reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: I'm a never Trump guy. I never liked him. Just kidding. do you believe Donald Trump who always tells the truth? Speaker 1: I cannot stand Trump because I think he's a fraud. Well, think he's a total fraud that is exploiting these people who is a total fraud. Speaker 2: Like you said, I I agree with you on Trump because I don't think that he's the person I I I don't think he actually cares about folks. Speaker 0: Definitely there is definitely an element of Donald Trump support that has its basis in racism or xenophobia. I think there's a chance if Trump has a really good chance of winning that I might have to hold my nose and and vote for Hillary Clinton. I’m gonna vote third party because I can't stomach Trump. I think that he's noxious and is leading the white working class to a very dark place.

Speaker 0 doesn't care about race, only about the person. Speaker 1 questions calling names based on polling data. Speaker 0 emphasizes objectivity despite hurt feelings. Speaker 1 doubts the objectivity due to name-calling. Speaker 0 thanks for the conversation, wishing a better day. Speaker 1 reciprocates the sentiment.

- Speaker 0 expresses a core problem: how to support the Donald Trump presidency when the figures associated with his circle (Alex Jones, Owen Shroyer, Ian Carroll) embody traits they oppose, prompting questions about alignment with their side. He asks how to reconcile supporting Trump with these associations, calling it an objective problem. - Speaker 1 responds that he has not researched certain controversial items (Eric Prince’s phone) and notes that Eric Prince is a polarizing figure from the military-industrial complex world. He argues that involvement in war fighting does not automatically make someone evil and that a full picture requires digging beyond initial impressions, acknowledging he hasn’t done all the research. - Speaker 0 challenges this, citing his own video: Eric Prince has three CEOs for Blackwater, all with intricate ties to the IDF. He questions coincidence between Palantir Technologies and the surveillance state, Israel’s influence, and three IDF-affiliated Blackwater CEOs, referencing USS Liberty and suggesting Eric Prince’s past atrocities and a lack of accountability. He asks whether such a figure could ever be considered a good person and whether repentance is possible, noting he hasn’t seen Prince acknowledge past wrongs. - Speaker 0 adds BlackRock as another easy target, claiming BlackRock, with help from the Trump administration, bought two ports in the Panama Canal for $22.8 billion, and contends Trump mentioned a company would buy the Panama Canal during the State of the Union, but did not name BlackRock. He challenges the listener to consider whether Trump is on their side given this nugget of information. - Speaker 1 says he was not endorsing a specific device or action, calling the “phones” comment offhand and irrelevant. He reiterates he isn’t waiting for Trump or Elon Musk to act in the interest of people, and states he’s intentionally not waiting for them to do so. He emphasizes starting change bottom-up, and encourages starting conversations rather than trolling, suggesting Seven Seas could help. - Speaker 0 shifts to a broader miscommunication problem: there’s a gap where people misread each other, treating allies as enemies. He advocates filling this gap through dialogue with diverse figures like Seven Seas, Ian Carroll, Joe Rogan, Whitney Webb, Derek Brose. He mentions a planned March sit-down interview between Derek Brose and Ian Carroll, hoping for a productive exchange, while noting past heated exchanges where ad hominem attacks diminished constructive dialogue. He cites Clint Russell and redheaded libertarian as examples of contentious interactions. - They discuss disagreements over Trump’s ideology and policies, including concerns that Trump still praises the VA, pharma, and large-scale spending, which confounds libertarian critiques. He cites a national debt comparison between Obama and Trump era spending, arguing that debt devalues the dollar and harms Americans, regardless of party. - Speaker 0 reiterates suspicion that the criticism of Trump and Elon Musk coexists with perceived support for them, labeling it an inconsistency. He promises to withhold calling someone a shill until there is clear intent to deceive. Speaker 1 suggests focusing on good-faith arguments, mentioning Glenn Greenwald with respect, and invites Seven Seas to share their take on Ian Carroll’s reaction to Seven Seas’ post.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

Speaker 0 expresses dislike for President Trump, claiming he didn't fulfill his promises and married his children off to Jews for power. They criticize Trump as just another politician who deceives voters. Another person defends Trump, stating he has done things for the country. Speaker 0 reiterates their stance, mentioning shutting down Disney World for being run by "kikes" and pedophiles. They suggest building a fire tornado generator to eliminate communists.

Speaker 0 and Donald Trump discuss the CPAC speech. Speaker 0 watched it and thought it was pretty good, while Donald Trump teases Speaker 0 for secretly loving it. They joke about paying each other more and Donald Trump admits to watching the show because of Speaker 0.

Speaker 0: Michael and I are not easily scared, except when Michelle is angry. Speaker 1: They fooled the country and the world. Speaker 0: They had us all fooled. Speaker 1: Will we see the first gay or woman president? Let's not jump to conclusions. Speaker 0: Michelle is a transgender. We all know.

Speaker 0 is excited about their channel and believes their upcoming film will be the best they've ever made. Speaker 1 admits that their face is not on Instagram and plans to wear a Trump hat to a rally. They claim to be a journalist and have their camera ready to record.

Speaker 0 questions the need for a new tone in politics, believing the current tone is fine. They criticize the media for comparing Trump to Hitler and question the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0's claims of election fraud and defamation. Speaker 0 refuses to concede and accuses Speaker 1 of being part of fake news. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 dismissing Speaker 1's questions and asserting their beliefs.

Speaker 0 introduces the scene and prepares to expose the crowd’s current view of the person being addressed. Speaker 1 asserts that someone is being fed wrong information, likening the situation to Grima Wormtongue. He says half of the people he grew up with in this movement are not on Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin’s team, insisting they are not neocons or war hawks. He emphasizes America first over MAGA and states that America first is what MAGA was supposed to be, and that the addressed person is merely the vessel for it. Speaker 2 acknowledges serious flaws in the addressed figure, including insider trading, and expresses relief that the speaker is differentiating themselves. They say they do not want to be associated with the addressed person, describing him as a “sinking, burning ship” who was not loyal to his original mission or to America. They claim he has become a “creature of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu,” with enemies now serving as courtiers who lie and flatter him to hear what he wants. They state they are not among those people. Speaker 3 argues that the addressed person should not be in office any longer, advocating for the twenty-fifth amendment, saying he is not loyal to this country or to anybody except for “that little country in the Middle East.” They suggest the last president to tell that country no was JFK, and compare the addressed person’s actions to those of JFK’s era, asking how he can call others losers when he loses to Netanyahu “every single day” and questioning when he last told them no. Speaker 0 notes that Brigitte Macron is said to be more beautiful than Candace Owens, remarking that the claim is widely circulated online and across the political spectrum. They remark that the message was a “basket of deplorables” moment and that even on Truth Social, the addressed person’s platform, people have turned against him. They reference several responses: a call to step back and reassess who is whispering in the addressed person’s ear and to return to America first; a claim that MAGA left them; accusations that the person is insane and should resign or face the twenty-fifth; charges of mental and emotional unfitness for POTUS; descriptions of the person as childish; and a suggestion that truth has triggered him among his strongest supporters. The aggregate social-media reactions cited include: someone criticizing him for siding with Iran and Israel, claims of “you are going against everyone that fought for him to win,” and statements that “Take a look at this tweet about Charlie,” where people suggested Charlie would be on a harmful list if he hadn’t been killed. The underlying implication is that there is no truth or loyalty within the addressed person. Overall, the dialogue frames a divide between factions who believe in core America-first principles, criticisms of loyalty and allegiance, concerns about influence and corruption, and a climate of hostile public reaction and rumor.

Speaker 0 criticizes Elon Musk, calling him a damaged individual and the dumbest smart person in the world. Speaker 1 agrees, mentioning other dumb smart people like Rupert Murdoch. Speaker 0 accuses Musk of not caring about the First Amendment, democracy, or the freedom to vote. They question if Musk has ever shown support for American values.

Speaker 0: Oppose white supremacists. Don't single out the press. Speaker 1: We already have a black mayor. No need for more black big shots. Speaker 0: Determine if you support Trump, you're not black. Can't go to a 711 without an Indian accent. Speaker 2: We used to joke about that, but he was a friend, mentor, and a great guy.

Speaker 0 claims the Department of Government Efficiency found hundreds of billions in fraud, but Speaker 1 denies any fraud was found. Speaker 0 alleges Social Security is paying people over 220 years old, which Speaker 1 disputes. Speaker 1 criticizes Trump's anti-immigrant stance and calls Musk a "thug." Speaker 0 defends Trump, suggesting he might be the greatest president in modern American history. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 "deluded" for supporting Trump, characterizing Trump as rude, nasty, and racist. Speaker 0 accuses others of being in a cult, claiming they try to stop people from talking to those with different ideas. Speaker 0 says things got "hot" and troopers asked him to leave. Speaker 0 then shares the speech he planned to give, emphasizing that all are Americans with First Amendment rights and should unite to eliminate corruption.

Speaker 0: Expresses being a “never Trump” person and not liking him. Frames the discussion as a “he said, she said” dispute about who is telling the truth, jokingly questioning whether to believe Donald Trump who “always tells the truth? Just kidding,” or the woman on the tape. Speaker 1: States they cannot stand Trump, calling him a “fraud” and saying he is “exploiting these people,” describing him as a total fraud. Speaker 2: Agrees with Speaker 1, saying they don’t think Trump is the person and that he “doesn’t actually care about folks.” Speaker 0: Acknowledges an element of Trump support that has “its basis in racism or xenophobia.” Indicates a possible scenario where, if Trump has a strong chance of winning, they might have to “hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton,” adding they’re considering voting third party because they “can’t stomach Trump,” and describing him as “noxious” and leading “the white working class to a very dark place.”

Speaker 0 states that labeling Donald Trump's plan as Project 2025 is not rhetoric, and claiming Trump started an insurrection is a fact. Speaker 1 argues that both examples are rhetoric and factually incorrect. Trump has stated he has nothing to do with Project 2025 and has never been charged with insurrection. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of spreading misinformation and expresses shame.

Speaker 0 argues that it’s logistically absurd to claim the Holocaust involved gassing millions and hauling bodies from so-called gas chambers, noting the inefficiency of that method. He points out the irony that the person most famous for gassing people refused to use gas that could have won the war, because he would not be the first to use gas, despite having 20,000 kilograms of tabun and sarin. He asserts there were no counters to that chemical weapon, yet the decision not to use gas led to the downfall of his country. Speaker 1 adds that Hitler was gassed himself at the end of World War I, which blinded him. During the fall of the Kaiser’s empire, the Reich’s collapse and the emergence of Bolshevik and Weimar structures occurred as some German states did not join the Weimar Republic and became sub-states or Soviet-like entities. Speaker 0 emphasizes that anyone uncertain about Hitler’s legacy should read Mein Kampf and hear from Hitler’s own words to understand why he held his beliefs. He claims Hitler did not begin as an anti-Semite intent on killing Jews, and describes Hitler as someone who admired and observed the universe, was a truth-seeker from day one, engaged in political discussions, and was fascinated by philosophy, German history, the British Empire, and America. He notes Hitler was well-read and well-spoken, but deprived economically, working as a day laborer with little work available to feed himself. He claims Hitler went days without food to afford a book, showing a love of knowledge, and that he wasn’t a failed artist; he was a talented artist whose path could have been architecture rather than drawing. Speaker 0 contends that smear campaigns against Hitler fail and are “nonsense.” He dismisses more extreme claims as false, such as insults about Hitler’s sexuality or anatomy, and mentions that such accusations are common against many figures. Speaker 1 comments that a lot of the negative rumors about Hitler (e.g., perverse claims) are typical allegations made against many people, implying they are not unique to Hitler.

I have faith in the American people. The way Trump talks to his audience is not right. Don't be fooled by attempts to humanize him.

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 states that Trump has accused people who didn't break the law of breaking the law regarding the election and that Trump said Liz Cheney should be put before a war tribunal. Speaker 1 rejects the premise, claiming Speaker 0 is imputing things, taking words out of context, and combining separate conversations. Speaker 1 believes Trump is more reasonable than people like Liz Cheney. Speaker 1 accuses the network of pushing the "Russia hoax" by taking the words of unnamed FBI agents as truth, leading viewers to believe Trump and Putin conspired in 2016. Speaker 0 counters that they covered an FBI investigation. Speaker 1 says the network gave credence to anonymous sources' accusations. Speaker 0 wants to discuss things Trump has said this week, but Speaker 1 wants to discuss the economy.

Speaker 0 states that Donald Trump's language about "poisoning the blood" echoes Hitler and suggests an affinity for eugenics. Speaker 0 claims Trump believes in genetic superiority and wants to "purge" immigrants, potentially harming them due to perceived "bad genes." Speaker 0 believes this isn't mere rhetoric and should be taken seriously. Speaker 2 objects to comparing Trump to Hitler, arguing Trump was referring to violent criminals who murdered Americans, citing studies on genetic predispositions to murder. Speaker 2 defends Trump's desire to deport violent, illegal immigrants to protect Americans and finds the Hitler comparison offensive. Speaker 0 insists Trump's words and past statements reveal a pattern, not short-term memory. Speaker 0 suggests Trump doesn't believe Kamala Harris has genes as good as his and asks if he will attempt to exterminate people.

Speaker 0 states they are a proud American, but that doesn't mean they have to be proud of the "Cheeto" in charge. Speaker 1 repeats the sentiment, referring to the "Cheeto" in charge and telling them to "get off" the idea of "making America great." Speaker 0 questions if what is currently happening is "making America great," asking, "Are you serious?"

The speakers discuss the hatred and violence they perceive from Trump supporters. Speaker 1 claims that Trump supporters hit people, throw urine, and use crowbars. Speaker 0 expresses doubt but acknowledges the possibility of milkshake incidents. Speaker 1 questions if Trump supporters would engage in such behavior, to which Speaker 0 responds that they hope not. Speaker 1 then suggests that Democrats and liberals are actually responsible for these actions. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that the average Democrat does not support violence. The conversation continues with Speaker 1 mentioning incidents at a Trump rally and accusing liberals of stealing and burning red hats. Speaker 0 dismisses these claims as an attempt to push an agenda. The video ends with Speaker 1 questioning Speaker 0's support for multiple candidates.

Speaker 0 claims most people in the country voted for Trump and that he won the popular vote. Speaker 1 disputes this, stating it was a slim majority of voters and that too few people voted. Speaker 0 says those who cared about issues voted for Trump to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Speaker 1 counters that lots of voters were purged from voter rolls before the election. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of election denial. Speaker 1 accuses the "narcissist in that building" of gaslighting.

If you believe what the media says, you've gained a valuable ally who essentially works for you without charge. I want to be clear, I admire President Trump. I genuinely believe he's a good person. There's something admirable about him. The president has faced relentless and unfair attacks in the media, which is truly outrageous. In my experience, having spent considerable time with him, I have never once witnessed him acting in a mean, cruel, or unethical manner.

Speaker 0: Talking boys wants to give Trump a chance and believes the anti-Trump movement should stop. Speaker 1: Running for president is a cool idea and I can't wait for the inauguration. Speaker 2: This year, the American people are fed up and saying enough is enough. We won't tolerate this behavior anymore. Speaker 0: We need to say enough is enough. Speaker 2: We must stop this now. A new world order is needed. Speaker 1: President Trump's foreign policy means a new world order. Speaker 2: Can we skinny dip at Camp David? A new world order can be created.