reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 introduces a moment to hear what the crowd thinks, noting skepticism about whether there will be opportunity to see it. Speaker 1 says they don’t know who’s whispering to the speaker, likening it to Grima Wormtongue, and asserts that half the people from their movement aren’t on Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin’s team. They say: “We aren’t neocons. We aren’t war hawks. We want America first. And if you make me choose between America first and MAGA, it’s America first all day. That’s what MAGA was supposed to be. You were just the best vessel for it, bro. Don’t get it twisted.” Speaker 2 contends that despite Trump’s flaws, including insider trading, they’re glad he’s differentiating and saying “you’re not with me because I’m not with you.” They reject being associated with someone they describe as a “cool corrupt kid” and a “Jeffrey Epstein class table.” They claim Trump “wasn’t loyal to his original mission. He wasn’t loyal to America. He became a creature of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu,” and that all “his never troubled enemies are now the courtiers with the madness of King Lear” telling him the lies they want to hear, and declare they are not one of those people. Speaker 3 argues that this proves multiple things, including that “the first thing, he shouldn’t be in office anymore. Implement the twenty fifth.” They say Trump isn’t loyal to this country or to anybody except “that little country in the Middle East.” They note it’s as if he does what he’s told, and compare him unfavorably to JFK for telling that country no. They ask, “How can you call them losers when you lose to Bibi Netanyahu in Israel every single day? When’s the last time you told them no to anything?” Speaker 0 shifts to a personal jab, saying Brigitte Macron is far more beautiful than Candace Owens, and asserts he’s been blind across the Internet. They reference reactions on Truth Social, noting “they’ve turned on you.” They catalog some responses: “You are way out of line.” They remind that many were once day ones, including Alex Jones, who had Trump on his show when “no media company would have you on.” They summarize: people are telling Trump to take a step back and “get back to America first.” Others say, “You are just going against everyone that fought for him to win just because of the Epstein files and being at war with Iran for Israel.” They quote: “We didn’t leave MAGA. MAGA left them. Clearly, you are insane. Time to resign, Donald or face the twenty fifth. You are mentally and emotionally unfit to be POTUS.” Additional insults follow: “You are so childish. Clearly, the truth has triggered you being one of your biggest supporters. I am done with you and your lies.” They claim Trump bent the knee to a monster, leaving a mess in the country, and, finally, describe a recurring social media pattern: “this was the most brutal and sadly a recurring response all across social media.” Speaker 0 adds that a tweet about Charlie suggested he would be on a list if they hadn’t killed him, asserting that “there is no truth and there is no loyalty within you.”

- 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 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.

President Trump states he doesn't want war with Iran, but the speaker claims this is untrue. The speaker asserts that Trump actually does want war with Iran because it aligns with the desires of Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu, Al Qaeda, Bolton, Haley, and other neocons and neolibs. The speaker concludes that Trump prioritizes the desires of these entities over the interests of America.

The speaker strongly criticizes the current president, describing him as corrupt, the worst in history, and mentally unfit. They express concern about his role in handling Russia and the potential for a nuclear war. The speaker suggests that relying on him could lead to a quick escalation into another world war.

The speaker expresses confusion and frustration over what they perceive as a departure from "America First" principles by Trump and the Republican party, specifically regarding foreign policy and funding of international conflicts. They believe Trump is being influenced by establishment Republicans and "never Trumpers" rather than his true supporters. The speaker uses an analogy of a straying spouse to describe Trump's perceived shift in direction, warning of a potential "divorce" if he doesn't correct course. They accuse Benjamin Netanyahu of having undue influence in the White House and criticize policies that penalize entities for criticizing Israel, calling it "terrorism." They vow to hold Trump accountable and combat negative influences within his administration, while continuing to support his positive actions. They urge listeners to support their efforts by purchasing products from their store.

Mark Levin and others are using a "Trump skin suit" despite disliking him personally and disagreeing with his agenda, economic views, and foreign policy. Some at Fox News harbor contempt for Trump. It's frustrating to see figures like Levin and Laura Loomer, described as bizarre, championing Trump and claiming to define American interests, despite their lack of interest in the United States. Allowing such individuals to control a movement focused on serving America is an offense against reality and dangerous for the country. These people washed out of the Democratic party and now they're trying to take over the Republican party. Figures like John Bolton and Bill Crystal shouldn't be allowed to take over the Trump White House. The speaker doesn't want to relive past mistakes like Iraq and accuses Levin, Loomer, and others of being ignorant and irresponsible in their demands for military action, lacking understanding of the consequences.

If you're a patriotic American who does your research, how could you hate Donald Trump? He's the most popular businessman in American history. Before 2016, he had the most movie cameos. How can he be racist when he won an NAACP award? Didn't we have peace around the world when Trump was in office? Why are we giving Ukraine 60 billion when we have border problems? After the U.S. left a million guns in Afghanistan, Xi Jinping and Putin gave the Taliban legitimacy. Didn't Biden give Putin access to a gas pipeline, and then Putin went to war with Ukraine? Was it a coincidence that Brittney Griner was traded for Victor Boot after that? You voted for this over Trump? You need to wake up.

The speaker claims the Murdochs, whom he knows personally, dislike Trump and allegedly asked him in May 2023 to run against Trump, offering their backing, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. He declined because he likes Trump and couldn't win. He expresses frustration that Fox News is staffed by Trump haters who wouldn't allow Trump on his show and were furious about his April 2023 interview with Trump. He believes they dislike Trump's views on economics and foreign policy. He criticizes figures like Mark Levin for insincerely supporting Trump. He says flattery is dangerous and that the pressing problem in America is the condition of its cities, citing the decline of areas like Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles and Union Square in San Francisco. He feels many people, including some political figures, don't care about this issue.

The speaker criticizes Republicans who prioritize loyalty to Donald Trump over the United States. They express shock at former colleagues who have turned on America to curry favor with Trump. The speaker highlights Trump's desire for power and his admiration for Putin, calling him a wannabe dictator. They mention Trump's support for rounding up people based on appearance and using the military to enforce his agenda. The speaker also mentions Project 2025, an agenda to rid the government of independent expertise. They compare Trump's desire for control to Putin's actions in Russia. The video also includes a segment from Infowars, where the host discusses alleged plans by the deep state to remove Trump if he is reelected.

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.

The speaker questions the connection between those advocating for regime change war against Iran and those supporting continued war against Russia in Ukraine. They cite figures like Mark Levin as examples, asking what these groups with similar orientations have in common.

This is CNN, not Fox. It's crucial to tell the truth, especially regarding alarming choices made by individuals who struggle to denounce white supremacists. Donald Trump's past comments, like referring to "very fine people on both sides," carry significant weight and are heard by neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Why can't he outright reject their support? He has condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists, but his language remains extreme. Recently, he suggested Liz Cheney should be fired and has warned of potential dangers to the country if he doesn't win in November, using terms like "bloodbath."

The speaker asserts that a second Trump term would be a huge risk for America and dangerous. They claim Trump would use the military against those he perceives as enemies. These targets would include journalists whose stories he dislikes, election officials who refuse to manipulate votes for him, and judges who adhere to the law instead of bending to his will. The speaker believes Trump has attacked these groups before.

Donald Trump's election was fueled by an unprecedented coalition that defied traditional left-right divides. This coalition is now threatened by potential war with Iran, which could undermine Trump's key planks: ending forever wars, securing the border, and renegotiating trade deals. The speaker believes the "deep state" is driving the US towards war, despite intel suggesting otherwise. The speaker argues that the US is already in a "shooting part of the third world war," bloodier than the lead-up to WWII. He accuses Fox News of playing a central role in propaganda and says the rise of Trump is from the failed Iraq war and the 2008 financial collapse. The speaker calls for a "throwdown" with the deep state, naming the CIA, DNI, DOJ, FBI, DIA, and the Pentagon. He believes these entities are controlled by Wall Street, foreign investors, and Silicon Valley, and are subverting Trump's agenda. He suggests figures like Lindsey Graham and Mike Pompeo are acting against Trump's goals. The speaker advocates for mass deportations and accuses California of "neo-Confederate" defiance of federal law. He believes the US government should prioritize American citizens.

Speaker 1 initially said "no more Trump" due to his January 6th conduct, but now says "yes" to Trump. Speaker 1 states that Biden-Harris policies are an existential threat to the country and its allies. Speaker 1 believes there are now many attacks on democracy that eclipse January 6th.

Donald Trump is associating with extreme figures like Laura Loomer, who even Marjorie Taylor Greene finds racist and offensive. These are the people who currently have his ear. With the election less than two months away, Trump is associating with some of the "craziest, weirdest figures" on the right. This is partly due to the "JD Vance effect," where Vance and Donald Trump Jr. are encouraging Trump to be "extremely online." These individuals with extreme and bigoted ideas are feeding Trump lines and memes, pushing him to go places that no politician in the last century or more has dared to go. This is a cause for concern.

Trump is not loyal to the United States and does not like the country, its laws, constitution, or people, calling them names. He has affection for dictators and authoritarianism. According to the speaker, the U.S. is in the midst of a collapse, politically and in the markets. The speaker believes Trump sees himself going down and will try to take the whole country with him. The speaker believes Trump wants to hurt the country and will try anything he can to help himself.

President Trump states he doesn't want war with Iran, but the speaker claims this is untrue. The speaker asserts that Trump actually does want war with Iran because it aligns with the desires of Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu, Al Qaeda, Bolton, Haley, and other neocons and neolibs. The speaker concludes that Trump prioritizes the desires of these entities over the interests of America.

The speakers discuss their previous opinions on the Charlottesville incident and acknowledge that they were wrong. They then express their support for Trump, citing his policies and the current state of the Democratic Party as reasons for their decision. They mention issues such as the border, wokeness, culture wars, and conflicts involving Israel and Gaza. Despite their dislike for Trump's character, they believe he is more reasonable than the Democrats. They conclude by stating that they will not vote for Biden or Kamala, and express skepticism towards other potential candidates from the left.

They criticize Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, as weird multiple times. They find Vance's behavior, policies, and remarks weird. They question his ability to connect with the public and label him as cultish. Vance's extreme and strange actions are highlighted. Overall, they emphasize the weirdness of Trump and Vance's campaign. They express concern about Vance's ability to appeal to voters due to his odd behavior and lack of humor.

The transcript presents a fringe, highly charged discussion about perceived Israeli influence in the United States, Trump’s shift from “America first” to “Israel first,” and related political dynamics. The speakers repeatedly claim that Israel controls the U.S. government and American foreign policy, with several variations such as “Israel's controlling our government,” “Israel controls us,” and “The government of Israel controls The United States.” They assert that Israel has run American foreign policy for thirty years and that the United States government is taking edicts from Israel, describing it as an “Israel first administration.” As the discussion progresses, the speakers describe discomfort with America’s relationship with Israeli leaders, calling the Israeli government a “satanic regime” and suggesting it seeks to cause pain. They contrast Trump’s campaign promises of “America first” with his alleged current actions, arguing that he has escalated a war on behalf of Israel and turned on earlier allies who did not toe the Israel-first line. They claim Trump has allied with politicians and influencers who are unpopular with his former base, and that he endorses a “massive war on behalf of Israel that he promised he would never start.” They point to specific figures affected by these changes, including those who supported or criticized Trump and Israel. The discussion names individuals and entities linked to the shift, including Charlie Kirk. They claim Kirk was influential against the Iran war and withdrew support for Israel prior to his death; Erica Kirk allegedly took over TPUSA to continue Charlie Kirk’s legacy but allegedly did so in a way that opposes Kirk’s earlier stance, endorsing Massey’s Israel-funded opponent and labeling Massey a “rhino.” They argue donors pressured Kirk to change his stance, leading TPUSA to distance itself from Kirk’s legacy and to align with an Israel-funding candidate backed by Trump. The speakers claim broad consequences for Trump’s base: those who call for justice with the Epstein files, those suspicious of Israel, and those who question Erica Kirk are said to have been blackballed or marginalized. Conversely, supporters of the new Trump are described as urging to move on from Epstein, unconditionally supporting Israel, and reacting strongly to any critique of Erica Kirk. A recurring theme is a critique of Zionism as a political ideology; the speakers distinguish between “Israel” and “Zionism” and argue Zionism controls both the U.S. and Israel. They challenge religious claims that Israel is “God’s chosen people,” offering a Christian critique of that idea and asserting separations of church and state in the U.S. The discussion includes references to alleged silencing mechanisms, narrative control, and tribalism as a “SIOP” framework, describing three characteristics: silencing opposing ideas, a strong narrative, and tribalism. They illustrate these with examples such as censorship of anti-Israel sentiment or questions about Israel, accusations about a fixed narrative like “Israel is our greatest ally,” and the exclusion of dissenting voices. The speakers conclude by asserting that while Israel does not control the U.S., Zionism appears to influence both countries, and that the root issue is the influence of Zionism rather than a single country’s leadership. They urge viewers to speak up while suggesting the changes reflect a broader, troubling shift in political power, ending with a night-time sign-off and personal recovery product plugs being referenced but later deemphasized.

Tucker Carlson is facing criticism for naming individuals allegedly pushing for US military involvement in Iran, reminiscent of past Middle East conflicts. Carlson stated the real divide is between warmongers and peacemakers, not those supporting Israel or Iran. He identified Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rupert Murdoch, Ike Perlmutter, and Miriam Adelson as potentially influencing Trump towards military action. The speaker argues Americans deserve to know who is advising the president on war, and questions why supporters of intervention seem secretive and attack dissenters. Naming those potentially leading the US into another Middle East war is portrayed as a heroic act. The speaker notes Carlson's past popularity as a news host, emphasizing the impact his message would have had on his former show.

Donald Trump is not fighting for regular families, but they are fighting for themselves. His running mate, JD Vance, supports a dangerous agenda. Vance, a Yale graduate funded by Silicon Valley billionaires, wrote a book criticizing his own community. The speaker is eager to debate Vance, calling him creepy and weird. They declare a determination not to go back to the past.