Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

🚨 — It all started with a false tweet from an anti-Eritrea account claiming that the Ethiopian military had been “mobilized” [to seize Eritrea’s coastline]. Enter Brandon Weichert, who apparently skipped the part where you check if something is true before repeating it. On the Steve Bannon show, he... confidently told millions of viewers that the Ethiopian military had already taken “operational control” of the Eritrean coastline and that this would allow Israeli and U.S. ground-based missiles to strike Houthi targets in Yemen. Just like that, the claim took off and had some Ethiopians celebrating all morning, as if their military had quietly captured an entire coastline without anyone noticing, or as if Washington had personally handed them the keys and said, “Go ahead.” However, the same person who posted the original tweet had to record a video explaining that Weichert completely misunderstood it and clearly has little clue about what is actually happening in the region. His confident analysis turned out to be nothing more than misinformation with a microphone. It is a perfect example of how fast nonsense can travel once someone with a platform repeats it, and how quickly people run with a story before anyone bothers to check if it makes even basic sense. Idiots ... 😆show more

ⓉⓃ

42,507 subscribers

10,579 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

CNN contributor and former military lawyer Margaret Donovan says both Pete Hegseth and Admiral Bradley are complicit in war crimes after double strike on Venezuelan drug boats. “This is so basic to everybody who has served in the military and who has trained on the law of war and the law of armed conflict that it is a war crime, that it's no surprise that the administration will be trying to shift the blame…If the facts really have played out the way that it is being reported, he absolutely had a duty not to follow an unlawful order if it was Secretary Hegseth's order.” It’s as if they want Pete Hegseth to be guilty.

CNN contributor and former military lawyer Margaret Donovan says both Pete Hegseth and Admiral Bradley are complicit in war crimes after double strike on Venezuelan drug boats. “This is so basic to everybody who has served in the military and who has trained on the law of war and the law of armed conflict that it is a war crime, that it's no surprise that the administration will be trying to shift the blame…If the facts really have played out the way that it is being reported, he absolutely had a duty not to follow an unlawful order if it was Secretary Hegseth's order.” It’s as if they want Pete Hegseth to be guilty.

DeVory Darkins

63,470 views • 7 months ago

Andrew Bridgen told me that in January 2022 someone offered him anything he wanted in the world to shut up about the vaccines, and they put it in a text message because they had apparently never had anyone turn it down before. He assumed they had made that offer to a lot of elected representatives and it had always worked. He said no. By November of that year he was having conversations with colleagues he had worked alongside for twelve years, and one of them told him privately that he thought Andrew was right. This was a man who had taken two Pfizers, gone to the gym, had chest pains, taken himself to the hospital, and been told he had already had two heart attacks. Andrew asked him to stand with him anyway, to protect the children, and the man said no. Andrew still doesn't fully know why. Some leverage they had on him, he assumed, something the man wasn't going to share. He told me he didn't go into politics to allow children to be murdered or injured when he could do something about it, and that was his answer when they came to him with everything he could want. They couldn't believe anyone would refuse. Can't believe the hubris? Believe it... Andrew Bridgen

Andrew Bridgen told me that in January 2022 someone offered him anything he wanted in the world to shut up about the vaccines, and they put it in a text message because they had apparently never had anyone turn it down before. He assumed they had made that offer to a lot of elected representatives and it had always worked. He said no. By November of that year he was having conversations with colleagues he had worked alongside for twelve years, and one of them told him privately that he thought Andrew was right. This was a man who had taken two Pfizers, gone to the gym, had chest pains, taken himself to the hospital, and been told he had already had two heart attacks. Andrew asked him to stand with him anyway, to protect the children, and the man said no. Andrew still doesn't fully know why. Some leverage they had on him, he assumed, something the man wasn't going to share. He told me he didn't go into politics to allow children to be murdered or injured when he could do something about it, and that was his answer when they came to him with everything he could want. They couldn't believe anyone would refuse. Can't believe the hubris? Believe it... Andrew Bridgen

Del Bigtree

88,209 views • 1 day ago

If you take strong action and it is very different action from what your country has known before...you can only be confident that your action is right if it is founded on strong principles. Mine was founded on the belief that governments are there to serve the liberties of the people under a rule of law, a free enterprise economy, and strong defence. After we lost the election in 1974, and the Labour Government came in, we had departed from our fundamental principles. And I set up a great study with many people—not only politicians but businessmen, academics, journalists—and we redrafted our whole principles. From the principles, we decided the policies and we sorted out what needed to be done and how it was to be done when we got into power. That took four years. I had confidence we were in the right and our policies would achieve the right. Although, as you know, great change means great dislocation. We had to cut expenditure; we had to privatise; we had to get down taxation; we had to cut the bureaucracy. All of the people objected, and for two and a half years my name was marred. It's always difficult to do the right thing. But my father had taught me to persevere: It's easy to be a starter, but are you a sticker-to? It's easy enough to begin a job, it's harder to see it through. And I saw it through. After three years, all of a sudden, the good things in the economy began to show through. At the same time, we had the Falklands, and against all odds we won. Although, the world thought it was really rather astonishing that Britain sent a fleet 8,000 miles away into the bitter cold Antarctic against a foe that had air cover from land when we only had it from aircraft carriers. So the two reinforced one another. But I couldn't have done it unless I had been confident that we had the right principles and that if we persisted, it would show through to the benefit of our people. I was never defeated in an election by the people of my country. That is my proudest boast.

If you take strong action and it is very different action from what your country has known before...you can only be confident that your action is right if it is founded on strong principles. Mine was founded on the belief that governments are there to serve the liberties of the people under a rule of law, a free enterprise economy, and strong defence. After we lost the election in 1974, and the Labour Government came in, we had departed from our fundamental principles. And I set up a great study with many people—not only politicians but businessmen, academics, journalists—and we redrafted our whole principles. From the principles, we decided the policies and we sorted out what needed to be done and how it was to be done when we got into power. That took four years. I had confidence we were in the right and our policies would achieve the right. Although, as you know, great change means great dislocation. We had to cut expenditure; we had to privatise; we had to get down taxation; we had to cut the bureaucracy. All of the people objected, and for two and a half years my name was marred. It's always difficult to do the right thing. But my father had taught me to persevere: It's easy to be a starter, but are you a sticker-to? It's easy enough to begin a job, it's harder to see it through. And I saw it through. After three years, all of a sudden, the good things in the economy began to show through. At the same time, we had the Falklands, and against all odds we won. Although, the world thought it was really rather astonishing that Britain sent a fleet 8,000 miles away into the bitter cold Antarctic against a foe that had air cover from land when we only had it from aircraft carriers. So the two reinforced one another. But I couldn't have done it unless I had been confident that we had the right principles and that if we persisted, it would show through to the benefit of our people. I was never defeated in an election by the people of my country. That is my proudest boast.

Margaret Thatcher

11,205 views • 1 year ago

Karol G talks about a relationship in which her partner did not like celebrating his birthday with her and, every year, found an excuse to avoid spending that date with her. She shares this during a confession at the Confessionario of the LUX TOUR tonight in California. “What a relief to meet you. We already knew each other from before, but now it feels like a whole new level of friendship. I’m going to confess something to you. I was in a relationship where that person didn’t like celebrating his birthday with me. And that always seemed strange to me, because who wouldn’t want to spend that date with the person they are with? The most curious thing is that this happened every year. There was always a different excuse. Over time, I started to notice this pattern and kind of got used to it, but it still bothered me. To me, even if someone doesn’t like birthdays, it should still be important to want to share that moment with the person by your side. The most striking moment was that, in the last year, we already had everything ready to travel and celebrate in another part of the world, but it didn’t end up happening. This made me realize even more how much it had already become a pattern of lack of consideration.”

Karol G talks about a relationship in which her partner did not like celebrating his birthday with her and, every year, found an excuse to avoid spending that date with her. She shares this during a confession at the Confessionario of the LUX TOUR tonight in California. “What a relief to meet you. We already knew each other from before, but now it feels like a whole new level of friendship. I’m going to confess something to you. I was in a relationship where that person didn’t like celebrating his birthday with me. And that always seemed strange to me, because who wouldn’t want to spend that date with the person they are with? The most curious thing is that this happened every year. There was always a different excuse. Over time, I started to notice this pattern and kind of got used to it, but it still bothered me. To me, even if someone doesn’t like birthdays, it should still be important to want to share that moment with the person by your side. The most striking moment was that, in the last year, we already had everything ready to travel and celebrate in another part of the world, but it didn’t end up happening. This made me realize even more how much it had already become a pattern of lack of consideration.”

ROSALÍA UPDATE

1,566,742 views • 24 days ago

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.

Big Brain AI

366,029 views • 3 months ago

ASMONGOLD BREAKS DOWN THE UPDATE: If she had driven right over him and turned him into gory paste you wouldn't even know his name. For example, almost none of you knew there had been an officer who had been drug the length of a football field by his arm. Think about that. He had been physically maimed and as far as the Press was concerned it went into and out of the news cycle with all the hard hitting coverage of a sunny day in springtime. Meaning if she had driven right over him and crushed him it would've played out the same way this time. Of course what Asmon is saying here is accurate... but few people understand how insidious the players at work here really are. We were lucky this man was, for all intents and purposes, like Rittenhouse before him, a perfect victim. Despite this he's still being described as a murderer by people who would chortle with glee if he'd been sucked underneath the wheels of that SUV..

ASMONGOLD BREAKS DOWN THE UPDATE: If she had driven right over him and turned him into gory paste you wouldn't even know his name. For example, almost none of you knew there had been an officer who had been drug the length of a football field by his arm. Think about that. He had been physically maimed and as far as the Press was concerned it went into and out of the news cycle with all the hard hitting coverage of a sunny day in springtime. Meaning if she had driven right over him and crushed him it would've played out the same way this time. Of course what Asmon is saying here is accurate... but few people understand how insidious the players at work here really are. We were lucky this man was, for all intents and purposes, like Rittenhouse before him, a perfect victim. Despite this he's still being described as a murderer by people who would chortle with glee if he'd been sucked underneath the wheels of that SUV..

BLACK DUMPLING™

169,505 views • 6 months ago

TikTok's Revolutionary Idea: Making Discovery a Meritocracy On E212, coatue.thomas told a story of meeting TikTok's founder and being blown away by his simple idea that changed social media forever: "When I met the founder, his view was, 'If I have a great piece of content, how can I have it be shared?'" "If you share it on Instagram, the only way people see it is if you had a lot of followers." "And so he just had a really simple idea and he said, 'What if I take every piece of content that's uploaded into the system and I show it to at least one other user.'" "'So no matter what that content is, at least one person will see it, even if you have no followers.'" "And then based on whether that person views it or how long, I might show it to another user. And then a third, and a fourth." "And it was such a revolutionary idea and it really resonated with me at the time." "It just goes to show how we're in an idea business. And when you have a truly revolutionary idea, it can get really big." "The whole genesis of TikTok came from that really simple concept of, your content will be shown, and if people like it, it will be shown to a lot of people."

TikTok's Revolutionary Idea: Making Discovery a Meritocracy On E212, coatue.thomas told a story of meeting TikTok's founder and being blown away by his simple idea that changed social media forever: "When I met the founder, his view was, 'If I have a great piece of content, how can I have it be shared?'" "If you share it on Instagram, the only way people see it is if you had a lot of followers." "And so he just had a really simple idea and he said, 'What if I take every piece of content that's uploaded into the system and I show it to at least one other user.'" "'So no matter what that content is, at least one person will see it, even if you have no followers.'" "And then based on whether that person views it or how long, I might show it to another user. And then a third, and a fourth." "And it was such a revolutionary idea and it really resonated with me at the time." "It just goes to show how we're in an idea business. And when you have a truly revolutionary idea, it can get really big." "The whole genesis of TikTok came from that really simple concept of, your content will be shown, and if people like it, it will be shown to a lot of people."

The All-In Podcast

42,652 views • 1 year ago

While washing he and his girlfriend’s cars this man noticed that on the headlamps on the driver’s side in both vehicles that they were marked. Whenever his girlfriend drove the car it was marked with a “w” for woman. When she had their child with them it had a dot next to the “w” to indicate it was one child. After seeing them he found out about the when he did a little research. If this is true then it shows how elaborate and organized this is, what would you do if you saw these marks on your car?

While washing he and his girlfriend’s cars this man noticed that on the headlamps on the driver’s side in both vehicles that they were marked. Whenever his girlfriend drove the car it was marked with a “w” for woman. When she had their child with them it had a dot next to the “w” to indicate it was one child. After seeing them he found out about the when he did a little research. If this is true then it shows how elaborate and organized this is, what would you do if you saw these marks on your car?

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

2,497,861 views • 3 months ago

There’s a new claim that “essentially, all that happened was Trump got tired, took control and forced it on Netanyahu, and this is basically the same deal that could have been reached a year earlier,” with the disturbing implication, that’s horrible to say, that IDF soldiers died in vain for a cause that had already been achieved. So, let’s revisit the plans that were laid out by both the current and former American administrations to see if they match up. For example, the Biden plan from June 1, 2024, which was met with considerable enthusiasm, and was even later acknowledged as Netanyahu’s plan. I want to highlight the difference. In the first phase, the IDF should have already pulled back to roughly its current position, and then it was just about releasing humanitarian hostages. As if not all of them are “humanitarian.” Then it transitioned to discussing the release of living hostages. In this phase, the IDF would withdraw from all of Gaza, until the last centimetre, while all the dead hostages remain in Gaza. It’s as different as day and night. Here, everyone is returning, including the dead, and the IDF is still in half of Gaza. This isn’t just about some desire to maintain an occupation or garrison force, but rather to ensure that Hamas disarms — something that didn’t happen in the Biden proposal. So now let’s move on to the Witkoff plan, much closer to us, much better for Israel, but still different. There was talk of releasing half of the dead hostages, but then a temporary ceasefire for two months of negotiations to end the war, and then the IDF would withdraw from more places than it is now, and there would be a guarantee that the war would not be renewed. Once again, we see that there was no connection between the IDF remaining on the ground and the promise that Hamas would disarm, especially while some of the hostages are still there. The greatness of this outline is this issue. I also want to say something general about the matter of responsibility. As ridiculous as it was on October 7 and afterwards to hear from Netanyahu’s supporters that the one who is to blame is the IDF chief of staff, the Shin Bet chief, the attorney general and the Military Advocate General, and that Netanyahu has no part in it — it’s as ridiculous as it is that now they’re saying, “Thank you Trump and thank you Nitzan Alon, and thank you to all of them and to the Qatari prime minister, and Netanyahu and Ron Dermer have nothing to do with it at all.” Indeed, Netanyahu had a very large part in the failure of October 7, and he also has a very large part together with Dermer in this deal. By the way, how does that connect to what Kushner said tonight in Egypt? He said that both the prime minister and Dermer made very big compromises and took risks to see the end of the war. I would like to make a suggestion. Once upon a time, when there was only one channel and people didn’t like the commentators, they said, “Watch the game without the commentary.” I say, let’s watch Trump and Netanyahu’s move without the commentary, because there are a lot of conversations, and this and that, and slander, and sometimes even quotes, but in practice there has never been a president and a prime minister who acted like this, and the results are evident from Iran, through the Golan Heights, through the embassy and now Gaza.

There’s a new claim that “essentially, all that happened was Trump got tired, took control and forced it on Netanyahu, and this is basically the same deal that could have been reached a year earlier,” with the disturbing implication, that’s horrible to say, that IDF soldiers died in vain for a cause that had already been achieved. So, let’s revisit the plans that were laid out by both the current and former American administrations to see if they match up. For example, the Biden plan from June 1, 2024, which was met with considerable enthusiasm, and was even later acknowledged as Netanyahu’s plan. I want to highlight the difference. In the first phase, the IDF should have already pulled back to roughly its current position, and then it was just about releasing humanitarian hostages. As if not all of them are “humanitarian.” Then it transitioned to discussing the release of living hostages. In this phase, the IDF would withdraw from all of Gaza, until the last centimetre, while all the dead hostages remain in Gaza. It’s as different as day and night. Here, everyone is returning, including the dead, and the IDF is still in half of Gaza. This isn’t just about some desire to maintain an occupation or garrison force, but rather to ensure that Hamas disarms — something that didn’t happen in the Biden proposal. So now let’s move on to the Witkoff plan, much closer to us, much better for Israel, but still different. There was talk of releasing half of the dead hostages, but then a temporary ceasefire for two months of negotiations to end the war, and then the IDF would withdraw from more places than it is now, and there would be a guarantee that the war would not be renewed. Once again, we see that there was no connection between the IDF remaining on the ground and the promise that Hamas would disarm, especially while some of the hostages are still there. The greatness of this outline is this issue. I also want to say something general about the matter of responsibility. As ridiculous as it was on October 7 and afterwards to hear from Netanyahu’s supporters that the one who is to blame is the IDF chief of staff, the Shin Bet chief, the attorney general and the Military Advocate General, and that Netanyahu has no part in it — it’s as ridiculous as it is that now they’re saying, “Thank you Trump and thank you Nitzan Alon, and thank you to all of them and to the Qatari prime minister, and Netanyahu and Ron Dermer have nothing to do with it at all.” Indeed, Netanyahu had a very large part in the failure of October 7, and he also has a very large part together with Dermer in this deal. By the way, how does that connect to what Kushner said tonight in Egypt? He said that both the prime minister and Dermer made very big compromises and took risks to see the end of the war. I would like to make a suggestion. Once upon a time, when there was only one channel and people didn’t like the commentators, they said, “Watch the game without the commentary.” I say, let’s watch Trump and Netanyahu’s move without the commentary, because there are a lot of conversations, and this and that, and slander, and sometimes even quotes, but in practice there has never been a president and a prime minister who acted like this, and the results are evident from Iran, through the Golan Heights, through the embassy and now Gaza.

Amit Segal

298,292 views • 9 months ago

Indyref 2014 was rigged, most of it happened in plain sight. Sara Salyers of Salvo.Scot explains how. "In a consultative referendum, an opinion poll, there's no contract, there's no actual requirement, which David Cameron did point out, to abide by the results of that referendum. "So they did not then set it up in the way that a proper constitutional referendum would have been set up according to international standards to begin with. "The people who would be voting in that referendum would be people who had a stake in the future of the nation whose future they were voting on. "We had every boy and his dog able to vote. So people who hadn't been in Scotland for, you know, more than maybe a few months, basically, all these people had a vote on the future of Scotland as an independent nation, which is, if you just think about it, think how absurd that is, people with no stake. "Now, had that been serious, you know, a real referendum, that we were going to be allowed to have a chance of winning, they would have applied international standards, they would have used something like the new Caledonia franchise, which is a really solid. "And it doesn't exclude people who've moved into Scotland. It isn't just ethnic Scots, it's, you know, it's people who have a genuine stake, interest in the future of that nation. That franchise, it shouldn't be a council... local council franchise, it should be one that reflects the stakeholders, who are the real stakeholders, and that's what that needs to be. That it wasn't, should have told us everything. "Then we had the Edinburgh Agreement, and the Edinburgh Agreement said that there was a Purdah period, during which no new policies were to be announced. There was no... you know, all the campaigning would go on and then it stops. You can rehearse the arguments and everything that's been put forward, but nothing new should be introduced. "Well, we got 'The Vow', 'Devo Max', less than two days before the vote. 'If you vote No, you will get this'. Of course, that did not deliver, but it completely breached the Edinburgh Agreement. "Well, what the sad afterwards was, 'Well, there's no evidence that it altered people's minds. Of course it did. Of course it told people, 'Well, if you don't want to go all the way to independence, we could have,' I think Gordon Brown said, 'it would be almost a federal relationship,' you know, blah, blah, blah. "And that that meant people could say, 'Well, if we're afraid of what will happen, afraid of being pulled out of the European Union, we'd like a lot more power, but we were not sure about a total break...'. Well, of course, then they voted No. "Then you also had the media. And in a properly run referendum, according to international rules, you make sure it's 50-50, that people get both sides of the argument, absolutely equally. "There was a full study done, and it took one guy, Glasgow University lecturer in particular, to go through everything and come back and say, 'Look, it was over 70%, 'No' media coverage', and that also breaches international standards. "So we didn't have any possibility of a fair referendum. And that wasn't coincidental. And had there been any kind of vote tampering, say, with the postal vote, because it was only consultative and there was no actual, therefore fraud, it makes it nearly impossible to get a judicial review. "And there is no way, no matter what they have said, no matter what they have told us, 'Get a majority of members elected to Westminster' and that 'You don't need a referendum', or if 'Scotland wants to leave, then it has the right to do so'. No matter what the British State has said, that was never true." Sara Salyers on the @untribalpol @TheScotCongress

Indyref 2014 was rigged, most of it happened in plain sight. Sara Salyers of Salvo.Scot explains how. "In a consultative referendum, an opinion poll, there's no contract, there's no actual requirement, which David Cameron did point out, to abide by the results of that referendum. "So they did not then set it up in the way that a proper constitutional referendum would have been set up according to international standards to begin with. "The people who would be voting in that referendum would be people who had a stake in the future of the nation whose future they were voting on. "We had every boy and his dog able to vote. So people who hadn't been in Scotland for, you know, more than maybe a few months, basically, all these people had a vote on the future of Scotland as an independent nation, which is, if you just think about it, think how absurd that is, people with no stake. "Now, had that been serious, you know, a real referendum, that we were going to be allowed to have a chance of winning, they would have applied international standards, they would have used something like the new Caledonia franchise, which is a really solid. "And it doesn't exclude people who've moved into Scotland. It isn't just ethnic Scots, it's, you know, it's people who have a genuine stake, interest in the future of that nation. That franchise, it shouldn't be a council... local council franchise, it should be one that reflects the stakeholders, who are the real stakeholders, and that's what that needs to be. That it wasn't, should have told us everything. "Then we had the Edinburgh Agreement, and the Edinburgh Agreement said that there was a Purdah period, during which no new policies were to be announced. There was no... you know, all the campaigning would go on and then it stops. You can rehearse the arguments and everything that's been put forward, but nothing new should be introduced. "Well, we got 'The Vow', 'Devo Max', less than two days before the vote. 'If you vote No, you will get this'. Of course, that did not deliver, but it completely breached the Edinburgh Agreement. "Well, what the sad afterwards was, 'Well, there's no evidence that it altered people's minds. Of course it did. Of course it told people, 'Well, if you don't want to go all the way to independence, we could have,' I think Gordon Brown said, 'it would be almost a federal relationship,' you know, blah, blah, blah. "And that that meant people could say, 'Well, if we're afraid of what will happen, afraid of being pulled out of the European Union, we'd like a lot more power, but we were not sure about a total break...'. Well, of course, then they voted No. "Then you also had the media. And in a properly run referendum, according to international rules, you make sure it's 50-50, that people get both sides of the argument, absolutely equally. "There was a full study done, and it took one guy, Glasgow University lecturer in particular, to go through everything and come back and say, 'Look, it was over 70%, 'No' media coverage', and that also breaches international standards. "So we didn't have any possibility of a fair referendum. And that wasn't coincidental. And had there been any kind of vote tampering, say, with the postal vote, because it was only consultative and there was no actual, therefore fraud, it makes it nearly impossible to get a judicial review. "And there is no way, no matter what they have said, no matter what they have told us, 'Get a majority of members elected to Westminster' and that 'You don't need a referendum', or if 'Scotland wants to leave, then it has the right to do so'. No matter what the British State has said, that was never true." Sara Salyers on the @untribalpol @TheScotCongress

ScotNews

21,466 views • 1 year ago

Karoline Leavitt just put a reporter in her place when asked about Russia providing the Iranian regime intelligence on U.S. military assets. REPORTER: “You just said on Fox that it doesn’t really matter if Russia is giving Iran information about military assets.” “Why doesn’t it matter if the U.S. military is put in danger by Russia, and is that what the president believes as well?” LEAVITT: “What I meant, Kristen, and thank you for giving me a chance to make it very clear, is that it clearly is not making a difference with respect to the military operations in Iran.” “Because we are completely decimating them.” “As I said earlier, we’ve taken out nearly 30 of their ships.” “Their Navy has been deemed combat ineffective.” “90% reduction in ballistic missile retaliatory strikes against the United States and our Gulf Arab and partners in the region.” “So of course, we are achieving the military objectives of this operation, and that is going to continue because the United States military is the best and most lethal fighting force in the world.”

Karoline Leavitt just put a reporter in her place when asked about Russia providing the Iranian regime intelligence on U.S. military assets. REPORTER: “You just said on Fox that it doesn’t really matter if Russia is giving Iran information about military assets.” “Why doesn’t it matter if the U.S. military is put in danger by Russia, and is that what the president believes as well?” LEAVITT: “What I meant, Kristen, and thank you for giving me a chance to make it very clear, is that it clearly is not making a difference with respect to the military operations in Iran.” “Because we are completely decimating them.” “As I said earlier, we’ve taken out nearly 30 of their ships.” “Their Navy has been deemed combat ineffective.” “90% reduction in ballistic missile retaliatory strikes against the United States and our Gulf Arab and partners in the region.” “So of course, we are achieving the military objectives of this operation, and that is going to continue because the United States military is the best and most lethal fighting force in the world.”

Overton

351,233 views • 4 months ago

watching the trailer again it seems to me like chan is being given 2 options 🤔 this (the regular life where he had a normal job) or that (the life where he's rich and famous). even though he tries to choose 'this', his voice comes out all distorted and the barista insists on giving him 'that'. and even the cup that he presented as 'this' was turned so it actually read 'that'. as if he never had a choice at all and his fate was already decided for him

watching the trailer again it seems to me like chan is being given 2 options 🤔 this (the regular life where he had a normal job) or that (the life where he's rich and famous). even though he tries to choose 'this', his voice comes out all distorted and the barista insists on giving him 'that'. and even the cup that he presented as 'this' was turned so it actually read 'that'. as if he never had a choice at all and his fate was already decided for him

mina & that 🍮

79,383 views • 16 days ago

Told BBC that some voices in Iran fear that Trump just wants a deal to pacify the markets ahead of the midterms, but that he will restart the war after November. I am unconvinced. If Trump had a military option, he would use it now to WIN the war and use that win for the midterms. But the bottom line is: He doesn't have a winning military option with Iran.

Told BBC that some voices in Iran fear that Trump just wants a deal to pacify the markets ahead of the midterms, but that he will restart the war after November. I am unconvinced. If Trump had a military option, he would use it now to WIN the war and use that win for the midterms. But the bottom line is: He doesn't have a winning military option with Iran.

Trita Parsi

34,123 views • 1 month ago

Corporations that are purely AI and robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop You can think of it like how 'computer' used to be a job that humans had. You would go and get a job as a computer where you would do calculations. They had entire skyscrapers full of humans....20, 30 floors of humans...just doing calculations. Now, that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers So, you think about it: what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer. And so, really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop. It will happen very quickly

Corporations that are purely AI and robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop You can think of it like how 'computer' used to be a job that humans had. You would go and get a job as a computer where you would do calculations. They had entire skyscrapers full of humans....20, 30 floors of humans...just doing calculations. Now, that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers So, you think about it: what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer. And so, really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop. It will happen very quickly

X Freeze

16,843,319 views • 5 months ago

What the Hell is Happening at West Point? If you’re not up to speed with the recent SNAFU at West Point around Pete Hegseth's nomination, it’s worth noting. Last Wednesday, ProPublica was on the verge of publishing a bombshell report contradicting Hegseth’s claim that he had been accepted to West Point in 1999. Apparently, ProPublica had been assured by West Point – twice – that Pete had never applied for admission. But this was demonstrably untrue, and when Pete got wind of the pending story, he simply posted his acceptance letter online. Obviously, ProPublica had been misinformed by a government bureaucrat. And so, they did the only thing they could do – they killed their bombshell story that accused Pete Hegseth of lying about being accepted to West Point. What they did NOT do, however, was write a story about the bureaucrat(s) at West Point who misinformed them. The question is why? Robby Soave at Reason writes, "If ProPublica published that story, then the outlet could have taken a real victory lap: They tracked down the truth of a rumor about Hegseth's record and found out it wasn't true, despite a prestigious educational institution actively misleading them. Isn't that a story? Or is the story only important if it's damaging to Hegseth?" Charlie Cooke at National Review is more concerned with the motivations at West Point. He writes, "I find it hard to believe that West Point would deliberately lie about such a thing. I also find it hard to believe that its staff would be so lazy or inept as to screw something like this up by mistake. This was not some random inquiry; it was connected to an extremely consequential political decision and related to the reputation of a high-profile figure who, if he is accepted by the Senate, will soon occupy one of the most important jobs in the United States. How is it possible that West Point did not make one hundred percent sure that it was correct in its denial?” When I read this, I thought about Pete's book, The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free. In it, he makes it absolutely clear that bureaucrats are to blame for the mess our military has become. In fact, he calls for a wholesale restructuring of the the military, and talks at length about the absolute imperative of returning the military to the meritocracy it once was. I also thought about what he said on my podcast several months ago, and what he said he would do if here were ever in charge. A short clip is below. Obviously, I can’t prove that West Point was deliberately trying to make Pete look bad, or that ProPublica would have moved forward with their "bombshell" story had Pete not proved them wrong before publishing. I can only assure you that LOTS of bureaucrats currently employed by the US Military do NOT want to work for Pete Hegseth. And it seems equally clear that ProPublica isn't all that interested in writing stories about bureaucrats who actively and repeatedly misinform them. And that's a pity.

The Real Mike Rowe

196,889 views • 1 year ago

At least 16 U.S. military bases across the Gulf were heavily hit by Iranian missiles and drones, with servicemembers reportedly injured, killed, and lives lost across the region. As this unfolds, the Trump administration is reportedly pressuring private satellite companies to restrict images of the damaged bases from circulating publicly. The image of unquestioned American military dominance in the region has been badly shaken. If the U.S. cannot fully protect its own bases, what does that mean for allies who host American military infrastructure on their soil? It raises a further question: how many Middle Eastern and allied nations will continue to allow U.S. bases in their countries if those installations themselves are vulnerable? Brandon Weichert breaks down this major strategic miscalculation, how the war is straining the U.S. military, and if it is possibily strengthening Iran’s position as a regional power.

At least 16 U.S. military bases across the Gulf were heavily hit by Iranian missiles and drones, with servicemembers reportedly injured, killed, and lives lost across the region. As this unfolds, the Trump administration is reportedly pressuring private satellite companies to restrict images of the damaged bases from circulating publicly. The image of unquestioned American military dominance in the region has been badly shaken. If the U.S. cannot fully protect its own bases, what does that mean for allies who host American military infrastructure on their soil? It raises a further question: how many Middle Eastern and allied nations will continue to allow U.S. bases in their countries if those installations themselves are vulnerable? Brandon Weichert breaks down this major strategic miscalculation, how the war is straining the U.S. military, and if it is possibily strengthening Iran’s position as a regional power.

Ben Swann

20,736 views • 2 months ago

I just called the number on the sign and was told by the first person that spoke with me that the homes were being sold to the public but you had to be Sikh to buy them. The second person, likely Manheet Singh of Juno Homes, was quick to correct the record and said the homes were open to anyone. He said the sign called it a “Sikh community” because it included a temple, and that there was a misunderstanding. I told him if a community with a Christian church in the center advertised itself as a “Christian community” it would skirt the line (and likely violate the Fair Housing Act). He argued Mormons build communities and prefer their own religion but allow others, and that the Sikh community is about believing in one God and is open to all. Under normal circumstances I would have identified myself as a member of the media but I called anonymously to ensure I received more honest answers. It was announced on the line before I started recording.

I just called the number on the sign and was told by the first person that spoke with me that the homes were being sold to the public but you had to be Sikh to buy them. The second person, likely Manheet Singh of Juno Homes, was quick to correct the record and said the homes were open to anyone. He said the sign called it a “Sikh community” because it included a temple, and that there was a misunderstanding. I told him if a community with a Christian church in the center advertised itself as a “Christian community” it would skirt the line (and likely violate the Fair Housing Act). He argued Mormons build communities and prefer their own religion but allow others, and that the Sikh community is about believing in one God and is open to all. Under normal circumstances I would have identified myself as a member of the media but I called anonymously to ensure I received more honest answers. It was announced on the line before I started recording.

Jacob Stewart

34,627 views • 21 days ago

#BREAKING: Legendary #Maddow: “Before the White House said anything about it, we learned this weekend from a Kremlin announcement, that Donald Trump apparently had an HOUR AND A HALF long call with Vladimir Putin this weekend. That’s apparently how the President of the United States celebrated the 250th anniversary of the founding of our country. He had a long, undisclosed, secret phone call with a foreign dictator he has weird slavish devotion to, and who helped him get elected to the White House in the first place. Again, it was the Kremlin that reported first on the existence of the call. After the Kremlin reported that the call had happened, not the White House, we had to hear it from Russia, Trump was then asked about it by reporters and he did then admit today that he’d had the call with Putin right before heading off to NATO. Huh, who called who?”🤦‍♀️

#BREAKING: Legendary #Maddow: “Before the White House said anything about it, we learned this weekend from a Kremlin announcement, that Donald Trump apparently had an HOUR AND A HALF long call with Vladimir Putin this weekend. That’s apparently how the President of the United States celebrated the 250th anniversary of the founding of our country. He had a long, undisclosed, secret phone call with a foreign dictator he has weird slavish devotion to, and who helped him get elected to the White House in the first place. Again, it was the Kremlin that reported first on the existence of the call. After the Kremlin reported that the call had happened, not the White House, we had to hear it from Russia, Trump was then asked about it by reporters and he did then admit today that he’d had the call with Putin right before heading off to NATO. Huh, who called who?”🤦‍♀️

Emoluments Clause

152,805 views • 16 days ago

#jinxmanhwa my opinion calmly on this: 1. These people who are so extremely critical forget that jinx is a sports story, that it happens in a "realistic" context, jinx is not an omegaverse, nor a story with witchcraft, magic or portals to other universes, if you expected the jinx to be something mystical and magical go read a fantasy story. 2. in my opinion, it is a good justification for the story, jaekyung has always been an obsessive character, many had already deduced that the jinx was going to be related to these "rituals" that athletes use, and it was obvious that it was going to be related to jaekyung's insomnia, since it has been a very important element in the story since the beginning. 3. No, it couldn't have been anyone else besides Kim Dan, if this were the case, he would have continued having sex with anyone after Dan left, Dan has always been the exception for jaekyung. 4. Why am I tweeting about a video from that specific TikTok account? Because I'm sure many of the Jinx haters share that opinion, and it was the first negative video I saw.

#jinxmanhwa my opinion calmly on this: 1. These people who are so extremely critical forget that jinx is a sports story, that it happens in a "realistic" context, jinx is not an omegaverse, nor a story with witchcraft, magic or portals to other universes, if you expected the jinx to be something mystical and magical go read a fantasy story. 2. in my opinion, it is a good justification for the story, jaekyung has always been an obsessive character, many had already deduced that the jinx was going to be related to these "rituals" that athletes use, and it was obvious that it was going to be related to jaekyung's insomnia, since it has been a very important element in the story since the beginning. 3. No, it couldn't have been anyone else besides Kim Dan, if this were the case, he would have continued having sex with anyone after Dan left, Dan has always been the exception for jaekyung. 4. Why am I tweeting about a video from that specific TikTok account? Because I'm sure many of the Jinx haters share that opinion, and it was the first negative video I saw.

Ccyellow

16,869 views • 11 months ago