reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @AskMeLaterOn
@AskMeLaterOn - ZZZ
Shark Tank’s “Mr. Wonderful” Kevin O'Leary tears apart the Letitia James case against President Trump… #Trump2024 https://t.co/hjlGE4p2bA
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker discusses a case involving real estate development. They explain that developers often borrow money from banks based on the value of their existing assets. The case in question is similar to what happens in real estate development everywhere. The speaker argues that if this case is successful, it would set a precedent that could affect all real estate developers. They believe that the case doesn't make sense and is ridiculous. The speaker acknowledges that while Trump has other legal issues, this case is not unique to him.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You've been doing real estate for decades. Does this case strike you as odd? Well, let's leave out Trump for a minute and let's leave out politics and just talk about what happens in real estate development anywhere. So If you're a developer and you've got a building on a block anywhere in America and it's worth, let's say, $500,000,000 and you want to build a building right beside it, you go to the bank and say, This building is worth $500,000,000. I'd like to borrow a construction finance loan against this asset And I want you to tell me it's worth $500,000,000 too.
And the bank negotiates with you and says, well, no, we think it's worth $400,000,000.' And you fight it out. And you build a new building with a construction finance loan. And so that's what this case is all about. And by the way, Forget about Trump. Every single real estate developer everywhere on earth does this.
They always talk about their asset being worth a lot And the bank says no, that's just the way it is. So in this case, what I'm trying to figure out and I'm not pro or con or I don't care about the politics Who lost money? Nobody. The bank got paid back the construction finance loan and a new building was built and If you're going to sue this case and win, you've got to sue every real estate developer everywhere. This is all they do.
This is what they do all day long, every day. So I don't think this thing will ever survive appeal regardless of what the fine is. This doesn't even make sense. Now look, I know Trump's got a lot of problems in other indictments and everything else but If you're a real estate developer, you're watching this, you're saying, what is this? This is ridiculous.
@AskMeLaterOn - ZZZ
Behind the scenes… ——————————————— Scotland’s wind turbines have been secretly using fossil fuels. Dozens of giant turbines have been using diesel generators to run windmills… https://t.co/RwUzpJ9JCE
Video Transcript AI Summary
Scotland's power sector is facing criticism for using large diesel generators to support wind turbines. A whistleblower raised concerns about environmental and safety issues, including the use of six diesel generators for up to six hours daily to de-ice the turbines. Scottish Power admitted connecting 71 windmills to fossil fuel supply due to a grid fault that prevented the turbines from functioning in December. The whistleblower also highlighted oil leaks from hydraulic units and technical faults causing the turbines to draw energy from the grid instead of producing it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Scotland's power sector is coming under fire after it was revealed that officials used massive diesel generators to ensure dozens of giant turbines on wind farms could function. According to the Sunday Mail, they were tipped off by a whistleblower who cited a number of environmental health and safety concerns. One of which was half a dozen diesel generators running for up to 6 hours a day to de ice the wind turbines. Scottish Power said they were forced to hook up 71 windmills to the fossil fuel supply after a fault on their grid caused the system to fail to keep the turbines warm and working during the cold month of December. Other concerns from the whistleblower included thousands of liters of leaked oil from hydraulic units and technical faults that see turbines taking energy from the grid rather than producing energy.
@AskMeLaterOn - ZZZ
Please listen… ——————————————— Tulsi is saying the quiet part out loud and it’s beyond troubling…
Video Transcript AI Summary
Former Democratic Party member, Tulsi, explains why she left the party, citing the presence of individuals within the party who hate America and its principles. She criticizes their attempts to censor Americans and undermine First Amendment rights. Tulsi also accuses them of sympathizing with and romanticizing enemies who seek to destroy the country. The host expresses frustration with Democrats calling for restraint after acts of terror, arguing that Israel has the right and duty to defend itself. He urges viewers to recognize the threat posed by Islamist terrorists, comparing the ongoing attacks on Israel to the 9/11 attack. He criticizes leaders who refuse to acknowledge this threat, suggesting they either lack knowledge or fear being labeled Islamophobic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why is Democratic support 49% of the Palestinians, 38 for Israel? That's your former party, Tulsi. Why? Why would they support a group that supports this terror organization?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Sean, I I wanna highlight and underline, that's my former party. It's One of the reasons why I left the Democratic Party is there are far too many people who are among the Democrat elite in this party, both politicians and those in the mainstream media, Dream Media, who very simply hate America. They hate what we stand for. They hate the principles enshrined in our constitution.
And we see this bear Fruit through their attempts to censor Americans, undermine our First Amendment rights, use the rule of law in the Justice Department to try to go after Their political opponents, we see over and over again how much they hate this country and also how much they sympathize with And romanticize those who are our enemies, those who seek, to destroy us. They refuse to acknowledge this Islamist threat That is the greatest short and long term threat to our country and people around the world, threatening our safety, security and freedom And refused to take a stand.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I find it very, very frustrating and frankly inexplicable. You know, you see acts of terror like this and, and all we hear from a lot of Democrats is we need to show restraint. This would be the equivalent if if you extrapolate out Israel's population losing a 1000 people and America's population, it'd be the equivalent of 35,000 Americans being killed in a single day, and we're gonna lecture Israel about restraint? No.
I would lecture Israel, about the right and frankly, the duty to defend their homeland.
Speaker 1: Yes, Sean. Here's what I'd like to ask all of your viewers, all Americans, To reflect on for just a moment, just 1 month ago today, we observed the 22nd anniversary of the Islamist terrorist group Al Qaeda's attack on our country on 911. This attack that we have seen against Israel that continues to go on by Hamas, An Islamist terrorist organization is there 9/11. Our leaders and people around this country and around the world need to Really wake up and recognize this threat that these Islamist terrorists pose to us and to countries and people around The world and be committed to defeating them. Leaders who refuse to acknowledge this, Point out they either don't know or they are too afraid to be called an Islamophobe to speak the truth.
@AskMeLaterOn - ZZZ
Ummmm Neither of you are Lizzy…
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 mentions the expensive aircraft and helicopters they have, including a $50 million airplane and a $29 million Borges helicopter. They have various types of helicopters, some of which are brand new. They question whether it is cheaper to leave the aircraft there or fill it up with gas and fly it to Pakistan or back to their country. They realize they were foolish for thinking it was cheaper to leave it there.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What? You got a $50,000,000 airplane. You got a $29,000,000 Borges helicopter. We had every type of helicopter. Many of them brand new literally out of the box.
28, 29,000,000. We have 60, $70,000,000 plans. You mean, you think it's cheaper to leave it there so they can have it than it is to fill it up with a half a tank of gas and fly it into Pakistan or fly it back to our country. What? You just Yes, sir.
We think it's cheaper, sir. That's when I realized I was a fucking idiot. Hi,
@AskMeLaterOn - ZZZ
Well done… ——————————————— Climate Czar John Kërry and his nonsense get slammed…
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about the consensus on CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Speaker 1 states that it is currently at 406 parts per million, while scientists consider 350 parts per million dangerous. Speaker 0 argues that CO2 levels have been higher in the past, even before humans existed. Speaker 1 counters that the past 800,000 years have not seen CO2 levels as high as they are today. Speaker 0 dismisses the conversation as not serious, and Speaker 1 agrees.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's get back to the science of it.
Speaker 1: But it's not science. You're not
Speaker 0: quoting science. I well, you're the science expert. You got the political science degree. Look, let me ask you this. What's the consensus on parts per million of, CO 2 in the atmosphere?
Speaker 1: About 406, 406 today. Okay. 406. Are you
Speaker 0: aware 350 being the level that scientists have said is danger. Okay. Are you aware? Three fifty is dangerous. Wow.
Are you aware that since mammals have walked the planet, the average has been over a 1000 parts per million?
Speaker 1: Yeah. But we weren't walking the planet. It's, let me just share with you that we now know that definitively at no point during the least the past 800,000 years Has atmospheric CO2 been as high as it is today?
Speaker 0: The reason you chose 800,000 years ago is because for 200,000,000 years for that, it was greater than the than it is today. And I'm gonna say it for the record Yeah.
Speaker 1: But there weren't human beings. I mean, there was a different world, folks. We didn't have 7,000,000,000 people So how
Speaker 0: did it get to
Speaker 1: 2,000 parts per million if we humans weren't here? Because there were all kinds of geologic events Happening on earth, which spewed
Speaker 0: Did geology stop when we got on the planet?
Speaker 1: Mister chairman, I'll I'd this
Speaker 0: is just not a serious conversation. Your testimony is not serious.
Speaker 1: I agree.
@AskMeLaterOn - ZZZ
𝐂͟𝐥͟𝐢͟𝐦͟𝐚͟𝐭͟𝐞͟ ͟$͟𝐜͟𝐚͟𝐦͟ ͟ Malcolm Roberts: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…
Video Transcript AI Summary
As a business manager with knowledge of atmospheric gases, I have never found any logical scientific evidence to worry about the impact of carbon dioxide. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned, they produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. Carbon dioxide is essential for life. Two global experiments in the past 14 years support this. In 2009, during the recession, carbon dioxide levels continued to increase despite reduced human use of hydrocarbon fuels. Similarly, in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, carbon dioxide levels kept rising despite decreased human carbon dioxide output. It is clear that humans do not significantly affect the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; it is controlled by nature.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They are educated in atmospheric gases. And as a business manager, I was responsible for hundreds of people's lives based on my knowledge of atmospheric gases. I listen to scientists. I cross examine scientists and I debate the science. I have never found anyone logical scientific points based on empirical scientific evidence that shows we have anything to worry about at all.
And the basics of this, When you burn a hydrocarbon fuel, you burn molecules containing carbon and hydrogen with oxygen, they form C O 2 carbon dioxide and H2O water vapor. That's it. Carbon dioxide is essential for all life, but let's go beyond the science and have a look at natural experiment. We have had 2 Natural experiments, global experiments in the last 14 years. The first was in 2009 when the use of hydrocarbon fuels in the recession that followed the global financial crisis Reduced.
There was less carbon dioxide produced from from human use of hydrocarbons. And what did that what happened to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? It kept increasing. And what happened in 2020, when we had a major recession, almost a depression around the world as a result of COVID restrictions placed by governments. We saw the same reduction in hydrocarbon fuel used by humans, the same cut in carbon dioxide output from humans, and yet carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing.
And those who understand the science understand that it is fundamental. Humans cannot and do not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's controlled by nature entirely.