Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

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

Legitimate question.

𝕊𝔸𝕃𝕋𝕐 𝔾𝕀ℝ𝕃

75,177 subscribers

132,895 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

The Logan Act exists for a reason. If there’s a legitimate question about whether it applies, it deserves a full investigation.

The Logan Act exists for a reason. If there’s a legitimate question about whether it applies, it deserves a full investigation.

Gunther Eagleman™

179,495 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Hawk Tuah girl went viral literally for just having a drink and answering a question with her legitimate semi-buzzed opinion. Good for her. Free speech. Agreed?

Hawk Tuah girl went viral literally for just having a drink and answering a question with her legitimate semi-buzzed opinion. Good for her. Free speech. Agreed?

Ed Krassenstein

73,700 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

This is not bait.. this is a legitimate question.. and as a Big12 further it PAINS me to ask this.. but are there even 50 Cincinnati fans at this Nebraska game?

This is not bait.. this is a legitimate question.. and as a Big12 further it PAINS me to ask this.. but are there even 50 Cincinnati fans at this Nebraska game?

Sherman Young Jr.

1,285,819 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

This is corruption at its finest! 🚨🔥 Elizabeth Warren was confronted by a reporter asking her how she got a $12M networth on a $200K yearly salary? It's a legitimate question. She didn't answer it of course!

This is corruption at its finest! 🚨🔥 Elizabeth Warren was confronted by a reporter asking her how she got a $12M networth on a $200K yearly salary? It's a legitimate question. She didn't answer it of course!

@LynneK

21,896 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

😂 Brad Pitt Sued by Penis Cream Company in Wild Lawsuit. According to reports, a Malibu-based skincare brand called Beau D. (known for its luxury “D. Cream” — yes, that kind) is suing Brad Pitt’s French skincare line Beau Domaine. The company claims Pitt’s rebrand from Le Domaine to Beau Domaine is too similar to their name and is causing confusion. The growing question is: Is this a legitimate trademark beef or just a ridiculous stretch? Who’s more in the right here? Don’t hold back with your comments! (Video: AI)

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸

35,533 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

We should nuke the filibuster to pass the SAVE America Act. If we don’t have the votes to nuke the filibuster, we should put the SAVE America Act on the floor and debate it until it passes, requiring filibustering senators to speak and making clear that if they stop speaking, we can “call the question” and pass it with a simple majority. If for some reason we can’t do that—and to be clear, there’s no legitimate reason why we can’t—then we should use budget reconciliation to pass it. But not passing the SAVE America Act is not an option. Neither is taking a lengthy recess without doing any of the above.

We should nuke the filibuster to pass the SAVE America Act. If we don’t have the votes to nuke the filibuster, we should put the SAVE America Act on the floor and debate it until it passes, requiring filibustering senators to speak and making clear that if they stop speaking, we can “call the question” and pass it with a simple majority. If for some reason we can’t do that—and to be clear, there’s no legitimate reason why we can’t—then we should use budget reconciliation to pass it. But not passing the SAVE America Act is not an option. Neither is taking a lengthy recess without doing any of the above.

Mike Lee

166,287 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

California State Senator Scott Wiener, a creepy guy who frequents kink events, is confronted by Nick Shirley about California’s unconstitutional “Stop Nick Shirley Act” that attempts to criminalize journalists for exposing fraud. Shirley: “Can you give us your opinion really quick on AB 2624?” Wiener: “I think you’re a psycho scam artist. So, have a good day.” Shirley: “Look at how they just run away. These guys are fools… It would suck to have the last name ‘Wiener’ anyway.” 😂 If AB 2624 was something to be proud of, these Democrat politicians would be championing it. Instead, they either ignore questions, plead ignorance, or make ad hominem attacks. Shirley asked Wiener a legitimate question. Wiener acted like he’s got something evil to hide. (nickshirleyy on 𝕏)

California State Senator Scott Wiener, a creepy guy who frequents kink events, is confronted by Nick Shirley about California’s unconstitutional “Stop Nick Shirley Act” that attempts to criminalize journalists for exposing fraud. Shirley: “Can you give us your opinion really quick on AB 2624?” Wiener: “I think you’re a psycho scam artist. So, have a good day.” Shirley: “Look at how they just run away. These guys are fools… It would suck to have the last name ‘Wiener’ anyway.” 😂 If AB 2624 was something to be proud of, these Democrat politicians would be championing it. Instead, they either ignore questions, plead ignorance, or make ad hominem attacks. Shirley asked Wiener a legitimate question. Wiener acted like he’s got something evil to hide. (nickshirleyy on 𝕏)

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸

532,745 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

There is more than enough to criticise about Donald Trump without misquoting him. In this instance, he did not say that the Prime Minister of Pakistan would have died without his involvement. He said that ‘35 million people’ would have died, and that this was conveyed to him by the Pakistani Prime Minister. That is very different from how many mainstream Indian journalists and reporters are presenting it, which misstates what was actually said. One may question the accuracy, the exaggeration, or the framing of what was said. However, altering the wording entirely only weakens legitimate criticism. Disagreement does not justify inaccuracy. If we want higher standards in public life, we must also apply them in our own reporting and commentary, even when the subject is someone we strongly disagree with.

There is more than enough to criticise about Donald Trump without misquoting him. In this instance, he did not say that the Prime Minister of Pakistan would have died without his involvement. He said that ‘35 million people’ would have died, and that this was conveyed to him by the Pakistani Prime Minister. That is very different from how many mainstream Indian journalists and reporters are presenting it, which misstates what was actually said. One may question the accuracy, the exaggeration, or the framing of what was said. However, altering the wording entirely only weakens legitimate criticism. Disagreement does not justify inaccuracy. If we want higher standards in public life, we must also apply them in our own reporting and commentary, even when the subject is someone we strongly disagree with.

Sonam Mahajan

39,316 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

🇮🇷🇺🇸 The ceasefire is less than 24 hours old and it's already being torn apart over Lebanon... Here's the situation. Pakistan announced the ceasefire applied "everywhere, including Lebanon." Iran agreed on that basis. Then Netanyahu called Trump minutes before the announcement and got him to agree Lebanon was excluded. The White House never clarified publicly until it was too late. Vance called it a "legitimate misunderstanding." That's a generous way of describing what happened. Iran entered a ceasefire believing Lebanon was included. Israel entered knowing it wasn't. Someone either miscommunicated or deliberately let Iran sign a deal under false assumptions. The result: Israel launched its largest strike on Lebanon since the war began. Iran is now threatening to withdraw from Saturday's talks and close Hormuz again. Araghchi put it plainly: "The U.S. must choose. Ceasefire or continued war via Israel. It cannot have both." Egypt accused Israel of a "premeditated" attempt to undermine the truce. Iranian news agencies report oil tankers in Hormuz were stopped after the Lebanon strikes. Vance says Israel "offered to check themselves a little bit" going forward. If Iran pulls out over Lebanon, he said, "that would be dumb but that's their choice." This is exactly the pattern I've tracked for 44 days. Every time peace gets close, Israel fills the gap with bombs. The question has always been whether Trump controls Netanyahu or Netanyahu controls Trump. The phone call minutes before the ceasefire announcement answered that question. Source: Axios

🇮🇷🇺🇸 The ceasefire is less than 24 hours old and it's already being torn apart over Lebanon... Here's the situation. Pakistan announced the ceasefire applied "everywhere, including Lebanon." Iran agreed on that basis. Then Netanyahu called Trump minutes before the announcement and got him to agree Lebanon was excluded. The White House never clarified publicly until it was too late. Vance called it a "legitimate misunderstanding." That's a generous way of describing what happened. Iran entered a ceasefire believing Lebanon was included. Israel entered knowing it wasn't. Someone either miscommunicated or deliberately let Iran sign a deal under false assumptions. The result: Israel launched its largest strike on Lebanon since the war began. Iran is now threatening to withdraw from Saturday's talks and close Hormuz again. Araghchi put it plainly: "The U.S. must choose. Ceasefire or continued war via Israel. It cannot have both." Egypt accused Israel of a "premeditated" attempt to undermine the truce. Iranian news agencies report oil tankers in Hormuz were stopped after the Lebanon strikes. Vance says Israel "offered to check themselves a little bit" going forward. If Iran pulls out over Lebanon, he said, "that would be dumb but that's their choice." This is exactly the pattern I've tracked for 44 days. Every time peace gets close, Israel fills the gap with bombs. The question has always been whether Trump controls Netanyahu or Netanyahu controls Trump. The phone call minutes before the ceasefire announcement answered that question. Source: Axios

Mario Nawfal

1,277,095 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

📜 Lavrov just accidentally destroyed Russia’s own legitimacy “If an agreement is signed by people whose legitimacy is uncertain, their successors may question it,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, referring to President Zelenskyi. Let’s pause here. Because in trying to undermine Ukraine, Lavrov just undermined the entire Russian state. If legitimacy determines the weight of international agreements, then Russia has no legal standing left. Let’s review: ◾ Putin has violated the Russian constitution by clinging to power beyond two terms, rewriting laws to suit himself. ◾ Elections in Russia are a performance — opposition jailed, media silenced, ballots rigged. ◾ The Kremlin staged illegal referenda in occupied Ukrainian territories — territories where they had no right to be, and where even the idea of “voting” under occupation is obscene. ◾ Russia has annexed land through war crimes. And yet it claims to “uphold law”? So when Lavrov questions Zelenskyi’s legitimacy — a president elected in free, democratic elections recognized by the entire world — he’s not making a legal argument. He’s projecting Russia’s own collapse of legality onto others. This is the classic tactic of dictatorships: accuse your enemy of your own sins. But in doing so, Lavrov just admitted that any future deals with Russia can be voided too — because their own system is built on fraud, violence, and constitutional rot. In other words: If agreements are only valid when leaders are legitimate — then no treaty with Russia is worth the paper it’s printed on. #Ukraine #Russia #Russians

📜 Lavrov just accidentally destroyed Russia’s own legitimacy “If an agreement is signed by people whose legitimacy is uncertain, their successors may question it,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, referring to President Zelenskyi. Let’s pause here. Because in trying to undermine Ukraine, Lavrov just undermined the entire Russian state. If legitimacy determines the weight of international agreements, then Russia has no legal standing left. Let’s review: ◾ Putin has violated the Russian constitution by clinging to power beyond two terms, rewriting laws to suit himself. ◾ Elections in Russia are a performance — opposition jailed, media silenced, ballots rigged. ◾ The Kremlin staged illegal referenda in occupied Ukrainian territories — territories where they had no right to be, and where even the idea of “voting” under occupation is obscene. ◾ Russia has annexed land through war crimes. And yet it claims to “uphold law”? So when Lavrov questions Zelenskyi’s legitimacy — a president elected in free, democratic elections recognized by the entire world — he’s not making a legal argument. He’s projecting Russia’s own collapse of legality onto others. This is the classic tactic of dictatorships: accuse your enemy of your own sins. But in doing so, Lavrov just admitted that any future deals with Russia can be voided too — because their own system is built on fraud, violence, and constitutional rot. In other words: If agreements are only valid when leaders are legitimate — then no treaty with Russia is worth the paper it’s printed on. #Ukraine #Russia #Russians

Devana 🇺🇦

79,547 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

$There is a moment in revolutions- a precise and historically recognizable sweet spot- when an old, brutal, and hardened regime still deploys its forces, yet something breaks in its resolve. You can sense it, and then the public senses it: fear has shifted sides. The oppressors are no longer as certain as they once were in using force. They cannot compete with sheer numbers, with masses filling the streets. Crucially, their own men begin to hesitate. Security forces grow reluctant to shoot at demonstrators; many have family members among them, or doubt that the regime they are defending will survive. This dynamic is well documented across revolutionary cases. In Iran in 1978–79, the Shah’s regime retained overwhelming military superiority, yet its paralysis came from fractured loyalty within the armed forces and police. In Eastern Europe in 1989, regimes collapsed not because protesters defeated the state militarily, but because security elites lost confidence that repression would restore control - most famously in Berlin Wall’s fall, when orders were issued but no one was willing to enforce them. Similar patterns appeared during the early stages of the Arab uprisings, especially in Tunisia and Egypt, where the army’s refusal to fully suppress mass protests proved decisive. That moment is also when regimes begin to change their language. They make offers. They issue statements acknowledging the “legitimate concerns” of protesters or opposition figures. They float proposals for dialogue or negotiations. Far from signaling strength, these shifts repeatedly mark the point at which a revolutionary situation reaches its peak. Such gestures often confirm what protesters already suspect: that the regime’s primary tools, fear and violance, are no longer functioning. That the state is dying. Political science research on authoritarian breakdown supports this pattern. Revolutions rarely succeed because of popular mobilization alone; they succeed when coercive institutions fragment. Once uncertainty spreads within the security apparatus the regime’s collapse becomes a question of timing. The Islamic Republic still possesses formidable repressive capacity. Yet the signals- hesitation, mixed messaging, demonstration of fear by cutting internet- suggest a leadership aware that it may no longer be able to rely on obedience. Historically, that awareness is one of the clearest indicators that an authoritarian system is entering its most dangerous and potentially decisive phase. It does feel very close.$

There is a moment in revolutions- a precise and historically recognizable sweet spot- when an old, brutal, and hardened regime still deploys its forces, yet something breaks in its resolve. You can sense it, and then the public senses it: fear has shifted sides. The oppressors are no longer as certain as they once were in using force. They cannot compete with sheer numbers, with masses filling the streets. Crucially, their own men begin to hesitate. Security forces grow reluctant to shoot at demonstrators; many have family members among them, or doubt that the regime they are defending will survive. This dynamic is well documented across revolutionary cases. In Iran in 1978–79, the Shah’s regime retained overwhelming military superiority, yet its paralysis came from fractured loyalty within the armed forces and police. In Eastern Europe in 1989, regimes collapsed not because protesters defeated the state militarily, but because security elites lost confidence that repression would restore control - most famously in Berlin Wall’s fall, when orders were issued but no one was willing to enforce them. Similar patterns appeared during the early stages of the Arab uprisings, especially in Tunisia and Egypt, where the army’s refusal to fully suppress mass protests proved decisive. That moment is also when regimes begin to change their language. They make offers. They issue statements acknowledging the “legitimate concerns” of protesters or opposition figures. They float proposals for dialogue or negotiations. Far from signaling strength, these shifts repeatedly mark the point at which a revolutionary situation reaches its peak. Such gestures often confirm what protesters already suspect: that the regime’s primary tools, fear and violance, are no longer functioning. That the state is dying. Political science research on authoritarian breakdown supports this pattern. Revolutions rarely succeed because of popular mobilization alone; they succeed when coercive institutions fragment. Once uncertainty spreads within the security apparatus the regime’s collapse becomes a question of timing. The Islamic Republic still possesses formidable repressive capacity. Yet the signals- hesitation, mixed messaging, demonstration of fear by cutting internet- suggest a leadership aware that it may no longer be able to rely on obedience. Historically, that awareness is one of the clearest indicators that an authoritarian system is entering its most dangerous and potentially decisive phase. It does feel very close.

נדב איל Nadav Eyal

618,586 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🧐 At this point, Billboard's latest "Top 50 Songs of 2026 So Far" list feels less like an objective ranking and more like another example of the music industry and media attempting to minimize Drake's success. Let's be serious for a second. Drake released a No. 1 album in 2026, generated some of the biggest streaming numbers of the year, dominated online conversations, and continued to be one of the most commercially successful artists in music. Yet somehow Billboard couldn't find room for any of the biggest records from that project inside the Top 10. But an unreleased Jay-Z freestyle from the Roots Picnic landed at No. 7. Make it make sense. This wasn't even an official single. It wasn't commercially released. It wasn't a chart-dominating record. It wasn't a song fans were streaming for months. It was a basic freestyle performance that generated a few headlines because people were debating who Jay-Z was taking shots at. Meanwhile, Drake's first appearance on the list doesn't arrive until No. 18 with "Shabang." And what makes it even more interesting is Billboard's write up itself. Instead of simply explaining why the freestyle ranked so highly, the article almost reads like it was written specifically to elevate Jay-Z while taking subtle shots at Drake. 💬 “Jigga had everyone talking about who he dissed and why for like two weeks straight.” 💬 “Now we wait and see what Drake has to say about some of the jabs sent his way.” The obvious question is: 🤔 Since when did two weeks of social media discussion become more important than actual chart performance, streaming numbers, sales, and commercial impact? Because if cultural conversation is now the standard, Drake has been one of the most discussed artists in music all year. If commercial success is the standard, Drake should be much higher. If streaming numbers are the standard, Drake should be much higher. If chart performance is the standard, Drake should be much higher. So what exactly is the standard? That's why many fans continue to believe there is an effort within parts of the industry and media to downplay Drake's accomplishments. Every time Drake breaks records, the conversation becomes about somebody else. Every time Drake has a successful release, the focus shifts to a narrative. Every time Drake reaches another milestone, there seems to be an attempt to explain away the achievement instead of simply acknowledging it. And this ranking feels like another example. An unreleased freestyle being placed ahead of records from one of the biggest artists of the year isn't just questionable it raises legitimate questions about whether these lists are actually based on music or whether they're being influenced by industry relationships, personal preferences, and predetermined narratives. Of course, Billboard is entitled to its opinion. But when a No. 1 Drake album struggles to place songs in the Top 10 while a freestyle performance is treated like one of the defining records of the year, fans are naturally going to question the credibility of the ranking. 💭 “To some Drake fans, moments like this fuel the belief that there’s an industry network of gatekeepers whether it’s powerful media figures, executives, or influential artists who consistently seem to move in lockstep whenever Drake is the target. Seeing an unreleased Jay-Z freestyle ranked above songs from a No. 1 Drake album only adds to that perception. Some supporters even describe it as a ‘secret society’ mentality, where certain media outlets and industry power players appear quick to elevate narratives that benefit Jay-Z and others while simultaneously downplaying Drake’s accomplishments. Whether that’s actually happening or not is up for debate, but rankings like this are exactly why those conversations continue.

🧐 At this point, Billboard's latest "Top 50 Songs of 2026 So Far" list feels less like an objective ranking and more like another example of the music industry and media attempting to minimize Drake's success. Let's be serious for a second. Drake released a No. 1 album in 2026, generated some of the biggest streaming numbers of the year, dominated online conversations, and continued to be one of the most commercially successful artists in music. Yet somehow Billboard couldn't find room for any of the biggest records from that project inside the Top 10. But an unreleased Jay-Z freestyle from the Roots Picnic landed at No. 7. Make it make sense. This wasn't even an official single. It wasn't commercially released. It wasn't a chart-dominating record. It wasn't a song fans were streaming for months. It was a basic freestyle performance that generated a few headlines because people were debating who Jay-Z was taking shots at. Meanwhile, Drake's first appearance on the list doesn't arrive until No. 18 with "Shabang." And what makes it even more interesting is Billboard's write up itself. Instead of simply explaining why the freestyle ranked so highly, the article almost reads like it was written specifically to elevate Jay-Z while taking subtle shots at Drake. 💬 “Jigga had everyone talking about who he dissed and why for like two weeks straight.” 💬 “Now we wait and see what Drake has to say about some of the jabs sent his way.” The obvious question is: 🤔 Since when did two weeks of social media discussion become more important than actual chart performance, streaming numbers, sales, and commercial impact? Because if cultural conversation is now the standard, Drake has been one of the most discussed artists in music all year. If commercial success is the standard, Drake should be much higher. If streaming numbers are the standard, Drake should be much higher. If chart performance is the standard, Drake should be much higher. So what exactly is the standard? That's why many fans continue to believe there is an effort within parts of the industry and media to downplay Drake's accomplishments. Every time Drake breaks records, the conversation becomes about somebody else. Every time Drake has a successful release, the focus shifts to a narrative. Every time Drake reaches another milestone, there seems to be an attempt to explain away the achievement instead of simply acknowledging it. And this ranking feels like another example. An unreleased freestyle being placed ahead of records from one of the biggest artists of the year isn't just questionable it raises legitimate questions about whether these lists are actually based on music or whether they're being influenced by industry relationships, personal preferences, and predetermined narratives. Of course, Billboard is entitled to its opinion. But when a No. 1 Drake album struggles to place songs in the Top 10 while a freestyle performance is treated like one of the defining records of the year, fans are naturally going to question the credibility of the ranking. 💭 “To some Drake fans, moments like this fuel the belief that there’s an industry network of gatekeepers whether it’s powerful media figures, executives, or influential artists who consistently seem to move in lockstep whenever Drake is the target. Seeing an unreleased Jay-Z freestyle ranked above songs from a No. 1 Drake album only adds to that perception. Some supporters even describe it as a ‘secret society’ mentality, where certain media outlets and industry power players appear quick to elevate narratives that benefit Jay-Z and others while simultaneously downplaying Drake’s accomplishments. Whether that’s actually happening or not is up for debate, but rankings like this are exactly why those conversations continue.

Cousin Tino ™️

78,331 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

This is the most telling clip of this entire exchange between Ro Khanna & Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Pete Hegseth. Ro: "You don't even know how we pay in terms of the missiles that hit the Iranian school." Guess who else keeps using "the Iranian school" in public messaging. Terrorists in Iran. Ro should consider going to join them since that's clearly where his loyalties lie. First of all, the expectation that a sitting Secretary of War will assign a specific dollar amount to how much an armed conflict will "cost the American people" is absurd. That's exactly what Ro does in this exchange - though of course he doesn't cite his source or explain his methodology. Still, the rhetorical "cost" must be measured in comparison with the price for maintaining the pre-conflict status quo. As The White House recently explained, "More Americans have been killed by Iran than any other terrorist regime on Earth." ( And "roughly one in every six American combat fatalities in Iraq were attributable to Iran." ( Not to mention the potential cost of allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons, considering that we now know they ALREADY have missiles that can reach most of continental Europe - including ~30 bases where ~68K 🇺🇸 troops are stationed. Ro doesn't seem to want to talk about any of that while he's trying to corner SECWAR into giving a simple answer to a complicated question that ultimately depends on how the "cost" is measured. Based on our previous exchanges here X, the part that I find most telling - and irritating - of all is the off-hand reference to the Minab school attack, though. All the rhetoric about this incident is currently based on speculative media reporting from anonymous sources. Yet the terrorist regime in Iran keeps emphasizing the incident in their public messaging because it plays well for Iran's useful idiots throughout the West - like Ro here. Even if we assume speculative media coverage is true, nothing that has been reported so far suggests a war crime was committed. At worst, it seems possible that the attack constitutes failure to take feasible precautions in the attack...which is NOT a "war crime" by any legitimate, doctrinal standard. But that doesn't stop useful idiots like Ro here from focusing on this incident AS THOUGH it were a war crime since doing so plays well in whatever bullshit public narrative he's trying to spin for the American people. Just like the terrorists in Iran keep doing...for the exact same reason. Besides, the munitions that have been employed so far have debilitated IRGCs military capabilities that the terrorists in Iran had spent decades & spent untold billions to accumulate. Ignoring this while reducing everything that has happened in the last ~2 months to "the missiles that hit the Iranian school" is just...dumb. If you look at Ro's TL right now it's clear he thinks he "schooled" SECWAR Hegseth (as Ed Krassenstein claims in a post Ro retweeted) in this exchange. In reality, all Ro did was confirm yet again why he's just another useful idiot who also happens to have a seat in Congress. I've said it before to Ro, and I'll say it again: stay in your lane. Leave LOAC analysis to Department of War 🇺🇸. And actual experts...like me.

This is the most telling clip of this entire exchange between Ro Khanna & Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Pete Hegseth. Ro: "You don't even know how we pay in terms of the missiles that hit the Iranian school." Guess who else keeps using "the Iranian school" in public messaging. Terrorists in Iran. Ro should consider going to join them since that's clearly where his loyalties lie. First of all, the expectation that a sitting Secretary of War will assign a specific dollar amount to how much an armed conflict will "cost the American people" is absurd. That's exactly what Ro does in this exchange - though of course he doesn't cite his source or explain his methodology. Still, the rhetorical "cost" must be measured in comparison with the price for maintaining the pre-conflict status quo. As The White House recently explained, "More Americans have been killed by Iran than any other terrorist regime on Earth." ( And "roughly one in every six American combat fatalities in Iraq were attributable to Iran." ( Not to mention the potential cost of allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons, considering that we now know they ALREADY have missiles that can reach most of continental Europe - including ~30 bases where ~68K 🇺🇸 troops are stationed. Ro doesn't seem to want to talk about any of that while he's trying to corner SECWAR into giving a simple answer to a complicated question that ultimately depends on how the "cost" is measured. Based on our previous exchanges here X, the part that I find most telling - and irritating - of all is the off-hand reference to the Minab school attack, though. All the rhetoric about this incident is currently based on speculative media reporting from anonymous sources. Yet the terrorist regime in Iran keeps emphasizing the incident in their public messaging because it plays well for Iran's useful idiots throughout the West - like Ro here. Even if we assume speculative media coverage is true, nothing that has been reported so far suggests a war crime was committed. At worst, it seems possible that the attack constitutes failure to take feasible precautions in the attack...which is NOT a "war crime" by any legitimate, doctrinal standard. But that doesn't stop useful idiots like Ro here from focusing on this incident AS THOUGH it were a war crime since doing so plays well in whatever bullshit public narrative he's trying to spin for the American people. Just like the terrorists in Iran keep doing...for the exact same reason. Besides, the munitions that have been employed so far have debilitated IRGCs military capabilities that the terrorists in Iran had spent decades & spent untold billions to accumulate. Ignoring this while reducing everything that has happened in the last ~2 months to "the missiles that hit the Iranian school" is just...dumb. If you look at Ro's TL right now it's clear he thinks he "schooled" SECWAR Hegseth (as Ed Krassenstein claims in a post Ro retweeted) in this exchange. In reality, all Ro did was confirm yet again why he's just another useful idiot who also happens to have a seat in Congress. I've said it before to Ro, and I'll say it again: stay in your lane. Leave LOAC analysis to Department of War 🇺🇸. And actual experts...like me.

Dr. Brian L. Cox

22,976 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

An Open Letter to the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan TD Dublin, 12 September 2026 and the Middle East, April 2024. Different locations, but the same calculated spectacle: the public burning of the American flag. Such scenes have long been associated with hostile anti-American demonstrations and extremist movements abroad. How did this conduct become normalised on the streets of Ireland during a visit by the President of the United States? Minister, This is not about whether people are entitled to oppose President Donald Trump, criticise American foreign policy or demonstrate against the United States. They plainly are. Nor is it a demand that offensive political expression be prohibited merely because many people find it repugnant. It concerns what happened when members of a masked political organisation set an American flag alight in the middle of a crowded Dublin demonstration and whether the State applied the same public-order, fire-safety and criminal-law standards that would govern any other protest. The Dublin demonstration The Irish Times reported that members of Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland appeared as a masked breakaway group dressed in black clothing and dark glasses. According to that report, the group burned an American flag, set off firecrackers, chanted against the presence of US troops at Shannon and used militant republican slogans before dispersing. Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland subsequently stated on its own X account that its members had attended the anti-Trump protest in Dublin city centre. Its post included video footage apparently showing the flag burning. This is therefore not an unattributed image or an unsupported social-media rumour. The organisation publicly placed its members at the demonstration and circulated footage of the incident. Burning a flag as an act of political expression is one question. Deliberately setting an object alight and discharging firecrackers within a tightly packed public gathering raise additional questions about public safety and public-order policing. Was the person responsible identified? Was an investigation opened? Did Gardaí assess whether members of the public were endangered? A developing pattern This incident cannot be viewed entirely in isolation. On 29 August 2026, Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland publicly claimed that its members had spray-painted the entrance of the Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin. The door and porch were marked with anti-NATO slogans and the organisation’s initials shortly before the building was due to host NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Šekerinska. That was not merely disagreement expressed through speeches, placards or lawful assembly. It was the deliberate defacement of property associated with an event the organisation opposed. The organisation has also been publicly associated with other destructive or confrontational actions involving political symbols and buildings, including the burning of flags and remembrance material, the defacement of the Royal British Legion’s Dublin headquarters and the painting-over of street signs bearing Queen Victoria’s name. These incidents display a recurring method: masked participants, militant republican imagery, the destruction of political symbols and direct action against property connected with organisations or events they oppose. Paramilitary-style presentation Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland should not casually be described as “the IRA.” The Provisional IRA is a specific unlawful organisation. AIA is a separate socialist-republican organisation founded in 2017, and I have seen no evidence establishing that AIA is itself proscribed or engaged in an armed campaign. Nevertheless, its conduct and presentation warrant serious examination. Masks, black clothing, dark glasses, disciplined group formations and militant republican language create an unmistakably paramilitary-style appearance. The organisation invokes revolutionary republican traditions, rejects the Good Friday Agreement and uses language centred upon “resistance” to institutions it describes as imperialist. That visual and rhetorical presentation appears calculated to evoke continuity with militant republicanism. It does not prove terrorism or membership of an unlawful organisation, but neither should the State pretend that the resemblance is accidental or meaningless. Political beliefs—even extreme and deeply offensive ones are protected. Criminal damage, unlawful entry, intimidation and conduct endangering the public are not transformed into protected expression merely because those responsible call them political protest. Symbols associated with terrorist organisations There is a further and increasingly disturbing context. People have been filmed walking openly through Dublin carrying flags and wearing banners or headbands apparently displaying insignia associated with Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas appears on the European Union’s terrorist list. In Hezbollah’s case, the EU designation applies specifically to its military wing. These legal distinctions matter. Displaying a flag does not, by itself, prove that its carrier is a member of, or providing material support to, either organisation. Nevertheless, these are not neutral emblems of Palestinian identity or ordinary criticism of Israeli policy. They are symbols associated with organisations involved in political violence and included within the European Union’s counterterrorism framework. Their increasingly open display in Dublin alongside masked political formations, firecrackers, flag burning and repeated property defacement raises legitimate public-order and national-security questions. The issue is not whether Gardaí should arrest someone merely for carrying an offensive flag. It is whether the symbols were correctly identified, whether the surrounding conduct crossed any criminal threshold and whether Garda intelligence is examining possible recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material support. A domestic legal question Ireland does not appear to have separately designated Hamas or Hezbollah as unlawful organisations under the domestic Offences Against the State framework, despite being bound by the European Union’s terrorist-list and financial-sanctions regime. If that understanding is incorrect, the Minister should identify the applicable domestic designation and explain its practical effect. If it is correct, another question arises: what legal consequences follow when symbols apparently associated with EU-listed terrorist organisations are displayed openly on Irish streets? Ireland should have a clear legal and operational framework for distinguishing merely offensive expression from conduct indicating recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material assistance. If Ireland relies upon EU designations for financial sanctions but has not separately designated these organisations under domestic law, the Minister should explain why and whether that distinction leaves any enforcement gap. The public is entitled to know whether Gardaí possess the powers, training and guidance necessary to respond appropriately when symbols associated with EU-listed terrorist organisations appear openly at demonstrations in Dublin. Questions requiring answers I therefore ask the Minister: • Did An Garda Síochána witness or receive reports of the American flag being burned in Dublin on 12 September? • Was the person who set the flag alight identified? • Were the discharge of firecrackers and the lighting of a fire within a crowded demonstration assessed as public-safety or public-order matters? • Were any arrests made, statements taken or investigations opened? • Did Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland notify Gardaí that its members would attend as an organised group? • Has the defacement of the IIEA building been investigated, and have any suspects been identified? • Have previous acts of property defacement publicly claimed by the organisation resulted in investigation, prosecution or sanction? • Has An Garda Síochána assessed whether AIA has any organisational, financial or personnel connections with an unlawful organisation? • Are its masked formations and repeated direct actions being monitored for possible escalation? • Have Gardaí authenticated footage apparently showing Hamas and Hezbollah symbols being displayed in Dublin? • Is there any evidence of recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material support connected with these displays? • What guidance is provided to Gardaí for distinguishing offensive but lawful expression from conduct amounting to support for terrorism? • Does the Minister believe that existing public-order, criminal-damage and counterterrorism legislation is adequate and being applied consistently? I recognise that the Minister cannot direct individual Garda investigations. Nevertheless, the Minister is responsible for justice policy and may seek assurances that the law is adequate and being applied consistently. The issue for Ireland The comparison between Dublin in September 2026 and the Middle East in April 2024 is not intended to suggest that everyone who burns an American flag is a terrorist. It demonstrates something more precise: a confrontational spectacle strongly associated with hostile anti-American movements abroad was deliberately reproduced in Ireland during a presidential visit. Ireland can protect robust political expression without becoming indifferent to organised groups concealing their identities, adopting paramilitary-style presentation, damaging property or introducing fire and firecrackers into crowded demonstrations. The question is not whether these people are entitled to dislike America, NATO or President Trump. The question is whether the State distinguishes clearly between lawful protest and dangerous or destructive conduct and whether that distinction is enforced equally, regardless of the political ideology involved. Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland has publicly placed its members at the Dublin protest and circulated footage apparently showing the flag burning. It has also claimed responsibility for defacing the IIEA entrance. The State should now explain what action, if any, followed these incidents and whether Ireland’s laws are adequate to address an organised pattern of masked, confrontational and destructive political activity. Silence is not an adequate public response. Keira Connolly

An Open Letter to the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan TD Dublin, 12 September 2026 and the Middle East, April 2024. Different locations, but the same calculated spectacle: the public burning of the American flag. Such scenes have long been associated with hostile anti-American demonstrations and extremist movements abroad. How did this conduct become normalised on the streets of Ireland during a visit by the President of the United States? Minister, This is not about whether people are entitled to oppose President Donald Trump, criticise American foreign policy or demonstrate against the United States. They plainly are. Nor is it a demand that offensive political expression be prohibited merely because many people find it repugnant. It concerns what happened when members of a masked political organisation set an American flag alight in the middle of a crowded Dublin demonstration and whether the State applied the same public-order, fire-safety and criminal-law standards that would govern any other protest. The Dublin demonstration The Irish Times reported that members of Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland appeared as a masked breakaway group dressed in black clothing and dark glasses. According to that report, the group burned an American flag, set off firecrackers, chanted against the presence of US troops at Shannon and used militant republican slogans before dispersing. Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland subsequently stated on its own X account that its members had attended the anti-Trump protest in Dublin city centre. Its post included video footage apparently showing the flag burning. This is therefore not an unattributed image or an unsupported social-media rumour. The organisation publicly placed its members at the demonstration and circulated footage of the incident. Burning a flag as an act of political expression is one question. Deliberately setting an object alight and discharging firecrackers within a tightly packed public gathering raise additional questions about public safety and public-order policing. Was the person responsible identified? Was an investigation opened? Did Gardaí assess whether members of the public were endangered? A developing pattern This incident cannot be viewed entirely in isolation. On 29 August 2026, Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland publicly claimed that its members had spray-painted the entrance of the Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin. The door and porch were marked with anti-NATO slogans and the organisation’s initials shortly before the building was due to host NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Šekerinska. That was not merely disagreement expressed through speeches, placards or lawful assembly. It was the deliberate defacement of property associated with an event the organisation opposed. The organisation has also been publicly associated with other destructive or confrontational actions involving political symbols and buildings, including the burning of flags and remembrance material, the defacement of the Royal British Legion’s Dublin headquarters and the painting-over of street signs bearing Queen Victoria’s name. These incidents display a recurring method: masked participants, militant republican imagery, the destruction of political symbols and direct action against property connected with organisations or events they oppose. Paramilitary-style presentation Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland should not casually be described as “the IRA.” The Provisional IRA is a specific unlawful organisation. AIA is a separate socialist-republican organisation founded in 2017, and I have seen no evidence establishing that AIA is itself proscribed or engaged in an armed campaign. Nevertheless, its conduct and presentation warrant serious examination. Masks, black clothing, dark glasses, disciplined group formations and militant republican language create an unmistakably paramilitary-style appearance. The organisation invokes revolutionary republican traditions, rejects the Good Friday Agreement and uses language centred upon “resistance” to institutions it describes as imperialist. That visual and rhetorical presentation appears calculated to evoke continuity with militant republicanism. It does not prove terrorism or membership of an unlawful organisation, but neither should the State pretend that the resemblance is accidental or meaningless. Political beliefs—even extreme and deeply offensive ones are protected. Criminal damage, unlawful entry, intimidation and conduct endangering the public are not transformed into protected expression merely because those responsible call them political protest. Symbols associated with terrorist organisations There is a further and increasingly disturbing context. People have been filmed walking openly through Dublin carrying flags and wearing banners or headbands apparently displaying insignia associated with Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas appears on the European Union’s terrorist list. In Hezbollah’s case, the EU designation applies specifically to its military wing. These legal distinctions matter. Displaying a flag does not, by itself, prove that its carrier is a member of, or providing material support to, either organisation. Nevertheless, these are not neutral emblems of Palestinian identity or ordinary criticism of Israeli policy. They are symbols associated with organisations involved in political violence and included within the European Union’s counterterrorism framework. Their increasingly open display in Dublin alongside masked political formations, firecrackers, flag burning and repeated property defacement raises legitimate public-order and national-security questions. The issue is not whether Gardaí should arrest someone merely for carrying an offensive flag. It is whether the symbols were correctly identified, whether the surrounding conduct crossed any criminal threshold and whether Garda intelligence is examining possible recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material support. A domestic legal question Ireland does not appear to have separately designated Hamas or Hezbollah as unlawful organisations under the domestic Offences Against the State framework, despite being bound by the European Union’s terrorist-list and financial-sanctions regime. If that understanding is incorrect, the Minister should identify the applicable domestic designation and explain its practical effect. If it is correct, another question arises: what legal consequences follow when symbols apparently associated with EU-listed terrorist organisations are displayed openly on Irish streets? Ireland should have a clear legal and operational framework for distinguishing merely offensive expression from conduct indicating recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material assistance. If Ireland relies upon EU designations for financial sanctions but has not separately designated these organisations under domestic law, the Minister should explain why and whether that distinction leaves any enforcement gap. The public is entitled to know whether Gardaí possess the powers, training and guidance necessary to respond appropriately when symbols associated with EU-listed terrorist organisations appear openly at demonstrations in Dublin. Questions requiring answers I therefore ask the Minister: • Did An Garda Síochána witness or receive reports of the American flag being burned in Dublin on 12 September? • Was the person who set the flag alight identified? • Were the discharge of firecrackers and the lighting of a fire within a crowded demonstration assessed as public-safety or public-order matters? • Were any arrests made, statements taken or investigations opened? • Did Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland notify Gardaí that its members would attend as an organised group? • Has the defacement of the IIEA building been investigated, and have any suspects been identified? • Have previous acts of property defacement publicly claimed by the organisation resulted in investigation, prosecution or sanction? • Has An Garda Síochána assessed whether AIA has any organisational, financial or personnel connections with an unlawful organisation? • Are its masked formations and repeated direct actions being monitored for possible escalation? • Have Gardaí authenticated footage apparently showing Hamas and Hezbollah symbols being displayed in Dublin? • Is there any evidence of recruitment, fundraising, coordination or material support connected with these displays? • What guidance is provided to Gardaí for distinguishing offensive but lawful expression from conduct amounting to support for terrorism? • Does the Minister believe that existing public-order, criminal-damage and counterterrorism legislation is adequate and being applied consistently? I recognise that the Minister cannot direct individual Garda investigations. Nevertheless, the Minister is responsible for justice policy and may seek assurances that the law is adequate and being applied consistently. The issue for Ireland The comparison between Dublin in September 2026 and the Middle East in April 2024 is not intended to suggest that everyone who burns an American flag is a terrorist. It demonstrates something more precise: a confrontational spectacle strongly associated with hostile anti-American movements abroad was deliberately reproduced in Ireland during a presidential visit. Ireland can protect robust political expression without becoming indifferent to organised groups concealing their identities, adopting paramilitary-style presentation, damaging property or introducing fire and firecrackers into crowded demonstrations. The question is not whether these people are entitled to dislike America, NATO or President Trump. The question is whether the State distinguishes clearly between lawful protest and dangerous or destructive conduct and whether that distinction is enforced equally, regardless of the political ideology involved. Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland has publicly placed its members at the Dublin protest and circulated footage apparently showing the flag burning. It has also claimed responsibility for defacing the IIEA entrance. The State should now explain what action, if any, followed these incidents and whether Ireland’s laws are adequate to address an organised pattern of masked, confrontational and destructive political activity. Silence is not an adequate public response. Keira Connolly

Keira Connolly

12,434 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

my 8 GB VRAM gaming laptop is absolutely going to hate me for this. but I still did it. ran a 31b dense model (Gemma 4 31b Q4) with only 8 GB VRAM last week I ran Gemma 4 26B A4B a mixture of experts model on my RTX 4060 and hit 25–28 tokens/sec using llama.cpp's new MTP support. smooth. snappy. but MoE has a secret: it only activates 4B parameters per token despite having 26B total. that's why it flies. so the real question started haunting me. what if I throw a full, no tricks, every parameter fires on every token, 31B DENSE model at the same machine? # Hardware: GPU: NVIDIA RTX 4060, 8 GB VRAM RAM: 16 GB CPU: Intel Core i7 H Laptop. Gaming. Modest. The model: gemma-4-31B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf (model's unsloth huggingface link in the comments) This is Google DeepMind's flagship dense model in the Gemma 4 family that can run on single consumer GPU. It packs a hybrid attention architecture, supports up to 256K context natively, and is QAT (Quantization Aware Training) optimized, meaning it retains far more quality than standard post training quants at the same bit depth. This is NOT the MoE. This is 31 BILLION dense parameters, every single one of them loaded. # the flags I used: -m gemma-4-31B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -cnv --spec-type draft-mtp --spec-draft-model mtp-gemma-4-31B-it.gguf --spec-draft-n-max 8 --spec-draft-p-min 0.6 -c 6000 -v Multi Token Prediction (MTP) is still active here. Separate draft GGUF required, same as the 26B setup. # Results: → Decode: ~3 tokens/sec → Prefill: ~2 tokens/sec → Context: 6000 tokens → Hardware crying quietly in the corner: yes so is 3 tps actually usable? For real time back and forth chat? Not ideal. You're not having a fluid conversation at 3 tps. but slow ≠ useless. And this is where it gets genuinely interesting. think about how senior devs actually work in a real team. But when something is architectural, deeply complex, or needs serious reasoning? they walk down the hall and escalate to the senior. That's exactly the local AI agent architecture this unlocks: → Fast orchestrator model (Gemma 4 26B MoE at 25+ tps) handles routing, simple queries, tool calls, memory. The junior dev. → Gemma 4 31B dense is the senior, called only when the fast model genuinely hits a wall. Hard multi step reasoning. Complex code generation. Deep architectural decisions. The agentic loop stays fast. Only the hard hops touch the 31B. That's a legitimate production grade local AI architecture on a budget hardware. (requires 2 8gb gpus) other workflows where 3 tps is completely fine: - overnight batch jobs. summarize documents, extract structured data, review code. Fire it off. Sleep. wake up to results. - One shot deep reasoning - Silent code audit loops, you write and test, the 31B reviews diffs and flags issues in the background between your sprints - Any workflow where output quality > output speed A few weeks ago, nobody was running a 30B+ dense model on a single consumer GPU with 8 GB VRAM. At all. Now we're doing it on an Intel i7-H gaming laptop with a NVIDIA RTX 4060, thanks to llama.cpp + QAT quants + MTP speculative drafting. Google DeepMind said the Gemma 4 31B targets "consumer GPUs and workstations." They were not exaggerating. The hardware bar to run serious frontier class models locally keeps dropping. the tools are here. the models are here. you just have to be willing to abuse your laptop a little. what workflows would you actually run on a local 3 tps 31B dense model? genuinely curious. drop it below.

my 8 GB VRAM gaming laptop is absolutely going to hate me for this. but I still did it. ran a 31b dense model (Gemma 4 31b Q4) with only 8 GB VRAM last week I ran Gemma 4 26B A4B a mixture of experts model on my RTX 4060 and hit 25–28 tokens/sec using llama.cpp's new MTP support. smooth. snappy. but MoE has a secret: it only activates 4B parameters per token despite having 26B total. that's why it flies. so the real question started haunting me. what if I throw a full, no tricks, every parameter fires on every token, 31B DENSE model at the same machine? # Hardware: GPU: NVIDIA RTX 4060, 8 GB VRAM RAM: 16 GB CPU: Intel Core i7 H Laptop. Gaming. Modest. The model: gemma-4-31B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf (model's unsloth huggingface link in the comments) This is Google DeepMind's flagship dense model in the Gemma 4 family that can run on single consumer GPU. It packs a hybrid attention architecture, supports up to 256K context natively, and is QAT (Quantization Aware Training) optimized, meaning it retains far more quality than standard post training quants at the same bit depth. This is NOT the MoE. This is 31 BILLION dense parameters, every single one of them loaded. # the flags I used: -m gemma-4-31B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -cnv --spec-type draft-mtp --spec-draft-model mtp-gemma-4-31B-it.gguf --spec-draft-n-max 8 --spec-draft-p-min 0.6 -c 6000 -v Multi Token Prediction (MTP) is still active here. Separate draft GGUF required, same as the 26B setup. # Results: → Decode: ~3 tokens/sec → Prefill: ~2 tokens/sec → Context: 6000 tokens → Hardware crying quietly in the corner: yes so is 3 tps actually usable? For real time back and forth chat? Not ideal. You're not having a fluid conversation at 3 tps. but slow ≠ useless. And this is where it gets genuinely interesting. think about how senior devs actually work in a real team. But when something is architectural, deeply complex, or needs serious reasoning? they walk down the hall and escalate to the senior. That's exactly the local AI agent architecture this unlocks: → Fast orchestrator model (Gemma 4 26B MoE at 25+ tps) handles routing, simple queries, tool calls, memory. The junior dev. → Gemma 4 31B dense is the senior, called only when the fast model genuinely hits a wall. Hard multi step reasoning. Complex code generation. Deep architectural decisions. The agentic loop stays fast. Only the hard hops touch the 31B. That's a legitimate production grade local AI architecture on a budget hardware. (requires 2 8gb gpus) other workflows where 3 tps is completely fine: - overnight batch jobs. summarize documents, extract structured data, review code. Fire it off. Sleep. wake up to results. - One shot deep reasoning - Silent code audit loops, you write and test, the 31B reviews diffs and flags issues in the background between your sprints - Any workflow where output quality > output speed A few weeks ago, nobody was running a 30B+ dense model on a single consumer GPU with 8 GB VRAM. At all. Now we're doing it on an Intel i7-H gaming laptop with a NVIDIA RTX 4060, thanks to llama.cpp + QAT quants + MTP speculative drafting. Google DeepMind said the Gemma 4 31B targets "consumer GPUs and workstations." They were not exaggerating. The hardware bar to run serious frontier class models locally keeps dropping. the tools are here. the models are here. you just have to be willing to abuse your laptop a little. what workflows would you actually run on a local 3 tps 31B dense model? genuinely curious. drop it below.

Alok

63,689 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten