TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker was asked what they would say to those who think a shooter is a hero because he killed a health care executive who presided over a system that allegedly kills thousands of Americans by denying them coverage. The speaker responded that one should still try to make an argument and find a way to convince people and change the system that way, as violence is not the answer. The speaker stated that there may be things wrong with the healthcare system. The speaker does not believe there is anything heroic about the shooter's motives.

Speaker 0: 'it's it's like somebody put the constitution up on a wall and and shot the First Amendment,' noting portentous signs and mentioning Mary, his partner. Speaker 1 recalls 'the health care CEO get shot. The two people in Minnesota,' calling them assassinations and saying, 'the First Amendment got shot today.' They reference Butler as 'a game of inches' and that 'the country dodged a bullet' before. The slain was 'a friend' and 'a supporter of Microworks' who 'called me a couple of times' and who was 'pushing a boulder up a hill.' Online backlash is acknowledged; condolences to 'his wife Erica and their kids' are offered, with belief that 'he'll be remembered for a long time.' 'He had a future ahead of him. He was only 31 years old.' 'Four years from now, he could have run for president.' He faced 'lion's den'; fearless; he did it anyway.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of weakness and creating more "Austin Metcalfs." Speaker 0 demands Speaker 1 condemn his son's killer and the culture that caused it. Speaker 2 tells Speaker 1 he has been "submitted" and criticizes him for talking about Trump, stating, "When you do that, my name is Griswold." Speaker 2 accuses Speaker 1 of supporting degenerates who are murdering white people and claims Speaker 1 is no more of a patriarch than he is. Speaker 2 asks where Speaker 1 was on January 6th. Speaker 2 states the solution is to help people where they are weak, particularly young black males. Speaker 2 says Speaker 1's response to a grieving father is that he's weak. Speaker 2 threatens to run against Speaker 1 for Senate in Florida as a Republican. Speaker 2 claims Speaker 1's behavior is why "we're in the situation where we are." Speaker 2 says he came to give Speaker 1 a message from a father. Speaker 2 accuses Speaker 1 of being a black man trying to shut him down.

Speaker 1 questions why radical transparency in elections wasn't proposed four years ago and accuses the former president of trashing the system for four years, stating there were dangerous consequences to the president's lies and that people died on January 6th. Speaker 0 claims the only person who died on January 6th was Ashley Babbitt, who was murdered. Speaker 1 acknowledges there were injuries. Speaker 0 asserts people who broke into the Capitol are responsible for their actions, not Donald Trump. Speaker 1 says they don't have to yell.

Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 if they still believe the NRA is a terror group. Speaker 0 clarifies that they support the 2nd amendment and do not consider the NRA a terror group. Speaker 1 questions if Speaker 0 regrets tweeting about it in 2018, to which Speaker 0 responds that they don't recall tweeting it but if they did, they don't consider the NRA a terror group. Speaker 1 then asks if Speaker 0 regrets endorsing various politicians, and Speaker 0 clarifies that they don't recall endorsing Bernie Sanders but they do like him, and they voted for Barack Obama without regrets.

Speaker 1 expresses a desire for Trump to be shot, while Speaker 0 questions this, highlighting the hardships faced by migrants. Speaker 1 condemns calling for the president's assassination as evil.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about expressing "joy" over a CEO's death and posting an image of another CEO. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of condoning assassination. Speaker 1 denies celebrating the death itself, but expresses joy that the "brutality of our healthcare system was finally being acknowledged." Speaker 1 claims 70,000 Americans die yearly due to lack of health insurance, calling the healthcare system "murderous" and "violent." Speaker 1 says they were describing the mentality of supporters, not their own beliefs. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who praise assassination. Speaker 1 refuses to condemn those who praise the CEO, stating they don't "believe in things like souls." Speaker 1 says they specialize in extremism and want to understand ideologies, even those of violent extremists. Speaker 1 condemns the violence of the healthcare system. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 condemns people that call for assassination. Speaker 1 wants Speaker 0 to acknowledge that half of bankruptcies are due to healthcare costs. Speaker 0 states anyone who wants to assassinate any innocent person is wrong. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who want to be involved in assassination.

"I don't know who did this. And I sure hope that it was not from the left that would be better." "But it doesn't matter because the first Trump assassination also was not from the left." "It was just a guy who was going to also had Biden on his target list." "And it's been made in the ideology of this far right that you're seeing online." "It's part of a line, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump assassination, how Charlie Kirk," "It doesn't matter that it wasn't from the left because that part has been erased in the common litany of grievances." "Absolutely." "I mean, it's just it's just about the, momentum of violence. Right?" "If one side keeps punching, that's bad, that's really bad." "But it's much worse when one side punches, the other punches back." "That causes an escalation."

Speaker 0: Hey, yo. Stop scrolling for one second for me. Give me just one second. Look, we were not there to figure out who killed Kennedy. We were not there to figure out who killed King, but we did figure out one thing. That this dude right here look. This guy right here running, you see him running? That is the guy that took out Kurt. That's the guy. That's him right there. Speaker 1: If speech is violence, then some are bound to conclude that violence is justified to stop speech. And we're not gonna let that be justified.

Speaker 0 joked that no one is bothering to try to kill Kamala because it's pointless, as she is just a "puppet." Speaker 1 agreed, stating she is irrelevant and replaceable. Speaker 0 clarified that some people misinterpreted the joke as a call for assassination. The speakers contrasted this with the two attempts to kill Trump with actual guns and bullets. Speaker 0 noted that Trump doesn't seem rattled by the attempts, attributing it to his strong constitution, despite his unhealthy diet and lack of exercise. Speaker 2 confirmed that Trump didn't seem like a man who'd been the subject of assassination attempts. Speaker 0 agreed that Trump seemed of sound mind and body with a strong backbone.

Speaker 0: I haven't heard anybody in my party saying that illegal immigrants should get access to the health insurance marketplace. Speaker 1: I'm so glad you said that. Actually, I have some tape of of your Democratic party members saying this on the debate stage. So they've all said it. Let's play the clip. Speaker 0: A lot of you have been talking tonight about these government health care plans that you proposed in one form or another. This is a show of hands question, and and hold them up for a moment so people can see. Raise your hand if cover if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants. Speaker 1: Senator, that that's that's literally every member of your party from moderate to more progressive that have said that in the past.

Speaker 0 asserts openness to many topics but not to the theory that Tyler Robinson didn’t kill Charlie, and questions who else was involved or if there were other voices in the row. They state the evidence in the case is incredibly watertight and express a desire to focus on broader issues rather than debating that point. They call attention to the rise of left-wing violence, mental health illness in the country, and young people on the progressive side turning to Mangioneism and assassination culture, suggesting they can solve political disputes by justifying violence. They accuse the current discussion of veering into rabbit trails and acknowledge good-faith questions, while noting that they’ve been lied to. They emphasize the harm caused to their team, staff, and movement by the issue, describing it as carnage, and express a wish not to see more of that and to move through the situation sooner rather than later.

Speaker 0: He delivered a speech at Riverside Church on 04/04/1967, a year to the date before he was assassinated. And that was a powerful anti war speech that he delivered. Speaker 1: What would you say was the significance of that particular speech? Speaker 0: The real significance was that it put him, his footprints heavily into the anti war movement for the first time. And he termed The United States the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. And so he was rising as a severe principal critic of the government in that speech. Another negative significance is that he was attacked from all sides. He was called a traitor by mainstream media. Millions of dollars were withdrawn from his organization, Southern Christian Leadership Conference. So he lost a great deal by taking that position. All of that is significant. Speaker 1: What do think was the primary motivation behind the killing? Speaker 0: I think assassinations, political assassinations are a last resort, as a rule. But I think in terms of The United States from what I've observed and throughout its history, and there have been assassinations other than those in the sixties, remember, I think it's a last resort. I think if they can, if a person is troublesome to them and potentially can develop a following, I think they have to stop him. Now they can do that by rendering him unemployable, by having him set up in some kind of a scandal or sexual activity that destroys his credit or her credibility. They can buy him off by giving him a job or position. There are a variety of techniques by blacking them out in terms of the media. And so if they can't control any other way, and the person is that critical in terms of potentially mobilizing people, that's when political assassinations take place. Assassination is the last resort. Martin King was assassinated not only because he was bringing enormous thought to the whole Vietnam War effort opposing it and the corporate militarists of the society, the weapons providers, energy providers, all of that were going to lose huge fortunes of money if that war ended. So it was not only that but it was the fact that he was going to bring half a million people to Washington in the Poor People's March. And the military believed that they would see their mission as a failure because they would go to the congress, try to get them to change the the priorities for public funding from from the military, take some money from the military, and bring it into social services programs, and they wouldn't be successful. And that would that would radicalize the group to such a point where they might have a revolution on the streets of Washington with masses they couldn't control. They didn't have the troops. Westmoreland wanted 200,000 more in Vietnam. They didn't have those. They certainly didn't have the troops to put down that kind of revolution on the streets. So they had to kill King, make sure he didn't bring that kind of dynamic into Washington.

I'm all alone, you said. Why celebrate the execution of another human? Aren't you supposed to value life? I believe in the sanctity of life, but many Americans felt a sense of justice because of the harm caused by this individual. Joy in a man's execution? Not joy, but certainly not empathy. This man was responsible for the deaths of many innocent Americans due to healthcare policies. Should all health care executives be killed? No, that wouldn’t solve anything. You seem to find this hilarious. I find your question absurd. I don't find it funny that thousands die from lack of care. This incident has drawn attention to the healthcare crisis. You view the execution as joyful? Joyful is the wrong word; it feels like justice when someone responsible for so many deaths faces consequences. It's shocking that anyone could feel joy over a murder, regardless of the person's role.

Speaker 0 claims that Speaker 1 will sign a national abortion ban and that Project 2025 includes a national abortion monitor. Speaker 1 denies both claims, calling them lies. Speaker 0 states that no state allows killing a baby after birth or abortion of a carried pregnancy. Speaker 2 says an infant would be delivered, kept comfortable, and resuscitated if desired, followed by a discussion between physicians and mothers. Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 stated there would be a "bloodbath" if he is not elected. Speaker 1 claims the term related to energy and tariffs on cars, stating, "if I don't get elected, it's gonna be a bloodbath." Speaker 0 references Charlottesville and Speaker 1's statement that there were "fine people on each side." Speaker 1 clarifies he was not referring to neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Speaker 0 states that he and Tim Walz are gun owners and want to pass an assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and red flag laws.

Speaker claims, "Brother Charlie got murdered, assassinated a few days ago, but the truth is he was assassinated a few years ago." They argue that electing people who demonize their political opponents leads to violence, adding, "So you might have pulled the trigger yourself." The speaker asks, "Who demonize political opponents? Who call political opponents enemies, Hitler, a threat to democracy, who say because we disagree, if you see someone, walk up to them and if they're eating in a restaurant, tell them they're not welcome, get in their face." They warn, "When you start saying stuff like that, calling your political opponents Nazis, fascists, stuff like that. Well, sooner or later, a kook is gonna hear that. A crazy person is going to hear that, and they're going to act on it."

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are ruling out the possibility of calling for the slaughter of white people in the future. Speaker 1 responds by saying they don't know what will happen and it may or may not be them. Speaker 0 clarifies that it could be Speaker 1 and asks what would necessitate that. Speaker 1 doesn't know and questions why they would do that. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to pledge to never call for the slaughter of white people, but Speaker 1 refuses to make that pledge. Speaker 0 understands.

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 to publicly address an issue larger than Austin, accusing him of "white guilt" and weakness that is creating more "Austin Metcalfs." Speaker 0 urges Speaker 1 to condemn his son's killer and the culture that caused it. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being degenerate, murdering white people, and not being patriotic. Speaker 1 claims that silence has not helped and asks where Speaker 0 was on January 6th. Speaker 1 states that Speaker 0 is only condemning his solution to help people where they're weak, particularly young black males. Speaker 1 says he will run for Senate in Florida as a Republican and defeat Speaker 0. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of wanting to shut down a white man. Speaker 1 states he came to give a message from his father. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of trying to shut him down because he is a black man.

"Do you accept, Carrie, that this is a it's not just a one-sided problem? The political violence and violent rhetoric is a problem on both sides of the divide, and it's incumbent on everybody in a position of authority and influence to take the lead here in trying to to just tone things down." "There's been a few cases where it goes from from the right to the left, but there's been an exorbitant number where it's coming from the left to the right. And you can't deny that. If you add it all up, it's just more violence. I mean, president Trump was nearly assassinated. There's another attempt on his life." "The media has to take credit for what they have caused, the chaos they've caused in our country, and they haven't done it. And until they do, they need to be turned off, canceled, muted. They're absolutely abhorrent."

In this heated conversation, Speaker 0 questions why certain politicians, like the Clintons, have a reputation for having people close to them die. Speaker 1 argues that this is a conspiracy theory and lists other politicians who don't have the same reputation. Speaker 0 emphasizes that the list of deaths is based on an obscure website and implies that it dishonors the memory of those who have passed away. The conversation becomes increasingly confrontational, with Speaker 1 insisting on the importance of discussing these deaths and Speaker 0 urging them to apologize to the families affected. The conversation also touches on topics like Benghazi and Barack Obama's birthplace.

The speaker was asked what they would say to those who think a shooter is a hero because he killed a healthcare executive who he believed was presiding over a system that kills thousands of Americans by denying them coverage. The speaker responded that they don't know what to say, but that one should try to make an argument and convince people to change the system that way, as violence is not the answer. The speaker stated that they don't think there is anything heroic about the shooter's motives.

Speaker 0 claims that Speaker 1 will sign a national abortion ban and that Project 2025 includes a national abortion monitor. Speaker 1 denies both claims, calling them lies. Speaker 0 states that no state allows killing a baby after birth or a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion. Speaker 2 says an infant would be delivered, kept comfortable, resuscitated if desired, and then physicians and the mother would have a discussion. Speaker 0 claims Speaker 1 said there would be a "bloodbath" if he is not elected. Speaker 1 says the term "bloodbath" related to energy and tariffs on cars. Speaker 0 claims Speaker 1 said there were "fine people on each side" in Charlottesville. Speaker 1 clarifies he was not talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who he says should be condemned. Speaker 0 states that he and Tim Walz are gun owners and are not taking anyone's guns away, and calls for an assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and red flag laws.