Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

How does voting on amendments work? Note: Video attached, links to the video and sources on all platforms in the second tweet. I would appreciate you subscribing to me on YouTube and TikTok as well. In the decentralised world of the XRP Ledger, there isn’t a single entity or...

daniel_wwf's profile picture

Daniel "CEO of the XRPL" Keller

28,521 subscribers

61,957 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Shoutout to Marian Gbaiwon and @katii3bug for kicking off @louisianadeservesbetter the effort to recall Jeff Landry. The location here is 2320 Drusilla Lane. Trust me you’ll see the line. People are parkIng at the park a few doors down and every parking lot between. Gov. Jeff Landry and Republicans may be waking up a sleeping giant with the racism of these maps. It’s people of all backgrounds and ages standing in that line in the middle of the day on a Friday. I asked the people in line if they were voting tomorrow everyone yelled yes. I asked how are you voting on the governors amendments, everybody yelled No. You have power in your hands right now to sign the recall and vote No on all 5 Amendments tomorrow. Power to the People, always. #KeepPushing good sisters 🦾
2:43

Shoutout to Marian Gbaiwon and @katii3bug for kicking off @louisianadeservesbetter the effort to recall Jeff Landry. The location here is 2320 Drusilla Lane. Trust me you’ll see the line. People are parkIng at the park a few doors down and every parking lot between. Gov. Jeff Landry and Republicans may be waking up a sleeping giant with the racism of these maps. It’s people of all backgrounds and ages standing in that line in the middle of the day on a Friday. I asked the people in line if they were voting tomorrow everyone yelled yes. I asked how are you voting on the governors amendments, everybody yelled No. You have power in your hands right now to sign the recall and vote No on all 5 Amendments tomorrow. Power to the People, always. #KeepPushing good sisters 🦾

Gary Chambers

18,860 views • 1 month ago

Constitutional Amendment Bill (N0.3) unanimously passes to committee stage The contentious Constitutional Amendment Bill (N0.3) unanimously passed to the committee stage in the National Assembly earlier in the afternoon after the opposition neglected or failed to call for a critical division of the house for MPs opposed to the legislative changes to vote against it. About 30 MPs were opposed to the bill in its entirety after a record-breaking fierce debate. The failure by the opposition to call for division of the house let the bill, which has far-reaching political implications, pass to the committee stage unanimously, without formal opposition. In terms of process, the presiding officer first judges the will of the house using a voice vote ("Ayes" vs. "Nays"). If an MP challenges the presiding officer's ruling, they then can call for a division of the house. Bells are rung to summon all lawmakers to the chamber, the doors are locked, and MPs must physically move to opposite sides of the house (or have their names recorded) to provide an exact, verified tally of votes. A minimum simple majority was required to pass the bill to the committee stage. The committee stage of the bill is the third step in the legislative process. It is a detailed, clause-by-clause examination of the proposals that takes place after the second reading and general debate. During the committee stage, the house resolves into a committee of the whole house rather than meeting as the standard legislative body, allowing for more conversational and repeated speaking opportunities. Members meticulously scrutinise each section or clause of the bill. The committee goes through the bill clause-by-clause sequentially, voting on each clause or block of clauses. MPs and ministers can propose specific alterations, additions, or removals to individual clauses. Any proposed amendment is debated, and the committee votes on whether to accept or reject the change. Once the committee finishes reviewing all clauses and finalising amendments, the bill moves to the report stage, where the committee officially reports its work back to the house for final confirmation before the third reading. Because it is where the exact wording of the proposed law or amendment is finalised, this phase is often heavily debated. For example, this bill required intense, late-night debate in the National Assembly last night before advancing to the committee stage. After the amendments have been adopted, another vote is called in the house to pass the bill by a two-thirds majority before the same process is repeated in the upper house, senate. If senate makes some changes to the bill, it then goes back to the lower house, National Assembly, for voting before being to sent to the President for assent.
0:55

Constitutional Amendment Bill (N0.3) unanimously passes to committee stage The contentious Constitutional Amendment Bill (N0.3) unanimously passed to the committee stage in the National Assembly earlier in the afternoon after the opposition neglected or failed to call for a critical division of the house for MPs opposed to the legislative changes to vote against it. About 30 MPs were opposed to the bill in its entirety after a record-breaking fierce debate. The failure by the opposition to call for division of the house let the bill, which has far-reaching political implications, pass to the committee stage unanimously, without formal opposition. In terms of process, the presiding officer first judges the will of the house using a voice vote ("Ayes" vs. "Nays"). If an MP challenges the presiding officer's ruling, they then can call for a division of the house. Bells are rung to summon all lawmakers to the chamber, the doors are locked, and MPs must physically move to opposite sides of the house (or have their names recorded) to provide an exact, verified tally of votes. A minimum simple majority was required to pass the bill to the committee stage. The committee stage of the bill is the third step in the legislative process. It is a detailed, clause-by-clause examination of the proposals that takes place after the second reading and general debate. During the committee stage, the house resolves into a committee of the whole house rather than meeting as the standard legislative body, allowing for more conversational and repeated speaking opportunities. Members meticulously scrutinise each section or clause of the bill. The committee goes through the bill clause-by-clause sequentially, voting on each clause or block of clauses. MPs and ministers can propose specific alterations, additions, or removals to individual clauses. Any proposed amendment is debated, and the committee votes on whether to accept or reject the change. Once the committee finishes reviewing all clauses and finalising amendments, the bill moves to the report stage, where the committee officially reports its work back to the house for final confirmation before the third reading. Because it is where the exact wording of the proposed law or amendment is finalised, this phase is often heavily debated. For example, this bill required intense, late-night debate in the National Assembly last night before advancing to the committee stage. After the amendments have been adopted, another vote is called in the house to pass the bill by a two-thirds majority before the same process is repeated in the upper house, senate. If senate makes some changes to the bill, it then goes back to the lower house, National Assembly, for voting before being to sent to the President for assent.

TheNewsHawks

17,671 views • 22 days ago

My submission to the Cerebras Google Gemma hackathon, Carbide. Carbide is an ontology builder. Based on a research prompt Carbide uses Cerebras Gemma4 agents to build an ontology. The agents connects individual nodes of information based on the relationship that the agents infer. The agents also assign a confidence metric for how accurate they think the relationship is. You can see each node in a relationship table of the information -> relationship -> target -> and the confidence the relationship is true. The inspector shows the node's connected edges and as an expand button to grow the ontology in the direction of that information. You can scroll through each concept and load them in the inspector. You can search the entire graph based on the kind of relationships generated, or key words. A visual shows how each nodes connects to another one and by what relationship, and changes with new nodes or search filters. Sorry for the audio quality. $CBRS $GOOG
0:55

My submission to the Cerebras Google Gemma hackathon, Carbide. Carbide is an ontology builder. Based on a research prompt Carbide uses Cerebras Gemma4 agents to build an ontology. The agents connects individual nodes of information based on the relationship that the agents infer. The agents also assign a confidence metric for how accurate they think the relationship is. You can see each node in a relationship table of the information -> relationship -> target -> and the confidence the relationship is true. The inspector shows the node's connected edges and as an expand button to grow the ontology in the direction of that information. You can scroll through each concept and load them in the inspector. You can search the entire graph based on the kind of relationships generated, or key words. A visual shows how each nodes connects to another one and by what relationship, and changes with new nodes or search filters. Sorry for the audio quality. $CBRS $GOOG

QuantHood

15,710 views • 10 days ago

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.
6:58

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

Hopewell Chin’ono

62,272 views • 4 months ago

#WATCH | Delhi: On media reports that the central government is likely to bring a bill to curb the powers of the Waqf Board over assets, Former Vice Chairman Of National Commission For Minorities Atif Rasheed says, "The Waqf Act was formed in 1954. The then government in 1995 changed it completely. In 2013, a lot of amendments were made to the act. So, now if an amendment is taking place, it does not need to be taken negatively. We should trust the government, it is dedicated to 'Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas'... As per the reports, it seems that there are going to be around 32 amendments in the act. If it is about registration with the Collector or a judicial inquiry, then why should one have a problem with it? In 2013, it was amended that the government should map it every 10 years... This is not an interference in the Shariat and it does not decrease the power of the Waqf..."
4:51

#WATCH | Delhi: On media reports that the central government is likely to bring a bill to curb the powers of the Waqf Board over assets, Former Vice Chairman Of National Commission For Minorities Atif Rasheed says, "The Waqf Act was formed in 1954. The then government in 1995 changed it completely. In 2013, a lot of amendments were made to the act. So, now if an amendment is taking place, it does not need to be taken negatively. We should trust the government, it is dedicated to 'Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas'... As per the reports, it seems that there are going to be around 32 amendments in the act. If it is about registration with the Collector or a judicial inquiry, then why should one have a problem with it? In 2013, it was amended that the government should map it every 10 years... This is not an interference in the Shariat and it does not decrease the power of the Waqf..."

ANI

14,687 views • 1 year ago

President Emmerson Mnangagwa's spokesman George Charamba, who is also the Deputy Chief Secretary, Presidential Communications in the Office of the President and Cabinet, has provoked a storm of controversy by claiming that parliament trumps a national referendum on constitutional amendment issues currently being debated through a legislative public consultation process. Mnangagwa and his party are using parliament to amend the constitution to extend his rule to 2030 and introduce a raft of other significant changes without going through a referendum, which civil society and opposition activists insist is a requirement in terms of the constitution. The 2013 constitution mandates that any extension of presidential term limits or removal of two five-year term limits must be approved by voters through a referendum. Critics say extending terms from five to seven years, or changing the electoral system constitutes a major subversion of this clause, requiring a referendum. However, Mnangagwa and his allies say a referendum is not needed as they are not removing term limits, but elongating the term lengths and changing the electoral cycle. Zanu PF says the amendment is not a change to the limit of two terms, but rather the length of each term (five to seven years), meaning a referendum is not constitutionally mandated. They say the amendments are meant to ensure political stability and remove "election mode toxicity," disrupting peace, governance and development. The debate centres over holding a referendum on the proposed amendments, specifically Constitution Amendment Bill No.3, which proposes extending Mnangagwa's tenure by two years andpresidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years as well as changing the presidential election system from direct voting through popular franchise to indirect selection via parliament. The ruling Zanu PF party controls parliament, leading to calls for a popular referendum to approve these significant changes, which critics argue violate the 2013 constitution's democratic intent. Charamba said: “Those who were old enough to participate and follow proceedings of 2013 will know that even after the referendum, that outcome of the referendum still had to be processed through Parliament. What that means is that, a referendum does not usurp the power of Parliament. It simply provides a popular basis for legislative action. Otherwise, at law, the body which is recognized as responsible for any changes, be they at the level of the primary law or at the level of subsidiary laws, is Parliament. Right? So, really, you can't place the referendum in apposition to Parliament. You can't. You just cannot because the referendum does not give you a result that writes the constitution. It is parliament which is mandated to do so in terms of our law. So, really, there shouldn't be any argument at all in respect of that matter. Right?.”
1:13

President Emmerson Mnangagwa's spokesman George Charamba, who is also the Deputy Chief Secretary, Presidential Communications in the Office of the President and Cabinet, has provoked a storm of controversy by claiming that parliament trumps a national referendum on constitutional amendment issues currently being debated through a legislative public consultation process. Mnangagwa and his party are using parliament to amend the constitution to extend his rule to 2030 and introduce a raft of other significant changes without going through a referendum, which civil society and opposition activists insist is a requirement in terms of the constitution. The 2013 constitution mandates that any extension of presidential term limits or removal of two five-year term limits must be approved by voters through a referendum. Critics say extending terms from five to seven years, or changing the electoral system constitutes a major subversion of this clause, requiring a referendum. However, Mnangagwa and his allies say a referendum is not needed as they are not removing term limits, but elongating the term lengths and changing the electoral cycle. Zanu PF says the amendment is not a change to the limit of two terms, but rather the length of each term (five to seven years), meaning a referendum is not constitutionally mandated. They say the amendments are meant to ensure political stability and remove "election mode toxicity," disrupting peace, governance and development. The debate centres over holding a referendum on the proposed amendments, specifically Constitution Amendment Bill No.3, which proposes extending Mnangagwa's tenure by two years andpresidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years as well as changing the presidential election system from direct voting through popular franchise to indirect selection via parliament. The ruling Zanu PF party controls parliament, leading to calls for a popular referendum to approve these significant changes, which critics argue violate the 2013 constitution's democratic intent. Charamba said: “Those who were old enough to participate and follow proceedings of 2013 will know that even after the referendum, that outcome of the referendum still had to be processed through Parliament. What that means is that, a referendum does not usurp the power of Parliament. It simply provides a popular basis for legislative action. Otherwise, at law, the body which is recognized as responsible for any changes, be they at the level of the primary law or at the level of subsidiary laws, is Parliament. Right? So, really, you can't place the referendum in apposition to Parliament. You can't. You just cannot because the referendum does not give you a result that writes the constitution. It is parliament which is mandated to do so in terms of our law. So, really, there shouldn't be any argument at all in respect of that matter. Right?.”

TheNewsHawks

16,579 views • 2 months ago

Everyone is aware that the Joint Committee on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has invited suggestions on the proposed amendments. This presents a golden opportunity for us to take action against the draconian Waqf Act of 1995 and push for its repeal. In light of this, I decided to highlight some of the most draconian sections of the Act.
39:15

Everyone is aware that the Joint Committee on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has invited suggestions on the proposed amendments. This presents a golden opportunity for us to take action against the draconian Waqf Act of 1995 and push for its repeal. In light of this, I decided to highlight some of the most draconian sections of the Act.

Amita Sachdeva, Advocate

22,385 views • 1 year ago

Just days before the election, the governor is threatening teachers — no stipend unless you pass his plan. But let’s be clear: this isn’t a raise. It’s not new money. It just locks in the current stipend, raises your sales taxes to do it, and shifts the burden to local school boards to fund in the future. That’s not help — that’s a hustle. Working-class voters, Black voters, and every educator in this state should see this for what it is: a bad deal. Vote NO on all four of the governor’s amendments and put the bully in his place. Make the legislature do right by the educators of this state. Seems like the governor is suggesting educators either be beggars or bullied. How does that help educators thrive? Vote no on All 4 constitutional amendments Saturday March 29th.
2:27

Just days before the election, the governor is threatening teachers — no stipend unless you pass his plan. But let’s be clear: this isn’t a raise. It’s not new money. It just locks in the current stipend, raises your sales taxes to do it, and shifts the burden to local school boards to fund in the future. That’s not help — that’s a hustle. Working-class voters, Black voters, and every educator in this state should see this for what it is: a bad deal. Vote NO on all four of the governor’s amendments and put the bully in his place. Make the legislature do right by the educators of this state. Seems like the governor is suggesting educators either be beggars or bullied. How does that help educators thrive? Vote no on All 4 constitutional amendments Saturday March 29th.

Gary Chambers

18,819 views • 1 year ago

Free Speech is Dead Yesterday I managed to get in a three minute speech against the proposed hate laws before the bill was guillotined. Normally you’re allowed to speak for 15 minutes on the bill. I didn’t get a chance to explain just how draconian these laws are. Before this bill, prosecutors had to prove intent— that your words deliberately incited harm. Not anymore. The Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 lowers the bar so drastically that you can now be jailed for reckless speech. "Reckless speech" without any intent is now criminalised. Even if you accidentally offend someone you can be charged, found guilty and go to prison. A number of amendments to put in safeguards were moved including: 1) Removing mandatory sentencing 2) Excluding children under 14 from the bill and 3) A good faith carve out to prevent these rules from being used as a form of lawfare to shut down debate such as any of the below statements could soon land you in prison. • Marriage should only be between a man and a woman. • The LGBTQIA2S+ lobby keeps pushing radical gender policies on our kids. Maybe it's time we show them we won't stand for it anymore. Let's take action! • We need to stop mass immigration and expect assimilation because it brings division and poverty to our country. • The idea that gender is entirely a social construct is not supported by biological science. Those groups forcing people to accept this concept are dangerous. The major parties and One Nation did not vote for any of these amendments. In fact Malcolm Roberts voted against the exemption for children under 14 year olds. Pauline didn’t turn up to vote on anything. This is not unusual as Pauline didn’t turn up last year to vote on the 30 bills rammed through parliament on the last sitting day including the Online Safety Bill. When I said in my clip yesterday that One Nation voted for the bill that was what I was referring to. They didn’t vote on the final vote but if they were serious about wanting more debate then they should have expressed their view through voting on the amendments. To claim they needed more detail was a cop out. Clearly they supported children under 14 getting locked up for saying something offensive. By voting against stopping this and not voting for other amendments, Malcolm indicated more support for the bill than opposition. As someone with three children under 14 I was furious that any politician would agree to this. These laws are another nail in the coffin of democracy in this country. #auspol
2:19

Free Speech is Dead Yesterday I managed to get in a three minute speech against the proposed hate laws before the bill was guillotined. Normally you’re allowed to speak for 15 minutes on the bill. I didn’t get a chance to explain just how draconian these laws are. Before this bill, prosecutors had to prove intent— that your words deliberately incited harm. Not anymore. The Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 lowers the bar so drastically that you can now be jailed for reckless speech. "Reckless speech" without any intent is now criminalised. Even if you accidentally offend someone you can be charged, found guilty and go to prison. A number of amendments to put in safeguards were moved including: 1) Removing mandatory sentencing 2) Excluding children under 14 from the bill and 3) A good faith carve out to prevent these rules from being used as a form of lawfare to shut down debate such as any of the below statements could soon land you in prison. • Marriage should only be between a man and a woman. • The LGBTQIA2S+ lobby keeps pushing radical gender policies on our kids. Maybe it's time we show them we won't stand for it anymore. Let's take action! • We need to stop mass immigration and expect assimilation because it brings division and poverty to our country. • The idea that gender is entirely a social construct is not supported by biological science. Those groups forcing people to accept this concept are dangerous. The major parties and One Nation did not vote for any of these amendments. In fact Malcolm Roberts voted against the exemption for children under 14 year olds. Pauline didn’t turn up to vote on anything. This is not unusual as Pauline didn’t turn up last year to vote on the 30 bills rammed through parliament on the last sitting day including the Online Safety Bill. When I said in my clip yesterday that One Nation voted for the bill that was what I was referring to. They didn’t vote on the final vote but if they were serious about wanting more debate then they should have expressed their view through voting on the amendments. To claim they needed more detail was a cop out. Clearly they supported children under 14 getting locked up for saying something offensive. By voting against stopping this and not voting for other amendments, Malcolm indicated more support for the bill than opposition. As someone with three children under 14 I was furious that any politician would agree to this. These laws are another nail in the coffin of democracy in this country. #auspol

Gerard Rennick

155,762 views • 1 year ago

Today Alberta’s UCP government has proposed amendments to the Alberta Bill of Rights for the first time since it was introduced in 1972. This legislation includes four key amendements. These amendments would enshrine in the Bill of Rights the right for an individual with capacity to accept or refuse a medical treatment, including a vaccine. This means Albertans will never again be subject to a government vaccine mandate. It would also expand property rights and ensure just compensation for landowners. This legislation would also affirm the right to acquire, keep, and use firearms in accordance with the law. Lastly, the amendments would protect the right to freedom of expression, broadening the scope of this right beyond written and spoken language. Together, let’s keep building a province where freedom thrives!
1:55

Today Alberta’s UCP government has proposed amendments to the Alberta Bill of Rights for the first time since it was introduced in 1972. This legislation includes four key amendements. These amendments would enshrine in the Bill of Rights the right for an individual with capacity to accept or refuse a medical treatment, including a vaccine. This means Albertans will never again be subject to a government vaccine mandate. It would also expand property rights and ensure just compensation for landowners. This legislation would also affirm the right to acquire, keep, and use firearms in accordance with the law. Lastly, the amendments would protect the right to freedom of expression, broadening the scope of this right beyond written and spoken language. Together, let’s keep building a province where freedom thrives!

Danielle Smith

246,891 views • 1 year ago

Ouroboros "short" Leios Protoyping simulation & visualisation work in progress demonstrated by Duncan Coutts. Full P2P network running Leios Visualisation. You can see 100 different nodes and messages flowing between them all, with representation of Input Blocks (Top left, Endorsement Blocks (20 seconds In these increment), Votes (20 seconds in these increment as the pipeline hits a vote stage) You can see the votes continue to burst at roughly 20 seconds, input blocks also increase, the smoothness of message flows to reduce these bursts is something Duncan details they are working on to improve as-well as resource usage. Input Blocks (IB) - These blocks contain the raw transaction data submitted by users to the blockchain. Endorsement Blocks (EB) - These blocks reference multiple Input Blocks and are used by nodes to validate and vote on the readiness of transactions for inclusion in the blockchain. Votes- Nodes cast votes to achieve consensus on the state of the ledger, enhancing the speed of transaction finality. I believe this is completely off-chain so does not incur transaction costs (Someone keep me honest please) Keep an eye on the diffusion latency chart, as Duncan mentions this is very important, this refers more to time taken for propagation of information across the network I believe. This was an extract from a larger demonstration, really exciting, massive credit to the team working on this. It's going to be extremely impactful to Cardano and I will share as much as I can about it, I really like seeing these visualisations especially during a prototyping stage. What I find interesting is that the visualisation vote count is so much it slows down the browser rendering. Great work! web3innovationnerds & Duncan Coutts what a demonstration that was., keep them coming!
2:19

Ouroboros "short" Leios Protoyping simulation & visualisation work in progress demonstrated by Duncan Coutts. Full P2P network running Leios Visualisation. You can see 100 different nodes and messages flowing between them all, with representation of Input Blocks (Top left, Endorsement Blocks (20 seconds In these increment), Votes (20 seconds in these increment as the pipeline hits a vote stage) You can see the votes continue to burst at roughly 20 seconds, input blocks also increase, the smoothness of message flows to reduce these bursts is something Duncan details they are working on to improve as-well as resource usage. Input Blocks (IB) - These blocks contain the raw transaction data submitted by users to the blockchain. Endorsement Blocks (EB) - These blocks reference multiple Input Blocks and are used by nodes to validate and vote on the readiness of transactions for inclusion in the blockchain. Votes- Nodes cast votes to achieve consensus on the state of the ledger, enhancing the speed of transaction finality. I believe this is completely off-chain so does not incur transaction costs (Someone keep me honest please) Keep an eye on the diffusion latency chart, as Duncan mentions this is very important, this refers more to time taken for propagation of information across the network I believe. This was an extract from a larger demonstration, really exciting, massive credit to the team working on this. It's going to be extremely impactful to Cardano and I will share as much as I can about it, I really like seeing these visualisations especially during a prototyping stage. What I find interesting is that the visualisation vote count is so much it slows down the browser rendering. Great work! web3innovationnerds & Duncan Coutts what a demonstration that was., keep them coming!

Dave

57,107 views • 1 year ago

New XRP Ledger Software Update 2.5.0 is out! This is how the new update will push the XRP Ledger forward ✅ - Long awaited new amendments: 🔹Batch transactions. 🔹Token escrow (RLUSD, memes, treasuries etc). 🔹Premissioned DEX (P-Domain is in voting) so that institutions can USE the XRPL in a compliant way. 🔹P-Delegation to delegate account permissions more granular. Non amendments and new release schedule👀: In addition, a lot of helpful fixes and improvements to make the XRPL software run better, more efficient and stable than before.
8:33

New XRP Ledger Software Update 2.5.0 is out! This is how the new update will push the XRP Ledger forward ✅ - Long awaited new amendments: 🔹Batch transactions. 🔹Token escrow (RLUSD, memes, treasuries etc). 🔹Premissioned DEX (P-Domain is in voting) so that institutions can USE the XRPL in a compliant way. 🔹P-Delegation to delegate account permissions more granular. Non amendments and new release schedule👀: In addition, a lot of helpful fixes and improvements to make the XRPL software run better, more efficient and stable than before.

Vet

50,494 views • 1 year ago

Michigan Democrats are terrified Biden will implode and drag them down. So today they bet the bank and went all out to codify election fraud into state statute with SB 603. Today they smashed through this gigantic pile of election-fraud-enabling legislation today with Democrat only votes. SB603 Repeals current law that gives authority to bipartisan county Boards of Canvassers to investigate fraud and other wrongdoing including ballot tampering during recounts. With the passage of their (election-fraud-enabling) Bill, there will be no future route for requesting a recount if you believe there was fraud. Under their corruption bill, candidates will be prohibited from requesting a recount if they suspect fraud and is designed to stop investigations of election fraud by the Board of Canvassers. This disgusting bill will now permit clerks to recount ballots even if seals are broken on ballot containers and was essentially written by the Secretary of State who was reversed multiple times, by our Supreme Court for her illegal election decisions. The bill changes the standard for a candidate or party to petition for a recount of election results from alleging there has been “mistake or fraud” in the process to now only permitting alleging there has been an “error.” So even if the candidate or Party is absolutely convinced there was fraud, this cannot be alleged or investigated. To boot, this Democrat’s bill makes it tougher to do a recount by doubling the recount petition fees and making it a felony for 'interfering' with a recount without any clear definition of what that means to open up more “LAWFARE.” If passed as is, the language is changed to prohibit a recount, investigation or audit of the conduct of an election when fraud is alleged to only a determination of the number of votes cast for one candidate or another, or a ballot question. Lastly, the bill says a recount could not assess the qualification of the voters participating in an election, or the manner in which ballots are applied for, or issued to voters. Wow isn’t that a doozy. If illegals, or dead people, or those not registered in Mich. are voting, we cannot “assess the qualification of those voters or the manner in which those ballots were applied for and issued to these voters.” Yep, the Democrats have completely thrown off the mask with this terrible bill attempting to win at any cost-our Republic... be damned.
2:01

Michigan Democrats are terrified Biden will implode and drag them down. So today they bet the bank and went all out to codify election fraud into state statute with SB 603. Today they smashed through this gigantic pile of election-fraud-enabling legislation today with Democrat only votes. SB603 Repeals current law that gives authority to bipartisan county Boards of Canvassers to investigate fraud and other wrongdoing including ballot tampering during recounts. With the passage of their (election-fraud-enabling) Bill, there will be no future route for requesting a recount if you believe there was fraud. Under their corruption bill, candidates will be prohibited from requesting a recount if they suspect fraud and is designed to stop investigations of election fraud by the Board of Canvassers. This disgusting bill will now permit clerks to recount ballots even if seals are broken on ballot containers and was essentially written by the Secretary of State who was reversed multiple times, by our Supreme Court for her illegal election decisions. The bill changes the standard for a candidate or party to petition for a recount of election results from alleging there has been “mistake or fraud” in the process to now only permitting alleging there has been an “error.” So even if the candidate or Party is absolutely convinced there was fraud, this cannot be alleged or investigated. To boot, this Democrat’s bill makes it tougher to do a recount by doubling the recount petition fees and making it a felony for 'interfering' with a recount without any clear definition of what that means to open up more “LAWFARE.” If passed as is, the language is changed to prohibit a recount, investigation or audit of the conduct of an election when fraud is alleged to only a determination of the number of votes cast for one candidate or another, or a ballot question. Lastly, the bill says a recount could not assess the qualification of the voters participating in an election, or the manner in which ballots are applied for, or issued to voters. Wow isn’t that a doozy. If illegals, or dead people, or those not registered in Mich. are voting, we cannot “assess the qualification of those voters or the manner in which those ballots were applied for and issued to these voters.” Yep, the Democrats have completely thrown off the mask with this terrible bill attempting to win at any cost-our Republic... be damned.

Jim Runestad

126,305 views • 2 years ago

HOLEE SHIZZLES‼️ 🚨 RFK JR Sounds the Alarm on the WHO IHR Amendment's — A “Trojan Horse” is Quietly being Installed to implement Digital Health ID's and a Global Health Database • he expresses concerns about the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and their potential to "open the door" to "that kind of system of health IDs," suggesting a pathway to broader surveillance and control mechanisms. • He says the WHO is laying the groundwork for a CENTRALIZED Medical Database for every human being • He connects the potential for digital health IDs to broader issues of surveillance and industry influence. He Mentions Mass "surveillance" and he refers to "industry influence," implying that these IDs could be part of a larger mass surveillance framework that benefits certain industries while encroaching on individual privacy and freedoms. • Kennedy's concerns are framed within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where he believes critical information and criticisms were suppressed. He suggests that the amendments could perpetuate similar dynamics, potentially using digital health IDs as a tool for narrative management and censorship, as seen during the pandemic. - His overall stance is that such measures, including digital health IDs, could jeopardize civil liberties and national sovereignty. He argues that the U.S. should not sign over authority that could lead to lockdowns and other public health measures without thorough consideration, especially when these measures might invite a system that undermines individual rights. What’s next? - Proposal and Adoption Process: The amendments were proposed and negotiated through the World Health Organization (WHO) processes, in an agreement by the World Health Assembly in May 2024 [World Health Assembly, 2024]. However, the implementation of these amendments is not automatic and requires further steps. - Opt-Out Period: There is a specific window for member states to opt out of these amendments. The U.S. and other countries have until NEXT WEEK, to formally reject the amendments. This opt-out period is crucial because it allows countries to decide whether to be bound by the new regulations.
4:49

HOLEE SHIZZLES‼️ 🚨 RFK JR Sounds the Alarm on the WHO IHR Amendment's — A “Trojan Horse” is Quietly being Installed to implement Digital Health ID's and a Global Health Database • he expresses concerns about the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and their potential to "open the door" to "that kind of system of health IDs," suggesting a pathway to broader surveillance and control mechanisms. • He says the WHO is laying the groundwork for a CENTRALIZED Medical Database for every human being • He connects the potential for digital health IDs to broader issues of surveillance and industry influence. He Mentions Mass "surveillance" and he refers to "industry influence," implying that these IDs could be part of a larger mass surveillance framework that benefits certain industries while encroaching on individual privacy and freedoms. • Kennedy's concerns are framed within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where he believes critical information and criticisms were suppressed. He suggests that the amendments could perpetuate similar dynamics, potentially using digital health IDs as a tool for narrative management and censorship, as seen during the pandemic. - His overall stance is that such measures, including digital health IDs, could jeopardize civil liberties and national sovereignty. He argues that the U.S. should not sign over authority that could lead to lockdowns and other public health measures without thorough consideration, especially when these measures might invite a system that undermines individual rights. What’s next? - Proposal and Adoption Process: The amendments were proposed and negotiated through the World Health Organization (WHO) processes, in an agreement by the World Health Assembly in May 2024 [World Health Assembly, 2024]. However, the implementation of these amendments is not automatic and requires further steps. - Opt-Out Period: There is a specific window for member states to opt out of these amendments. The U.S. and other countries have until NEXT WEEK, to formally reject the amendments. This opt-out period is crucial because it allows countries to decide whether to be bound by the new regulations.

MJTruthUltra

437,355 views • 11 months ago

🚨 At the end of May, the WHO wants to vote on the Pandemic Treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulation. They are breaking their own rules by doing so. The Pandemic Treaty has received more attention and its content is worse. But it is unlikely to pass. The amendments to the IHR are the real imminent threat to democracy and fundamental rights worldwide. Last week, I spoke about this in Rome. Wherever in the world you may live: get in contact your elected representatives. Ask them to STOP this WHO vote from happening. Share this message!
10:03

🚨 At the end of May, the WHO wants to vote on the Pandemic Treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulation. They are breaking their own rules by doing so. The Pandemic Treaty has received more attention and its content is worse. But it is unlikely to pass. The amendments to the IHR are the real imminent threat to democracy and fundamental rights worldwide. Last week, I spoke about this in Rome. Wherever in the world you may live: get in contact your elected representatives. Ask them to STOP this WHO vote from happening. Share this message!

Rob Roos 🇳🇱

21,311 views • 2 years ago

$XRP Ledger has a forced upgrade deadline on Tuesday and nodes that miss it go dark David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz, XRPL co-creator and Ripple CTO, confirmed the rippled 3.1.3 amendment activates May 27. Nodes that don't upgrade become amendment-blocked, losing the ability to validate the ledger, submit transactions, or vote on future amendments. XRPL has more events that are technically hard forks than most public chains, per Schwartz.
0:37

$XRP Ledger has a forced upgrade deadline on Tuesday and nodes that miss it go dark David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz, XRPL co-creator and Ripple CTO, confirmed the rippled 3.1.3 amendment activates May 27. Nodes that don't upgrade become amendment-blocked, losing the ability to validate the ledger, submit transactions, or vote on future amendments. XRPL has more events that are technically hard forks than most public chains, per Schwartz.

BSCN

63,480 views • 1 month ago

#WATCH | After casting his vote for #DelhiAssemblyElection2025, former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud says, "Every election is crucial in a democracy. When it comes to a particular election, everybody who is associated with it regards it as crucial. Whether it's Delhi, whether it's the national elections or the state elections, every single election is crucial. By exercising our franchise, we demonstrate to the world at large and to our own society that we are responsible participants in the process of democracy as citizens. The young voters must step out and cast their vote. There's lots of time left for voting to conclude and they must come out and cast their vote."
0:35

#WATCH | After casting his vote for #DelhiAssemblyElection2025, former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud says, "Every election is crucial in a democracy. When it comes to a particular election, everybody who is associated with it regards it as crucial. Whether it's Delhi, whether it's the national elections or the state elections, every single election is crucial. By exercising our franchise, we demonstrate to the world at large and to our own society that we are responsible participants in the process of democracy as citizens. The young voters must step out and cast their vote. There's lots of time left for voting to conclude and they must come out and cast their vote."

ANI

43,672 views • 1 year ago