Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘰𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘫𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘺

tam

4,515 subscribers

37,354 次观看 • 9 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

𝘞𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤. 𝘐𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺, 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘺. — 𝗣𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗚𝗮𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗹

𝘞𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤. 𝘐𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺, 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘺. — 𝗣𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗚𝗮𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗹

Prog Rock Songs

13,498 次观看 • 10 个月前

𝘋𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘐 𝘚𝘢𝘺 — 𝘈 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 — 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘏𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘈𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘩 𝘐𝘧 𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘐’𝘥 𝘣𝘦 — 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘈𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬, 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯’ 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘏𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘐’𝘮 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘥 — 𝘞𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵? 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘩 𝘐𝘧 𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘐’𝘥 𝘣𝘦 — 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘈𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬, 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯’ 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘏𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘐’𝘮 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘥 — 𝘞𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵? 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯’ 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘰𝘪𝘯’ 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘱𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘓𝘰𝘰𝘱𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯’ 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘏𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘐’𝘮 𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯’ 𝘴𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘥 — 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵.

𝘋𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘐 𝘚𝘢𝘺 — 𝘈 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 — 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘏𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘈𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘩 𝘐𝘧 𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘐’𝘥 𝘣𝘦 — 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘈𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬, 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯’ 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘏𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘐’𝘮 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘥 — 𝘞𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵? 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘩 𝘐𝘧 𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘐’𝘥 𝘣𝘦 — 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘈𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬, 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯’ 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘏𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘐’𝘮 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘥 — 𝘞𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵? 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯’ 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘰𝘪𝘯’ 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘱𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘓𝘰𝘰𝘱𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯’ 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘏𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘐’𝘮 𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯’ 𝘴𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘥 — 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵.

Jay Thomas 🗝️

85,910 次观看 • 3 个月前

“𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘗𝘓 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘯, 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘦. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘬.” Dinesh Karthik sums up our night against RR, highlights the positives and takes notes for our next game against MI. 📝 #PlayBold #ನಮ್ಮRCB #IPL2026

“𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘗𝘓 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘯, 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘦. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘬.” Dinesh Karthik sums up our night against RR, highlights the positives and takes notes for our next game against MI. 📝 #PlayBold #ನಮ್ಮRCB #IPL2026

Royal Challengers Bengaluru

89,664 次观看 • 3 个月前

🎙️"𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴, 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘬?" He most certainly can. Tony Meo's exhibition pink at the 1983 World Doubles Championship was one for the ages. Outrageous potting.

🎙️"𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴, 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘬?" He most certainly can. Tony Meo's exhibition pink at the 1983 World Doubles Championship was one for the ages. Outrageous potting.

Baizewatch

52,218 次观看 • 1 年前

𝐊𝐓 𝐌𝐜𝐅𝐀𝐑𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐑𝐔𝐍𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐑𝐎𝐎𝐌: “𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐒 𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍” KT McFarland has been in Situation Room briefings with Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Trump. She just explained why Trump is different from all of them. “𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘰𝘰𝘮—𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳” Not Trump. “𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘺—𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 27 𝘢𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮, 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴” And the part that rattles every bureaucrat in Washington: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘧” This isn’t speculation — it’s exactly what happened during the Iran operation. The final Situation Room meeting was 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐬 (Time). Trump asked each adviser for their view, then made the call himself: “𝐈 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐢𝐭”. The VP was kept in a separate Situation Room per 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲-𝐨𝐟-𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐥 (Time). McFarland’s bottom line: “𝘈𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵, 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶” 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟒 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬.

𝐊𝐓 𝐌𝐜𝐅𝐀𝐑𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐑𝐔𝐍𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐑𝐎𝐎𝐌: “𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐒 𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍” KT McFarland has been in Situation Room briefings with Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Trump. She just explained why Trump is different from all of them. “𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘰𝘰𝘮—𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳” Not Trump. “𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘺—𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 27 𝘢𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮, 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴” And the part that rattles every bureaucrat in Washington: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘧” This isn’t speculation — it’s exactly what happened during the Iran operation. The final Situation Room meeting was 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐬 (Time). Trump asked each adviser for their view, then made the call himself: “𝐈 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐢𝐭”. The VP was kept in a separate Situation Room per 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲-𝐨𝐟-𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐥 (Time). McFarland’s bottom line: “𝘈𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵, 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶” 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟒 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬.

M.A. Rothman

37,384 次观看 • 3 个月前

𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐁 ’𝐄𝐌” 𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝟔𝟎 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐅𝐋𝐀𝐓 A woman on the Whatever Podcast just did what ten years of conservative pundits couldn’t — she buried the Trump “grab ’em” talking point with one question: “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The liberal girl across from her brought up the 2016 tape as proof Trump is unfit. Rachel Wilson didn’t flinch. She corrected the record first: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” Then she asked the only question that matters — “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The other woman’s response? “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨.” Not “it’s false.” Not “here’s why he’s incorrect.” Just — it’s a bad 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭. Wilson pressed: “𝘛𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦.” Then she went deeper than any talking head ever has on this subject. “𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺, 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴.” The liberal’s last stand: “𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” Translation — she couldn’t argue the facts, so she went to 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. Wilson’s answer shut it down completely: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩.” This is why the “grab ’em” tape lost its power. Not because people stopped caring about how things sound. Because a generation of women grew up, looked at the actual statement, and realized — it’s observationally accurate. The Women’s March was built on pretending Trump described assault. He described 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. And when a woman says that out loud on camera, the entire moral framework collapses. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡.

𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐁 ’𝐄𝐌” 𝐎𝐔𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝟔𝟎 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐅𝐋𝐀𝐓 A woman on the Whatever Podcast just did what ten years of conservative pundits couldn’t — she buried the Trump “grab ’em” talking point with one question: “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The liberal girl across from her brought up the 2016 tape as proof Trump is unfit. Rachel Wilson didn’t flinch. She corrected the record first: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” Then she asked the only question that matters — “𝘏𝘰𝘸’𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨?” The other woman’s response? “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨.” Not “it’s false.” Not “here’s why he’s incorrect.” Just — it’s a bad 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭. Wilson pressed: “𝘛𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦.” Then she went deeper than any talking head ever has on this subject. “𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺, 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩-𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴.” The liberal’s last stand: “𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” Translation — she couldn’t argue the facts, so she went to 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. Wilson’s answer shut it down completely: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩.” This is why the “grab ’em” tape lost its power. Not because people stopped caring about how things sound. Because a generation of women grew up, looked at the actual statement, and realized — it’s observationally accurate. The Women’s March was built on pretending Trump described assault. He described 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. And when a woman says that out loud on camera, the entire moral framework collapses. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡.

M.A. Rothman

425,173 次观看 • 3 个月前

𝐁𝐋𝐔𝐄-𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐍𝐘𝐂 𝐆𝐔𝐘 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐍𝐎 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒 𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘, 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐄” This guy lives in Chelsea — one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Manhattan. He has blue hair. Everyone in his building kept asking him if he went to the No Kings rally. He politely said no. Then he turned on his camera and said what he really thinks. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘺𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. He went further: 𝘐 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘪𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦. On the rally itself: 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. Everyone in his neighborhood treated it like a social event — the cool thing to do in Chelsea. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘬. Then the line that says everything about where this country is heading: 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘐 𝘥𝘰. And then: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦. He acknowledged what he supports Trump on: 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐’𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵. His closing message to his blue-haired peers: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵. And to conservatives watching: 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳. 𝘎𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. Then Batya Ungar-Sargon weighed in with the analytical kill shot: 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦. 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. She pointed out the obvious: 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. And then the best observation of all: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 — 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢 “𝘯𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴” 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 — 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘵, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝐀 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞-𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝.

𝐁𝐋𝐔𝐄-𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐍𝐘𝐂 𝐆𝐔𝐘 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐍𝐎 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒 𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘, 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐄” This guy lives in Chelsea — one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Manhattan. He has blue hair. Everyone in his building kept asking him if he went to the No Kings rally. He politely said no. Then he turned on his camera and said what he really thinks. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘺𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. He went further: 𝘐 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘪𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦. On the rally itself: 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. Everyone in his neighborhood treated it like a social event — the cool thing to do in Chelsea. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘬. Then the line that says everything about where this country is heading: 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘐 𝘥𝘰. And then: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦. He acknowledged what he supports Trump on: 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐’𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵. His closing message to his blue-haired peers: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵. And to conservatives watching: 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳. 𝘎𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. Then Batya Ungar-Sargon weighed in with the analytical kill shot: 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦. 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. She pointed out the obvious: 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. And then the best observation of all: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 — 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢 “𝘯𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴” 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 — 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘵, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝐀 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞-𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝.

M.A. Rothman

187,560 次观看 • 3 个月前

𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐆 𝐆𝐔𝐓𝐅𝐄𝐋𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐎𝐍𝐄-𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐒𝐇𝐔𝐓𝐒 𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐂: “𝐒𝐎?” Greg Gutfeld just handed Trump supporters the only word they’ll ever need. “𝘏𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘏𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍-𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘕. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵” Gutfeld laid out the fundamental disconnect: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘓𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦” Then the analogy that nailed it: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘸𝘰-𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘺, 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘺. 𝘔𝘢𝘺𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈.𝘊. 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘵” Gutfeld also posed the question Democrats will never answer: “𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥? 𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩? 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵?” His diagnosis of Trump’s method was the most precise anyone has offered: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱’𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘰𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘵, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬, 𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘰𝘴” The critics see the chaos and panic. The results-oriented see the 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 — and the pattern keeps working. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅-𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝: 𝐒𝐨?

𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐆 𝐆𝐔𝐓𝐅𝐄𝐋𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐎𝐍𝐄-𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐒𝐇𝐔𝐓𝐒 𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐂: “𝐒𝐎?” Greg Gutfeld just handed Trump supporters the only word they’ll ever need. “𝘏𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘏𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍-𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘕. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵” Gutfeld laid out the fundamental disconnect: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘓𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦” Then the analogy that nailed it: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘸𝘰-𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘺, 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘺. 𝘔𝘢𝘺𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈.𝘊. 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘵” Gutfeld also posed the question Democrats will never answer: “𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥? 𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩? 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵?” His diagnosis of Trump’s method was the most precise anyone has offered: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱’𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘰𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘵, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬, 𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘰𝘴” The critics see the chaos and panic. The results-oriented see the 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 — and the pattern keeps working. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅-𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝: 𝐒𝐨?

M.A. Rothman

23,602 次观看 • 3 个月前

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐂𝐀𝐏𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐕𝐒. 𝐒𝐎𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐕𝐒. 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐘𝐎𝐔’𝐋𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐄𝐀𝐑 This creator explained the difference using YouTube—and it’s brilliant. 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘢 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘛𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦.” 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱.” 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵.” Then the key insight: “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘴.” He nailed how they sell it: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 ’𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦.’ 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 ’𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦.’ 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳.” A 2024 poll found 𝟒𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧 𝐙 viewed socialism favorably—until they were told what it actually means (Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation). 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞.

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐂𝐀𝐏𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐕𝐒. 𝐒𝐎𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐕𝐒. 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐘𝐎𝐔’𝐋𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐄𝐀𝐑 This creator explained the difference using YouTube—and it’s brilliant. 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘢 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘛𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦.” 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱.” 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵.” Then the key insight: “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘴.” He nailed how they sell it: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 ’𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦.’ 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 ’𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦.’ 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳.” A 2024 poll found 𝟒𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧 𝐙 viewed socialism favorably—until they were told what it actually means (Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation). 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

75,286 次观看 • 3 个月前

Bill Ackman on Psychology of Investing 🧠 “You have to get excited when things get cheaper and get concerned when things get more expensive… Stocks can trade at any price in the short term. If you know what a business is worth and understand it extremely well, volatility bothers you much less… It’s a combination of being personally secure and knowing what you own. Over time, you build calluses… I’m a pretty emotional person — but not in investing.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧: 𝘛𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦. ___ 1️⃣ 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 Large drawdowns don’t just test portfolios — they test 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺. Sharp declines can trigger the same fight-or-flight response governed by the 𝘢𝘮𝘺𝘨𝘥𝘢𝘭𝘢. When that switch flips, decision-making shifts from logic → survival. 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐦𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭: 𝘐𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺. ___ 2️⃣ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 Volatility feels very different when you deeply understand: What the business is worth The fundamental drivers of value The durability of its moat 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘖𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 — 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴. ___ 3️⃣ 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 Ackman openly acknowledges being emotional. That honesty is critical. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 — 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘭.” — Richard Feynman We’re all human. 𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡. 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝙤𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡. Great investors build systems: Preset rules Allocation frameworks Behavioral guardrails Over time, experience itself becomes conditioning. Just as David Goggins speaks about 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨, 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙨 𝙗𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙙 𝙥𝙨𝙮𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮. You develop “mental calluses.” 𝙑𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙥𝙨 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧 — 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙨 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨. ___ Video: Lex Fridman Poscast (02/20/2024) Bill Ackman

Bill Ackman on Psychology of Investing 🧠 “You have to get excited when things get cheaper and get concerned when things get more expensive… Stocks can trade at any price in the short term. If you know what a business is worth and understand it extremely well, volatility bothers you much less… It’s a combination of being personally secure and knowing what you own. Over time, you build calluses… I’m a pretty emotional person — but not in investing.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧: 𝘛𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦. _ 1️⃣ 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 Large drawdowns don’t just test portfolios — they test 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺. Sharp declines can trigger the same fight-or-flight response governed by the 𝘢𝘮𝘺𝘨𝘥𝘢𝘭𝘢. When that switch flips, decision-making shifts from logic → survival. 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐦𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭: 𝘐𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺. _ 2️⃣ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 Volatility feels very different when you deeply understand: What the business is worth The fundamental drivers of value The durability of its moat 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘖𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 — 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴. _ 3️⃣ 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 Ackman openly acknowledges being emotional. That honesty is critical. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 — 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘭.” — Richard Feynman We’re all human. 𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡. 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝙤𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡. Great investors build systems: Preset rules Allocation frameworks Behavioral guardrails Over time, experience itself becomes conditioning. Just as David Goggins speaks about 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨, 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙨 𝙗𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙙 𝙥𝙨𝙮𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮. You develop “mental calluses.” 𝙑𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙥𝙨 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧 — 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙨 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨. _ Video: Lex Fridman Poscast (02/20/2024) Bill Ackman

Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®

30,829 次观看 • 5 个月前

𝐄𝐔𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐖 𝐀 “𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐄𝐔𝐌” — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐅𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝐔𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐏𝐘 𝐈𝐓 John Stossel asked a simple question: do you want America to be like Sweden? The Left keeps saying yes. A Swedish-born economist says you have no idea what you’re asking for. Fifteen years ago, America and Europe grew neck and neck. Then Europe stalled. Today America is 𝟓𝟎% 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫 — even though the EU has 100 million more people. The gap is now so wide that the poorest American state out-earns Spain, Italy, France, and Britain per person (Eurostat, Euronews 2026). Stossel’s verdict on the continent the Left idolizes: “𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘶𝘮.” Tourist money keeps it running. The growth is gone. Economist Sven Larson — who grew up in Sweden and wrote a book titled 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺: 𝘠𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯, 𝘛𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦, 𝘛𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 — explains how they got there. Start with taxes. The activists chant “𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩.” Larson’s answer: “𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” The average Swedish worker already pays more in tax than you do. Then there’s the “free” health care. “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺,” Larson says. “𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥∗𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦.” European rules make it nearly impossible to fire anyone. “𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦?” So they stop hiring. About 𝟒𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐔 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 now goes to welfare. Unions act like a mafia — shutting off power, stopping garbage collection, blocking the banks. When non-union Tesla moved in, postal workers refused to deliver the license plates for its new cars. The reward for all that “compassion”? Europe now has 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝’𝐬 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 — you have to scroll into the 20s to find one. The EU has stacked up 395,000 pages of regulation, including an entire AI Act, while America builds the future. So why won’t Europe’s leaders reverse it? Larson gives the honest answer: “𝘈 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯.” That isn’t a bug. That’s the 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠.

𝐄𝐔𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐖 𝐀 “𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐄𝐔𝐌” — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐅𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝐔𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐏𝐘 𝐈𝐓 John Stossel asked a simple question: do you want America to be like Sweden? The Left keeps saying yes. A Swedish-born economist says you have no idea what you’re asking for. Fifteen years ago, America and Europe grew neck and neck. Then Europe stalled. Today America is 𝟓𝟎% 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫 — even though the EU has 100 million more people. The gap is now so wide that the poorest American state out-earns Spain, Italy, France, and Britain per person (Eurostat, Euronews 2026). Stossel’s verdict on the continent the Left idolizes: “𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘶𝘮.” Tourist money keeps it running. The growth is gone. Economist Sven Larson — who grew up in Sweden and wrote a book titled 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺: 𝘠𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯, 𝘛𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦, 𝘛𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 — explains how they got there. Start with taxes. The activists chant “𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩.” Larson’s answer: “𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” The average Swedish worker already pays more in tax than you do. Then there’s the “free” health care. “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺,” Larson says. “𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥∗𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦.” European rules make it nearly impossible to fire anyone. “𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦?” So they stop hiring. About 𝟒𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐔 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 now goes to welfare. Unions act like a mafia — shutting off power, stopping garbage collection, blocking the banks. When non-union Tesla moved in, postal workers refused to deliver the license plates for its new cars. The reward for all that “compassion”? Europe now has 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝’𝐬 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 — you have to scroll into the 20s to find one. The EU has stacked up 395,000 pages of regulation, including an entire AI Act, while America builds the future. So why won’t Europe’s leaders reverse it? Larson gives the honest answer: “𝘈 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯.” That isn’t a bug. That’s the 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠.

M.A. Rothman

13,628 次观看 • 13 天前

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑: “𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐒𝐊 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊. 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐍𝐎.” This montage from Real Time is something every Democrat should have to watch. Maher lays it out plainly: the biggest names in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris — 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞 to come on his show. “𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯? 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯? 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘬? 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰.” Then the kicker: “𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” And who does show up? “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘶𝘱.” That’s the tell. Republicans walk into adversarial interviews. Democrats won’t even walk into 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 ones — because Maher asks follow-up questions, and follow-up questions are what the Democratic messaging apparatus cannot survive. Then the clip shifts to Maher defending Trump on foreign policy — to his own liberal audience. “𝘏𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘗𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘏𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘏𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢.” When someone accused him of “coming around,” Maher shot back: “𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.” Then there’s the White House ballroom segment, where Maher defended the renovation: “𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” The liberal outrage machine is so reflexive that it attacks a private donation to improve the People’s House — and Maher called it out. This is a man who voted Democrat his entire life, told his audience he doesn’t hate the Iran bombing, showed clips of Iranians doing the Trump dance on his show (Yahoo Entertainment), and has called the Iranian government a 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲. He’s not switching parties. He’s just refusing to lie — and that alone is enough to make him radioactive to the Democratic establishment. His own show gets 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 now — not because Maher moved right, but because the left moved away from anyone who asks inconvenient questions. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲.

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑: “𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐒𝐊 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊. 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐍𝐎.” This montage from Real Time is something every Democrat should have to watch. Maher lays it out plainly: the biggest names in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris — 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞 to come on his show. “𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯? 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯? 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘬? 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰.” Then the kicker: “𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” And who does show up? “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘶𝘱.” That’s the tell. Republicans walk into adversarial interviews. Democrats won’t even walk into 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 ones — because Maher asks follow-up questions, and follow-up questions are what the Democratic messaging apparatus cannot survive. Then the clip shifts to Maher defending Trump on foreign policy — to his own liberal audience. “𝘏𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘗𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘏𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘏𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢.” When someone accused him of “coming around,” Maher shot back: “𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.” Then there’s the White House ballroom segment, where Maher defended the renovation: “𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” The liberal outrage machine is so reflexive that it attacks a private donation to improve the People’s House — and Maher called it out. This is a man who voted Democrat his entire life, told his audience he doesn’t hate the Iran bombing, showed clips of Iranians doing the Trump dance on his show (Yahoo Entertainment), and has called the Iranian government a 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲. He’s not switching parties. He’s just refusing to lie — and that alone is enough to make him radioactive to the Democratic establishment. His own show gets 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 now — not because Maher moved right, but because the left moved away from anyone who asks inconvenient questions. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲.

M.A. Rothman

20,644 次观看 • 3 个月前

𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐆 𝐅𝐄𝐑𝐆𝐔𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐒𝐇𝐔𝐓 𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐖’𝐒 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐁𝐀𝐈𝐓: “𝐈’𝐌 𝐒𝐈𝐂𝐊 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈 𝐀𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇” The hosts of The View tried the move they always try: drag the funny guest into bashing Donald Trump. They asked Craig Ferguson whether his new tour, “𝘗𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘦”, was loaded with Trump material. He 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧'𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐢𝐭 for a second: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭.” Then he explained why, and it was sharper than anything the panel managed all show: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬... 𝘐’𝘮 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩.” And the line that should embarrass every cable-news scold: “𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬. 𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶.” Here's the context that makes it sting. Ferguson hosted CBS's Late Late Show for a decade. CBS just 𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐞𝐫𝐚 and handed its 11:35 slot to a syndication package — no host, no desk, no charm. Meanwhile the genuinely funny guy is selling out theaters doing the one thing late night forgot how to do: 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞. 𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐧𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐈𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.

𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐆 𝐅𝐄𝐑𝐆𝐔𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐒𝐇𝐔𝐓 𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐖’𝐒 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐁𝐀𝐈𝐓: “𝐈’𝐌 𝐒𝐈𝐂𝐊 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈 𝐀𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇” The hosts of The View tried the move they always try: drag the funny guest into bashing Donald Trump. They asked Craig Ferguson whether his new tour, “𝘗𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘦”, was loaded with Trump material. He 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧'𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐢𝐭 for a second: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭.” Then he explained why, and it was sharper than anything the panel managed all show: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬... 𝘐’𝘮 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩.” And the line that should embarrass every cable-news scold: “𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬. 𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶.” Here's the context that makes it sting. Ferguson hosted CBS's Late Late Show for a decade. CBS just 𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐞𝐫𝐚 and handed its 11:35 slot to a syndication package — no host, no desk, no charm. Meanwhile the genuinely funny guy is selling out theaters doing the one thing late night forgot how to do: 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞. 𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐧𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐈𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

418,236 次观看 • 1 个月前

𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐋 𝐐𝐀𝐄𝐃𝐀 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐒 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐂𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐒 𝐇𝐈𝐌 𝐄𝐗𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐋𝐘 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒 “𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘮—𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘊𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳.” That is Trump, describing New Jersey’s new Democratic congressional nominee Adam Hamawy. Here is what is in the record. In 1993, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman — the “Blind Sheikh” — was tried in federal court for the first World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York landmarks. Hamawy appeared as a witness 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦. Prosecutors put his beliefs on the record: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳: “𝘋𝘪𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘈𝘣𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘙𝘢𝘩𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮?” 𝘏𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘸𝘺: “𝘠𝘦𝘴.” 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳: “𝘋𝘪𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘫𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘶𝘯𝘦 1993?” 𝘏𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘸𝘺: “𝘖𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘏𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘫𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸.” That is not guilt by association. That is Adam Hamawy, under oath, in federal court, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐣𝐢𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 and that he heard it repeatedly. Abdel-Rahman was convicted and d∗ed in federal prison in 2017. Hamawy also volunteered in Bosnia in 1994 with the Benevolence International Foundation — later formally designated by both the U.S. government and the United Nations as a 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥-𝐐𝐚𝐞𝐝𝐚. He has never been charged with a crime. Hamawy has been endorsed by Ilhan Omar, Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, when asked directly whether Hamawy should drop out, changed the subject. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔: 𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭’𝐬 𝐣𝐢𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭.

𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐋 𝐐𝐀𝐄𝐃𝐀 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐒 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐂𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐒 𝐇𝐈𝐌 𝐄𝐗𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐋𝐘 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒 “𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘮—𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘊𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳.” That is Trump, describing New Jersey’s new Democratic congressional nominee Adam Hamawy. Here is what is in the record. In 1993, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman — the “Blind Sheikh” — was tried in federal court for the first World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York landmarks. Hamawy appeared as a witness 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦. Prosecutors put his beliefs on the record: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳: “𝘋𝘪𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘈𝘣𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘙𝘢𝘩𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮?” 𝘏𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘸𝘺: “𝘠𝘦𝘴.” 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳: “𝘋𝘪𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘫𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘶𝘯𝘦 1993?” 𝘏𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘸𝘺: “𝘖𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘏𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘫𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸.” That is not guilt by association. That is Adam Hamawy, under oath, in federal court, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐣𝐢𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 and that he heard it repeatedly. Abdel-Rahman was convicted and d∗ed in federal prison in 2017. Hamawy also volunteered in Bosnia in 1994 with the Benevolence International Foundation — later formally designated by both the U.S. government and the United Nations as a 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥-𝐐𝐚𝐞𝐝𝐚. He has never been charged with a crime. Hamawy has been endorsed by Ilhan Omar, Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, when asked directly whether Hamawy should drop out, changed the subject. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔: 𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭’𝐬 𝐣𝐢𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭.

M.A. Rothman

54,254 次观看 • 1 个月前

in #PursuitofJade, so many dairy product put their ads (those with blue box on P2). one of them is a milk brand called 认养一头牛 (Adopt A Cow) the video below shows the brand manager said the reason why they decided to put ads on this drama was because the traffic and discussion generated was very real😉🔥 𝘘: 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺, 𝘗𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘶𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘢𝘥𝘦'𝘴 𝘢𝘥𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘢𝘭. 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮? 𝘈: 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 8. 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘢. 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 "𝘈𝘥𝘰𝘱𝘵 𝘢 𝘊𝘰𝘸" (认养一头牛). 𝘈𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵, "𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨." 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘐 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘞𝘦𝘪𝘣𝘰, 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩 𝘶𝘱, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘵𝘢𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 "𝘚𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘈𝘥𝘰𝘱𝘵 𝘢 𝘊𝘰𝘸'". 𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘯𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘸𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘢'𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴. 𝘘: 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵... 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦... 𝘈: 𝘺𝘦𝘴... 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘣𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤.. ps: "Adopt A Cow" mentioned by viewers is related to the plot where changyu found xie zheng. as one of #zhanglinghe's nickname is niuniu which is 🐮, the viewers refer that plot as "adopting a cow". and whats funny was, they put their ads on the episode where xie zheng and changyu part ways🤣 so there was trending of "Abandoning A Cow" when they put their ads lol

张凌赫的小核桃𖹭

27,712 次观看 • 12 天前

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

48,897 次观看 • 3 个月前

𝐌𝐊 (𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲) 𝐆𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞(𝐬) 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝? Nkosi Dlamini: MK was disbanded in 1993, without informing its leaders, specifically Chris Hani. He was not informed. That never sat well with us. We stuck around, hopeful, but it turned out we were being disbanded, abandoned. You look at the branches of the ANC, we are not recognized. We are not deployed. 𝘍𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰, 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯. [𝘈𝘯𝘥] 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘞𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯… 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 — 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭, 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘱. 𝘉𝘺 𝘴𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯… 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘒 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 (𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩) 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘰/𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦; 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 (𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰) 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 1912, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥; 𝘣𝘶𝘵… 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 (𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦) 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴; 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺, 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴/𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 — 𝘓𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯, 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦… 𝘔𝘒 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘑𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘣 𝘡𝘶𝘮𝘢. 𝘈 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴. 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 — 𝘶𝘴, 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦… [𝘉𝘶𝘵] 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘺𝘪-𝘵𝘰𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘴, 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨… 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘜𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 🖇️

𝐌𝐊 (𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲) 𝐆𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞(𝐬) 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝? Nkosi Dlamini: MK was disbanded in 1993, without informing its leaders, specifically Chris Hani. He was not informed. That never sat well with us. We stuck around, hopeful, but it turned out we were being disbanded, abandoned. You look at the branches of the ANC, we are not recognized. We are not deployed. 𝘍𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰, 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯. [𝘈𝘯𝘥] 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘞𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯… 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 — 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭, 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘱. 𝘉𝘺 𝘴𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯… 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘒 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 (𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩) 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘰/𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦; 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 (𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰) 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 1912, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥; 𝘣𝘶𝘵… 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 (𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦) 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴; 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺, 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴/𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 — 𝘓𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯, 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦… 𝘔𝘒 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘑𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘣 𝘡𝘶𝘮𝘢. 𝘈 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴. 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 — 𝘶𝘴, 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦… [𝘉𝘶𝘵] 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘺𝘪-𝘵𝘰𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘴, 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨… 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘜𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 🖇️

Mr. Tshweu

89,644 次观看 • 2 年前

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐂𝐋𝐈𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐀𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐀 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐎𝐍 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐋𝐈𝐄 Alex Newman laid out the argument in ninety seconds. The entire environmental regulatory apparatus depends on a single premise: 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐨𝐱𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘖2 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴.” We exhale about 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲. The proportion of greenhouse gases made up of human CO2 emissions is “𝘢 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵.” But here’s the part that matters: “𝘍𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘖2 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘖2 𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘤𝘩.” Every single aspect of your life then comes under 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐲𝐨𝐮. Newman cited Trump’s climate advisor, Dr. William Happer — a 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐧 — who said the Earth is “𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘊𝘖2.” Since atmospheric CO2 has increased over the last century, plants have gotten greener. Agricultural yields have improved. The gas they’re calling a pollutant is 𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐭. The framework is simple. If CO2 is pollution, then every human activity requires permission. If it’s not, then the entire regulatory structure built on that claim is fiction. The question was never about the climate. It was about 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫. 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐋 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐆

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐂𝐋𝐈𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐀𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐀 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐎𝐍 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐋𝐈𝐄 Alex Newman laid out the argument in ninety seconds. The entire environmental regulatory apparatus depends on a single premise: 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐨𝐱𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘖2 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴.” We exhale about 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲. The proportion of greenhouse gases made up of human CO2 emissions is “𝘢 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵.” But here’s the part that matters: “𝘍𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘖2 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘖2 𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘤𝘩.” Every single aspect of your life then comes under 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐲𝐨𝐮. Newman cited Trump’s climate advisor, Dr. William Happer — a 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐧 — who said the Earth is “𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘊𝘖2.” Since atmospheric CO2 has increased over the last century, plants have gotten greener. Agricultural yields have improved. The gas they’re calling a pollutant is 𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐭. The framework is simple. If CO2 is pollution, then every human activity requires permission. If it’s not, then the entire regulatory structure built on that claim is fiction. The question was never about the climate. It was about 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫. 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐋 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐆

M.A. Rothman

33,420 次观看 • 3 个月前

𝐊𝐄𝐌𝐈 𝐁𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐎𝐂𝐇 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐀𝐒 𝐁𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐃𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐃𝐄. An LBC caller asked Badenoch how a Muslim could trust the Conservative Party after Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy criticized mass Ramadan public prayer in Trafalgar Square as “an act of domination.” Badenoch did not duck. Her opening: 𝘔𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 50% 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. Then the line: 𝘐𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. Then the closer: 𝘐𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘤, 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. British law over religious law. British culture over religious deference. The right to criticize ANY religion — Christianity, Islam, all of them — is a non-negotiable feature of a free society, not a privilege the majority granted to the minority. This is the Western mainstream conservative position. Badenoch — daughter of Nigerian immigrants, raised Christian, lived among Muslims her whole childhood — said it on national radio without hedging, without apologizing, and without softening it for the audience. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘓𝘉𝘊.

𝐊𝐄𝐌𝐈 𝐁𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐎𝐂𝐇 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐀𝐒 𝐁𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐃𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐃𝐄. An LBC caller asked Badenoch how a Muslim could trust the Conservative Party after Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy criticized mass Ramadan public prayer in Trafalgar Square as “an act of domination.” Badenoch did not duck. Her opening: 𝘔𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 50% 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. Then the line: 𝘐𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. Then the closer: 𝘐𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘤, 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. British law over religious law. British culture over religious deference. The right to criticize ANY religion — Christianity, Islam, all of them — is a non-negotiable feature of a free society, not a privilege the majority granted to the minority. This is the Western mainstream conservative position. Badenoch — daughter of Nigerian immigrants, raised Christian, lived among Muslims her whole childhood — said it on national radio without hedging, without apologizing, and without softening it for the audience. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘓𝘉𝘊.

M.A. Rothman

709,929 次观看 • 2 个月前

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐒: "𝐈 𝐓𝐎𝐋𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐒𝐎" Bill Maher is not a conservative. He is a lifelong Democrat who writes million-dollar checks to the party. Which is why his New Rule monologue last night should be mandatory viewing in every DNC war room. His argument, in one sentence: "𝘌𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴, 𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴." Democrats ran on democracy, equity, and "saving the soul of America." Trump ran on no tax on tips. Every Vegas waitress understood the tips pitch the moment she heard it. Result? Trump became the first Republican to win Nevada in 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 — at 50.59%. He ran on ending airport shoe removal. On low-flow toilets. On bad shower pressure. On dim light bulbs. On saving TikTok — which sent his youth vote up 𝟐𝟏%. On embracing crypto, the same crypto he once called a scam, which flipped Silicon Valley so hard that tech CEOs who funded Democrats five minutes earlier were sitting on stage at his inauguration. He ran with Bobby Kennedy's MAHA coalition — another 4% of voters who think your breakfast cereal shouldn't glow in the dark. Ride-or-die. And he doubled his 2020 black vote, which in Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee was 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧. Maher's verdict on Kamala Harris, delivered to his own party's face: "𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘵, 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘔𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦, 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯, 𝘐'𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘱 𝘨𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯." And the reason Maher opened this monologue with "𝘐 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘰": Trump just announced he is looking at reclassifying marijuana. Pot was the last tangible, personal issue Democrats still owned. They spent a decade dangling it in front of voters without ever pulling the trigger. Now Trump picks it up, reschedules it, and absorbs another few percentage points heading into the midterms. This is not luck. A billionaire from Manhattan with gold on every surface of his home has out-hustled Ivy League political scientists, union organizers, and every strategist in Brooklyn by doing the one thing Democrats cannot seem to do: 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐲𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬. Even Bill Maher — finally — gets it. 𝐅𝐢𝐱 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐭. 𝐖𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲.

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐒: "𝐈 𝐓𝐎𝐋𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐒𝐎" Bill Maher is not a conservative. He is a lifelong Democrat who writes million-dollar checks to the party. Which is why his New Rule monologue last night should be mandatory viewing in every DNC war room. His argument, in one sentence: "𝘌𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴, 𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴." Democrats ran on democracy, equity, and "saving the soul of America." Trump ran on no tax on tips. Every Vegas waitress understood the tips pitch the moment she heard it. Result? Trump became the first Republican to win Nevada in 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 — at 50.59%. He ran on ending airport shoe removal. On low-flow toilets. On bad shower pressure. On dim light bulbs. On saving TikTok — which sent his youth vote up 𝟐𝟏%. On embracing crypto, the same crypto he once called a scam, which flipped Silicon Valley so hard that tech CEOs who funded Democrats five minutes earlier were sitting on stage at his inauguration. He ran with Bobby Kennedy's MAHA coalition — another 4% of voters who think your breakfast cereal shouldn't glow in the dark. Ride-or-die. And he doubled his 2020 black vote, which in Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee was 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧. Maher's verdict on Kamala Harris, delivered to his own party's face: "𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘵, 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘔𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦, 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯, 𝘐'𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘱 𝘨𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯." And the reason Maher opened this monologue with "𝘐 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘰": Trump just announced he is looking at reclassifying marijuana. Pot was the last tangible, personal issue Democrats still owned. They spent a decade dangling it in front of voters without ever pulling the trigger. Now Trump picks it up, reschedules it, and absorbs another few percentage points heading into the midterms. This is not luck. A billionaire from Manhattan with gold on every surface of his home has out-hustled Ivy League political scientists, union organizers, and every strategist in Brooklyn by doing the one thing Democrats cannot seem to do: 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐲𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬. Even Bill Maher — finally — gets it. 𝐅𝐢𝐱 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐭. 𝐖𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲.

M.A. Rothman

335,133 次观看 • 2 个月前