TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses the possibility of someone new entering the presidential race. They emphasize the need for adults in leadership and express their belief in the importance of the First Amendment. The speaker criticizes the fear and confusion in the country and suggests that they may consider running for president. They mention their relationship with the public and their disappointment with Netflix cutting ties with them. The conversation explores the blurred lines between truth, art, and performance. The speaker expresses their willingness to play any role the public wants and jokingly suggests the interviewer as a potential vice president. They mention some candidates they like but ultimately stress the need for someone unafraid to push the country in the right direction.

"if he comes to you for VP, tell him you want to be the attorney general." "And you could easily end up being Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with your real talent." "your observation, knowing her over a period of time, is that her talent was to stay in her lane as an attorney general, potentially of The United States, not as an executive or on the executive track." "The vice presidential job is a good one." "I do think people running for public office really ought to fit eventually where they are trying to land." "She may not want to run for governor of the state of California. That may not be where she should be going. I think it's gonna be difficult for her to win."

The speaker is asked if they would ever consider running for president, to which they respond that they probably wouldn't because they love what they're currently doing. However, they express frustration with the state of the country and don't rule out the possibility completely. The speaker then encourages an average person to believe in themselves and work hard. They also mention that if they were to run for president, they believe they would win. Various people express doubt and disbelief about the speaker becoming president. The speaker emphasizes their desire to put America first and states that the future is uncertain but will be shaped by the people.

The speakers disagree on President Trump's competency. One speaker believes it's absurd to question Trump's competency, especially after years of questioning President Biden's mental acuity. The speaker believes words matter and should be used carefully to avoid inflaming the public and to arrive at the truth. The other speaker questions Trump's competency, cognitive abilities, ignorance, and truthfulness, citing examples such as a photoshopped photo, a Supreme Court ruling, Elon Musk holding press conferences in the Oval Office, misunderstanding trade deficits, and a disastrous economy. This speaker believes Trump has driven the country into a disastrous economy, undermined the rule of law and democracy, and cut taxes for the rich. The first speaker disagrees, stating that the first hundred days are exactly what Trump promised and what the American people voted for.

The speaker states they do not identify with any political party and have lost faith in politicians to improve their life. They believe politicians are on the same team focused on wealth and power. The speaker acknowledges this is a cynical view resulting from observing corporate America and the government since 2020. They anticipate being perceived as a conspiracy theorist, but remain confident in their balanced approach to assessing topics. They are open to others' viewpoints and respect differing beliefs.

I probably wouldn't run for president, but I might if things got really bad. You should believe in yourself and work hard. If I did run, I think I'd win because people are tired of being taken advantage of. Together, we can make America strong, wealthy, proud, and safe again. Thank you, God bless America.

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.

I prefer a great president. I'm here because the current president is so bad. I will make America great again. We will make America great again. Everyone can't always be perfect.

Speaker 1 was approached with an offer to pause their political activity, but Speaker 1 is offended, viewing it as an attempt to buy them out of running and a reflection of others' lack of concern for the country. Speaker 1 believes this is about preventing them from winning and defeating Trump, which they see as bad for the country. Speaker 0 suggests it may not be about Trump, but about Speaker 1. Speaker 1 refuses to be bought at any price, stating they are not going to let people who hate the country tell them not to run. Speaker 1 intends to be a "pain" to those trying to stop them and is willing to fight, even if it means risking their life. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to tell them to get behind their campaign. Speaker 1 believes the "swamp" doesn't pre-approve of them because they would root out corruption.

Speaker 0 reflects on whether they would have wanted a third term. They express a desire to have a stand-in, someone who would wear an earpiece and deliver speeches while they stay in their basement, casually dressed. This way, they could still have control over the content but avoid the public speaking and ceremonial aspects.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 would serve in a cabinet under Geert Wilders. Speaker 1 responds that they don't see it happening because they believe the Netherlands needs a leader who can unite the country and lead internationally. Speaker 1 also doubts Wilders' ability to form a majority. Speaker 0 confirms that Speaker 1 will not join a cabinet under Wilders, to which Speaker 1 agrees, stating that the country deserves a leader for everyone. Speaker 1 believes Wilders' leadership would not be beneficial and emphasizes the need for a leader who can handle crises and promote economic growth. Speaker 1 also mentions that if Wilders were to win the elections, they would go into opposition.

Speaker 1 believes Vice President Harris is less competent than President Biden, citing her handling of border issues. They express disappointment in her performance and doubt her abilities. When asked if there is anyone Harris could appoint as vice president to gain support, the answer is a resounding no. The speakers question Harris's intelligence and competence, stating she has not accomplished much during her time in office. They express skepticism about her capabilities and doubt her suitability for the presidency.

The speaker discusses the possibility of someone new entering the presidential race in 2024. They mention that there may be someone who is already well-known and questions whether they will join the race. The speaker emphasizes the need for adults in leadership and criticizes the current state of the country. They express their support for the First Amendment but also highlight the importance of not blindly believing everything we hear. The speaker hints at their potential candidacy and talks about their relationship with the public. They also touch on their past experiences with Netflix and the media. The conversation ends with a discussion about the current candidates and the qualities needed in a leader.

The speaker discusses the sudden shift in public opinion towards Kamala Harris, highlighting her past failures in debates and lack of negative media coverage. Despite her qualifications and background, she is not embraced by the public due to her anti-war stance and refusal to conform to political games. This reveals a discrepancy between what people claim to want in a leader and their actual preferences.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they will run for president again. Speaker 1 responds that they are 83 years old and unsure if the American people would be enthusiastic about someone who is 100. Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1 is only a couple of years older than Biden.

The speaker asserts that others "didn't know what they were talking about." They claim a distinction, stating "we're different from the presidential." They describe themselves as "very discreet, reptilian, cold blooded." The speaker concludes by stating, "These are the races we have to win. Others are winning the whole country."

Kamala Harris is considered "retarded," and Trump is winning in the polls, so they are going to lose. The speaker considered running as a candidate. However, the speaker told Joe that he is more "retarded" than Kamala Harris, so he cannot run. The speaker told Joe to let it play out and that they would talk later. The speaker then commented on the women present.

The speakers discuss powerful individuals who want to keep Speaker 0 out. Speaker 0 believes they should want him because he is a great candidate, but Speaker 1 suggests it's about control and being on their team. Speaker 0 refuses to make a deal with these people and sees it as a battle worth fighting. Speaker 1 mentions the importance of raising money to win and suggests pausing rather than going away. Speaker 0 disagrees and vows to be the biggest pain for these people, even if it means they might try to kill him. Speaker 1 understands but advises caution.

The speaker criticized someone for making inappropriate and false personal comments. They mentioned that meeting with President Biden is challenging because he is intelligent, curious, and pays attention to details.

Speaker 0 asks if the person really wants Tom Emmer to be speaker, as they did not vote for congressman Jim Jordan. Speaker 1 responds that they do not like Tom Emmer and believes it is the worst job in America. Speaker 0 clarifies that they voted for someone they don't like because they didn't want to vote for Jim.

The people here are smart. I'm running against someone with a low IQ.

The transcript captures a short, informal discussion about Donald Trump’s handling of the Epstein files and the broader question of whether presidents protect rich and powerful people at the expense of victims in sex-crime cases. The dialogue unfolds between Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, with a recent history/politics flavor and an on-the-record moment later in the exchange. Speaker 0 begins by asking Speaker 1 how Trump fought to avoid releasing the Epstein files, noting that Trump initially indicated a release but then reversed course. Speaker 1 responds noncommittally, suggesting that Trump “probably” had friends who were involved and that Trump “saved them” from trouble. The question is framed as whether this constitutes presidential conduct—protecting powerful people rather than victims. Speaker 0 presses further, asking if protecting rich and powerful people over sex-crime victims is appropriate for a president, and whether such behavior is common in presidential history. Speaker 1 counters by pointing to historical examples, stating that many presidents have favored their friends and families, adding that while JFK’s affairs were noted, he claims Kennedy “got caught,” implying possible crimes. Speaker 0 acknowledges Kennedy’s infidelity but questions whether there were crimes, while Speaker 1 reiterates the point that Kennedy “got caught,” and asserts that such behavior is not becoming of a United States president. The conversation shifts toward evaluating current leadership: Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 agrees with Trump’s protection of powerful individuals at the expense of crime victims. Speaker 1 answers, “All depends on who the powerful people are,” suggesting a conditional view rather than a blanket condemnation or approval. The discussion then veers to the expectation that a president should serve all Americans, not just the wealthy, and Speaker 0 reiterates the moral question. Speaker 1, initially evasive about personal details, asserts that they are a state representative and holds a badge, claiming to work for their country. The exchange ends with a sense of irony in the narrator’s commentary: the “moral of the story” being that it’s acceptable for Donald Trump to protect rich and powerful men because he himself is rich and powerful, effectively equating protection of the powerful with personal parity. Overall, the transcript presents a back-and-forth debate about why presidents might shield powerful individuals, how historical precedents factor into current judgments, and whether leadership should be equally accountable to all segments of society, ending with a skeptical, wrap-up sentiment about the perceived fairness of such protections.

In a hypothetical Biden vs. Trump election, Speaker 1 expresses their hesitation to vote for Biden. They do not explicitly state their support for Trump but acknowledge the challenging decision they face.

The speaker asserts that others "didn't know what they were talking about." They claim a distinction, stating "we're different from the presidential." The speaker identifies as "very discreet, reptilian, cold blooded." They conclude by stating, "These are the races we have to win. Others are winning the whole country."

Speaker 0: Yeah. You can have enough satisfaction to reelect Ted Cruz. You cannot reelect Lindsey Graham. Not because they're evil. I'm not even saying they are, but because they've betrayed their most basic commitment, which is to our country Speaker 0: Ted Cruz was supposed to be a smart one. Was supposed to be. What the heck is going on here? Speaker 0: the problem with Ted Cruz is he has a high verbal IQ. Speaker 0: He is very fluent with the language. Speaker 0: If you are a good talker, you convince yourself that you're a genius. Speaker 0: Because you hear yourself talk and you're like, man, I'm smart. Speaker 0: But there is a huge difference between the ability to explain something or fluency with English and wisdom, like true wisdom. Speaker 0: And these people, all of this happened to me, they get incredibly arrogant. Speaker 0: They think they're smarter than they are. Speaker 0: They think they're wiser than they are.