It's actually my mom, but it's okay, it's fine. So I think that we can go directly to a short round of introductions. I will ask you to please give your name, your organization, where you are at this moment, or where do you live normally, and one word, free association word that you associate feminized feminization of politics, too. So for example, I would go and then I would give the floor to, to the rest. My name is Vera. I am project manager in Rosa Luxemburg, Stifton, in Madrid. And for me, feminization of politics means real democracy. So I will go now to Senya. Okay. I didn't have time to think about the word. Did you say? You can pass off it if you want. Okay. So hi, everyone. My name is Xenia. I live in Belgrade and work in Rosa Luxemburg, Stifton game, Belgrade office. But we are office is actually working in the whole region. And yeah, the first word that came up to my mind, it's solidarity, like radical solidarity.  We go like this or? No, I will. Thank you, Xenia. Alex. Hi, I'm Alex. I'm Alex. I'm working for the foundation in the program Global Feminism. And I'm currently in the south of Germany, but normally I'm in Buenos Aires. And the word is like horizontality, I think. That's the word. Thanks, Irene. Hi, I'm Irene. I'm one of the authors of the report of feminist politics now. And actually, I'm in Madrid. And if I have to choose a word, I will say, I will say friends, because this all this experience of working with a lot of amazing women from everywhere around the world in this municipalism and feminism project has brought me friends beyond activism. So that's the word I will choose. Yeah. Thank you, Irene. Doritun Johanna. Hello, I'm Johanna and I'm the head of the European unit. And I live and work in Berlin if I'm not visiting one of the 10 offices, which was hard in the last month. But usually I do a lot and I don't have a word. I have a sentence and feminization of politics mean to me that I might get rid of a lot of things which drive me crazy all day long. Good. Thanks. Hello, everybody. I'm Dorit and we are currently in the office here in Berlin on Transmeringplatz, where the head quarter of the foundation is. I'm living in Tristan and I'm a project manager in Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. And I would choose the word non-competition. Cool. Thanks, Frau Ada Röhrlmann. Hi, I'm Ada from RLS in Brussels and I'm currently in the office. I escaped my home where I was in home office to be undisturbed by my family. But actually the word that comes to mind are the words and it's a bit of a cheat because it's two words is bringing care into democracy. Thank you, Ada. Gris. Hi, everyone. I'm Cristiane. I'm Cristiane Gomes from the office of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation in Brazil. I live in Brazil in Sao Paulo and I'm one of the worst countries to be right now is Brazil. And and the word actually two words and transformation and impeccionality. And Serena is here, too. Mama, yeah. Mama, it's so beautiful to be with my friend. It's so beautiful to be with my friend. How beautiful is this friend? Is this Serena? Serena. Say hi. Mama, yeah. Thank you, Gris. Barbara, Peter. Hi, I'm Barbara. I work in the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation Berlin office in the Institute for Social Analysis. And there are so many things that have been said, so I'm saying. Equal access. Thank you very much. Williana, please. Hello, everyone. My name is Billy, and I'm here in front of the Belgrade. Don't like Belgrade now from Belgrade working from home today. My word would usually be democracy, participatory democracy. But I'll just say equality because it's also an element of the essential equality. Thank you very much. Can you now, please? Hi, I'm Kajom Tetzler from the Linke Party in Berlin. I'm at the very moment in my garden, as you can see in my background. And where you just said equality, that was also what came to my mind. And I thought about finding ways of encountering male dominated behavior, maybe also. Perfect. Katarina. Hi, I'm Katarina Pühl. I work as well as in the Institute for Social Research in Berlin. I'm a colleague of Barbara and in I live and work in Berlin. So and I have three words to share.  Thank you. I'm happy to join and to see you all. Thank you, Katarina. Kerstin, please. Hello, everyone. I'm Kerstin. I'm from the left party also in Germany. And I work there for the chairwoman, Katja Kipping. And I live in Berlin. I'm also at home office right now. And I like all your words, and I will just say change. Thank you for that. Angela. Hi, I'm Angela Roelich. I hope you can hear me because I have really problems with internet connection right now and I have problems to share with you all. Yeah, I wrote that, but I don't know what's happening. It's one Angela and one Angela. So it's great that we're not just talking. Go ahead, please. OK, sorry. So I have really big problems now with the internet, but I hope I will be able to to participate in this. Anyway, I'm from an organization and I'm from Belgrade, from Belgrade. And I live and work in Belgrade as well as Vienna. So I would choose the word empathy. Great, thanks. Now the other Angela. Hello, I'm Angela from the RLS office in Berlin and I'm program coordinator in the Latin American department. And my word is powerful transformation. Mm hmm. Perfect. Now we go to Ali. Hi, I'm really happy to be here. I live in Madrid. I'm one of the authors of the of the report and I'm at my home.  Great. We go to Laura. Hello, I'm Laura Roth. I'm also one of the co-authors. I live in the Basque country in a small town called Aya. And to me, feminization of politics is connected to interdependence. Great. And I would love to listen to Floor. I don't know if it's possible. I don't think so, no? Yes, yes, it is. I hear very well. I'm sorry, but I don't know why, but my camera doesn't work. I can't see you all and I'm very happy to see you. I would like you to see me too, but I don't know how to do it. And well, you just said, well, I work in Buenos Aires office as a project manager and I live here also. I'm in my home now because that's the way things are now. And I usually said all the words I would like to say and to talk about here, but I think that it has to do with the desire to change everything that we had as feminists and also politics has to do with that. The feminization of politics, it's everything that we want. OK, last but not least, I would like to introduce Alex and Maria. Maria is taking some notes and maybe doing some kind of communicative work for us. She's in the Basque country as well. And she will be writing a small note for the website and sharing it with you afterwards. So she's here like a server, but she knows a lot about this matter. So please feel free to jump in whenever you feel like Maria, please. And Alex in Brussels, she's the PR manager and she's in charge not only of the technical stuff behind the scenes right now, but also behind the publication itself, the layout and the editing. And she's, of course, being one of the protagonists of the whole thing. So I will directly turn the floor to Laura, Ale and Irene. Thank you. OK, so it's my turn. First of all, we would like to make a super brief introduction on the political framework and the background of this project, of this report. So let me share. This is that uncomfortable moment in every video conference when you share the screen and it doesn't work, but let's hope it does. So let me share. OK, is it working? Yes, OK, perfect. So as I said, I would like to to tell you a bit more about the framework in which all this project was born and at the stage we are now. So which is the starting point, as you can see in this map? We were a group of six different municipalities, organizations from different places in Europe who joined forces in 2018. And thanks to a grant that we received by Fundaction, a participatory fund, we were able to establish a series of meetings and workshops to develop a methodology on feminization of politics. I'm not going to tell you what do we mean by feminization of politics because I will give that word to Laura, who is the real expert on this field. But the interesting point of this is the way we started working together is that despite all the huge difference among these organizations, because you have, for example, I don't know, difference not only in the size, but in the way they reach political approaches. The way, the agreements that led to the building of these platforms, we were able to reach common grounds on political actions. And as you can see in this map, you have, I don't know, for example, La Silo Masa Critica in Napoli, which is a social center, which is working on politics by empowering the city through culture and arts. And then you have, for example, Barcelona and Común in Barcelona, who is currently the ruling party in the city town, in the town hall. So you have a very different background from interconnection, but we were able to find common grounds and to work together. So during from 2009 until now, until now this because we are still alive, this feminization of politics project has been working. And this report was one step more on the, on the, on the president, thanks to Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and Vera. We were able to, to, let's say, to broaden, to broaden the focus and to bring all the things that have been learning and working together in this, within these six sister organizations and to invite 10 organizations more. We interviewed people from all around the world, trying to understand why, what do we, what do they understood as a feminization of politics within the, the Uniti Palace framework? Of course, not everybody is here in this, in this report because we wanted to reflect the diversity of organizations, but of course the willingness of the organizations, the times were not just so we, we were able to, to have some people participate in some other, not for example, we are missing the Kurdish, the Kurds, the Kurdistan people in this, in this project and we said so in the report, for example, but at the same time we were able to, to interview and to meet people from a very small projects, municipal projects who hadn't had the floor to, to speak before. So it wasn't, let me, let me just interrupt you for a second. If you could speak slower. Yes, sure, that, that's, that's one of my problems in other fields in my life to be honest. So yeah, okay. So I don't know if all, if all of you have read this, this report is very, is very long and as Vera said it's not very academic, it's much more focused on practice and focused on the, how we, we, we were able to, to find these common problems and to be able to identify them as, as problems themselves and which solutions we will find the feasible to, to, to implement. Some of them have been already successful tools implemented in many cities and in many organizations. Some others have been just suggestions and some others have been failures because we also learn from failures. So I, I, we wrote here one of the quotes that one of the participants in the debate say we, because we want not only affect the, what we do but also how we engage in activism. And that was maybe one of the, of the main, of the main, let's say goals we had in mind when working in all of these together. So basically why municipalism and why feminization? Okay. We understood municipalism as a tool for radical democracy and transformation. Why? Because new municipalism and I think in this time I would like to thank the contributions from many authors and experts on this field for example we have Laura, Laura wrote here who for me was one of the persons who from whom I learned more about this, this field but we have Bertie Russell, we have Susan Reing, right? We have a lot of people who has provided a lot of information for this report but being very brief and just bringing some brief points on the topic we understood new municipalism as a way to, for radical democracy and for transformation in this context of the economical crisis of austerity of the rise of extreme, extreme right to these courses because it builds power from the bottom up as we said is reflects the diversity of the local political landscape and is able to be open and participatory decision making processes and be able to reflect that diversity. It also reflects the diverse, as I say the diverse sensitivity of the immediate social and political ecosystem and this sense of subsidiarity let's say is a tool for transformation because municipalism is not just the lowest step of a state administration and sometimes understood as it but it's an open space for self-government. At the same time, instead of understanding let's say the frame of the state nation which is in fact a very masculine way of understanding politics as the only frame possible to build leftist projects within municipalism we are able to find that power of diversity and escape from many masculine ways of understanding how power is exercised as Alejandra and Laura will also explain you later. And at the same time municipalism is the perfect arena to practice feminism. Why? Because this way of working through the relational the everyday works, the everyday challenges faced together are a way of understanding how we build relationships with each other in another level. And as I said before one of the limits of national political projects is that phobia to disagreement and that very main sense of exercise in power. And through intersectionality and diversity in the municipalist level we empower that diversity and we empower that project. And of course, because sometimes it's in this local realm where many of the feminist critiques that have been done to liberal democracy can be landed, can be reflected, can be touched and felt and with this COVID-19 crisis we have been very conscious on that and how the local, which is close to us is also easy and how it works and how liberal politics are exercised there can be somehow challenged by these feminist ways of doing. Another point of this feminist approach to municipalization is that we are learning by doing. That is if you work on public policies towards gender and equality as I do you know that many of the things that we have theorized and that we have discussed haven't even been yet implemented. But this way of learning by doing step by step making mistakes, learning from those mistakes, going back and then starting again is a very interesting way of building these narratives on what is common for us and working on different ways of empowering people through the local structures and challenging ourselves and this is like the artificial division between what is personal and what is political. So as I said before, if we six different organizations from six different countries with many different, with backgrounds completely different and situations completely different we're able to face these common challenges together. Here you can see that at the end in this report we chose to focus on these eight, seven, so recent seven like let's say key issues or key challenges because it was a very hard work to take everything that was discussed and trying to concentrate it in these specific points. At the end what we wrote up with this report was the way of how to feminize, as Laura will explain now, how to feminize this munitipalist potential and this political shift on the way we understand how progressive and left politics can be done and also at the same time, I think it was very interesting to think of building tools together, tools that can be adapted to very diverse and very different contexts. So as I said before, feminism is included in the munitipalist agenda but the meaning of feminization of politics is still to be discussed and it's still to be thought and it's a collective reflection and I would like to give floor to Laura because she's the one that she's going to explain you the way we have been also discussing this core point of the report. So Laura. Thank you. Laura starts, sorry, Laura, to interrupt you. If you have any questions, any suggestions, any feedback, anything, please go to the chat and post them there because we will be looking at it and then facilitate the Q&A moment. Thank you. Good. Yeah, thank you for reminding us of that. So, yeah, so now that the idea is to discuss a little bit about what feminization of politics means. So I don't know if you can change to the next slide. I would like to start by saying what it is not. Some of these things are, of course, in the report and if you read it, if you read it, if you probably know it, but so as we see it, it's not simply a struggle for mere gender equality. It goes far beyond that, although it includes a struggle for more gender equality and gender balance in every aspect, not only in positions of responsibility, but also in every kind of responsibility and so on. So it's not an attempt to promote feminine traits as such. That's something that you probably agree with. It's quite obvious, but some people, when we say the word feminization of politics, they tend to associate it with that. So it's not, we're not talking about that. We're not talking about women acting like men either and about this liberal feminist idea of having a seat at the table. That's also not what we mean with feminization of politics. It's not simply about having more women, having the resources and the power that the men have. So next slide, isn't it? Sorry, I cannot intervene. So why then insist on the term feminization and not talking about, why aren't we talking about feminization or deep patriarchalization? One of the things that we say in the report, it's very important. At least as we cannot pronounce those words, so that's a very important reason. I cannot say deep patriarchalization and in a conversation. But then also there are reasons why it makes sense to keep that idea in mind. So the first one is that, as you know, social role theory has taught us, there are differences in the way our societies understand our roles, although those roles are socially constructed, there are benefits and penalizations that are distributed in society according to those roles. So that's important. And also neuroscience tells us a lot about how our brains work, although recent studies show that we are like mosaic instead of like female or male, but it's still, those differences are still relevant and how we distribute privileges in society according to our traits and our roles is still relevant. And so to some extent we think that although we cannot simply redistribute it, separate it into men and women in the world and identify privileges according to that, it still makes sense to claim that men should adapt to ways of doing that are more common among women. And why we say that? Because those ways of doing are in the first place, things that we want to defend, they are valuable, they cooperation and care and other things, even if they are a product of socialization and also because it's fair, so to find a better balance between how we distribute responsibilities and so on. And this is a clarification, this doesn't, as I was saying before, this doesn't require a binary conception of gender and it doesn't require idealizing feminine traits either, but this is a longer conversation. So, Irene, next slide. Okay. Yeah, so basically what we discussed in the report and in the conversation we are interested in is that we want to change the forms of politics and not only the outcomes of politics. And yeah, next one. And so the basis of the approach are care and relations. We think that it's important to pay attention to care, not only to care work, but also to approach this from a conception of the ethics of care and how we cannot hide the relationships that we depend on for living and we cannot hide the importance of taking care of relationships in the same way as we cannot hide the relevance of care workforce, the sustainability of production, for instance. So one of the aims of this conception of politics is to nurture and to cultivate those relationships and also simply the outcomes and the projects that we do together. Next one. And then a few things about what feminization of politics is for us. It's a struggle against privilege. It's not, as I was saying, not a struggle between men and women, of course, but it's a struggle against any kind of privilege. It's a shift in priorities in politics from, for instance, focusing on the aims of politics and the substantive part of politics, public policies and achieving what we want to achieve and also the forms of politics and how we get there and paying attention to times, to priorities and so on. Then it's a cross-cutting issue or it should be a cross-cutting issue. This doesn't mean that it should be diluted and any other topic, but it should affect every dimension of politics. And then finally, it's, and where we are going to talk about later is, it is a change in structures, relationships, language and times of politics among many other things. So it means going to all the aspects of what we do together and how we do things together. And I will leave it here. So, yeah, just one second. Yeah, I don't know if there's any questions or we can't hear you. This was just one question by Alex saying why did you or we choose the three topics that we are going to speak about? I mean, we can take this, again, Laura, to speak about why care is for us meaning something else. I think this is a great question actually to actually continue to frame what do you think a feminization of politics is at the end of the day? Yeah, so I would say, please add in if you think there's anything missing. So the idea, we discussed about how to approach this. Of course, time was a limitation and we needed to do something. So where did we want to start? We connected that to which of the topics were probably the ones least discussed in the feminist political discussions. I don't know, things like care, as care work, for instance, is something very common or a thing that's in participation, although they're not always implemented. There are also common intersectionality is also usually an issue, although it's not fully implemented and so on. So we wanted to address the issues that were more clearly going to the core of the problem, let's say to the power and leadership are the key, seem to be the key challenges in feminizing politics. So we wanted to start there, although of course all the issues are connected and so on. And why care? Because on the one hand, we wanted to shift from the view of care as simply care work connected to taking care of dependent beings and so on.  And also care of people as something that is necessary for a happy life. So we thought it made sense to approach difficult issues such as power and leadership from a point of view that is very different from the one that is usually mainstream. So yeah, I would say that. I don't know if I'm missing something. No, I would add that the importance of care as an intersectional issue. When we started in 2018, and we started discussing this in different workshops, we realized that we were all the time speaking about care and the need of care when touching all the different realms, always care was in the core. But at the same time, we always put it forward, put it back like, well, we will discuss this later. We will discuss this later and we never discuss it. So we decided, okay, let's make care like the intersectional, the focus that we'll be always next to us, like inspiring the rest of the actions we are developing. And I think that somehow we made a right approach because now we see that care is now starting to be a word that we are listening more and more on the institution and on the political agendas. We are now listening and reading about a care deal in the EU. We are now listening to experts and sociologists who never ever spoke about care, now vindicating the role of care and putting care in the EU. And so I think it's important that feminism vindicates that care and a broad concept of care is one of the main pillars of feminist politics. Okay, I would ask someone else if they have any questions, comments or else we can go directly and speak about the three topics that we were proposing to actually dig a little deeper in. The proposal is to actually have a presentation on them split into smaller groups and then go back to the plenary and share what we spoke about and, you know, discuss, challenge, interpolate or however we can say to those concepts and the way that the authors presented them and the proposals that they do. So I'm trying to make some time if you have, can you please stop sharing the screen because I cannot see everybody. Oh, great, sorry, because I had the... Thank you. Makes, it's great to see actually faces, thank you. So a couple of minutes for you all to, I don't know, any reactions, any bad, this is the same. Well, I've heard this so many times. This is not new, but this is necessary. But I don't know, whatever you can comment on is more than welcome. Alex? Hi, I don't know if it's the right moment for this question, but like we are part of this or we were invited today because like Chris and also Floor and Angela, we are organizing for a conference should have been in September now, will be hopefully next year on institutions and like feminist perspectives on institutions and we are working with many people that are organized mostly in parties because then they go into the institutions. And you were like focusing on the connection of the feminist potential in the municipalism groups. And also it says in the end of the publication, it says like, yeah, it will be so far more difficult when we talk about parties or other like more traditional forms of organization. And I was just like, it would be very interesting from our perspective to see where do you see the problems and where do you think that's possible to like for some conclusions out of it or something like that. Like where is it more close to each other and where is it not possible to make that transfer? I'm not sure if I was clear. Yeah, no, it's totally clear. It's probably requires a very long debate, right? And to see what is different and what is similar. I think many things are similar. Many of these political platforms work as political parties but they are different in many senses as well. They are smaller, they all live in the same city, people can meet each other. There's some differences that I think are crucial to in terms of the potential to do things differently and proximity, so, yeah, proximity here is key. Of course, technology gives you lots of possibilities but the fact that people can meet and can do things together by sharing spaces and sharing their lives and then working as networks with other organizations, I think it changes some things and that's why we think that it's easier for a feminist project like this to enter politics through the local level and through municipalist platforms, although there's many other things that can be implemented in other kinds of organizations and not only political parties, also like any kinds of social movements and any kinds of collectives. There's many things that we tackle in the report that can be applied to any kind of organization actually. I've been talking about this to artists in Eastern Europe, for instance, and they talk about their collectives and it seems many things resonate as well in their work. I don't know, there's many examples and probably there's some things that cannot be implemented but in any case, I don't know. So the whole point of having these conversations is to find those possibilities and the potential for feminist politics to enter politics because otherwise you could say, no, these are totally different and then maybe one of the conclusions should be when then feminism is doomed or something like that or at least in this kind of project for feminism, like to have a deeper integration into politics. And I don't think that's the, I hope that's not the answer. So yeah, but it certainly requires a very long conversation and very impractices of trial and error. So I don't know, I'm optimistic. I don't know about you, but. Okay, maybe you can leave the pessimism or the optimism for the plenary session after the breakout sessions. I would really love the authors to actually present the proposals that they have in terms of power leadership and nonviolence. I would urge you to be short in this because we will have time to actually discuss further in the breakout sessions. So if you can take three minutes each, it would be actually great. We cannot listen to you, Irene. Sorry, may I share the screen again because we have three slides with each topic. So it would be super fast, promise. Okay, so sorry, share. Okay, so let's start with power. Thank you. It's my turn. Okay, so one of the exits we worked during the report was power and power relations. There is a theoretical background about power and power relations, but we have been focused on practices, but we have this quote of Hannah Arendt that is power is the human ability to not just to act but to act in concept. It means to act with others now. So what we saw is that feminist perspectives criticize the idea of power as a power over, as a domination concept. And we want to shift in this conception of power to a conception of a power to achieve something and power to do or a power to with others. So this traditional notion of power, as I said, is based on domination and this patriarchal conception of this exclusive leadership and the accumulation of power and some kind of loyalty and critical fidelity. As we see in the next slide, there is like three notions of power, like the power over, which is individualist based on domination and is the potestas, but also we have the power to do with others. It means that the social relationship appears here to empower oneself and empower others. We also have the power with, which is a more Italian theoretical concept based in the affidamento, which is the social relationship between women, the trust that we have in others and how we entrust ourselves. So powers is not a resource. It's not something that someone has and someone gains. It's a relational character. So feminist power is about to use this relational character to change the social power structure collectively. But between power over and power to or with someone, power has power as ability, not replace the concept of power as domination. It must coexist together. So we have to think how are we going to work with that? In the way of the directions of feminist theory, we find three, like the inclusion. It's there is a frame already made. So we enter in this frame. There is a reversal way, which is to propose the opposite frame. And the other one is to displace the previous frame, building a new dialectical proposal or a new dialectical. So what we found with the feminist conception of power, this power to empower with is that some elements are, next slide please. It's a cooperation and mutual support, the empowerment, not only individual, but also as a community and to have agency in the context of oppression. So which are the challenges we found in our report is that we need to find ways to foster this cooperation inside within our organizations. So what happens with this cooperation when it acts in context of confrontation, sorry. That means that if we stick to feminist methods, we are going to be a site of decision making. This is going to affect to the way the organization works, the people in the organization works, is it also affects the way that we communicate if we have tools to conflict resolution or not. And also how do we alliance, how we have allies outside our organization. Another challenge is the time to address. When we want to make a structural change, we usually have this excuse like, we have no time to afford it now. So we need to develop these mechanisms to warranty and monitor the way we work on cooperation to reverse power relations. And it can be from political discourses, not in a confrontative way to make, for example, diplomacy group and not have the... Not to leave the diplomacy task for one person only. And also, of course, the political communication. Of course, we find also when a cooperative way of do politics confront with a competitive way, we have the question of, it will have the right to have it. If the women have different behavioral standards that men are unwilling to apply to themselves. So should we be more cooperative, more nice or more feminist than our male partners? And that's a little bit the power. Thank you, Ale. I'm going to talk a little bit about how we think leadership fits into the discussion of feminism in politics. So I will go again to social role theory. Traditionally, leadership has been associated to masculinity and seen as a male trait that is associated to agency, security, infallibility, strength, capacity to deal with stress, for instance, and speed. And this is, we think, intrinsically negative and not simply because it's something that is connected to, that is more common among men. And it is intrinsically negative because it's unstable. It depends on just one person. Usually if something happens to that person, that's a problem for the whole project. It's more vulnerable to attacks, so from the outside. It's more prone to making mistakes because it doesn't rely on collective intelligence. It is intrinsically undemocratic because it doesn't share the power to decide with others. And it's bad for the leader itself, himself or herself, because it takes, it means a lot of responsibility, a lot of visibility.  So it's a problem. So we wanted to share this quote from Karen Tep. She's one of the interviewees in the report. We'll see, so you can read it. Well, I will give you time to read it, it's probably faster. So there's many elements arising here about how an alternative vision of leadership would look like. And I will talk about those elements in a second. I just wanted to also add that it is necessary to think about a feminist way of leading because adapting to that traditional way of understanding leadership also has a backlash effect on non-privileged people. And we also, we're also subjected to the imposter syndrome, of course, no. So there's a need to find an alternative view of leadership that is connected to some of the traits that Karen is mentioning here. So if you want to move to the next slide. So we think leadership should be a feminist way of understanding leadership is connected to care and to interdependence and care of relations and a leader is someone who takes care of their relationships that are built around her person and facilitates those relationships to flourish. It's a person that can make mistakes and needs to trust others in order to lead. And it also leads based on horizontal relationships or at least as horizontal as possible and it's not in a position of vertical relationship to the other people. And I wanted to share this little thing here about how leadership also depends on the diagnosis we make of problems. And masculine or traditional leadership usually understands problems as technical problems. And there are some technical problems in our lives. Like, I don't know, I need someone to fix my oven. But usually political problems are not like this. There's not one right answer. So in technical problems, the diagnosis and solution are offered by the leader who is the expert and obedience is the result because there's one right answer and this is the person that knows best. So if we think that problems are like this, then traditional leadership is okay. But if we are facing adaptive problems, this is a way of understanding a vocabulary that is used in some discussions about leadership then like Ronald Haifetz, for instance, is a person who has been working around this. Then where there's no right answer and there's disagreement, then the diagnosis needs to be done by those who are affected by the problem themselves. There's disagreement about the solution and the key is to have a leader that can mobilize people to find a solution together. And there's many examples of people who have led like that in history and we think of feminists, your leadership is more connected to that. So keeping in mind how we understand problems and challenges is also key to think about how we want to lead as a consequence. And yeah, and then in the group later, we will discuss some more practical things like for instance, I don't know, rotation or mapping of experts, teamwork, transfer of knowledge, communication. There's many ideas that we have to implement that, but I would like to, I don't know, to stay with that idea of how we understand problems and what do we need to do to deal with them. Okay, and last but not least, there I go with violence. Well, we also added this quote from Bad Hooks. And of course, I wouldn't say that violence is an issue that is somehow hidden or less discussed as power or leadership as Alejandra and Laura have explained. I think that violence and especially patriarchal violence is nowadays in the core of feminist indications around the world. So I think it's an issue that it's obvious and that it's in all the feminist agendas. However, we had a lot of different, realms and issues to tackle within, when speaking about non-violence because the establishment of anti-violence movements and questioning the existing forms of conflict resolution and the management of interpersonal relations are key issues in the feminist politics. But we didn't want to focus on, at least now in this session, we don't want to focus on, let's say, the external, the extra problems that feminists are facing when working towards violence against women and broadening the focus on patriarchal violence. But we wanted to focus on how these feminist organizations that we have been researching are addressing the problem of violence within the organizations. And first of all, we discussed and we thought that it was important to call it by its name and to recognize that violence exists within our organizations and that our organizations are not violence free spaces. So it is important to have a common ground, to have a clear definition of what do we all understand as violence and which kinds of violence do we understand that we have to work on? Why? Because, and we had a very interesting debate that we will develop later in the other session, but we have a very interesting debate on how, once we have defined that violence and what it is, how do we want to transform it? Does these forms of violence have a potential to be work and transform or can't be tolerated and thus they have to be erased from these movements? And how do we do that? And one of the ways that feminization of politics proposed to tackle, to address this conflict is working on prevention from the focus on privation by identifying, as I said, what is violence? Which violence can be tolerated, let's say so, in a way of transforming and using it as a learning tool and which ones not? And how can we build procedures and protocols together to do so? And I know it's a very difficult debate and it implies and you have to have in mind the experiences of survivors to do so. And especially in this local level where with the role of our closest communities when trying to survive violence. And a third point is how to act when we generate these protocols, can feminization of politics propose a different way of approaching the ways of eradicating violence without a punitive, with not just a punitive approach but with different approach, both for victims and for perpetrators. So that's basically the three points that we think that are interesting to work with a feminist point of view. Great, thanks. So I think that, wow, a lot of info here and this is taking some flesh. I think that it's a moment to go to the breakout sessions and make pieces out of this and pull together and have the chance to chat with each of the authors that they will facilitate each of the sessions. Now, Alexandra, if you could please send us to the sessions those who didn't choose anything in the chest, you were randomly assigned to one of them. So I hope that you enjoy whatever you will be there. You know that these automatically closes, so in 30 minutes, 30 minutes, Angela. We will 25, 30 minutes, but yeah, 30 minutes, I think you will have a pop-up window saying, yeah, this will close. So we will be back in 30 minutes. Remember please to choose someone to actually, yeah, Senya. Yes, everybody go whatever you want. We will wait for you in the breakout sessions, okay? See you later. See you.


Everybody forced here ripping 2022 immaculate baseball hobby and first off the line two bucks number two random teams You can always find these results at latent sports cards calm. Good luck. Everybody. Let's get started There's a link in chat for the results as well Hobby first. All right first up. We've got a Twins dual Jersey Byron bucks and 14 of 99 twins got Damaged Royals Jersey card George Brett 14 of 25 Game warrent breath, but yeah, there is damage on that frame of the swatch right there Again, if you box wrapper out to your Royals ice red RPA Mets Patrick Mazzica 1 of 49 Cool patch there for the Mets It's a mr. Metfit. No, that's part of that. That's the top of the That's the top of the patch right there, right? Same as the the online game player that Is like going way is just going crazy and everyone else is like, oh, yeah, this is like quick play. We don't care Yeah, Christian Yelich clearly immaculate signatures red redemption for the Brewers Brewers on the Yelich Nationals RPA you want a dome 58 of 99 and a purple button relic rookie auto one of eight Shane Boz Rays nice Shane Boz Sam's the reason I won't play fall guys She's the guy in the mic listen to the music in the background. That's too loud and like yelling at someone in the background And then all his other stuff First off the line time you guys. I don't want to play rock. I'm terrible at rockin Patch card George Brett 405 on the first off the line. There you go Royals again You said what six is that a real number that you just put out there? That's insanity button relic Rockies Sammy Hilliard seven of ten Pink first off the line RPA Rangers Curtis Terry eight of eight Great patch. That's the inaugural season patch right from What's the globe life field or globe life park, whatever it is, but yeah, that's the inaugural season patch. That's really cool There you go Rangers Curtis Terry eight of eight Phillies patch auto eye black Hans Kraus 45 of 83 Phillies there Redemption Ray's rookie Cheper triple memorabilia signatures wonder Franco Congrats Tampa Bay. This one's going to Peter D Crushed it man had the wonder redemption and the Shane boss button relic auto rats Peter and Rangers RPA again here. It is AJ Alexi 13 to 25 few teams hit big in this one You go Rangers on that one That's gonna do it everybody Got another mixer coming up next


Morning class I'm Will Kemp from Will Kemp Art School and today I'm going to show you how to mix and match colors for a landscape painting. Here it is let's get going. So the first thing I do is to try and assess the tones that we're looking at to try and decide which colors are going to be best to start off the mix. So for this example video I'm just going to show you how to mix the sky blue, this cloud which is a muted purple and this area here where the sun is just you know coming through and really bursting making this nice warm feel onto the painting. So we're going to try and match these three colors I'm going to show you how to do it. So when I'm assessing the blue you just got to find what color on the color wheel is closest to the color you're trying to match. So this one obviously is the blue so let's put out some blue and some white. When I'm trying to judge this blue I'm looking at his value value is just how light or how dark something is on a gray scale. So here when I look at this blue it is closer to the white than it is to the black so to try and match it I'm going to start with some of the white. Blue is always a lot higher tinting strength than the white so you can just add a small amount see how I just scrape a bit and then mix that in okay that's still too light we still need to add a bit more of the blue to it. Okay we're getting closer in tone but this blue is too blue I mean we have a bit more blue there but it's too purpley when we look at it. So to try and knock that back we're going to have to add something to the blue to make it not as bright. So now I've added some burnt umber now this looks very dark but is in fact very useful color because burnt umber has got an orange base to it. The complementary color of blue is orange so to mute it down we need to add a bit of its complement but instead of using the bright orange I'm just going to add a touch of the burnt umber. You see how that has grayed that tone down so now that's a lot closer it might need a bit more of the blue back in it but if we're getting it quite close that's a perfect color to start with. So the next color we've got down is on this area of the cloud here clouds can be tricky to paint because your brain will often tell you that they have to be light and bright and all the colors of the rainbow mostly towards gray but when we look at a sunset to really get that contrast to make this white here of the sun coming through really look bright you've got to make sure that you go dark enough onto this area of the cloud. So if we look at the local color of the cloud we can see that it's a purple hue in comparison to this blue so we're going to need something to make a purple we won't be able to do it with these three colors so we're going to have to introduce a red. To mix this purple I'm going to start with a bit of the blue a bit of this red and then some white okay in terms of its hue as in its color it's quite close to part of this you'll see parts of that area there on the cloud maybe part here is it's quite close especially over in that side this is quite a useful useful color to have for this painting. So what I'll often do if I mix this and it wasn't absolutely the color I was after but it's still quite useful I'll make a little pile of it there drag some of the paint off and just add some more to this one knowing that I'll be able to use that color in the rest of the painting. So now with that darker tone that kind of blends in pretty well that's good to go. So now for this final color down here this quite muted orange we're going to use red and a yellow to mix that but of course with these we can't so we're going to have to add a yellow and we're going to use some cad yellow light. So because it's lighter we can start with the white again well I've got a bit of yellow on there that's okay okay definitely definitely too yellow so we need to make it more towards orange so we add some of the red to some parts of this that's quite nice quite a good color to have as a base again I might need to go a bit lighter for it so I'll keep this a lot of this color add some more white to this pile and this is starting to call what's called color strings color strings of when you have one mass tone of color and then you add slightly more slightly more white so you get a tonal range of colors which is called a tonal string you notice how that when you add white to a color it brings out the purple hues and knocks back the warmer yellows and the reds so now when we look at that we'll see that that is quite close there it might need to be toned down a bit so to tone down this color here I'll add a bit of the burnt umber to it only a small amount and what that's just done is just mute it down if you want to learn more about color mixing and painting have a look at my website at wilkemartschool.com


Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to eBay. This is an after hours just look at this chart. I just did a webinar and someone had said eBay was gapping up. It's not gapping up though. So it looks like it had one quick hard fast movement here that happened in a 415 Eastern time, but at this point now, this actually isn't doing anything at all. So I don't have anything to do on this tomorrow. There's nothing to do here. eBay, it looks like did have a gap up, but then failed and this really isn't doing anything. So there's no play in this right now if it looks like this tomorrow. So I have no idea exactly where eBay's going to end up opening tomorrow because as of right now at six o'clock Eastern time, this stock isn't gapping up or down. It's just flat. This is what I would call neutral. Therefore, you don't do anything with it. You don't buy it, you don't short it. There's no play here. Could this change? Yes, it could certainly change by tomorrow morning at 9.30 or before 9.30 or tomorrow morning when you wake up. But as of right now, actually there's no play here in the eBay because it's not gapping. It's just flat, it's neutral. Weird because it looks like it did actually have an up move there, but as of right now, it's stationary here. So if a big volume bar comes in in one direction here, it starts to move this thing and gap it, well then I'll have a chance to look at it and evaluate it, but there's nothing to do here at all. It's just flat, okay? Flat meaning no play. eBay closed at 5081. Today at 4.30, at 4 o'clock Eastern time. And it's a 5090. That's, there's nothing there that's neutral, okay? So I thought I'd look at this when someone said it was gapping up to give you a call here, but I don't have any call on eBay. You don't do anything with this tomorrow as of now. If it ends up doing something, like gapping up or down, you could rate the gap if you took my class and know how to rate it. However, that being said, it's not doing anything. And let me tell you that's weird, weird because I thought this would be something, but it's flat. If you wanted to do anything with this at all though, which I wouldn't though, because it's flat, it's not really a gap play. You would play it in the direction of the overall trend. So you could do that, but I think this is gonna do something. I think it's weird here. It's not doing anything at six o'clock. Between now and tomorrow morning, this probably could do something. I just don't know what it's gonna be right now because it just did gap up and now it's flat here. So we'll see what happens. And this is reporting earnings tonight. And that's what's happening here live. It's gotta get moving though. It has to get moving. Doing something of some kind of significance. So this is Melissa with thestockswish.com. Have a great night everybody. Sorry I don't have more to report in eBay, but I did promise I would do a video on it. I thought it was gapping up. It looks like it was for a moment there, but it's not right now, it's flat. I wouldn't do anything with eBay tomorrow unless it actually does something where it gives you an indication of its movement, of its momentum, of its directional bias to do. Okay, services are really anything that I'm gonna be contending with tomorrow unless it does something, but it's basically neutral here tonight. All right, that's the scoop. Have a great night everyone. This is Melissa with thestockswish.com. If you'd like more information on the upcoming GAT class, it's July 26th and 27th. Email me at Melissa at thestockswish.com. Thanks everybody, have a great night.


Facing their defense, will they do well at great turnovers and to limit opponent's scoring? Yeah, I mean, they're a very disciplined, well-coached group. They play with great energy and effort. You can tell they're coordinated well. They play off each other well. There are not a lot of mistakes, not a lot of open gaps. Just a lot of discipline have a lot of respect for this team. Listen, they're making so good as far as limiting those explosive plays. They're one of the best teams in the league. Yeah, they tackle really well. They play a great vision on the quarterback. Like I said, they play well together, so they know where their help is. They can funnel stuff back to zone players inside. They vice tackle well, and when they have opportunities to make plays on the football, they capitalize. A lot different, and I don't know how much you were even worried about last year, but you did see them last year, last year, this year in terms of how they're playing. I know the person sounds a little bit different, but they take significantly better. I wouldn't say they're a lot different schematically. More just that they're playing at a high level of execution. I think you saw that as a year went on with them last year. They built into the postseason, and I think they picked up where they left off. I think they're playing with a great deal of confidence right now and a great deal of energy, and we've got our work cut out for us for sure. We've been doing a lot more three wide, a lot less too tight than last year, which we would have expected based on the personnel, except you haven't had personnel necessarily. Right. What's kind of philosophy there? Yeah, week by week, I think it goes into matchups, trying to create some matchups, and what they do defensively, what they bring personnel-wise defensively. And so thus far, we've had a little bit more 11 personnel, three receivers on the field, trying to create some different matchups there. But I think that's a week by week thing. I think there are going to be times where we lean heavily on two tight end and three tight end groups, and there are some weeks where we won't, that'll kind of unfold as we go. All those guys work extremely hard. I've been watching that group work on show team and taking a peek back at what they've been doing for our defense. And each guy that's had their opportunities out there to get reps has improved. And so I'm excited about that. And I know those guys are eager for the opportunity to show they belong, so excited for those guys' opportunity. Putting up some incredible run numbers, obviously. Maybe the one thing that we haven't seen quite as much is the big chunk Derek Henry runs outside of Seattle. Is that something that you figured just comes in time, or is there anything different going on that is the reason for that? Yeah, I think they just come in time. They happen naturally. If you start looking for the big runs, if you start looking for those 50, 60 yarders, you can sometimes hurt yourself doing that. And so staying with our game plan, staying with our scheme, I think we're one broken tackle, one finished block, one downfield block away from those things starting to happen. So look at the Seattle game as an example. Hit a couple of efficient runs and then we popped a big one. I think that that's the way Derek's run style and our scheme style is. I know you guys don't make excuses for injuries, but when you're a coordinator and you're looking at the injury report, you're seeing some of your key players come back and get healthy. Is that refreshing in any way? It's certainly nice to feel like you have more weapons, more pieces.  And so I don't want to jerk the wheel in the other direction when you get people back. It's a foundation. It's a system here that's been in place and has been successful. How the different pieces plug into that. I think you can see some little wrinkles and adjustments, but hopefully not a drastic change. He was kind of upset with his performance last week. I feel like he's very critical of himself. As a competitor, he always wants to compete at the highest. It sometimes is that hard just to kind of say, okay, you're coming back from a hammy, maybe ease your way into it. Don't get too hard on yourself. I mean, how do you work with a personality like that who clearly wants to be the best all the time? I think that's part of what makes him great, is that he's his own biggest critic. And I think that certainly as long as that doesn't affect his confidence and his play speed, then it's a healthy thing. Thus far, I've never seen that from AJ. He just wants to drive himself to be the best and continue to improve. And that's what you love about the guy. He goes out and makes some big plays, made a real nice play to get us down on the goal line last week. And I think that he's trending in the right direction, growing more, getting back physically more comfortable. And you want him to want to be a perfectionist. As long as that doesn't bleed over into overthinking. As into doing a snap count, like AJ for instance, what goes into setting a snap count each weekend and how hard is it to implement, given that you don't necessarily know how many plays you're going to get that day. I'd say the hardest part for me is excited to see him out there. We love him being out there just his energy and certainly his talent.  So as you're laying out the plan, you're saying, okay, we really want him on this play or we really want him on this play, all of a sudden that list can grow to be quite large. But I think that's a delicate balance. I think it can adjust in-game based on how guys are feeling and all those things. I don't think you really go in saying, all right, there's this hard cap that we can't go past. I think you kind of deal with the ebbs and flows of the game. And that's a group decision. Certainly starts with Coach Vrable. And then with Coach Moore and myself, we figure that out along the way. So there would never be an instance where 40 plays was Jay-Z's limit. You get to the fourth quarter. He's done 40 plays.  That's probably not going to happen. To this part, I haven't experienced that. I hope I don't get that. Hey, he reached his max and you're out. No ATM overdraft fees. I hope that you're kind of at the start of that process with Julio and what's it like when you don't really know for sure on a Thursday if a guy's going to be ready on a Monday? Yeah, I think the approach we discussed a few minutes ago, you know, of not jerking the wheel too much or changing the system too much based on player availability, it helps you there, right? So whatever we end up getting Julio for or don't get him for, you know, you're able to adjust, you know, and it's a testament to the rest of those guys, you know, Marcus and Josh and all those guys have stepped in and played that spot, you know, that we don't have to change what we do too much waiting to find out who can go and who can't. You've got some time in as far as with Tana Hill, what plays up, what plays down, drafting the game plan. Is there anything that is different or that stands out to you throughout the process and how has that process gone with him, the game plan? Yeah, I think time on task, you get a little bit more efficient, you know, finding the wrinkles that you have to iron out in the game plan or certain things that you got to make sure you see in practice, you know, different looks defensively and all that, but the process with Ryan's been outstanding since the day I got here really is a tight end coach and the conversations I got to have with him, you know, along the way. He's a great guy. He's a competitor. He loves football. He loves talking X's and O's. We see the game very similar.  I think we've just become more efficient in our process. Jerry McNichols particularly good in the screen game or is he just the beneficiary of some plays that have been blocked up really well? I got to give a lot of credit to the offensive line for the work they've done in the screen game this year, you know, committing to getting our screen game going. But I think Jeremy has a good feel for setting up those blocks, you know, and realizing that it's not just get the ball in your hands and run as fast as you can. There's some nuance to screens. I once heard this said screens are like snowflakes. They're all different, you know, and they all play out different. And I think Jeremy understands that and so he has good patience in running them. But again, the offensive line has done a great job of committing to improving that area of this offense.  Yeah, you know, confidence is built through repeated performance, right? And we all saw what Marcus did in training camp. So we knew who he was and what kind of player he was and so did he. And so it just became about the opportunity, you know, so there was no doubt in any of our minds, including Ryan, you know, that Marcus was going to go out and play well.


Yeah, it's going well though. Got a lot of merch jumping off, you know, we're taking over. About to try to probably get in the pajama industry, too. My pajama.  Do you wear pajamas? Hell, yeah. Nah. Come on. You don't wear who shorts? Nah. I'm not talking. Bro, I'm not talking.  Anybody in here wear pajamas? You wear pajamas? Bro, motherfuckers bougie over here, bro. But pajama, we like Bert and Ernie. We got the top, bottom, and the night night hat. Go to bed looking like a wizard, nigga.  You ain't even trying, bro. See, Jesus, that's how you act, bro.


So, I really hope that this is the last time that I'll be talking about this story. The only other video that I will put up on the channel, so far, about this is the full episode on Monday at noon. The full episodes always center on what we've talked about the most during the week, but I mean, I don't want to address this anymore, and I'm going to force myself to move on after this. If there's no more, you know, developments to this story, because I think that even though I feel hurt, it's not healthy for us to keep dwelling on this both psychologically and also because of the impact that it has. It helps nobody but Joe Biden. And on top of that, I think that the media is also, you know, benefiting from this story, and they are desperate to try to keep it going. CNN is doing everything in its power to extend the life of this story. You have CNN reporter Annie Greyer claiming that she asked Bernie Sanders three times about this story. You have Chris Saliza insisting that we should keep asking questions, and then he even posted a video talking about the subject further, which was massively disliked, by the way, as are all of his videos. But I mean, this is the epitome of sensationalism, and I feel gross contributing to that, right? But at the same time, we're all human beings and judging by the comments and the response from the progressive community, I mean, we're all collectively feeling hurt. So I also know that it's cathartic to see someone you watch talk about this, and it's even therapeutic for all of us to kind of voice what we're feeling currently. Although, like I said, this helps nobody but Joe Biden and not in the way that, you know, Cory Booker on a debate stage says, look, the only one who benefits from us bickering is Donald Trump.  And at a time when we have so much on the line, I want to make sure that we focus on what is going to get us across that across that finish line. And this story certainly is not going to help us with that. But I mean, what Elizabeth Warren presumably wanted is taking place. She wanted to knock Bernie down a few pegs. And maybe if it didn't hurt him, distract all of us. And it did. Now, before I tell you my closing thoughts on this, I do want to give you an update. We all suspected that this was leaked by the Warren campaign. And CNN did confirm that it was, in fact, her team that leaked this story to them directly. Warren had no problem with this story yesterday. It was clearly leaked by her team to CNN. It was it came out more than a year after the meeting. It came out on the eve of a debate. This is pretty clear. She knew about this. She sanctioned it. Everything around it indicates that. Why is she pumping the brakes now indicating don't want to talk about this anymore? We're all cool. But remember that this was leaked weeks before the Iowa caucus. We cannot forget that context. Rather than making a case against Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, progressive, chose to kneecap her friend, tells you everything you need to know about her as a person and where her priorities lie. Now, the story started to kind of die down once we stopped fixating on that exchange after the debate between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. CNN happened to conveniently find the backup audio. I think that they probably had it all along and they released it. And this gives us, you know, more context as to what was being said. And as we all suspected, they were in fact arguing.   Let's not do it right now. You want to have that discussion? You called me. You told me. All right, let's not do it now. I don't want to get in the middle of it. I just want to say hi, Bernie. Yeah, good. Okay. Look, I have my suspicion that that whole event was staged. I think that she wanted to ambush Bernie Sanders. And there is no doubt in my mind that she knew this could have been captured because she was still mic'd. If you're still mic'd, you know that the cameras are rolling and mics are going to pick up on this, you know. So she did this on purpose. But it shows you how fake she is because during that debate, she says, look, Bernie's my friend. But then after the debate, she put on this show, which is basically political theater confronting Bernie Sanders for calling her a liar when she called him a liar, essentially. But I want to go to a statement from Jane Sanders, who of course is Bernie Sanders' wife, because essentially her sentiment is, it's time for everyone to move on. Quote, I think that this discussion is over. Jane O'Mara Sanders told the Associated Press. O'Mara Sanders said their campaign has no interest in promoting divisions, like Trump does by gender, race, or ethnicity.  The message is unity. At the time, she described her husband as a person that everybody can trust and pushed back against Warren's accusation. Maybe people sometimes misremember things that happened, she said, but I know without a doubt that it is not anything Bernie would ever say. It is inconceivable because it is not what he believes. And there's proof of that going back to many, many years. I'm not attacking Elizabeth Warren in any way, shape, or form on this. O'Mara Sanders continued, my message is Bernie is trying to bring people together. So in other words, they're actually preaching unity. Elizabeth Warren is preaching unity, but she's not practicing that. This is what unity looks like. They're trying to move on and get away from this story because it does nothing to help the progressive movement. Bernie Sanders is focusing on policies, winning this race, and ultimately fixing the country. This story does not help contribute to that effort. Now on top of this, 18 organizations that have endorsed Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, you know, a combination of both have come together to call on everyone to unite. This includes Justice Democrats, our revolution, the Sunrise Movement, Working Families Party, the PCCC, and a lot more. Now if you want to sign their pledge, I will link to that down below. But full disclosure, I personally am choosing not to sign this pledge and I'll tell you my reasoning towards the end of this video, but I hope that you feel differently and I do hope that you are less burnt than I am. But we'll get to my thoughts on that. Another issue that made this really difficult for us is the fact that the media overall sided with Elizabeth Warren here. Everyone with the exception of Morning Joe, I think. Now I don't necessarily believe that normal Americans believed Elizabeth Warren here, just people in my own social circles like my mom called me, and she was incredibly outraged at what Elizabeth Warren did. She liked Elizabeth Warren, but she also liked Bernie Sanders, and my mom saw through these lies. She doesn't follow politics as closely as I do. So I think normal people, and this is anecdotal, of course. I think normal people see through it, but overall the media is demonizing Bernie Sanders because even if maybe they don't believe Elizabeth Warren because she obviously lacks credibility, and David Dole released a phenomenal video talking about Bernie and Warren's credibility. Watch that. Definitely check that out. In fact, I'll link to that down below. Still, the fact that the media is using this to attack Bernie, it's just, it's disgusting. We're three weeks out from Iowa. We knew that they would pull out all the stops to try to get them, but the fact that the reason why they're attacking him is because of Elizabeth Warren, it's just disgusting. Now the worst attack I have seen came from the view, and it's so bad. I'm not even gonna play the clip for you because I think it's just going to make you feel depressed and further demoralized, and it's not healthy if we want to move on, but I'll summarize it for you. Basically, Meghan McCain claimed that Bernie Sanders is a misogynist, and we don't need another misogynist in the White House. Whoopi Goldberg scolded Bernie Sanders supporters and told us, you can't do what you did in 2016. That's wrong. You can't do that again.  He's a misogynist, and every single one of his supporters are bad people. So I'm not playing that clip, but I do want to share a clip from the view with you that demonstrates the fact that they are hypocrites, rich elites who don't actually care about misogyny and sexism because back in, I think it was February when the Lucy Flora story about Joe Biden came out, their response to it was not to condemn misogyny. They defended Joe Biden, and their take on this was, well, why didn't she just talk to Joe Biden about this? Why did she have to come out and make a big spectacle about it? What they said there proves that they're not serious about sexism. Take a look. Now should she have spoken to him about this before she went on television about it? Or, I mean, is it, you know, listen, in the old days, we would call Joe, some folks of a certain age would say he's a little overly familiar. But most politicians, when they're doing this with you, they are, and Joe is a hands-on kind of guy, but no one, I've never heard anyone, and she says she felt violated and I have to take her out of her word, but it would have been nice if she had turned him and said, you know what, Jay, I don't really like this, please don't do this. And we all know Joe Biden. He's been here. I remember when I met him in Florida before he was Vice President, and he was so friendly. He's the close talker. Yes.  And more important, I hope his is. And you know, so he talks close. He touches you. He touches you. That's what he's like. And I feel it would be really unfortunate if we got rid of everybody who was just an affectionate kind of person.   I do wonder if she could have sent him a letter, right? Like send him a personal note. Well I don't want Joe to stop doing that. I don't either. You know? I'm just going to say one thing really quick. Go ahead. There's a certain kind of retail politician that loves people. I would put Bill Clinton in that category. I would put my father in that category. I would certainly put Joe Biden in that category. Joe Biden is a good, decent man. I do not believe he has never made me feel uncomfortable once. I've been around him a lot. So can we conclude that it would not hurt him? I hope not, but I think Democrats, what I said on Friday about Democrats cannibalizing each other and eating their own and the part you brought up about politics, she said on Jake Tapper that her politics, it was politically motivated. So inappropriately touching women, not so big of a deal. Maybe she should have shut up and not, you know, advocated that Joe Biden respect her and other women's boundaries.  Bernie Sanders, biggest misogynist in the world. So here's the thing, if the view wants to keep going about this by demonizing progressives, I think we play hardball. Maybe they wouldn't like if progressives organized an advertiser boycott. Maybe they wouldn't like if Bernie Sanders threatened to sue them for slander because that's what they are doing. They are slandering his name, calling him a misogynist. It's just, it's downright morally reprehensible. Now on top of that, it's not just Bernie Sanders who has been demonized over this entire, you know, kerfuffle. It's also his supporters, because in response to feeling hurt by what Elizabeth Warren did, well, a lot of people, namely Bernie Sanders supporters posted snakes and replied to all of her tweets to which Elizabeth Warren supporters and defenders claimed was sexist. Surprise, surprise. But I mean, we've been called Obama boys. We've been called sexist Bernie bros. And their accusations are meaningless and politically motivated. And you know, since we're casually throwing around accusations of bigotry, maybe it's the case that the hosts of the view and people in media and Warren supporters are anti-Semitic. I don't know. It seems like they target the Jewish man more so than the non-Jewish man, Joe Biden. Why is Bernie Sanders always your target? Do you have something against Jewish politicians? I mean, if we're just casually throwing around these types of bigoted accusations, do you see how easy it is for us to rebut with our own accusations and claims of bigotry? So getting to my own personal take, I want to give you my closing thoughts, as well as, you know, the prospective unity and the plea from those 18 progressive organizations to unify. And let me be 100% honest with you, oftentimes I do feel the need to self-censor when it comes to my feelings on issues because when you have a really large platform, you have to understand that you have an impact on politics in a really substantial way. Like I'm not saying that my platform is so huge that I have a reach to change the outcome of the election. But what I'm saying is, you know, if I am super toxic, I don't want that toxicity to proliferate and affect people in politics. So I try to self-censor, but I do want to be honest with you guys. I think that honesty is important, and I do want to give you my genuine feelings here because I think it's healthy, given that everyone else probably feels the same way in terms of the prospect of uniting with Elizabeth Warren and why I won't be signing that pledge is because this is my thoughts right now. There will be no unity with Elizabeth Warren. She has a progressive record, but I don't view her as a progressive any longer, and I stopped viewing her that way once she chose the backway from Medicare for All because if you are a multi-millionaire who doesn't care that poor people will die if they don't have health care. You're not a progressive, and maybe, you know, she believes in it personally, but she just is too afraid to fight. Well, then put your own political ambitions aside and endorse the person who will fight for it, who built a movement to get this codified into law. I don't feel like unifying with Elizabeth Warren. When she has made it clear time and again, she does not care about the progressive movement at all. Her feet are firmly planted in the establishment's camp. She showed us that when she shunned us when we wanted her to run for president, she showed us that when she refused to endorse Bernie in 2016, she showed us that when she wouldn't speak out on behalf of the standing rock protesters who were being brutalized by militarized police. And she showed us that again when she shifed Bernie. And that's if we even wanted to forgive her for running against him. When you saw how he built up a progressive movement that would accomplish all of the goals that you ostensibly support, why not just endorse him when you knew he was going to run again? Why would you run against him and possibly divide the movement when you know that everyone coalesced around him and would again if he was going to run? So maybe you genuinely are progressive personally, Elizabeth Warren. But I'm sorry, you don't help the progressive movement. You do not help the progressive movement. Everything you've done so far has been to hurt the progressive movement. Everything you have done politically. You are no friend to us.  And you just showed everyone that you were willing to throw Bernie Sanders under a bus because maybe it would help you. Or maybe you can get a slot in Joe Biden's administration. Maybe he promised you VP. And I know people think that that's out of the question because they're so ideologically different. But back in December, Joe Biden said I'm definitely open to the idea of making Elizabeth Warren, you know, my VP. Take a look. OK, so here's a mulligan. Would you like to add Senator Warren to your list? I'd add Senator Warren list. I'd add all, you know, but she's going to be very angry. I haven't said that. She the question is was she had me to her list, you know. So it's not out of the question. I don't know. I mean, Elizabeth Warren endorsed Hillary Clinton and they were in talks of her getting a VP position. Now, of course, Hillary Clinton was using her. But still, Elizabeth Warren makes political calculations that will help her own career. And on top of that, she lacks political courage. She has demonstrated this time and again. And she doesn't believe in what we believe in. Right. She may say it. She may pay our ideals lip service. But if you truly care above all about getting progressive policies implemented, she could prove it right now. By telling everyone to coalesce behind Bernie Sanders and endorsing him. She knows she's not going to win this, right? And maybe she can still do that if she loses Iowa or New Hampshire and she drops out and endorses Bernie Sanders. Maybe she can still prove me wrong, but I am not hopeful at all. And so when I hear this prospect of, oh, let's all come together and unify and unite. Unite with what? We don't have to unite with someone who has given us the middle finger time. And again, it's an abusive relationship. And I'm sorry, but maybe Elizabeth Warren genuinely feels hurt because she thinks Bernie Sanders said that to her. I don't believe he did. Possibly she's misconstruing what he said. But she, at the debate, tried to make it seem like, look, we just disagreed. It's not that big of a deal. But she knows it's a big deal potentially because of the implications. Otherwise, she wouldn't have leaked this conversation to CNN of all places. You could have leaked it to any other news outlet, but you chose to leak it to one of the worst entertainment channel who you knew would run away with it and hurt the collective progressive movement, hurt Bernie and then just leave the door wide open for Joe Biden. So I hope that people feel inclined to sign that petition. I hope people feel more encouraged about the prospect of unification with Elizabeth Warren than I do, and I genuinely hope that me expressing my true feelings don't make you feel down or more cynical about the process. Because times like this, it does feel really difficult to feel optimistic. But we do have a lot of reasons to be optimistic, right? So I don't want my feelings of negativity to impact you in any way. And if you feel that Elizabeth Warren supporters and Bernie Sanders supporters should come together and unite, great for you. I don't feel that way right now. I'm feeling like I never ever want to hear from Elizabeth Warren again. And I'm done with Elizabeth Warren. I do not trust her at all. And it was really naive of me to trust her after what she did in 2016. But, you know, I donated to her to get around the debate station 2020 because I was of the belief that the more progressives in the race, the better. Because hopefully we can just shift the entire conversation to the left. I was wrong. There's one candidate in this race who actually is going to give us a chance at implementing progressive policies. And it's not Elizabeth Warren. She's hurting that cause. It's Bernie Sanders. So I'm not really sure what else to say. Like a lot of people, I'm feeling deeply hurt. Elizabeth Warren is a snake. And I've been burned by her for the very last time.  I don't believe she actually cares about progressive policies. Today, she just voted for Trump's trade deal. Even Chuck Schumer came out against it. Kamala Harris voted against it. Bernie Sanders voted against it. She was never one of us. Sherrod Brown was never one of us. Everyone in power, at least the senators, they don't care about getting progressive policies codified into law. They're not with us. We are going at this alone and the one ally we have in the Senate, who's running for president is Bernie Sanders. And I think that this week should make that crystal clear. So rather than feeling anger and upset, try to do what you can to channel your emotions. It's what I tried to do. So when I was really angry with Elizabeth Warren, I donated an extra 10 bucks to Bernie Sanders. And I'm already donating 27 per month. So don't accuse me of being a cheapskate. You know, it made me want to go and fight even harder for him. And I truly believe in all of you that you feel the same way. And I don't even have to tell you this. You already know you've made more phone calls for Bernie. You've knocked on more doors for Bernie Sanders. We can win this. This is discouraging and those feelings of isolation, feeling like you have no allies in 2016 have likely returned to you. But I understand none of that will matter if we win this, if we win this. All of these feelings now are meaningless. So I'm done talking about this. Hopefully there's no new developments. So I don't feel inclined to talk to talk about this. And I'll leave that there. Like everyone, I'm hurt, but the writing was on the wall. We knew Elizabeth Warren was a fake friend. We should have listened to our gut instinct rather than trying to give for a second chance when we knew this was possible.