Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

WATCH: Shermichael Singleton Singleton reminds the NewsNight panel criticizing Pete Hegseth's remarks that he DID serve and is fully aware of the fact that war is hell. SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON: Can I just make one point of objection to what Ana just said? You know, in politics, sometimes we make...

BonillaJL's profile picture

Jorge Bonilla

22,297 subscribers

249,009 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

CNN’s Shermichael Singleton couldn’t hold back a grin as Jake Tapper melted down over President Trump’s latest AI video dropping a “payload” on protestors. But then Shermichael Singleton said what no one else on the panel would admit about the meme. TAPPER: “What’s the point that he’s making, Shermichael? That he wishes he could drop…human feces on his fellow Americans?” SINGLETON: “Look, this is what I think. I think a lot of Republicans look at this, and I’ve texted with a lot of folks about it…they thought it was hilarious.” “Some of my Democratic friends thought it was a little over the top, but even they acknowledged to me, you know, I got to give it to Trump. He is good at sort of goading our side with some of these sort of satirical videos and other memes that he typically would post on social media.” “It makes him more relatable to the average person.” “You wouldn’t typically see this from a president, but the average person looks at this, Jake, and they sort of laugh or they dislike it, but I don’t think it’s something to sort of set your hair on fire over.”
0:33

CNN’s Shermichael Singleton couldn’t hold back a grin as Jake Tapper melted down over President Trump’s latest AI video dropping a “payload” on protestors. But then Shermichael Singleton said what no one else on the panel would admit about the meme. TAPPER: “What’s the point that he’s making, Shermichael? That he wishes he could drop…human feces on his fellow Americans?” SINGLETON: “Look, this is what I think. I think a lot of Republicans look at this, and I’ve texted with a lot of folks about it…they thought it was hilarious.” “Some of my Democratic friends thought it was a little over the top, but even they acknowledged to me, you know, I got to give it to Trump. He is good at sort of goading our side with some of these sort of satirical videos and other memes that he typically would post on social media.” “It makes him more relatable to the average person.” “You wouldn’t typically see this from a president, but the average person looks at this, Jake, and they sort of laugh or they dislike it, but I don’t think it’s something to sort of set your hair on fire over.”

Overton

379,486 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Tucker Carlson: Remembering Charlie Kirk - A Life of Faith and Courage "Quickly about Charlie, I've known him since he was a teenager, and just an amazing person, but the two things that stick out, he's a Christian man. We talked about that a lot, including, you know, just the other day. There's a lot of pressure on public people, people who run huge, you know, hundred million dollar a year non-profits, and there are a lot of pitfalls and traps." "That's why so many of them are destroyed, and Charlie really did, without, you know, betraying details, like he walked the line for real. It was the topic of many conversations between us, because I've seen so many people destroyed. You know, most people are destroyed by power, and he wasn't, and I just really admire that." "I mean, to his last moments, you know, in order, he cared about God, his wife, and his children, and then his country. So, and that was totally real, completely real. I can affirm that, because I just talked to him about it so much, and I admire that, and he's a model, really." "I mean, he didn't have hate in his heart, and it was funny, and again, it's one of the reasons I couldn't stop looking at these videos last night. People were describing the opposite of what he was. He was filled with hate." "No, and if you talked to him about people who had attacked him, or who were truly his enemies, up to, and I think including the people who assassinated him yesterday, he would never, ever express hate, ever. He would always turn to, no, this person has been led astray. This person is clearly possessed by dark forces." "This person is a perpetrator, but also a victim of evil. I mean, that really was his worldview. That's the Christian worldview, and he expressed that in public, and especially in private, and I think that faith, which was completely real, not the fake faith that you see on display so often, but a real one, that was the root of his courage, and he had real courage." "He loved being with people who disagreed with him, not theoretically with them, but physically with them, you know, like close enough to smell. He would wait right in the middle of everything. I mean, I could tell you a million stories that I saw, but that was absolutely real." "Like, he loved people, even people who hated him, and people he loved, he was the rare person who was willing to tell them what he thought was true. I mean, he really believed, as a political matter, by the way, that, you know, I don't think he had animus toward anybody in no other country, but he really believed in his own country, and the obligation of his government to stand behind his country. He was truly America first in the nicest, most decent, non-ideological, but sincere way." "He was one of the only people, I mean, truly one of the only people to go to the president, whom he loved. He loved Donald Trump, like, personally as well, and I think the president really loved him in a real way, but he was one of the only people to go to the Oval Office and say, sir, I totally understand, and think Iran's really bad, but a war with Iran is not, you know, is something that could really hurt our country. I mean, boy, that was an unpopular position." "He didn't need to express it. Oh, of course, and he did it again. He didn't have some weird agenda. He wasn't mad at anybody. He was for his country, and he was for doing the right and wise and difficult thing, and he said that. He went to the Oval Office to say that." "He took massive, massive abuse from his own donors, which is also something that you don't see. He was one of the very few people, very few people I have met who combined a, like, a love for everyone involved with strong views. So, again, he was not animated by anything creepy or weird." "I mean, you knew him intimately, so you know this is true. If you talked to him off camera, he would say, you know, I really, like, I love whoever I'm talking about, but I think this is wrong. It's immoral." "It's bad for everybody involved, both sides, and he would say that, and he could say that because it was sincere. It was completely sincere, but I cannot overstate the amount of attacks he took privately over this, like, absolutely for real, and having lived in Washington most of my life and seen people run non-profits, I've never met one who was willing, stand up is too strong. He wasn't confrontational, but he would just say, no, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I think this is the right thing." "The people we represent, which is mostly young people, they believe this, and I believe it also. It was brave, but loving at the same time, and I'm not sure he made a lot of headway, by the way. I mean, I think he made real enemies in doing that, but his view didn't change." "Anyway, he's just a wonderfully decent, loving man. That is true."
4:27

Tucker Carlson: Remembering Charlie Kirk - A Life of Faith and Courage "Quickly about Charlie, I've known him since he was a teenager, and just an amazing person, but the two things that stick out, he's a Christian man. We talked about that a lot, including, you know, just the other day. There's a lot of pressure on public people, people who run huge, you know, hundred million dollar a year non-profits, and there are a lot of pitfalls and traps." "That's why so many of them are destroyed, and Charlie really did, without, you know, betraying details, like he walked the line for real. It was the topic of many conversations between us, because I've seen so many people destroyed. You know, most people are destroyed by power, and he wasn't, and I just really admire that." "I mean, to his last moments, you know, in order, he cared about God, his wife, and his children, and then his country. So, and that was totally real, completely real. I can affirm that, because I just talked to him about it so much, and I admire that, and he's a model, really." "I mean, he didn't have hate in his heart, and it was funny, and again, it's one of the reasons I couldn't stop looking at these videos last night. People were describing the opposite of what he was. He was filled with hate." "No, and if you talked to him about people who had attacked him, or who were truly his enemies, up to, and I think including the people who assassinated him yesterday, he would never, ever express hate, ever. He would always turn to, no, this person has been led astray. This person is clearly possessed by dark forces." "This person is a perpetrator, but also a victim of evil. I mean, that really was his worldview. That's the Christian worldview, and he expressed that in public, and especially in private, and I think that faith, which was completely real, not the fake faith that you see on display so often, but a real one, that was the root of his courage, and he had real courage." "He loved being with people who disagreed with him, not theoretically with them, but physically with them, you know, like close enough to smell. He would wait right in the middle of everything. I mean, I could tell you a million stories that I saw, but that was absolutely real." "Like, he loved people, even people who hated him, and people he loved, he was the rare person who was willing to tell them what he thought was true. I mean, he really believed, as a political matter, by the way, that, you know, I don't think he had animus toward anybody in no other country, but he really believed in his own country, and the obligation of his government to stand behind his country. He was truly America first in the nicest, most decent, non-ideological, but sincere way." "He was one of the only people, I mean, truly one of the only people to go to the president, whom he loved. He loved Donald Trump, like, personally as well, and I think the president really loved him in a real way, but he was one of the only people to go to the Oval Office and say, sir, I totally understand, and think Iran's really bad, but a war with Iran is not, you know, is something that could really hurt our country. I mean, boy, that was an unpopular position." "He didn't need to express it. Oh, of course, and he did it again. He didn't have some weird agenda. He wasn't mad at anybody. He was for his country, and he was for doing the right and wise and difficult thing, and he said that. He went to the Oval Office to say that." "He took massive, massive abuse from his own donors, which is also something that you don't see. He was one of the very few people, very few people I have met who combined a, like, a love for everyone involved with strong views. So, again, he was not animated by anything creepy or weird." "I mean, you knew him intimately, so you know this is true. If you talked to him off camera, he would say, you know, I really, like, I love whoever I'm talking about, but I think this is wrong. It's immoral." "It's bad for everybody involved, both sides, and he would say that, and he could say that because it was sincere. It was completely sincere, but I cannot overstate the amount of attacks he took privately over this, like, absolutely for real, and having lived in Washington most of my life and seen people run non-profits, I've never met one who was willing, stand up is too strong. He wasn't confrontational, but he would just say, no, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I think this is the right thing." "The people we represent, which is mostly young people, they believe this, and I believe it also. It was brave, but loving at the same time, and I'm not sure he made a lot of headway, by the way. I mean, I think he made real enemies in doing that, but his view didn't change." "Anyway, he's just a wonderfully decent, loving man. That is true."

Camus

41,966 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

YOKO ONO: ONOCHORD, VENICE, 2004 Yoko: The world is divided in two industries. One is the War Industry and the other is the Peace Industry. The people in the War Industry are totally together. They don't have to talk to each other, even. They know exactly what they want to do. They want to go out there, kill and make money. But the people in the Peace Industry, which are us - we are so idealistic that each one of us criticises the other Peace Person in the Peace Industry. And we are always just arguing and we are wasting our energies doing that. So let's just forgive each other and see that we are in the Peace Industry and that's all that counts. Even if you are not marching for peace, just be yourself, being a florist, being a merchant, being a talior, anything. That way you're contributing to the Peace Industry. People are just concentrating on fear, confusion and anger. And therefore just for a moment, I'd like us to think about Love. In a very magical, straight way, John and I met in London and from then on we stood for Peace and Love. And when I do this kind of event. Well it is... I was inspired to do it, but I still think that I'm still with John in spirit. John and I created the country called Nutopia. Not Utopia, because there was Utopia as a concept already. And we wanted to create a new concept, so we just added N on it - Nutopia - and as a country. Well, that is the concept of a country. And we all are citizens of that country. And in my apartment in the Dakota Building, we put a little plaque on the back door, the kitchen door. It says 'Nutopian Embassy' and even now we have that. (laughs). Nutopia exists in our minds. And because of that, some people want to rebel against it. The reason some want to rebel against it is a good proof that it exists. I think that it was a terrible thing that happened in Chechnya. But we have to still keep our hopes up. And instead of giving up, we have to keep on sending the message of Love to each other. You say that I am the Ambassador of Peace. We are all Ambassadors of Peace. You are too. Everybody in this room are Ambassadors of Peace. Just the fact that we are not participating in War. The fact that we are here, and we are what we are, means that we are in the Peace Industry. All of us. John and I used to say that our apartment in the Dakota is a conceptual monastry, just for the two of us. And when we go out of the Dakota, we get so many people communicating with us, so it's very important that we had silence and quietness. And my apartment is a very small space compared to the world. And I need that for my peace of mind. You should be kind to each other. You should come together, hug each other, love each other, express our love to each other and we should make it work. We should finally create a world that is a totally an Earth for Us. So let's do it. Yoko Ono, OpenAsia Press Conference, whilst exhibiting Onochord, 2004 by Yoko Ono (Nutopia) at the Venice Biennale: OpenAsia 2004, Lido Di Venezia, Venice, Italy, 9 September 2004.
9:13

YOKO ONO: ONOCHORD, VENICE, 2004 Yoko: The world is divided in two industries. One is the War Industry and the other is the Peace Industry. The people in the War Industry are totally together. They don't have to talk to each other, even. They know exactly what they want to do. They want to go out there, kill and make money. But the people in the Peace Industry, which are us - we are so idealistic that each one of us criticises the other Peace Person in the Peace Industry. And we are always just arguing and we are wasting our energies doing that. So let's just forgive each other and see that we are in the Peace Industry and that's all that counts. Even if you are not marching for peace, just be yourself, being a florist, being a merchant, being a talior, anything. That way you're contributing to the Peace Industry. People are just concentrating on fear, confusion and anger. And therefore just for a moment, I'd like us to think about Love. In a very magical, straight way, John and I met in London and from then on we stood for Peace and Love. And when I do this kind of event. Well it is... I was inspired to do it, but I still think that I'm still with John in spirit. John and I created the country called Nutopia. Not Utopia, because there was Utopia as a concept already. And we wanted to create a new concept, so we just added N on it - Nutopia - and as a country. Well, that is the concept of a country. And we all are citizens of that country. And in my apartment in the Dakota Building, we put a little plaque on the back door, the kitchen door. It says 'Nutopian Embassy' and even now we have that. (laughs). Nutopia exists in our minds. And because of that, some people want to rebel against it. The reason some want to rebel against it is a good proof that it exists. I think that it was a terrible thing that happened in Chechnya. But we have to still keep our hopes up. And instead of giving up, we have to keep on sending the message of Love to each other. You say that I am the Ambassador of Peace. We are all Ambassadors of Peace. You are too. Everybody in this room are Ambassadors of Peace. Just the fact that we are not participating in War. The fact that we are here, and we are what we are, means that we are in the Peace Industry. All of us. John and I used to say that our apartment in the Dakota is a conceptual monastry, just for the two of us. And when we go out of the Dakota, we get so many people communicating with us, so it's very important that we had silence and quietness. And my apartment is a very small space compared to the world. And I need that for my peace of mind. You should be kind to each other. You should come together, hug each other, love each other, express our love to each other and we should make it work. We should finally create a world that is a totally an Earth for Us. So let's do it. Yoko Ono, OpenAsia Press Conference, whilst exhibiting Onochord, 2004 by Yoko Ono (Nutopia) at the Venice Biennale: OpenAsia 2004, Lido Di Venezia, Venice, Italy, 9 September 2004.

Yoko Ono

35,208 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🚨🇺🇸 SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON: LAUNCHING MISSILES INTO IRAN COULD SPIRAL... THIS MAY NOT END WELL “We're potentially on the brink of launching missiles into a foreign country. And so, regardless of what you think about these individuals' experience, the people who are around them, those career individuals, are gonna have to advise the hell out of them to make the best decisions to advise the president. My hope is that the president doesn't make this decision. I don't think that this is going to end well for us because there is the opportunity for Iran to retaliate.” Source: CNN Shermichael Singleton
0:41

🚨🇺🇸 SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON: LAUNCHING MISSILES INTO IRAN COULD SPIRAL... THIS MAY NOT END WELL “We're potentially on the brink of launching missiles into a foreign country. And so, regardless of what you think about these individuals' experience, the people who are around them, those career individuals, are gonna have to advise the hell out of them to make the best decisions to advise the president. My hope is that the president doesn't make this decision. I don't think that this is going to end well for us because there is the opportunity for Iran to retaliate.” Source: CNN Shermichael Singleton

Mario Nawfal

297,391 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

PRX alecks reflects on the team's playstyle and how it has evolved over the years: "I think we've just got a lot more careful. I think that was a bit disappointing on our side because I think we know how to shut this down because we used to do these kinds of things and we couldn't do it today because, again, like I said, we forgot. I can go through the years, but between 2022 to 2024, we pretty much just made sure that everything was strat-based and we just charged people and hoped that we had better mechanics. Then around 2025, I think we took a look at the year and with how good Yoru was, we just tried to leverage the fact that Yoru could be everywhere on the map and we tried to make sure that we understood the game on a micro level a lot better. Maybe for all you know, it came back to bite us in the ass today. What we needed to do was win the fight and then [inaudible], and we used to be very good at that. So if the meta stays the same, I can promise you that we will be back to our best charging people." (via Manguitouu Sons of KS)
2:23

PRX alecks reflects on the team's playstyle and how it has evolved over the years: "I think we've just got a lot more careful. I think that was a bit disappointing on our side because I think we know how to shut this down because we used to do these kinds of things and we couldn't do it today because, again, like I said, we forgot. I can go through the years, but between 2022 to 2024, we pretty much just made sure that everything was strat-based and we just charged people and hoped that we had better mechanics. Then around 2025, I think we took a look at the year and with how good Yoru was, we just tried to leverage the fact that Yoru could be everywhere on the map and we tried to make sure that we understood the game on a micro level a lot better. Maybe for all you know, it came back to bite us in the ass today. What we needed to do was win the fight and then [inaudible], and we used to be very good at that. So if the meta stays the same, I can promise you that we will be back to our best charging people." (via Manguitouu Sons of KS)

VALO2ASIA

71,155 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Kamala Harris: No, no, no, that's not what I said… that he couldn't be on the ticket because he is gay. My point is, as I write in the book, is that I was clear that in 107 days, in one of the most hotly contested elections for president against someone like Trump, who knows no floor… To be a black woman running for president, and as a vice presidential running mate, a gay man. With the stakes being so high, it made me very sad. But I also realized it would be a real risk. No matter how. You know, I've been an advocate and an ally of the LGBT community my entire life. So it wasn't about any prejudice on my part, but we had such a short we had such a short period of time. And the stakes were so high. I think Pete is a phenomenal, phenomenal public servant. And I think America is and would be ready for that. But when I had to make that decision with two weeks to go—and maybe I was being too cautious…we should all talk about that. Maybe I was, but that's the decision I made. And I'm and I, as with everything else in the book and being very candid about that. Yeah. With a great deal of sadness about also the fact that it might have been a risk.
2:48

Kamala Harris: No, no, no, that's not what I said… that he couldn't be on the ticket because he is gay. My point is, as I write in the book, is that I was clear that in 107 days, in one of the most hotly contested elections for president against someone like Trump, who knows no floor… To be a black woman running for president, and as a vice presidential running mate, a gay man. With the stakes being so high, it made me very sad. But I also realized it would be a real risk. No matter how. You know, I've been an advocate and an ally of the LGBT community my entire life. So it wasn't about any prejudice on my part, but we had such a short we had such a short period of time. And the stakes were so high. I think Pete is a phenomenal, phenomenal public servant. And I think America is and would be ready for that. But when I had to make that decision with two weeks to go—and maybe I was being too cautious…we should all talk about that. Maybe I was, but that's the decision I made. And I'm and I, as with everything else in the book and being very candid about that. Yeah. With a great deal of sadness about also the fact that it might have been a risk.

Acyn

1,016,752 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Graham Platner on Iran: “End the war. Bring people home. Stop bombing. We started this thing, we can end it. I fought in Iraq. I do not think that we should fund a war that is illegal and not remotely in the interest of the American people”
1:40

Graham Platner on Iran: “End the war. Bring people home. Stop bombing. We started this thing, we can end it. I fought in Iraq. I do not think that we should fund a war that is illegal and not remotely in the interest of the American people”

Marco Foster

313,121 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Trump put the king of Jordan in a tough spot here. You can see how uncomfortable he is. REPORTER: And why should the king take in the Palestinian people? He's made clear he doesn't want to. TRUMP: Well, I don't know, but he may have just something to say because we discussed, just briefly, I think maybe you wanna say it now. KING OF JORDAN: Mister president, I I think, we have to keep in mind that there is a a plan from Egypt and the Arab countries. We're being invited by Mohammed bin Salman to discussions in in Riyadh. I think the point is is how do we make this work in a way that is, good for everybody. Right. Obviously, we we have to look at, the best interest of of The United States, of the people in the region, especially to my people of Jordan, and we're going to have some interesting discussions today.
0:38

Trump put the king of Jordan in a tough spot here. You can see how uncomfortable he is. REPORTER: And why should the king take in the Palestinian people? He's made clear he doesn't want to. TRUMP: Well, I don't know, but he may have just something to say because we discussed, just briefly, I think maybe you wanna say it now. KING OF JORDAN: Mister president, I I think, we have to keep in mind that there is a a plan from Egypt and the Arab countries. We're being invited by Mohammed bin Salman to discussions in in Riyadh. I think the point is is how do we make this work in a way that is, good for everybody. Right. Obviously, we we have to look at, the best interest of of The United States, of the people in the region, especially to my people of Jordan, and we're going to have some interesting discussions today.

Open Source Intel

648,957 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Former Fox News host Geraldo Rivera: “By focusing on the censorship aspect and the First Amendment aspect, it’s losing sight of what should be the lead and that’s that Jimmy Kimmel owes the family of Charlie Kirk and his wife Erika, two small children, an apology. You know, you know, what’s he saying? That if you’re if you’re a member of MAGA and Charlie is a friend of MAG, of MAGA, then he had it coming. It’s just — it’s — it’s in some ways — it’s very — it’s — extremely — extremely insensitive. The country is in a country is in a very tough spot right now. Everyone is walking on eggshells. The First Amendment is not a license to incite hatred and, you know, I think that we can think that we can start the discussion once Jimmy Kimmel apologizes, then they can talk about the business aspects and whether or not he gets whether or not he gets back on the schedule and so forth, but there’s got to there’s got to be a recognition that a terrible thing has happened here, and that millions of Americans are grievously hurt by what happened. You know, there is a — Charlie Kirk was beloved by many. And to just trample over it. He’s not even buried yet for goodness sake. And to make fun of the flags at half staff and so forth. I just half staff and so forth. I just think that we’ve got to look at it with a — with a notion that the country has to be healed, that we have to work to bring people together, that we need to respect each other. You know, we don’t have to agree, but we have to respect. And I think that, you know, the audience has deserted him for a good reason.”
1:44

Former Fox News host Geraldo Rivera: “By focusing on the censorship aspect and the First Amendment aspect, it’s losing sight of what should be the lead and that’s that Jimmy Kimmel owes the family of Charlie Kirk and his wife Erika, two small children, an apology. You know, you know, what’s he saying? That if you’re if you’re a member of MAGA and Charlie is a friend of MAG, of MAGA, then he had it coming. It’s just — it’s — it’s in some ways — it’s very — it’s — extremely — extremely insensitive. The country is in a country is in a very tough spot right now. Everyone is walking on eggshells. The First Amendment is not a license to incite hatred and, you know, I think that we can think that we can start the discussion once Jimmy Kimmel apologizes, then they can talk about the business aspects and whether or not he gets whether or not he gets back on the schedule and so forth, but there’s got to there’s got to be a recognition that a terrible thing has happened here, and that millions of Americans are grievously hurt by what happened. You know, there is a — Charlie Kirk was beloved by many. And to just trample over it. He’s not even buried yet for goodness sake. And to make fun of the flags at half staff and so forth. I just half staff and so forth. I just think that we’ve got to look at it with a — with a notion that the country has to be healed, that we have to work to bring people together, that we need to respect each other. You know, we don’t have to agree, but we have to respect. And I think that, you know, the audience has deserted him for a good reason.”

Curtis Houck

825,225 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

stefan van de graaff, director of “one of us,” on casting kit connor in the lead role: “that's actually really kind of incredible story. so we knew that we wanted to cast around the lead actor, which, in this case, is kit. he plays a character named youngest. we wanted to cast around it first. […] we went to independent, which is the talent agency that kit is repped by in the uk, and originally, we had approached other actors. i had kit on my shortlist as people that i wanted in the film, but when i reviewed his work, i thought he might just be a little bit too young for the role. so we actually went and approached a few other actors first, and we had one booked, but he got really sick and—literally two weeks before we were filming—so we went back to independent and they said, ‘who else are you looking at? is there anybody else that we can put on?’ and i had, again, reviewed kit's work in the past, and i said, ‘talk to me about kit. i love him. i think he's a brilliant actor. i think he has just the right look. i think he's a little young.’ and his agent was just really effusive about saying he's the most mature person you'll ever meet. he carries himself as an adult. yes, he's, you know, i think he was 19 at the time. but that will not come through in his effort and his, you know, his capability. and so i had a phone call with kit, and it was very clear that he punched well above his weight in terms of his age. he's wise beyond his years and was extremely talented and thorough, and so, cast him, and that has ended up being a really, really incredible sequence of events because i absolutely loved working with him, and i don't think the film is the film without him. so it's been very fortunate.” 🔗:
2:34

stefan van de graaff, director of “one of us,” on casting kit connor in the lead role: “that's actually really kind of incredible story. so we knew that we wanted to cast around the lead actor, which, in this case, is kit. he plays a character named youngest. we wanted to cast around it first. […] we went to independent, which is the talent agency that kit is repped by in the uk, and originally, we had approached other actors. i had kit on my shortlist as people that i wanted in the film, but when i reviewed his work, i thought he might just be a little bit too young for the role. so we actually went and approached a few other actors first, and we had one booked, but he got really sick and—literally two weeks before we were filming—so we went back to independent and they said, ‘who else are you looking at? is there anybody else that we can put on?’ and i had, again, reviewed kit's work in the past, and i said, ‘talk to me about kit. i love him. i think he's a brilliant actor. i think he has just the right look. i think he's a little young.’ and his agent was just really effusive about saying he's the most mature person you'll ever meet. he carries himself as an adult. yes, he's, you know, i think he was 19 at the time. but that will not come through in his effort and his, you know, his capability. and so i had a phone call with kit, and it was very clear that he punched well above his weight in terms of his age. he's wise beyond his years and was extremely talented and thorough, and so, cast him, and that has ended up being a really, really incredible sequence of events because i absolutely loved working with him, and i don't think the film is the film without him. so it's been very fortunate.” 🔗:

kit connor updates

19,836 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

This is chilling and uncomfortable. But, I get it. In a weird but compelling way, I get it. As a people, we move on. We move to the next headline quickly. We are shocked, we lament, protest, etc but eventually ... WE MOVE ON. This AI rendering of a story is morbid and uncomfortable... And even triggering. But, dammit, maybe this is what is needed. Evil gets shielded and protected by our need to not want to be confronted by truths that make us uncomfortable. How many stories of families hiding traumas and crimes of familial culprits because they don't want to expose the shame of umdeni? What does that do but protect perpetrators? Our discomfort about our reality can be a hindrance to accountability. The shame and discomfort should be reserved for the culprit. We are surprised how recidivism is so high in Mzansi, but we forget that we protect criminals' dignity more than the victims'. There is a lot that is cringe-y about AI and it should be regulated. This, though chilling, I feel it is a necessary evil if it will make Olorato and many like her not to become old news because today we have moved on to a new shocking headline. Remember her and live with the reality that you or someone you love and/or know may be next.
2:27

This is chilling and uncomfortable. But, I get it. In a weird but compelling way, I get it. As a people, we move on. We move to the next headline quickly. We are shocked, we lament, protest, etc but eventually ... WE MOVE ON. This AI rendering of a story is morbid and uncomfortable... And even triggering. But, dammit, maybe this is what is needed. Evil gets shielded and protected by our need to not want to be confronted by truths that make us uncomfortable. How many stories of families hiding traumas and crimes of familial culprits because they don't want to expose the shame of umdeni? What does that do but protect perpetrators? Our discomfort about our reality can be a hindrance to accountability. The shame and discomfort should be reserved for the culprit. We are surprised how recidivism is so high in Mzansi, but we forget that we protect criminals' dignity more than the victims'. There is a lot that is cringe-y about AI and it should be regulated. This, though chilling, I feel it is a necessary evil if it will make Olorato and many like her not to become old news because today we have moved on to a new shocking headline. Remember her and live with the reality that you or someone you love and/or know may be next.

Kgopolo

67,351 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

.JD Vance: I know the media wants to attack me and wants me to back down on this, Megyn, but the simple point that I made is that having children, becoming a father, becoming a mother, I really do think it changes your perspective in a pretty profound way. It's not a criticism of people who don't have children. I explicitly said in my remarks, despite the fact the media has lied about this, that this is not about criticizing people who for various reasons didn't have kids. This is about criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming anti-family and anti-child.
1:20

.JD Vance: I know the media wants to attack me and wants me to back down on this, Megyn, but the simple point that I made is that having children, becoming a father, becoming a mother, I really do think it changes your perspective in a pretty profound way. It's not a criticism of people who don't have children. I explicitly said in my remarks, despite the fact the media has lied about this, that this is not about criticizing people who for various reasons didn't have kids. This is about criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming anti-family and anti-child.

Trump War Room

1,993,626 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"That pussy Adam Cole broke his ankle like the complete dork that he is." MJF talks about the revisionist history of his story with Adam Cole "Here's what happened. At the time, and this is just a fact, we were the highest minute-for-minute drawing angle, not just in AEW, but in all of professional wrestling at that point. We were moving the most merch in the company. At that point, and was to no fault, Bloodline's going to go down as one of the greatest long-term thing, but at that point there was a bit of lull in their story at that point in 2023, and we had taken lead and Better Than You, Baby is what everybody was talking about and then that pussy Adam Cole broke his ankle like the complete dork that he is and then he decided to turn on me because he's a horrible human being. But I learned a lot in that in that year I learned a lot about myself you know when I when I was out—full disclosure I was in a very dark place." I also asked about the injuries he had suffered "It was my hip, my left shoulder; my last two pay-per-view matches—pretty much the left side of my body was useless. But I wasn't going to tell the doctors that because that's not how I was brought up. In not just in real life, but in this business. When I had that time off, I had a lot of time to reflect and it made me angry. Now I look back on it and I shouldn't have been angry at the fans. Who I should have been angry was that myself. Because I went from being, ‘MJF is the best thing since sliced bread,’ and within a flip of a switch, ‘It's MJF sucks. He's killing this company that we love.’ It took, if we're being honest, it took all the way into like the first month of this year of 2025 for everybody to be like, ‘Maybe we were harsh. Maybe he's actually still one of the best in the world. They can't help it. But I know why. It's because nobody likes a braggart. But the unfortunate thing is I can't help myself. I'm just really good at my job and I can't help but talk about it."
3:40

"That pussy Adam Cole broke his ankle like the complete dork that he is." MJF talks about the revisionist history of his story with Adam Cole "Here's what happened. At the time, and this is just a fact, we were the highest minute-for-minute drawing angle, not just in AEW, but in all of professional wrestling at that point. We were moving the most merch in the company. At that point, and was to no fault, Bloodline's going to go down as one of the greatest long-term thing, but at that point there was a bit of lull in their story at that point in 2023, and we had taken lead and Better Than You, Baby is what everybody was talking about and then that pussy Adam Cole broke his ankle like the complete dork that he is and then he decided to turn on me because he's a horrible human being. But I learned a lot in that in that year I learned a lot about myself you know when I when I was out—full disclosure I was in a very dark place." I also asked about the injuries he had suffered "It was my hip, my left shoulder; my last two pay-per-view matches—pretty much the left side of my body was useless. But I wasn't going to tell the doctors that because that's not how I was brought up. In not just in real life, but in this business. When I had that time off, I had a lot of time to reflect and it made me angry. Now I look back on it and I shouldn't have been angry at the fans. Who I should have been angry was that myself. Because I went from being, ‘MJF is the best thing since sliced bread,’ and within a flip of a switch, ‘It's MJF sucks. He's killing this company that we love.’ It took, if we're being honest, it took all the way into like the first month of this year of 2025 for everybody to be like, ‘Maybe we were harsh. Maybe he's actually still one of the best in the world. They can't help it. But I know why. It's because nobody likes a braggart. But the unfortunate thing is I can't help myself. I'm just really good at my job and I can't help but talk about it."

Sean Ross Sapp of Fightful.com

31,538 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Peters: You talk about standards, you talk about raising, or that we have a problem of standards in the DOD, and we have to raise standards for the men and women who serve. Do you think that the way to raise the minimum standards of the people who serve us is to lower the standards for the secretary of defense, that we have someone who has never managed an organization more than 100 people?
0:35

Peters: You talk about standards, you talk about raising, or that we have a problem of standards in the DOD, and we have to raise standards for the men and women who serve. Do you think that the way to raise the minimum standards of the people who serve us is to lower the standards for the secretary of defense, that we have someone who has never managed an organization more than 100 people?

Acyn

114,513 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)
3:29

🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)

Joe Murgia

30,311 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

.Rep. Justin Jones: "“We still have Democrats were acting like this is early 2000 politics. That world of normalcy is gone. This is a war for the future of our democracy. And the South is the front line in that battle… I would say to the governors and to the lawmakers in those [blue] states that this is a moment to put our morals above our manners. What is moral is to act, not just for us, but for generations who are counting on us, what we do in this moment. I think we're going to be judged not by what we do, but by what we don't do.”
1:36

.Rep. Justin Jones: "“We still have Democrats were acting like this is early 2000 politics. That world of normalcy is gone. This is a war for the future of our democracy. And the South is the front line in that battle… I would say to the governors and to the lawmakers in those [blue] states that this is a moment to put our morals above our manners. What is moral is to act, not just for us, but for generations who are counting on us, what we do in this moment. I think we're going to be judged not by what we do, but by what we don't do.”

BTC Clips

114,028 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Strickland: I can tell you that Pete Hegseth has very little respect among people who are serving and who have served. He’s coming in there—he’s performative. And think about him following General Lloyd Austin. Think about what happened with the firing of General Randy George this past week. And even his own secretary of the Army is not, you know, bowing down and bending the knee. And so I think there’s a conversation about Pete Hegseth’s competence, but as I’ve always said, the president is the commander-in-chief, and that competence comes from the very top. So whatever we see Pete Hegseth doing is simply a reflection of this president.
1:00

Strickland: I can tell you that Pete Hegseth has very little respect among people who are serving and who have served. He’s coming in there—he’s performative. And think about him following General Lloyd Austin. Think about what happened with the firing of General Randy George this past week. And even his own secretary of the Army is not, you know, bowing down and bending the knee. And so I think there’s a conversation about Pete Hegseth’s competence, but as I’ve always said, the president is the commander-in-chief, and that competence comes from the very top. So whatever we see Pete Hegseth doing is simply a reflection of this president.

Acyn

145,001 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

WATCH: Jason Rantz on Seattle Red responding on 'CNN NewsNight' to a second ICE-involved shooting in Minneapolis.... "ICE tonight went after someone in a targeted act b/c not only were they in this country illegally, but presumably there was also a crime that was committed. That ICE agent was attacked. This is not terrorizing the community. This is, in fact, precisely what it is that most people usually at this table has also conceded is kind of important where you don't want to just go around and randomly ask people for papers. You compare that to the gestapo, but now you're saying that going after someone who is a criminal, that somehow is hands off, we shouldn't be doing that. And that doesn't make a community safer by going after criminals." "And at the exact same time, we've got the ICE agent not only being attacked allegedly by this individual, but also two people in the neighborhood. Perhaps we should also take just a moment, pause and say, you shouldn't do that. That is wrong. That is a quick way to get injured yourself. We can separate out going after someone who is in this country illegally, who is going about their day, and trying to contribute to our society. Like, I don't think there's an appetite -- I don't have an appetite for that. But I do have an appetite for going after people who are committing crimes here. And this seems to be like the least controversial issue that we should be angry with."
1:13

WATCH: Jason Rantz on Seattle Red responding on 'CNN NewsNight' to a second ICE-involved shooting in Minneapolis.... "ICE tonight went after someone in a targeted act b/c not only were they in this country illegally, but presumably there was also a crime that was committed. That ICE agent was attacked. This is not terrorizing the community. This is, in fact, precisely what it is that most people usually at this table has also conceded is kind of important where you don't want to just go around and randomly ask people for papers. You compare that to the gestapo, but now you're saying that going after someone who is a criminal, that somehow is hands off, we shouldn't be doing that. And that doesn't make a community safer by going after criminals." "And at the exact same time, we've got the ICE agent not only being attacked allegedly by this individual, but also two people in the neighborhood. Perhaps we should also take just a moment, pause and say, you shouldn't do that. That is wrong. That is a quick way to get injured yourself. We can separate out going after someone who is in this country illegally, who is going about their day, and trying to contribute to our society. Like, I don't think there's an appetite -- I don't have an appetite for that. But I do have an appetite for going after people who are committing crimes here. And this seems to be like the least controversial issue that we should be angry with."

Curtis Houck

66,029 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

CNN’s Shermichael Singleton Singleton on last night’s NYC mayoral debate and whether Andrew Cuomo did anything to change the trajectory of the race and a Mamdani victory: “No...I think it’s going to be Mamdani. He’s incredibly talented. As a Republican, I certainly don’t agree with many of his positions. But there is something to be said about the arguments that he’s making to New Yorkers that is palatable. I am concerned about some of his presentations on economics. I’m concerned about the idea of the role of government as it pertains to sort of level setting for people who have economically struggled. I think there’s a different way to go about certain things, but that message is resonating. And if you’re Cuomo, can folks in New York know who Cuomo is? And there’s some real concern about his past misgivings, there’s some concern about some of the things he did as governor. And he didn’t, in my opinion, effectively address those things aggressively enough. Mamdani did. He showcased strength. And even if you’re a New Yorker, you’re curious and maybe say, I don’t disagree with him. You watch that and say, this is a guy who will fight for me, and that moves the needle for voters.”
1:02

CNN’s Shermichael Singleton Singleton on last night’s NYC mayoral debate and whether Andrew Cuomo did anything to change the trajectory of the race and a Mamdani victory: “No...I think it’s going to be Mamdani. He’s incredibly talented. As a Republican, I certainly don’t agree with many of his positions. But there is something to be said about the arguments that he’s making to New Yorkers that is palatable. I am concerned about some of his presentations on economics. I’m concerned about the idea of the role of government as it pertains to sort of level setting for people who have economically struggled. I think there’s a different way to go about certain things, but that message is resonating. And if you’re Cuomo, can folks in New York know who Cuomo is? And there’s some real concern about his past misgivings, there’s some concern about some of the things he did as governor. And he didn’t, in my opinion, effectively address those things aggressively enough. Mamdani did. He showcased strength. And even if you’re a New Yorker, you’re curious and maybe say, I don’t disagree with him. You watch that and say, this is a guy who will fight for me, and that moves the needle for voters.”

Curtis Houck

10,567 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten