正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

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

28,548 subscribers

61,964 次观看 • 2 年前 •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

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

16,376 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

62,366 次观看 • 6 个月前

We need a new Federalist Papers. The Constitution has 27 amendments. We’ve had no new amendments since 1993 and that was procedural. The last meaningful amendment was the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court has since gutted. The Constitution is supposed to be a living document. Instead we have a cartel — Democrats and Republicans — who’ve created a tight duopoly at the top, gerrymandered their adversaries out of existence, and locked in perpetual incumbency on both sides. It’s really hurting the country. And nobody in power has any incentive to fix it Thank you The Fifth Column 🖐 for having me on the show.
1:23

We need a new Federalist Papers. The Constitution has 27 amendments. We’ve had no new amendments since 1993 and that was procedural. The last meaningful amendment was the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court has since gutted. The Constitution is supposed to be a living document. Instead we have a cartel — Democrats and Republicans — who’ve created a tight duopoly at the top, gerrymandered their adversaries out of existence, and locked in perpetual incumbency on both sides. It’s really hurting the country. And nobody in power has any incentive to fix it Thank you The Fifth Column 🖐 for having me on the show.

Anthony Scaramucci

35,402 次观看 • 13 天前

#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 次观看 • 2 年前

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 次观看 • 1 年前

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

16,586 次观看 • 4 个月前

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

155,799 次观看 • 1 年前

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

246,976 次观看 • 1 年前

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 次观看 • 1 年前

I made a video to show a bit the behind the scenes work at EU–INC To be fair. This was the nicest part of the last two years. We finally got the full core team together for the first time, met the PM of greece, launched our position paper and also our full legal amendments. Why? Because it's one [impossible] thing to get a law into a vote. Another [as impossible] thing making sure it survives in a useful state. If you like this kind of policy inside baseball here (then i am scared of you but also here) are the deliverables: The full position paper: Our legal detail amendments to the Commission proposal → Our amendments to the Repasi draft report by the parliament→ Video also on youtube: From impossible; to inevitable. LFG. – For Europe 🇪🇺🔥
12:32

I made a video to show a bit the behind the scenes work at EU–INC To be fair. This was the nicest part of the last two years. We finally got the full core team together for the first time, met the PM of greece, launched our position paper and also our full legal amendments. Why? Because it's one [impossible] thing to get a law into a vote. Another [as impossible] thing making sure it survives in a useful state. If you like this kind of policy inside baseball here (then i am scared of you but also here) are the deliverables: The full position paper: Our legal detail amendments to the Commission proposal → Our amendments to the Repasi draft report by the parliament→ Video also on youtube: From impossible; to inevitable. LFG. – For Europe 🇪🇺🔥

Andreas Klinger 🦾

16,964 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

126,341 次观看 • 2 年前

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

437,422 次观看 • 1 年前

This is SO cool !! I just used up for voting amendment XLS-96 Confidential Transfer / privacy on the XRP Ledger dev net enabled by homomorphism and ZK proofs. What's going on here and how do nodes know payments are correct while not able to see the amounts ? 1) I issued a confidential MPT on the XRP Ledger dev net. I shielded my balance. Privacy for the amounts of my XRPL issued asset balance and transfers (the addresses stay public). No one can see the amounts, it's all shielded, except the issuer and the auditor who can always decrypt them (or you, like in the video on my esp32). 2) The XRP Ledger uses 2 boxes 📦 for this all under the hood, an Inbox-box and a Spending-box. I don't go into detail why thats needed but it's important we have it. 3) How do Validators and nodes know the transfers are correct if they can't see the amounts? Now the true magic is enabled by homomorphism. It allows to do operations arithmetic on encrypted data as if it were plaintext, without the need to decrypt it. Like adding and subtracting amounts to your balance. ZK proofs fill the gap that nodes need. We need a comparison of the balance that after you have done your payment you have >= 0 balance. If you would have negative balance it means you trying to spend more than you have something we need to prevent. For this a ZK proof is used to quickly allow people to check, ahh all good, no idea how much Vet owns but whatever he is spending here it's definitely within his balance and it's not below 0. Those 2 techniques soon on a public decentralized blockchain XRP Ledger. Should give you goose bumps what this means for possible use cases.
7:40

This is SO cool !! I just used up for voting amendment XLS-96 Confidential Transfer / privacy on the XRP Ledger dev net enabled by homomorphism and ZK proofs. What's going on here and how do nodes know payments are correct while not able to see the amounts ? 1) I issued a confidential MPT on the XRP Ledger dev net. I shielded my balance. Privacy for the amounts of my XRPL issued asset balance and transfers (the addresses stay public). No one can see the amounts, it's all shielded, except the issuer and the auditor who can always decrypt them (or you, like in the video on my esp32). 2) The XRP Ledger uses 2 boxes 📦 for this all under the hood, an Inbox-box and a Spending-box. I don't go into detail why thats needed but it's important we have it. 3) How do Validators and nodes know the transfers are correct if they can't see the amounts? Now the true magic is enabled by homomorphism. It allows to do operations arithmetic on encrypted data as if it were plaintext, without the need to decrypt it. Like adding and subtracting amounts to your balance. ZK proofs fill the gap that nodes need. We need a comparison of the balance that after you have done your payment you have >= 0 balance. If you would have negative balance it means you trying to spend more than you have something we need to prevent. For this a ZK proof is used to quickly allow people to check, ahh all good, no idea how much Vet owns but whatever he is spending here it's definitely within his balance and it's not below 0. Those 2 techniques soon on a public decentralized blockchain XRP Ledger. Should give you goose bumps what this means for possible use cases.

Vet

72,923 次观看 • 15 天前

🚨 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 次观看 • 2 年前

Watch Democrats WIN the California election WITH THIS ONE SIMPLE TRICK🪄🎩🐇 Larry O'Connor explains how Democrats plan to STEAL the California gubernatorial race from Republican Steve Hilton, even though he's currently leading the vote tally. "Now, in any normal election, in any normal time, in any normal state, in any normal country that utilizes the tools of democracy, you see an election night return like this, and you know well, if they're only taking the top two, certainly Steve Hilton is going to be one of those top two." Democrat Tom Steyer, currently in 3rd place, needs 300,000 votes to overtake Hilton. With 4 million votes still to be counted, it's expected that Steyer will easily close the gap. "It's normal that the guy who is trailing by seven percentage points right now in third place is obviously going to benefit from all of the uncounted ballots that we're all going to discover and we're going to find, and I fear that's exactly what's going to happen." O'Connor says that Steyer and Democrat Xavier Becerra, currently in 2nd place, can box out Republicans from winning the governorship with their dirty tricks and the corporate media is just going along with it. "You've got the news media, instead of saying, 'Hey, that doesn't seem right. That shouldn't be the way we do things in this country.' Instead, they're actually preparing you for that. They're actually trying to educate you and let you know that this is all very normal. And it's not. It's not normal at all." O'Connor explains how Democrats plan to use ballot harvesting to steal the election in California. "In California, they have these rules, these rules, all these early votes or all of these drop-in ballot votes and all of these votes that have been sitting in drop boxes just waiting to be counted. That's what they're about to count, you see, and where did a lot of those votes come from? Well, here's what they do. "They do a thing called ballot harvesting. And in California, a person, a person on the payroll of an NGO or some sort of left-wing political group, can go to, like, a nursing home or a hospice care facility or an early LEARING center or a big apartment building in the hood. And they can go in there, and they can collect ballots on your behalf because, you know, you're incapable of going and voting yourself. "And they can collect all your ballots. In fact, in my opinion, they probably fill out those ballots for you, and they collect them all. They take them with them, and then they deposit them. And that's a big chunk of these early votes. They're all deposited in these drop boxes, you know, the ones that get caught on fire by criminal vagrants who Spencer Pratt is trying to get off the street and Steve Hilton is trying to arrest. "They're sitting there in the middle of the tent cities. And we've already seen, thanks to the undercover work of James O'Keefe and other groups, that that these same NGOs are paying homeless people to fill out ballots and then collect them, and then dropping them in those drop boxes. Those are the votes that are about to be counted. And Steve Kornacki is letting you know they're probably not Hilton votes. It's amazing to watch it develop right before your eyes. But this is how Steve Hilton loses, even though he won." L A R R Y
4:12

Watch Democrats WIN the California election WITH THIS ONE SIMPLE TRICK🪄🎩🐇 Larry O'Connor explains how Democrats plan to STEAL the California gubernatorial race from Republican Steve Hilton, even though he's currently leading the vote tally. "Now, in any normal election, in any normal time, in any normal state, in any normal country that utilizes the tools of democracy, you see an election night return like this, and you know well, if they're only taking the top two, certainly Steve Hilton is going to be one of those top two." Democrat Tom Steyer, currently in 3rd place, needs 300,000 votes to overtake Hilton. With 4 million votes still to be counted, it's expected that Steyer will easily close the gap. "It's normal that the guy who is trailing by seven percentage points right now in third place is obviously going to benefit from all of the uncounted ballots that we're all going to discover and we're going to find, and I fear that's exactly what's going to happen." O'Connor says that Steyer and Democrat Xavier Becerra, currently in 2nd place, can box out Republicans from winning the governorship with their dirty tricks and the corporate media is just going along with it. "You've got the news media, instead of saying, 'Hey, that doesn't seem right. That shouldn't be the way we do things in this country.' Instead, they're actually preparing you for that. They're actually trying to educate you and let you know that this is all very normal. And it's not. It's not normal at all." O'Connor explains how Democrats plan to use ballot harvesting to steal the election in California. "In California, they have these rules, these rules, all these early votes or all of these drop-in ballot votes and all of these votes that have been sitting in drop boxes just waiting to be counted. That's what they're about to count, you see, and where did a lot of those votes come from? Well, here's what they do. "They do a thing called ballot harvesting. And in California, a person, a person on the payroll of an NGO or some sort of left-wing political group, can go to, like, a nursing home or a hospice care facility or an early LEARING center or a big apartment building in the hood. And they can go in there, and they can collect ballots on your behalf because, you know, you're incapable of going and voting yourself. "And they can collect all your ballots. In fact, in my opinion, they probably fill out those ballots for you, and they collect them all. They take them with them, and then they deposit them. And that's a big chunk of these early votes. They're all deposited in these drop boxes, you know, the ones that get caught on fire by criminal vagrants who Spencer Pratt is trying to get off the street and Steve Hilton is trying to arrest. "They're sitting there in the middle of the tent cities. And we've already seen, thanks to the undercover work of James O'Keefe and other groups, that that these same NGOs are paying homeless people to fill out ballots and then collect them, and then dropping them in those drop boxes. Those are the votes that are about to be counted. And Steve Kornacki is letting you know they're probably not Hilton votes. It's amazing to watch it develop right before your eyes. But this is how Steve Hilton loses, even though he won." L A R R Y

Townhall.com

23,367 次观看 • 2 个月前