Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

#ntvpresidentialdebate2025 - it was a solid debate nandala won. - bobi wine looked underprepared, relied heavily on a cheat sheet, & forgot to mention political prisoners besides kb - moderators skipped crucial issues on foreign policy, climate change, equal rights. - mabirizi & frank were economically illiterate

hillarytaylorvi's profile picture

justice hunter 🇺🇬🇺🇸

81,859 subscribers

37,317 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & PolitikBildung#ntvpresidentialdebate2025
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

~~ The Great Debate 2023 ~~ Universities are the centre for debates that change the world. Academia plays the most crucial role in generating discourse on socio-political issues and in empowering youth as informed, democratic citizens. At GC University, GC University Lahore we take this responsibility very seriously. As a prestigious university and the oldest higher education institution in Pakistan, we aim to foster a culture of intellectual exchange, harmony and tolerance by initiating "The Great Debate 2023". #TheGreatDebate2023 aims to become a vehicle of democratisation, social awareness, and meaningful political change for the country. In the first instance, #TheGreatDebate2023 will consist of four chapters, allowing for diverse perspectives and practical solutions to be explored. The first four chapters will cover four policy arenas. CHAPTER 1 Pakistan's National Economy: Identifying the Challenges and Solutions CHAPTER 2 Pakistan's Foreign Policy in the context of evolving Geopolitical Landscape, mid-July 2023 CHAPTER 3 Law and Justice Policy: Parliament and Judiciary's role in Pakistan's Macro-Political Paradigm, end-July 2023 CHAPTER 4 Climate Change and Environment Policy: Global Climate Change as Existential Threat, early-September 2023
1:07

~~ The Great Debate 2023 ~~ Universities are the centre for debates that change the world. Academia plays the most crucial role in generating discourse on socio-political issues and in empowering youth as informed, democratic citizens. At GC University, GC University Lahore we take this responsibility very seriously. As a prestigious university and the oldest higher education institution in Pakistan, we aim to foster a culture of intellectual exchange, harmony and tolerance by initiating "The Great Debate 2023". #TheGreatDebate2023 aims to become a vehicle of democratisation, social awareness, and meaningful political change for the country. In the first instance, #TheGreatDebate2023 will consist of four chapters, allowing for diverse perspectives and practical solutions to be explored. The first four chapters will cover four policy arenas. CHAPTER 1 Pakistan's National Economy: Identifying the Challenges and Solutions CHAPTER 2 Pakistan's Foreign Policy in the context of evolving Geopolitical Landscape, mid-July 2023 CHAPTER 3 Law and Justice Policy: Parliament and Judiciary's role in Pakistan's Macro-Political Paradigm, end-July 2023 CHAPTER 4 Climate Change and Environment Policy: Global Climate Change as Existential Threat, early-September 2023

Prof Dr Asghar Zaidi

25,427 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

🤔 BOBI WINE is blabbering to a straightforward question whether he supports or opposes the repressive anti-homosexuality law in uganda which he claims targets him! bobi wine describes the law as a “political weapon,” asserting that any statement he makes could be used against him. however, to me, this explanation falls short, considering his silence during the law's passage and the unanimous support for it from his/out nup party's mps. this situation begs two questions: 𝟏. is our entire nup party complicit, or there is a lack of leadership in addressing internal dissent? 𝟐. as the president of the party, what disciplinary actions has bobi wine take against the homophobic nup parliamentarians who voted for a law that is targeting him and themselves, besides firing the former leader of opposition, Mathias Mpuuga, who misled the entire opposition to vote for the anti-lgbtiq+ law? still when pressed on whether bobi wine would repeal the law if he came to power, his hesitation leaves my eyebrows fully deployed! asserting a commitment to respect all human rights without specifically recognizing lgbtiq+ rights as human rights is not enough. there cannot be true democracy without lgbtiq+rights. as bobi wine sang that “𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞,” why now cower or get excuses that whatever you say about the anti-gay law, it will be used against you? let’s walk our talk! the time has come for ugandan politicians and leaders to unequivocally oppose the egregious anti-homosexuality law. advocating for some rights while remaining ambiguous about lgbtiq+ rights is inconsistent, inexcusable, indefensible, unacceptable, and undermines the principles of democracy, justice and equality. the political exploitation of human rights issues by the opposition and the junta must end. you should either stand for lgbtiq+ rights or stand for hypocrisy, hate, and politics of appeasement. politicians, always be clear and firm on your position when it comes to the queer rights just like it is on other subjects like political and civil rights, good governance, rule of law, corruption, women’s rights, children’s rights… where you don’t blabber. otherwise the chess and checkers politicians are playing is exacerbating marginalization and plight of lgbtiq+ ugandans, which unacceptable!#standupforhumanrights #repealaha2023 #turnoffthehate
2:34

🤔 BOBI WINE is blabbering to a straightforward question whether he supports or opposes the repressive anti-homosexuality law in uganda which he claims targets him! bobi wine describes the law as a “political weapon,” asserting that any statement he makes could be used against him. however, to me, this explanation falls short, considering his silence during the law's passage and the unanimous support for it from his/out nup party's mps. this situation begs two questions: 𝟏. is our entire nup party complicit, or there is a lack of leadership in addressing internal dissent? 𝟐. as the president of the party, what disciplinary actions has bobi wine take against the homophobic nup parliamentarians who voted for a law that is targeting him and themselves, besides firing the former leader of opposition, Mathias Mpuuga, who misled the entire opposition to vote for the anti-lgbtiq+ law? still when pressed on whether bobi wine would repeal the law if he came to power, his hesitation leaves my eyebrows fully deployed! asserting a commitment to respect all human rights without specifically recognizing lgbtiq+ rights as human rights is not enough. there cannot be true democracy without lgbtiq+rights. as bobi wine sang that “𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞,” why now cower or get excuses that whatever you say about the anti-gay law, it will be used against you? let’s walk our talk! the time has come for ugandan politicians and leaders to unequivocally oppose the egregious anti-homosexuality law. advocating for some rights while remaining ambiguous about lgbtiq+ rights is inconsistent, inexcusable, indefensible, unacceptable, and undermines the principles of democracy, justice and equality. the political exploitation of human rights issues by the opposition and the junta must end. you should either stand for lgbtiq+ rights or stand for hypocrisy, hate, and politics of appeasement. politicians, always be clear and firm on your position when it comes to the queer rights just like it is on other subjects like political and civil rights, good governance, rule of law, corruption, women’s rights, children’s rights… where you don’t blabber. otherwise the chess and checkers politicians are playing is exacerbating marginalization and plight of lgbtiq+ ugandans, which unacceptable!#standupforhumanrights #repealaha2023 #turnoffthehate

justice hunter 🇺🇬🇺🇸

206,411 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) was not created by a group of scientists in the late-1980s with the intention of studying both natural and man-made impacts on the global climate system. That did not happen. Period. Why would the IPCC be needed on the scientific front when there were already government agencies like the BoM, Met Office, NASA, NCAR and NOAA working on this? The IPCC was created by bureaucrats with a vested financial and political interest to use the scientific community to build a case to regulate oil companies and control energy, in hopes they could convince the public that consumption of coal, oil and natural gas were causing harmful anthropogenic climate change. Climate change became the Goldilocks issue to move that agenda along, as it would otherwise have little support. Dr. Judith Curry (Judith Curry) explains this in her interview with John Stossel from October. 🎙️ Here’s a snippet. ✂️ 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . The origins go back to the 1980s, and the U.N. environmental program had this big environmental agenda, anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and they seized on the climate change issue as one to move their policies along. . . the policy cart was way out in front of the scientific horse from the very beginning. So, the IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change. The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. They weren’t supposed to focus on natural climate variability. They were just supposed to look for the signal of dangerous human-caused climate change.” 🔗 You can watch the full interview here:
1:09

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) was not created by a group of scientists in the late-1980s with the intention of studying both natural and man-made impacts on the global climate system. That did not happen. Period. Why would the IPCC be needed on the scientific front when there were already government agencies like the BoM, Met Office, NASA, NCAR and NOAA working on this? The IPCC was created by bureaucrats with a vested financial and political interest to use the scientific community to build a case to regulate oil companies and control energy, in hopes they could convince the public that consumption of coal, oil and natural gas were causing harmful anthropogenic climate change. Climate change became the Goldilocks issue to move that agenda along, as it would otherwise have little support. Dr. Judith Curry (Judith Curry) explains this in her interview with John Stossel from October. 🎙️ Here’s a snippet. ✂️ 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . The origins go back to the 1980s, and the U.N. environmental program had this big environmental agenda, anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and they seized on the climate change issue as one to move their policies along. . . the policy cart was way out in front of the scientific horse from the very beginning. So, the IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change. The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. They weren’t supposed to focus on natural climate variability. They were just supposed to look for the signal of dangerous human-caused climate change.” 🔗 You can watch the full interview here:

Chris Martz

88,087 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

⚠️ News that this year’s 3-day Youth Parliament has been heavily censored by the Ministry of Youth Development is a shocking act of political control. Youth MPs were invited to engage — yet have been told to stay silent on issues like climate change, voting rights, and pay equity. The use of “problematic” language and dissent has been banned, and criticism of Ministers is also reportedly completely off-limits. Shame on this government for silencing our rangitahi in a space meant to elevate their voices, and reducing their role this week to being nothing more than symbolic instead of meaningful. Full story here ➡️ #nzpol
3:36

⚠️ News that this year’s 3-day Youth Parliament has been heavily censored by the Ministry of Youth Development is a shocking act of political control. Youth MPs were invited to engage — yet have been told to stay silent on issues like climate change, voting rights, and pay equity. The use of “problematic” language and dissent has been banned, and criticism of Ministers is also reportedly completely off-limits. Shame on this government for silencing our rangitahi in a space meant to elevate their voices, and reducing their role this week to being nothing more than symbolic instead of meaningful. Full story here ➡️ #nzpol

Kelvin Morgan 🇳🇿

25,994 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

When the UN held a rare debate on Venezuela, the Maduro regime—backed by Russia, Iran & North Korea—cried “Double standards!” China, Sudan, Yemen & Zimbabwe “commended” Maduro's record on human rights. Then I took the floor: “Mr. President: Last week the Nobel Peace Prize honored María Corina Machado, the courageous opposition leader from Venezuela. She told the world what happened after the rigged July 2024 election — after independent monitors confirmed it wasn't Maduro who won, but rather her candidate with 67% of the vote. The dictatorship responded with terror: 2,500 people were kidnapped disappeared and tortured. Homes were marked. Entire families taken as hostages. Priests, teachers, nurses, students, anyone who shared a voting sheet was hunted down. More than 200 children were detained and beaten into making false confessions of being “paid by Machado to protest.” Women and girls in prison are right now being abused. I would like also to mention the names of political prisoners: Rocío San Miguel, Javier Tarazona, Carlos Julio Rojas, Eduardo Torres and Kennedy Tejera. It is time for this Council to act. High Commissioner, will you join us in supporting an urgent special session of this Council to address the plight of political prisoners and other victims in Venezuela? High Commissioner, we heard from the group “Friends of the UN Charter” —which includes China and Iran —complaining about “double standards.” Venezuela said the same, citing “Sudan, Syria and Gaza.” Now, there was a special session here on Sudan. Would you agree, then, that to end double standards, there ought to be a special session here on Venezuela? The ambassador of Venezuela mentioned Gaza. Would he agree, then, that there should be a special UN staff division on Venezuela, a special rapporteur on Venezuela, and a permanent Commission of Inquiry on Venezuela, to end double standards?”
2:52

When the UN held a rare debate on Venezuela, the Maduro regime—backed by Russia, Iran & North Korea—cried “Double standards!” China, Sudan, Yemen & Zimbabwe “commended” Maduro's record on human rights. Then I took the floor: “Mr. President: Last week the Nobel Peace Prize honored María Corina Machado, the courageous opposition leader from Venezuela. She told the world what happened after the rigged July 2024 election — after independent monitors confirmed it wasn't Maduro who won, but rather her candidate with 67% of the vote. The dictatorship responded with terror: 2,500 people were kidnapped disappeared and tortured. Homes were marked. Entire families taken as hostages. Priests, teachers, nurses, students, anyone who shared a voting sheet was hunted down. More than 200 children were detained and beaten into making false confessions of being “paid by Machado to protest.” Women and girls in prison are right now being abused. I would like also to mention the names of political prisoners: Rocío San Miguel, Javier Tarazona, Carlos Julio Rojas, Eduardo Torres and Kennedy Tejera. It is time for this Council to act. High Commissioner, will you join us in supporting an urgent special session of this Council to address the plight of political prisoners and other victims in Venezuela? High Commissioner, we heard from the group “Friends of the UN Charter” —which includes China and Iran —complaining about “double standards.” Venezuela said the same, citing “Sudan, Syria and Gaza.” Now, there was a special session here on Sudan. Would you agree, then, that to end double standards, there ought to be a special session here on Venezuela? The ambassador of Venezuela mentioned Gaza. Would he agree, then, that there should be a special UN staff division on Venezuela, a special rapporteur on Venezuela, and a permanent Commission of Inquiry on Venezuela, to end double standards?”

Hillel Neuer

113,120 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨IN VIRGINIA… Spanberger’s Disastrous Debate Fallout Continues—Cold, Robotic, and Absolutely Career-Ending Abigail Spanberger didn’t just dodge every major question, she flatlined emotionally. No answers on parental rights. No answers on gender policies. Just robotic word salad and a blank, frozen stare. Viewers saw it: she clung to the podium like it was a life raft and gave the coldest, most mechanical performance of her political career. Even Democrats were whispering afterward that it looked inhuman. Her face didn’t move, her tone didn’t change, just pure calculation. Winsome Sears’ new ad using that footage is brutal because it didn’t need editing, Spanberger’s expression says it all. Watch the clip. You’ll see exactly what we mean. Cold. Detached. Power-obsessed. Virginia deserves a governor with a pulse, not a programmed politician. 🇺🇸
2:01

🚨IN VIRGINIA… Spanberger’s Disastrous Debate Fallout Continues—Cold, Robotic, and Absolutely Career-Ending Abigail Spanberger didn’t just dodge every major question, she flatlined emotionally. No answers on parental rights. No answers on gender policies. Just robotic word salad and a blank, frozen stare. Viewers saw it: she clung to the podium like it was a life raft and gave the coldest, most mechanical performance of her political career. Even Democrats were whispering afterward that it looked inhuman. Her face didn’t move, her tone didn’t change, just pure calculation. Winsome Sears’ new ad using that footage is brutal because it didn’t need editing, Spanberger’s expression says it all. Watch the clip. You’ll see exactly what we mean. Cold. Detached. Power-obsessed. Virginia deserves a governor with a pulse, not a programmed politician. 🇺🇸

Walter Curt

67,115 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an “existential threat” and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet we’ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches — she’s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. “Climate emergency” was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the world’s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. It’s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. “Executive orders are for show,” says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, “legislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.” And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though there’s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. “Every day there's some extreme weather somewhere,” said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “and so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.” But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. “The climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,” said Pielke. “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.” And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. “One story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.” Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? “There's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,” said Pielke. “It’s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and ‘We’ve got to do something about it!’ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!’ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.” Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. “For the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonization….Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!
46:20

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an “existential threat” and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet we’ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches — she’s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. “Climate emergency” was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the world’s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. It’s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. “Executive orders are for show,” says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, “legislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.” And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though there’s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. “Every day there's some extreme weather somewhere,” said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “and so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.” But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. “The climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,” said Pielke. “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.” And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. “One story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.” Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? “There's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,” said Pielke. “It’s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and ‘We’ve got to do something about it!’ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!’ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.” Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. “For the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonization….Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!

Michael Shellenberger

51,165 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

She is Biden: The ABC Debate Fiasco - Where's the Fair Play? ABC is totally biased against Donald Trump let's dive into why this is the case. She is Biden, and tonight, Kamala Harris proved just that at the ABC debate, standing not as her own candidate but as the shadow of Joe Biden, echoing his policies, his failures, and his vision for America, which has led us astray. The ABC Debate Night Tonight, as millions tuned into ABC, expecting a fair battleground for ideas, what they witnessed instead was a glaring example of media bias. Here's how it unfolded: She is Biden Kamala Harris took the stage, not as a fresh voice for America, but as a mouthpiece for the current administration. "She is Biden," supporters whispered across social media platforms. Her policies? A mirror image of Biden's. From economic strategies to foreign policy, Harris did little to differentiate herself, reinforcing the notion that a vote for her is essentially a vote for a third Biden term. This isn't just a talking point; it's a reality for those who feel the current presidency has not addressed their concerns. The ABC Bias The debate, hosted by ABC, was supposed to be a neutral ground. However, from the outset, the moderators seemed to debate Trump themselves. Questions were loaded, follow-ups were scarce when Harris spoke, but when it came to Trump, it felt like an interrogation rather than a debate. The bias was palpable, with posts on X highlighting every instance where Trump was cut off or challenged more aggressively than Harris. "Quite Please," as Trump used Kamala's own lines against her. Quiet Please is a trending phrase as viewers begged for moderators to let Trump speak without interruption. Quite Please, Let Them Debate! The cry for moderators to step back and "Quite Please" allow the candidates to engage directly with each other was loud among Trump supporters. The constant interjections not only disrupted the flow but also seemed strategically placed to throw Trump off his game. This interference was seen not just as poor moderation but as an active participation against Trump. This debate was 3 on 1! Where is Our President? The sentiment "Where is our President?" echoed through the night. Not only referring to Biden, but to Trump, who many supporters feel was the last true defender of their values in the White House. They yearned for the days when, in their view, America was first, energy was independent, and the economy was booming. Tonight's debate was a stark reminder of what has been lost, with Harris's performance only underscoring the continuity of Biden's policies. Conclusion: A Night of Missed Opportunities For Trump supporters, the ABC debate was less about policy discussion and more about the struggle against what they perceive as entrenched media bias. "She is Biden" wasn't just a critique of Harris but a broader commentary on the lack of new vision from the current administration. The debate left many questions unanswered and reinforced the divide. Where was the fair play? Where was the opportunity for Trump to present his vision without the filter of bias? As the night ended, the conversation on X wasn't about policy wins or losses but about the battle against bias, the call for respect ("Quite Please"), and the longing for what supporters see as strong leadership. Tonight, ABC didn't just host a debate; for many, it staged a showdown between Trump and the establishment, with "She is Biden" as the theme echoing into the night. Trump won the debate because he has truth and an amazing record on his side. Trump won the debate against three people. Kamala sounded scripted like she literally memorized the answers in advance.
0:31

She is Biden: The ABC Debate Fiasco - Where's the Fair Play? ABC is totally biased against Donald Trump let's dive into why this is the case. She is Biden, and tonight, Kamala Harris proved just that at the ABC debate, standing not as her own candidate but as the shadow of Joe Biden, echoing his policies, his failures, and his vision for America, which has led us astray. The ABC Debate Night Tonight, as millions tuned into ABC, expecting a fair battleground for ideas, what they witnessed instead was a glaring example of media bias. Here's how it unfolded: She is Biden Kamala Harris took the stage, not as a fresh voice for America, but as a mouthpiece for the current administration. "She is Biden," supporters whispered across social media platforms. Her policies? A mirror image of Biden's. From economic strategies to foreign policy, Harris did little to differentiate herself, reinforcing the notion that a vote for her is essentially a vote for a third Biden term. This isn't just a talking point; it's a reality for those who feel the current presidency has not addressed their concerns. The ABC Bias The debate, hosted by ABC, was supposed to be a neutral ground. However, from the outset, the moderators seemed to debate Trump themselves. Questions were loaded, follow-ups were scarce when Harris spoke, but when it came to Trump, it felt like an interrogation rather than a debate. The bias was palpable, with posts on X highlighting every instance where Trump was cut off or challenged more aggressively than Harris. "Quite Please," as Trump used Kamala's own lines against her. Quiet Please is a trending phrase as viewers begged for moderators to let Trump speak without interruption. Quite Please, Let Them Debate! The cry for moderators to step back and "Quite Please" allow the candidates to engage directly with each other was loud among Trump supporters. The constant interjections not only disrupted the flow but also seemed strategically placed to throw Trump off his game. This interference was seen not just as poor moderation but as an active participation against Trump. This debate was 3 on 1! Where is Our President? The sentiment "Where is our President?" echoed through the night. Not only referring to Biden, but to Trump, who many supporters feel was the last true defender of their values in the White House. They yearned for the days when, in their view, America was first, energy was independent, and the economy was booming. Tonight's debate was a stark reminder of what has been lost, with Harris's performance only underscoring the continuity of Biden's policies. Conclusion: A Night of Missed Opportunities For Trump supporters, the ABC debate was less about policy discussion and more about the struggle against what they perceive as entrenched media bias. "She is Biden" wasn't just a critique of Harris but a broader commentary on the lack of new vision from the current administration. The debate left many questions unanswered and reinforced the divide. Where was the fair play? Where was the opportunity for Trump to present his vision without the filter of bias? As the night ended, the conversation on X wasn't about policy wins or losses but about the battle against bias, the call for respect ("Quite Please"), and the longing for what supporters see as strong leadership. Tonight, ABC didn't just host a debate; for many, it staged a showdown between Trump and the establishment, with "She is Biden" as the theme echoing into the night. Trump won the debate because he has truth and an amazing record on his side. Trump won the debate against three people. Kamala sounded scripted like she literally memorized the answers in advance.

Thomas Paine Band

73,031 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

At the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy, Bobi Wine did not merely deliver a speech — he launched a political thunderbolt. Standing virtually before an international audience, Wine — who insists he rightfully won Uganda’s 2026 elections but was robbed through what he describes as blatant electoral fraud — turned the spotlight not only on Yoweri Museveni but also on the West itself. In a charged and uncompromising address, he accused Western governments of enabling and legitimizing an repressive regime. With unmistakable urgency, Wine called for sweeping sanctions against Museveni, his son Muhoozi Kainerugaba, and a network of enablers sustaining this systemic oppression in Uganda. He warned that failing to hold the regime accountable for these atrocities would not simply endanger Ugandans, but could embolden what he characterized as a culture of impunity to spread beyond the country’s borders. The world, he cautioned, must act now — not when it is too late. Adding to the drama of the moment, Wine addressed the summit while still in hiding following a post-election raid that culminated in a failed attempt to arrest him. Despite the uncertainty surrounding his own safety, his message was defiant: Uganda’s freedom, he declared, is not a distant dream but an approaching reality. YouTube -
11:53

At the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy, Bobi Wine did not merely deliver a speech — he launched a political thunderbolt. Standing virtually before an international audience, Wine — who insists he rightfully won Uganda’s 2026 elections but was robbed through what he describes as blatant electoral fraud — turned the spotlight not only on Yoweri Museveni but also on the West itself. In a charged and uncompromising address, he accused Western governments of enabling and legitimizing an repressive regime. With unmistakable urgency, Wine called for sweeping sanctions against Museveni, his son Muhoozi Kainerugaba, and a network of enablers sustaining this systemic oppression in Uganda. He warned that failing to hold the regime accountable for these atrocities would not simply endanger Ugandans, but could embolden what he characterized as a culture of impunity to spread beyond the country’s borders. The world, he cautioned, must act now — not when it is too late. Adding to the drama of the moment, Wine addressed the summit while still in hiding following a post-election raid that culminated in a failed attempt to arrest him. Despite the uncertainty surrounding his own safety, his message was defiant: Uganda’s freedom, he declared, is not a distant dream but an approaching reality. YouTube -

Mordecai Muriisa ™️

12,727 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

🚨 TRUMP: “WE JUST WON THE WAR ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE HOAX.” Bill Gates now admits what “climate realists” said for years: warming is real, but humanity isn’t doomed — poverty and disease are bigger threats, and innovation beats degrowth. President Trump called it: the doomsday narrative was a political weapon. For years, dissenters were censored, mocked, and fired. Now Gates pivots to “overall human welfare.” Good. Apology to the people next. WHAT THIS MEANS: • The doom script collapsed. • The priority is energy abundance, growth, adaptation, and human welfare. • Stop punishing workers with bogus “planet-saving” taxes. Build, don’t ban. Bill Gates is a Fraud. Common sense won. Now let’s rebuild prosperity — and never again let technocrats rule by fear.
4:11

🚨 TRUMP: “WE JUST WON THE WAR ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE HOAX.” Bill Gates now admits what “climate realists” said for years: warming is real, but humanity isn’t doomed — poverty and disease are bigger threats, and innovation beats degrowth. President Trump called it: the doomsday narrative was a political weapon. For years, dissenters were censored, mocked, and fired. Now Gates pivots to “overall human welfare.” Good. Apology to the people next. WHAT THIS MEANS: • The doom script collapsed. • The priority is energy abundance, growth, adaptation, and human welfare. • Stop punishing workers with bogus “planet-saving” taxes. Build, don’t ban. Bill Gates is a Fraud. Common sense won. Now let’s rebuild prosperity — and never again let technocrats rule by fear.

Jim Ferguson

228,676 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

🚨😭CRYBABY ALERT: REP. SHONTEL CALLS TRUMP “RACIST” BECAUSE HE DOESN'T GIVE BLACK PEOPLE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES Ohio's Rep. Shontel just took the House floor and unloaded a dramatic speech branding Trump’s policies as racist toward Black Americans. Her proof was a familiar one: benefit cuts and immigration enforcement “disproportionately impact” Black communities. Translation: if outcomes aren’t equal, the policy must be evil. She asked, “What has Trump done for Black Americans besides put a target on our backs,” then listed hunger, health care costs, and ICE as villains. No evidence. Plenty of emotion. It was DEI logic at full volume, where unequal starting conditions mean unequal rules favoring black people must follow. She wrapped it all in civil-rights rhetoric and promised “we shall overcome,” because every budget debate apparently needs a march soundtrack. Washington argues policy. Progressives argue feelings. Pass the popcorn. Cheers to Tears of the Left!
2:32

🚨😭CRYBABY ALERT: REP. SHONTEL CALLS TRUMP “RACIST” BECAUSE HE DOESN'T GIVE BLACK PEOPLE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES Ohio's Rep. Shontel just took the House floor and unloaded a dramatic speech branding Trump’s policies as racist toward Black Americans. Her proof was a familiar one: benefit cuts and immigration enforcement “disproportionately impact” Black communities. Translation: if outcomes aren’t equal, the policy must be evil. She asked, “What has Trump done for Black Americans besides put a target on our backs,” then listed hunger, health care costs, and ICE as villains. No evidence. Plenty of emotion. It was DEI logic at full volume, where unequal starting conditions mean unequal rules favoring black people must follow. She wrapped it all in civil-rights rhetoric and promised “we shall overcome,” because every budget debate apparently needs a march soundtrack. Washington argues policy. Progressives argue feelings. Pass the popcorn. Cheers to Tears of the Left!

Tears of the Left

90,773 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

🚨CBC’s latest story on the $520M Ottawa boost to “rebuild Jasper” is a masterclass in selective memory They clip Finance Minister FP Champagne about infrastructure, interim housing, and “measures to prevent fire.” They talk about repairing roads and campgrounds Zero mention of why a lightning strike turned into a fire that wiped out a third of the town in the first place The Jasper fire wasn’t some random act of “climate change.” It was a tinderbox created by years of neglected deadwood and fuel buildup in Jasper National Park — much of it from the mountain pine beetle outbreak that Parks Canada knew about for years Under the Liberals, Parks Canada was apparently more worried about PR optics and environmental complaints than aggressively clearing dead trees or doing serious prescribed burns and thinning. Internal warnings about the fuel load were acknowledged… then largely ignored. Mechanical clearing was minimal. Large-scale burns on the dead forest? Almost none. “Natural regeneration” was the policy Now the same government is writing a massive cheque to fix what better management could have prevented... or at the very least, greatly reduced CBC loves pinning every wildfire on climate change while conveniently forgetting to mention how decades of poor forest stewardship turned a bad situation into a catastrophe The severity of the Jasper fire was completely avoidable Rebuild money is one thing. Accountability for the preventable conditions that made it necessary is another Brodie Fenlon
1:15

🚨CBC’s latest story on the $520M Ottawa boost to “rebuild Jasper” is a masterclass in selective memory They clip Finance Minister FP Champagne about infrastructure, interim housing, and “measures to prevent fire.” They talk about repairing roads and campgrounds Zero mention of why a lightning strike turned into a fire that wiped out a third of the town in the first place The Jasper fire wasn’t some random act of “climate change.” It was a tinderbox created by years of neglected deadwood and fuel buildup in Jasper National Park — much of it from the mountain pine beetle outbreak that Parks Canada knew about for years Under the Liberals, Parks Canada was apparently more worried about PR optics and environmental complaints than aggressively clearing dead trees or doing serious prescribed burns and thinning. Internal warnings about the fuel load were acknowledged… then largely ignored. Mechanical clearing was minimal. Large-scale burns on the dead forest? Almost none. “Natural regeneration” was the policy Now the same government is writing a massive cheque to fix what better management could have prevented... or at the very least, greatly reduced CBC loves pinning every wildfire on climate change while conveniently forgetting to mention how decades of poor forest stewardship turned a bad situation into a catastrophe The severity of the Jasper fire was completely avoidable Rebuild money is one thing. Accountability for the preventable conditions that made it necessary is another Brodie Fenlon

cbcwatcher

42,897 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🇺🇸 U.S. Senators At #COP29 In Baku Call For Release Of Prisoners & Right Of Return Of Armenians To Artsakh 🇦🇲 ➖➖➖ U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Ed Markey expressed strong support for Armenia at the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan. The senators emphasized their commitment to addressing the challenges facing Armenians, particularly concerning political prisoners and the right of return. Their remarks were in response to a question from a Baku TV reporter, who asked why the United States has not imposed sanctions on Armenia. Senator Whitehouse responded, “Senator Markey and I support Armenia, both of us. We are very regretful that the dislocation of so many Armenians has taken place. To put it mildly, I’m far from convinced that Armenians are to blame for that. And I don’t want to dwell in the home of my hosts on human rights issues. But if that were to be the topic, I would not be very complimentary.” Senator Markey continued, “We believe that the political prisoners should be released. We believe there should be a right of return of Armenians to Nagorno-Karabakh. And we believe that there should be a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Our hope is that it’s negotiated soon so that these issues can be resolved, including the issue of a capacity to have a road that can be traversed through Armenia by Azerbaijan. But it all has to be part of a negotiated treaty. My hope is that that will be the case. But as Sheldon (Whitehouse) said, you know, we ultimately need to make sure that those prisoners are released and that there is a right to return peacefully by Armenian people to Nagorno-Karabakh.”
0:51

🇺🇸 U.S. Senators At #COP29 In Baku Call For Release Of Prisoners & Right Of Return Of Armenians To Artsakh 🇦🇲 ➖➖➖ U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Ed Markey expressed strong support for Armenia at the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan. The senators emphasized their commitment to addressing the challenges facing Armenians, particularly concerning political prisoners and the right of return. Their remarks were in response to a question from a Baku TV reporter, who asked why the United States has not imposed sanctions on Armenia. Senator Whitehouse responded, “Senator Markey and I support Armenia, both of us. We are very regretful that the dislocation of so many Armenians has taken place. To put it mildly, I’m far from convinced that Armenians are to blame for that. And I don’t want to dwell in the home of my hosts on human rights issues. But if that were to be the topic, I would not be very complimentary.” Senator Markey continued, “We believe that the political prisoners should be released. We believe there should be a right of return of Armenians to Nagorno-Karabakh. And we believe that there should be a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Our hope is that it’s negotiated soon so that these issues can be resolved, including the issue of a capacity to have a road that can be traversed through Armenia by Azerbaijan. But it all has to be part of a negotiated treaty. My hope is that that will be the case. But as Sheldon (Whitehouse) said, you know, we ultimately need to make sure that those prisoners are released and that there is a right to return peacefully by Armenian people to Nagorno-Karabakh.”

Zartonk Media

13,827 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

CLARENCE THOMAS JUST PUBLISHED THE EXACT ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE SUPREME COURT'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP RULING IS CONSTITUTIONALLY WRONG Not a political objection. Not a policy disagreement. NAMED HISTORY. SPECIFIC TEXT. Amendment by amendment. 📜 14th Amendment, 1868 — "ONE pervading purpose": securing equal citizenship for FREED SLAVES after the Civil War 📜 Reconstruction Congress intent — zero evidence the drafters contemplated children of foreign temporary visitors or illegal aliens 📜 "Subject to the jurisdiction" clause — Thomas: means full political allegiance, not mere physical presence on US soil 📜 The majority opinion — Thomas says it REPURPOSED the Amendment to protect preferred rights the drafters NEVER contemplated 📜 Thomas's direct quote — those rights "CANNOT find support in the text today" 📜 His warning on the ruling — "I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time" 📜 Thomas during April 2026 oral arguments — probed whether immigration debates even existed when the 14th was written 📜 His core distinction — freed slaves were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans with no other homeland; children of foreign nationals are not in the same category 📜 Roberts and Barrett — joined the liberal bloc in the 6-3 majority in Trump v. Barbara 📜 Gorsuch — joined Thomas in dissent; Alito filed a separate dissent 💀 91 pages 💀 1 purpose the 14th Amendment actually had, per Thomas 💀 ZERO rights the Reconstruction Congress contemplated for children of foreign nationals 💀 100% of Thomas's argument grounded in the specific post-Civil War historical record — not modern policy preference Every argument on this list is anchored in the text and history of the Amendment. Not in what the Court wishes it said. In what the people who wrote it actually intended. The Court's ruling stands. But Thomas put a 91-page marker on the record. Thomas's dissent is still ticking. These are the arguments at the core of it. I'll keep you updated as this unfolds, turn on notifications this is EXTREMELY important.
1:17

CLARENCE THOMAS JUST PUBLISHED THE EXACT ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE SUPREME COURT'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP RULING IS CONSTITUTIONALLY WRONG Not a political objection. Not a policy disagreement. NAMED HISTORY. SPECIFIC TEXT. Amendment by amendment. 📜 14th Amendment, 1868 — "ONE pervading purpose": securing equal citizenship for FREED SLAVES after the Civil War 📜 Reconstruction Congress intent — zero evidence the drafters contemplated children of foreign temporary visitors or illegal aliens 📜 "Subject to the jurisdiction" clause — Thomas: means full political allegiance, not mere physical presence on US soil 📜 The majority opinion — Thomas says it REPURPOSED the Amendment to protect preferred rights the drafters NEVER contemplated 📜 Thomas's direct quote — those rights "CANNOT find support in the text today" 📜 His warning on the ruling — "I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time" 📜 Thomas during April 2026 oral arguments — probed whether immigration debates even existed when the 14th was written 📜 His core distinction — freed slaves were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans with no other homeland; children of foreign nationals are not in the same category 📜 Roberts and Barrett — joined the liberal bloc in the 6-3 majority in Trump v. Barbara 📜 Gorsuch — joined Thomas in dissent; Alito filed a separate dissent 💀 91 pages 💀 1 purpose the 14th Amendment actually had, per Thomas 💀 ZERO rights the Reconstruction Congress contemplated for children of foreign nationals 💀 100% of Thomas's argument grounded in the specific post-Civil War historical record — not modern policy preference Every argument on this list is anchored in the text and history of the Amendment. Not in what the Court wishes it said. In what the people who wrote it actually intended. The Court's ruling stands. But Thomas put a 91-page marker on the record. Thomas's dissent is still ticking. These are the arguments at the core of it. I'll keep you updated as this unfolds, turn on notifications this is EXTREMELY important.

John F Kennedy Jr

13,774 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

CLARENCE THOMAS JUST PUBLISHED THE EXACT ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE SUPREME COURT'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP RULING IS CONSTITUTIONALLY WRONG Not a political objection. Not a policy disagreement. NAMED HISTORY. SPECIFIC TEXT. Amendment by amendment. 📜 14th Amendment, 1868 — "ONE pervading purpose": securing equal citizenship for FREED SLAVES after the Civil War 📜 Reconstruction Congress intent — zero evidence the drafters contemplated children of foreign temporary visitors or illegal aliens 📜 "Subject to the jurisdiction" clause — Thomas: means full political allegiance, not mere physical presence on US soil 📜 The majority opinion — Thomas says it REPURPOSED the Amendment to protect preferred rights the drafters NEVER contemplated 📜 Thomas's direct quote — those rights "CANNOT find support in the text today" 📜 His warning on the ruling — "I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time" 📜 Thomas during April 2026 oral arguments — probed whether immigration debates even existed when the 14th was written 📜 His core distinction — freed slaves were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans with no other homeland; children of foreign nationals are not in the same category 📜 Roberts and Barrett — joined the liberal bloc in the 6-3 majority in Trump v. Barbara 📜 Gorsuch — joined Thomas in dissent; Alito filed a separate dissent 💀 91 pages 💀 1 purpose the 14th Amendment actually had, per Thomas 💀 ZERO rights the Reconstruction Congress contemplated for children of foreign nationals 💀 100% of Thomas's argument grounded in the specific post-Civil War historical record — not modern policy preference Every argument on this list is anchored in the text and history of the Amendment. Not in what the Court wishes it said. In what the people who wrote it actually intended. The Court's ruling stands. But Thomas put a 91-page marker on the record. Thomas's dissent is still ticking. These are the arguments at the core of it. I'll keep you updated as this unfolds, turn on notifications this is EXTREMELY important.
1:17

CLARENCE THOMAS JUST PUBLISHED THE EXACT ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE SUPREME COURT'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP RULING IS CONSTITUTIONALLY WRONG Not a political objection. Not a policy disagreement. NAMED HISTORY. SPECIFIC TEXT. Amendment by amendment. 📜 14th Amendment, 1868 — "ONE pervading purpose": securing equal citizenship for FREED SLAVES after the Civil War 📜 Reconstruction Congress intent — zero evidence the drafters contemplated children of foreign temporary visitors or illegal aliens 📜 "Subject to the jurisdiction" clause — Thomas: means full political allegiance, not mere physical presence on US soil 📜 The majority opinion — Thomas says it REPURPOSED the Amendment to protect preferred rights the drafters NEVER contemplated 📜 Thomas's direct quote — those rights "CANNOT find support in the text today" 📜 His warning on the ruling — "I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time" 📜 Thomas during April 2026 oral arguments — probed whether immigration debates even existed when the 14th was written 📜 His core distinction — freed slaves were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans with no other homeland; children of foreign nationals are not in the same category 📜 Roberts and Barrett — joined the liberal bloc in the 6-3 majority in Trump v. Barbara 📜 Gorsuch — joined Thomas in dissent; Alito filed a separate dissent 💀 91 pages 💀 1 purpose the 14th Amendment actually had, per Thomas 💀 ZERO rights the Reconstruction Congress contemplated for children of foreign nationals 💀 100% of Thomas's argument grounded in the specific post-Civil War historical record — not modern policy preference Every argument on this list is anchored in the text and history of the Amendment. Not in what the Court wishes it said. In what the people who wrote it actually intended. The Court's ruling stands. But Thomas put a 91-page marker on the record. Thomas's dissent is still ticking. These are the arguments at the core of it. I'll keep you updated as this unfolds, turn on notifications this is EXTREMELY important.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr.

305,346 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

Full Debate Analysis: Trump won convincingly, had a strong performance, despite going into a 3-1 debate against the moderators. However, Kamala did not bomb, and did enough to keep her campaign alive. The story of the debate is ABC showing their blatant bias in favor of Kamala, and weaponized their “fact-checks” solely at Trump. They let Kamala lie unchecked about everything from the Project 2025 hoax, to the Charlottesville hoax, and everything in between. The ABC moderators showed a clear and obvious hostility towards Trump, that they did not show towards Kamala, and in many cases, teed Kamala up to bash Trump with prepared talking points. It is now abundantly clear why Kamala refused to accept the debate on Fox News, because her campaign knew she would receive preferential treatment on ABC. Kamala also was well-rehearsed, which is unlike her, almost as if she had the questions given to her ahead of time. If ABC were willing to be adversarial towards Trump, why would they stop there? Why wouldn’t they give Kamala the questions? ABC (Disney) just confirmed on national TV, that they are in bed with the DNC, and given their war-like posture towards Trump, I think it’s safe to assume Kamala’s campaign were made aware of the questions before hand. With all that being said, Trump got the viral moments of the night, stuck to his gameplan, and brushed off the endless lies and repeated attacks, from both Kamala and the moderators. Kamala’s optics were terrible, with her constant smirking, making faces, emotional responses, and monotone phony tone. And Trump refused to let her get her viral moment. Kamala’s gameplan was to appear more moderate, and blame Trump for all the problems she and Biden created over the last 4 years, but anyone who has been paying attention saw this for what it was. Given Kamala held her own and did not implode, we can expect the compromised MSM to claim Kamala won, and the headlines will be about Trump talking about Haitians eating pets. However, the viral internet clips will belong to Trump. Overall, Kamala did not gain any ground, Trump put on a solid performance, and the public got to see the MSM are clearly engaged in election interference in favor of the Dems. Net positive for Trump.
0:32

Full Debate Analysis: Trump won convincingly, had a strong performance, despite going into a 3-1 debate against the moderators. However, Kamala did not bomb, and did enough to keep her campaign alive. The story of the debate is ABC showing their blatant bias in favor of Kamala, and weaponized their “fact-checks” solely at Trump. They let Kamala lie unchecked about everything from the Project 2025 hoax, to the Charlottesville hoax, and everything in between. The ABC moderators showed a clear and obvious hostility towards Trump, that they did not show towards Kamala, and in many cases, teed Kamala up to bash Trump with prepared talking points. It is now abundantly clear why Kamala refused to accept the debate on Fox News, because her campaign knew she would receive preferential treatment on ABC. Kamala also was well-rehearsed, which is unlike her, almost as if she had the questions given to her ahead of time. If ABC were willing to be adversarial towards Trump, why would they stop there? Why wouldn’t they give Kamala the questions? ABC (Disney) just confirmed on national TV, that they are in bed with the DNC, and given their war-like posture towards Trump, I think it’s safe to assume Kamala’s campaign were made aware of the questions before hand. With all that being said, Trump got the viral moments of the night, stuck to his gameplan, and brushed off the endless lies and repeated attacks, from both Kamala and the moderators. Kamala’s optics were terrible, with her constant smirking, making faces, emotional responses, and monotone phony tone. And Trump refused to let her get her viral moment. Kamala’s gameplan was to appear more moderate, and blame Trump for all the problems she and Biden created over the last 4 years, but anyone who has been paying attention saw this for what it was. Given Kamala held her own and did not implode, we can expect the compromised MSM to claim Kamala won, and the headlines will be about Trump talking about Haitians eating pets. However, the viral internet clips will belong to Trump. Overall, Kamala did not gain any ground, Trump put on a solid performance, and the public got to see the MSM are clearly engaged in election interference in favor of the Dems. Net positive for Trump.

Clandestine

534,462 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

I’m quite sick & tired of politicians being able to accurately talk about women in biological terms while Australian women are punished for understanding the exact same thing in other contexts where it *also* matters. Jacinta Allan is correct in just about everything she is saying here - a rarity for her - the problem is that this accuracy about women & girls is not being extended to our other rights - spaces, sport, services, lesbian rights - and is instead dismissed by everyone in her government & party as a “culture war” and we’re classed as extremists, bigots or far right for acknowledging the very same basic reality that she is: there are some rights needed for women & girls that are directly associated with our biology. Obviously, men who claim to be women don’t have the same endometriosis issues that Jacinta and millions of other women suffer through on a daily basis. There is one reason for that: they’re not women. It is also worth noting that, during Jacinta’s leadership, school girls were ignored whenever they pleaded for their own bathrooms, change rooms and sports, lesbian rights were further dismantled and at least one woman in a Victorian prison was sexually assaulted by a violent man, in her cell purely because he was claiming to be a woman. But, of course, Jacinta didn’t mention that.
1:59

I’m quite sick & tired of politicians being able to accurately talk about women in biological terms while Australian women are punished for understanding the exact same thing in other contexts where it *also* matters. Jacinta Allan is correct in just about everything she is saying here - a rarity for her - the problem is that this accuracy about women & girls is not being extended to our other rights - spaces, sport, services, lesbian rights - and is instead dismissed by everyone in her government & party as a “culture war” and we’re classed as extremists, bigots or far right for acknowledging the very same basic reality that she is: there are some rights needed for women & girls that are directly associated with our biology. Obviously, men who claim to be women don’t have the same endometriosis issues that Jacinta and millions of other women suffer through on a daily basis. There is one reason for that: they’re not women. It is also worth noting that, during Jacinta’s leadership, school girls were ignored whenever they pleaded for their own bathrooms, change rooms and sports, lesbian rights were further dismantled and at least one woman in a Victorian prison was sexually assaulted by a violent man, in her cell purely because he was claiming to be a woman. But, of course, Jacinta didn’t mention that.

Sall Grover

49,523 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat