reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 is upset because they are being denied entry. They threaten to call the police and challenge the other person's legal status. Speaker 0 mentions having a citywide water certificate, but it is not applicable to the current location. They suggest talking outside and mention having multiple certificates. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking the other person to read a line that states the certificate is valid everywhere.

A 911 call was placed, but police were allegedly not allowed to enter the premises. The speaker questions why police responding to a 911 call must wait for a supervisor to grant them access. The speaker finds it strange that police are restricted from entering after a 911 call and expresses a need to relocate.

In Bucks County, the line for voting wraps around the building, with many people waiting for hours. Some individuals express frustration about the long wait, with one person stating they arrived at 9 AM and are still waiting at 1:30 PM. Others mention they cannot return to vote on Tuesday due to work obligations, feeling disenfranchised. Despite the long wait, some are determined to cast their votes. Concerns are raised about the lack of staffing at the polling place, suggesting that officials were aware of the need for more personnel but failed to act. Many have already left the line due to the wait, highlighting the issue of accessibility for voters.

Speaker 1 requests recognition of their rights in their territory, asserting that it is their business. Speaker 2 acknowledges this but states that the line cannot be crossed at the moment. Speaker 1 disagrees, emphasizing their right to free access. Speaker 2 insists on holding the line temporarily. Speaker 1 argues that it is not the officer's business and reiterates their ownership of the territory. Speaker 2 confirms the location and mentions taking care of some matters. Speaker 0 concludes that the police are breaking the law by denying Bill Jones access to his own territory.

The speaker asks if there is an organizer among the group blocking the roadway. They refuse to move and are warned that they could be arrested. The speaker explains that people need to use the roadway to get to work, the airport, and hospitals. They suggest moving people out of the roadway to allow traffic to flow and have a discussion later. The group mentions their goal of Biden declaring a climate emergency. The speaker says they cannot facilitate that and suggests finding a proper avenue. The group refuses to move, and the speaker warns that they will be arrested. The speaker questions the effectiveness of blocking traffic for their cause.

Speaker 0 cautions that what you’re doing is extremely dangerous. Speaker 1 asks why it’s dangerous and replies that it’s not a conspiracy theory, and questions whether the person has $45. Speaker 1 emphasizes they are not saying people are voting there, but that people are currently registered to vote there. They state they went around Fulton County in the last few weeks and found that people are currently registered to vote in places like empty lots and homeless shelters that closed ten years ago. Speaker 1 asks what would you do if you become secretary of state to address that. Speaker 0 responds by saying they will reply to conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 reiterates that it’s not a conspiracy theory, and argues that there is a current act of voter rolls: “It’s a current you can currently go on the voter rolls, purchase them for $45, and go there with us.” They offer to take the other person to verify claims. Speaker 0 pushes back, saying they won’t respond to conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 asks how it’s a conspiracy theory, labeling it an act of voter rolls. Speaker 0 says, “If you're gonna be running for secretary of state, you're … in charge of maintaining the voter rolls. Don't you care about if people are registered to vote from empty lots?” Speaker 1 continues questioning, asking if it’s a conspiracy theory that people are registered to vote from empty lots and mentions they have the ability to go wherever they want. They reiterate that people are currently registered to vote in empty lots, MARTA bus stations, and elsewhere in Fulton County, and asks if the other person will not do anything about that, calling back the accusation of conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 asks for the exact addresses and notes: “205 Elm Street Northwest. That’s an empty lot. You can go there right now and see it for yourself.” They press: do you not care about that? You’re an elected official, and you don’t wanna address that? They argue that as a potential secretary of state, one should address maintaining clean voter rolls in one of the United States’ most important counties. Speaker 0 repeats that what you’re doing is extremely dangerous. Speaker 1 insists it’s not a conspiracy theory and repeats that people are currently registered to vote there, highlighting the $45 purchase of voter rolls and the need to clean the rolls, including registrations from empty lots and a MARTA station. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 noting that they are trying to have the rolls cleaned, and pointing to the claim of conspiracy theory, and suggesting to actually verify the situation.

A tense street confrontation unfolds with loud exchanges, accusations, and threats centered on an alleged Nazi presence and a planned conversation that escalates into threats and harassment. The participants describe a scene where neighbors are distressed and some individuals demand to know who is filming and where their car is, while others respond with hostility and accusations of Nazism. Key points: - A group argues that someone is blocking an ice vehicle and demands to see a car and its plate, calling the driver a coward. The demand to identify car owners and vehicles recurs, along with insults and aggressive language. - The group states they came out for a discussion and security, not for a fight, while others label their presence as Nazi or agitator activity. One person says, “We’re Nazis for… walking down the road,” and others insist they are there to talk, not to provoke a confrontation. - There is immediate hostility: objects are thrown, including ice blocks, and there is intermittent back-and-forth about whether the group is there for a fight or a conversation. The phrase “You’re a fucking coward” and “Get the fuck out” surfaces repeatedly. - A livestream is mentioned, with one participant asking another to be honest and accusing the other side of fascist behavior. The accused are called “Nazis” multiple times, and the livestream is referenced as part of the confrontation. - The participants claim they have been there only minutes, with remarks like “I’ve been here for maybe three minutes at the most,” and another asserts they are walking the block without saying much. - The group attempts to de-escalate by calling for police help, asking for a 911 address, and reporting that the group is being followed and that rocks or ice blocks are being thrown. They specify the location as Park Avenue and 33rd Street (moving toward 34th and Portland at times), Minneapolis. - They describe the police response as insufficient or unavailable: a dispatcher explains that officers are not able to reach the location, suggesting the group move to a different location where police can access them. There is frustration at the lack of immediate police support. - The participants report being chased, a vehicle turning onto a one-way street, and the sense of danger increases as they try to remain safe while continuing to seek police assistance. - Throughout, the speakers alternate between insisting they want a conversation and berating the other side, with repeated demands that the other group “get the fuck out.” The dialogue includes interruptions, taunts, and interruptions about who started the confrontation. - Towards the end, the participants confirm the location as 33rd Street near Park Avenue and Portland, note that police can’t reach that location, and mention a white Toyota Corolla following them. They consider moving to a different location to facilitate police assistance, and the traffic dynamics continue as they attempt to navigate the area on foot while seeking protection. In sum, the transcript details a heated, harassment-laden encounter marked by accusations of Nazism, a contested intention of dialogue versus confrontation, objects thrown, a livestream presence, and a troubling lack of timely police intervention, with the scene centered around Park Avenue and 33rd/34th Streets in Minneapolis.

Voting is closed right now, but we have the right to vote until 4:30. The process is slow, and they cut the line at 1:45 due to high volume. This feels like voter fraud. No, it's not fraud; it's a procedural decision. You can contact voter protection or the county commissioners to complain. They are not accepting anyone else, and it's posted that they can cut it off. This is about ensuring everyone has the right to vote until 4:30 on election day. The situation is frustrating, and I have it on video.

A group discusses voting issues as some individuals express frustration over being unable to vote. One person mentions needing to bring someone to vote by 4:00 PM, but another insists that voting is closed. They argue about the right to vote until 4:30 PM, with one person claiming that the line was cut off at 1:45 PM due to high volume. Accusations of voter fraud arise, with claims that the process is unfair. The conversation escalates as individuals demand accountability and express disbelief over the situation, insisting that everyone in line should be allowed to vote until the official closing time.

Poll challengers are being kept out, preventing them from entering to challenge the polls.

Members of Congress are being denied entry to the Department of Education by a private security contractor. They express frustration over being blocked from accessing a public building, emphasizing their role in advocating for constituents, especially children with disabilities. They question the authority of the security personnel, pointing out that they are elected representatives with oversight responsibilities. The situation escalates as they highlight a lack of transparency and accountability, criticizing the administration for locking them out while allowing billionaires access. They demand to be let in to discuss important issues affecting education and student loans, asserting that their inability to enter is a significant problem for American families.

I'm going to do some sparring and check online. A question arises about bringing someone to vote at 4 o'clock. Voting is reportedly closed, but there's confusion because people believe they have the right to vote until 4:30. One person explains that the process is slow due to high volume, leading to a cutoff at 1:45. This prompts accusations of voter fraud, claiming that cutting the line is unjust. Despite the explanation that the cutoff is posted, the frustration continues, with claims that everyone in line should be allowed to vote until 4:30 on election day. Tensions rise as accusations of election fraud are exchanged, and the situation remains heated.

The process is slow and grueling, leading to the decision to close the line at 1:45 PM due to high demand. Many people were still waiting, but they had to stop accepting new voters at that time. This has sparked claims of voter fraud, although others dispute that notion. There are suggestions to contact voter protection services and county commissioners to voice complaints about the situation. The discussion revolves around the frustrations of voters and the implications of the line closure.

Is there a problem here? Excuse me? You're blocking the signs. I was moving my signs. You can't block them like that. I mean, you might think you can, but you can't. I'm in public, so I can record you. Well, that's okay. I'm an elected official. I don't care, but thank you. My name's Mary Anne Minnick, the elected committee woman for the Democratic Party in Moon District 6. Good for you. Thank you.

Speaker 1 is confused about why they are being asked to leave a presidential campaign event. Speaker 0 explains that it is because they are on private property. Speaker 1 questions why they are being kicked out if they work for Nikki's campaign and were told to sign up for the event. Speaker 0 refuses to answer questions and asks Speaker 1 to leave. Speaker 1 insists that they received an email and text instructing them to sign up for the event. Speaker 2 also asks Speaker 1 to leave, but Speaker 1 argues that they are asking nicely too. Speaker 0 reiterates that they don't have answers and that Speaker 1 must leave the premises.

A person asks if they can conduct business in the Tesla store. The response is no, it is closed. The person questions why the NYPD is allowed to disassemble in front of a business, closing it down, and claims that this is not the first amendment. They express that it is ridiculous that this is allowed.

The speakers discuss street occupancy by protesters and city responses: - Protests are currently allowed to take up street space as part of First Amendment rights. There is no immediate plan to prevent people from being in the roadway, though they are asked “to not be in the street if they can.” This stance may change, but as of now, protesters may occupy the street because it is not a major roadway and there are corridors to move traffic. If action were to be taken, an announcement would be made stating that arrests would occur for people in the street; leaving the street would not result in arrest. - Traffic management is handled with the help of protesters who guide traffic and create corridors to move vehicles around the protest. - Decision-making is on a day-to-day, minute-by-minute basis. The CMIC (incident commander) makes the on-scene decisions and relays information to the chief, while the chief oversees overall operations. The chief (Bob Day) ultimately answers to the mayor. - The hierarchy: the mayor is at the top of the city decision-making. If the mayor directs that people should not be in the street at all, the responders would carry that out in the most equitable way. - The past policy reference mentions 2020 riots and a hard line about stepping off the sidewalk leading to arrest, but the current stance is that people could be in the street without arrest, with announcements if arrests would begin. - On permits or insurance: a question is raised about whether the demonstrators have a permit or insurance (compared to a past demand for thousands of dollars for permits and insurance). The response: the individuals are not identified as Antifa, and it’s unclear who they are; the speakers have not been told who they are, and no permit/insurance status is confirmed. - There are comments about how the local government has handled the situation, with some hostile interruptions, including expressions of frustration and insults directed at authorities. The operational point retained is that arrests would be considered for those in the street only if the policy requires it, otherwise leaving the street is allowed. - The speakers emphasize that there are workers to guide traffic and that the current approach balances First Amendment rights with traffic flow, adjusting as needed on a day-to-day basis.

Speaker 0 warns that what you’re doing is extremely dangerous, and questions why it is dangerous. Speaker 1 challenges this by asking why it would be dangerous, and clarifies that they are not saying people are voting in certain places, but that people are currently registered to vote there. Speaker 2 interjects, referencing a recent sweep around Fulton County. Speaker 1 reiterates: they see that people are currently registered to vote in places like empty lots and homeless shelters that closed ten years ago, and asks what the other speaker would do if they became secretary of state to address that. Speaker 0 responds that the other party will have to reply to conspiracy theories. Speaker 1 counters that it is not a conspiracy, describing it as a current situation: people are currently registered to vote there, and it’s possible to purchase voter rolls for $45 to verify this. They insist they are not saying people are voting there, but that people are currently registered to vote there, and they reference Jason as the person who can verify that. They further state they will gladly take the other speaker to see if it’s true, arguing that if someone is running for secretary of state, they are in charge of maintaining the voter rolls. Speaker 0 continues to label the claim as dangerous and as conspiracy theory. Speaker 1 again emphasizes that they are not alleging people are voting there, but that people are currently registered to vote there. They reiterate that it took $45 to purchase the voter rolls, and that the same could be done for Fulton County. They mention specific locations where people are allegedly registered to vote: empty lots and a MARTA bus station, and ask whether the other speaker will address that instead of labeling it conspiracy theories. They reference the existence of a death address, 205 Elm Street Northwest, described as an empty lot that one could visit to verify the claim. They ask whether the other speaker, as an elected official who might become secretary of state, cares about ensuring clean voter rolls in a county considered one of the most important in the United States. Speaker 0 maintains that the other party’s approach is dangerous. Speaker 1 repeats the core assertion: it’s not a conspiracy, it’s a current condition where people are registered to vote in empty lots, a MARTA bus station, and other locations, and stresses that the issue is about maintaining clean voter rolls. The exchange cycles through insistence that “people are currently registered to vote there,” the availability of voter-roll data for verification, and the imperative for someone who could be secretary of state to address the integrity of the rolls rather than dismissing the claim as conspiracy theory.

This is incredible! Let's get started. Family first—everyone back up behind the pole, please. We need to keep a clear area. Families, gather here. Some supporters are present, but not everyone shares the same feelings. Please stay aware and keep off the street. Mark, return to your spot. May I have your attention? You can express your views from the sidewalk and park, but please do not cross the street. Thank you.

Speaker 1 questions why ballot boxes are sitting on the street and being transported in a taxi, alleging that anyone can put anything they want in the boxes. Speaker 1 asks if this is a normal election and claims it is a complete fraud. Speakers 0 and 2 tell Speaker 1 that they are working and that Speaker 1 is not allowed to film. Speaker 1 asserts the right to film on public property. Speaker 2 calls Speaker 1 a pig.

In Mount Laurel, New Jersey, there's a significant traffic jam preventing a truck from delivering a voting machine to a polling location. People are waiting in line for up to four hours to vote. The situation is chaotic, with cars blocking the way and no one able to stop traffic to assist the delivery. The truck driver, representing the county, is unable to get through despite the urgency, as polling places are set to close soon. The scene highlights the challenges faced during the voting process, with frustration mounting among those waiting to cast their ballots.

The transcript is a tense telephone exchange between two people discussing a suspected incident at an asylum intake center. - Speaker 1 identifies themselves as the wijkagent (district police officer) of the aanmeldcentrum in Ter Apel and says they are calling to address an incident. They express that how Speaker 0 is speaking to them is “a bit disrespectful.” - The core dispute revolves around whether Speaker 0 tried to enter the premises of the aanmeldcentrum. Speaker 1 states that Speaker 0 came onto the terrein (the site) of the aanmeldcentrum, and also mentions the Drapenerveene as belonging to the aanmeldcentrum and not being public. - Speaker 0 counters that they did not enter the site, only walked around on the public road. They emphasize that they were not inside and argue that they did not commit any rule violation, asserting that they “have not done any violation” and that Speaker 1 is recording or documenting the event. - Speaker 1 insists that Speaker 0 was on the Drapenerveene, which, according to Speaker 1, is part of the aanmeldcentrum and therefore not public. They claim that there were signs missing and question what Speaker 0 was seeking there. - The dialogue touches on what is permissible around the area: Speaker 1 asserts that Speaker 0 was on or around a restricted area (Drapenerveene) linked to the intake center, while Speaker 0 maintains they merely walked on the public road around the premises. - The conversation also covers the manner of the communication itself: Speaker 0 asks for a proper introduction and the reason for the call; Speaker 1 responds with the need to clearly state who they are and what is happening, stating they intend to proceed with documenting the situation. - By the end, Speaker 0 asks for Speaker 1’s name, indicating a desire to establish identity and purpose for the call. Key points emphasized by Speaker 1: - The call is about an alleged entry attempt or presence on the premises. - The Drapenerveene is described as part of the aanmeldcentrum and not public. - There is a focus on signs and access control, with a claim that this is not public space. Key points from Speaker 0: - They assert they never entered the site, only walked around on the public road. - They challenge the behavior and tone of the caller, seeking a straightforward explanation of who is calling and why. No judgments are offered in the transcript; the speakers are focused on identifying who is on the premises, what areas were accessed, and the appropriate grounds for the call.

We were kicked out for wearing Trump gear—hats and shirts—before we could vote. We were told to remove them first. It seems unfair since there were others wearing Harris shirts without any issues. Why is Trump gear such a problem?

In Maricopa County, there’s confusion about removing election signs. One person questions why the signs are being taken down, emphasizing they should remain up for election day. Another insists that the signs are legally allowed to be there and that it’s wrong to remove them. They argue that the signs should be put back, asserting that the individuals removing them have no legal right to do so. The conversation highlights a disagreement over the legality of the signs' presence and the actions being taken against them.

What's going on? Can't get in? It's full. How long have you waited? Since 10 AM. It's total chaos here. People are frustrated with the lack of crowd control. Some have been waiting since 7 AM and still can't get in. The doors were supposed to open at 1 PM but were delayed by two hours. There's a lot of disorganization, and people are unhappy with the management. Where are the police? There's only one officer here, and no National Guard. It's pandemonium, and nobody knows what's happening. People are trying to get in or out, but it’s a mess.