firearm as the analysis from the perspective of somebody who has been involved in these discussions about how how to think about firearms and behavior in a safe way. There are numerous things here, which I would say he is legally entitled to do, but I would regard as reckless and I don't mean legally reckless, I mean reckless in the common parlance sense of the term. He's carrying a loaded firearm into a zone of conflict with armed federal officers. I wouldn't do that. If I was... let's say that's not a decision he made, maybe he happened there by accident and somehow was not focused on the fact that "hey I need to be extra careful and not go this direction, because I'm armed and it could get bad," but then he steps in as the officer is behaving, I think in an illegitimate way towards this woman. Right, this officer shoves this woman to the ground and Pretti steps in. I would argue that's reckless if you're armed the way he is because of exactly the sort of thing that unfolds. I don't know that he had one in the chamber, because I don't know that his gun went off, but if the gun went off it says he had one in the chamber and I would say wow, that's really reckless especially with that gun."

Bret Weinstein on Alex Pretti's Reckless Gun Behavior "I want people not to focus so much on the details of the firearm as the analysis from the perspective of somebody who has been involved in these discussions about how how to think about firearms and behavior in a safe way. There are numerous things here, which I would say he is legally entitled to do, but I would regard as reckless and I don't mean legally reckless, I mean reckless in the common parlance sense of the term. He's carrying a loaded firearm into a zone of conflict with armed federal officers. I wouldn't do that. If I was... let's say that's not a decision he made, maybe he happened there by accident and somehow was not focused on the fact that "hey I need to be extra careful and not go this direction, because I'm armed and it could get bad," but then he steps in as the officer is behaving, I think in an illegitimate way towards this woman. Right, this officer shoves this woman to the ground and Pretti steps in. I would argue that's reckless if you're armed the way he is because of exactly the sort of thing that unfolds. I don't know that he had one in the chamber, because I don't know that his gun went off, but if the gun went off it says he had one in the chamber and I would say wow, that's really reckless especially with that gun."

The DarkHorse Podcast

104,115 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

David Hogg: “The entire reason the government is not open right now is because Democrats refuse to be complicit in having millions of Americans, including 100,000 in Kentucky—your home state if I remember correctly, Scott—that rely on the ACA.” Scott Jennings: “You would admit that the ACA was a Democrat legislation? Yes. And you would admit that the subsidies that we’re talking about now were passed by Democrats? Yes. And you would admit that the sunset provision in the subsidies which comes up at the end of the year was in place because of Democrats? Yes.”

David Hogg: “The entire reason the government is not open right now is because Democrats refuse to be complicit in having millions of Americans, including 100,000 in Kentucky—your home state if I remember correctly, Scott—that rely on the ACA.” Scott Jennings: “You would admit that the ACA was a Democrat legislation? Yes. And you would admit that the subsidies that we’re talking about now were passed by Democrats? Yes. And you would admit that the sunset provision in the subsidies which comes up at the end of the year was in place because of Democrats? Yes.”

RedWave Press

654,396 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

NBC’s Garrett Haake: “To the degree that this speech tonight is about elections past, not elections upcoming, the 2020 election has had dozens of recounts, lawsuits, audits. The 2024 election widely believed to be safe and secure. There’s not really any question about that. There’s a lot of people look at this —” Karoline Leavitt Karoline Leavitt: “Because it was too big to rig.” Haake: “— well, I think a lot of people look at this and wonder —” Leavitt: “There was a massive amount of votes for this President. That’s why he’s in the Oval Office right now.” Haake: “No one disputes that. There were a significant amount of votes for Joe Biden, who won in 2020. I mean, think the question is, why is the President unable to let this go?” Leavitt: “Well, first of all, Garrett, I think part of the problem is that the media has refused to acknowledge that tens of millions of Americans across the country share the concerns of this President about the sanctity of our elections and your premise of your question, you’re jumping ahead to a conclusion in this speech before even hearing it yourself. I think that everyone should tune in tonight, including the people in this room, and you should report on the President’s speech and the findings that he is going to reveal in this speech with a little bit of honesty and a little bit of integrity, because it does — it will shock you if you have an honest eye listening to the President tonight and everything he is saying will be backed by — by — by facts and by evidence that will be provided this evening. And again, Garrett, again, I think all Americans, Democrat or Republican, should agree that we are the greatest country in the history of the world. We should have the safest and most secure elections in the history of the world, and what the President will be speaking about tonight will show you that perhaps that is not the case, and we need to make some adjustments moving forward, including the SAVE America Act, as Rachael pointed out, is a key legislative priority for this President on Capitol Hill, and he wants to see all senators and members of Congress voting in favor of the SAVE America Act, because it’s crucially important as we move forward.”

NBC’s Garrett Haake: “To the degree that this speech tonight is about elections past, not elections upcoming, the 2020 election has had dozens of recounts, lawsuits, audits. The 2024 election widely believed to be safe and secure. There’s not really any question about that. There’s a lot of people look at this —” Karoline Leavitt Karoline Leavitt: “Because it was too big to rig.” Haake: “— well, I think a lot of people look at this and wonder —” Leavitt: “There was a massive amount of votes for this President. That’s why he’s in the Oval Office right now.” Haake: “No one disputes that. There were a significant amount of votes for Joe Biden, who won in 2020. I mean, think the question is, why is the President unable to let this go?” Leavitt: “Well, first of all, Garrett, I think part of the problem is that the media has refused to acknowledge that tens of millions of Americans across the country share the concerns of this President about the sanctity of our elections and your premise of your question, you’re jumping ahead to a conclusion in this speech before even hearing it yourself. I think that everyone should tune in tonight, including the people in this room, and you should report on the President’s speech and the findings that he is going to reveal in this speech with a little bit of honesty and a little bit of integrity, because it does — it will shock you if you have an honest eye listening to the President tonight and everything he is saying will be backed by — by — by facts and by evidence that will be provided this evening. And again, Garrett, again, I think all Americans, Democrat or Republican, should agree that we are the greatest country in the history of the world. We should have the safest and most secure elections in the history of the world, and what the President will be speaking about tonight will show you that perhaps that is not the case, and we need to make some adjustments moving forward, including the SAVE America Act, as Rachael pointed out, is a key legislative priority for this President on Capitol Hill, and he wants to see all senators and members of Congress voting in favor of the SAVE America Act, because it’s crucially important as we move forward.”

Curtis Houck

12,873 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

Reporter: "The 2020 election has had dozens of recounts, lawsuits, and audits. The 2024 election is widely believed to be safe and secure, there's not really any question about that." Leavitt: "Because it was too big to rig. There was a massive amounts of votes for this president." Reporter: "There were a significant amount of votes for Joe Biden who won in 2020…Why is the president unable to let this go?" Leavitt: "The problem is that the media has refused to acknowledge that tens of millions of Americans across the country share the concerns of this president about the sanctity of our elections…You should report on the president's speech and the findings that he is going to reveal in this speech."

Reporter: "The 2020 election has had dozens of recounts, lawsuits, and audits. The 2024 election is widely believed to be safe and secure, there's not really any question about that." Leavitt: "Because it was too big to rig. There was a massive amounts of votes for this president." Reporter: "There were a significant amount of votes for Joe Biden who won in 2020…Why is the president unable to let this go?" Leavitt: "The problem is that the media has refused to acknowledge that tens of millions of Americans across the country share the concerns of this president about the sanctity of our elections…You should report on the president's speech and the findings that he is going to reveal in this speech."

The Bulwark

34,079 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

This Guy is right about Why the Epstein List will NOT be released. He says “…it’s because the names on that list would literally cause society to crumble. The trust would be gone in governments and everything in theaters and movies the richest people in the world would crash. And the richest people in the world are not gonna allow that which is why it's not being released. Why because the top F*cking people in the world are on that goddamn list and I think it needs to be released…” I already have no trust for the people in the Government, movie, music industries, etc and I definitely will NOT be shocked at who is on that list, but what I will be shocked about is if they do release the Epstein List.

This Guy is right about Why the Epstein List will NOT be released. He says “…it’s because the names on that list would literally cause society to crumble. The trust would be gone in governments and everything in theaters and movies the richest people in the world would crash. And the richest people in the world are not gonna allow that which is why it's not being released. Why because the top F*cking people in the world are on that goddamn list and I think it needs to be released…” I already have no trust for the people in the Government, movie, music industries, etc and I definitely will NOT be shocked at who is on that list, but what I will be shocked about is if they do release the Epstein List.

ꪻꫝể ꪻꫝể

164,852 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🚨 JUST IN: Senate Leader John Thune says he will FORCE a vote on the SAVE America Act, but he can NOT guarantee it will pass because that needs 60 votes "That debate will happen. But like I said, I can guarantee the debate. I can guarantee a vote. I just can't guarantee an outcome." "There are a lot of optimistic views about what Democrats may or may not do. We all know, because we deal with them every day, that the Democrats are not all of a sudden going to decide that this is something they want to be for." "I think you have a lot of optimists out there, and I appreciate that, and a lot of passion and energy behind getting an outcome here." "But getting an outcome would require Democrat votes." "And, you know, we'll give them a chance. Like I said, they'll have that opportunity to vote one way or the other on this. But I would be very, very surprised."

🚨 JUST IN: Senate Leader John Thune says he will FORCE a vote on the SAVE America Act, but he can NOT guarantee it will pass because that needs 60 votes "That debate will happen. But like I said, I can guarantee the debate. I can guarantee a vote. I just can't guarantee an outcome." "There are a lot of optimistic views about what Democrats may or may not do. We all know, because we deal with them every day, that the Democrats are not all of a sudden going to decide that this is something they want to be for." "I think you have a lot of optimists out there, and I appreciate that, and a lot of passion and energy behind getting an outcome here." "But getting an outcome would require Democrat votes." "And, you know, we'll give them a chance. Like I said, they'll have that opportunity to vote one way or the other on this. But I would be very, very surprised."

Eric Daugherty

304,495 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Trump says he lost the 2020 election by a whisker: "I was told if I got 63 million, which is what I got the first time, you would win. You can't not win. And I got millions of more votes than that and lost by a whisker."

Trump says he lost the 2020 election by a whisker: "I was told if I got 63 million, which is what I got the first time, you would win. You can't not win. And I got millions of more votes than that and lost by a whisker."

PatriotTakes 🇺🇸

437,824 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr