Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

155,313 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

THE DEMOCRATIC MACHINE NEVER SAW CHICAGO FLIPS RED COMING Back in November 11, 2024 Zoe Leigh played back what Mayor Brandon Johnson said following the 2024 presidential election. What happened next was bigger than one election. The Democratic political establishment in Chicago had never been challenged in quite the way Danielle Carter-Walters, Jessica Jackson, and Zoe Leigh challenged it. We started asking questions. TIF money. Tax Increment Financing redirects increases in property-tax revenue within designated districts toward development and other eligible public purposes. The question we kept asking was: Who benefits, how is the money being spent, and who is accountable for it? We questioned potential conflicts of interest involving elected officials who also hold professional real-estate licenses or have interests connected to real estate. A license alone doesn’t establish a conflict—but when public office and private interests intersect, transparency matters. We raised questions about CTU members’ 2018 trip to Venezuela and what it said about the priorities and political relationships surrounding the union. They had a plan. They had the political machine. They had the seats. But they never saw Chicago Flips Red coming. And in Zoe Leigh’s words: “If you don’t settle my family’s case, I’ll run for office and settle my own case.” Jessica Jackson said: “We coming for them seats.” And Danielle Carter-Walters said: “What’s making y’all laugh is going to make y’all cry.” This isn’t about asking permission. It’s about challenging the status quo. It’s about bringing accountability back to Chicago politics. Danielle Carter-Walters for Mayor of Chicago — 2027. Chicago Flips Red. #ChicagoFlipsRed

Chicago Flips Red

58,567 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

LGBTQ activist has a deer-in-headlights moment when Piers Morgan asks her to explain what “non-binary” actually means. When she can’t, she calls it “uncomfortably personal.” Then Riley Gaines finishes her off. PIERS MORGAN: “I just want to ask, what do you mean by non-binary?” ACTIVIST: “Um when I say I’m non-binary, I’m expressing my identity in a way that I have the right to do.” PIERS MORGAN: “What does that mean? There’s only one of you.” ACTIVIST: “Actually, they/them has been the collective they has been used to refer to individual people for centuries and still is. So, um, I mean, if you don’t understand basic grammar, that’s on you.” PIERS MORGAN: “I’ve got to be honest with you, I don’t understand the concept of what non-binary means… There’s one of you sitting here, and you look to me female. You’re a female?” ACTIVIST: “If you don’t understand what non-binary means…” PIERS MORGAN: “Are you a female?” ACTIVIST: “…then I’m not sure you’re in a position to lead a debate…” PIERS MORGAN: “But if you can’t explain it in simple language, then what’s the point?” ACTIVIST: “I don’t think that I’m here to discuss the contents of my identity.” PIERS MORGAN: “You raised this whole thing. I didn’t mention anything about what you were. You did.” ACTIVIST: “This has really become uncomfortably personal.” PIERS MORGAN: “Has it? You said it, not me…” That’s when Riley Gaines dropped the hammer. RILEY GAINES: “If you think this is uncomfortably personal, try undressing in a locker room with a 6’4 naked man.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

903,327 Aufrufe • vor 19 Stunden