reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I understand that there are people who dislike Donald Trump, but can any rational person honestly claim that we are better off today than when he was president? Look at the current state of the world, the economy, and gas prices. If you can honestly say that things are better, then you must be delusional.

Both Trump and the current 81-year-old president faced health challenges, with Trump surviving an active shooter situation and the president contracting COVID. The media portrays Trump's quick recovery as strength, so shouldn't the president's recovery convey the same message? Despite the different circumstances, both elderly men overcoming illness should be seen as a sign of resilience.

Under President Trump, there won't be a World War III, unlike the current situation. If a war does occur, it will be unprecedented due to advanced weaponry.

After watching the tape, I found it odd that Trump said "fight, fight, fight" after being hit. People feel this message is not what we need right now. We should be calming things down.

During a press conference with Donald Trump, Elon Musk's presence and focus raised concerns. It appeared to be a PR move to counter Musk's declining popularity, while also serving Trump's image. Transparency is the key issue. Musk claims full transparency, but his actions don't align. I don't believe Musk is being transparent, especially considering his companies' contracts with government agencies. He has access to a lot of data and information, and controls contracts for Tesla, SpaceX, and others. It's about more than just contracts and money, it's about control. By controlling information, he controls the lifeblood of his companies. This information could be shared with other tech billionaires, enriching them all.

Last night, I watched the debate and I have to say, there's only one man that Russia, China, and Iran fear, and that's Donald Trump. He has accomplished more than any other president I've seen in my lifetime. Trump is the first president who actually followed through on his promises, which is something I've never seen before. I understand that many young people are looking for someone new, but do you really think China would be afraid of someone new?

Elon Musk, who wasn't born in the U.S. and grew up during apartheid in South Africa, gets praised, and Trump is letting him do his job. He's a naturalized citizen, likely through an H-1B visa. It's concerning that Trump seems comfortable letting a foreigner, possibly an enemy of the United States, handle things while he takes a nap. I don't like Elon, but I'm not ready to call him an enemy of the United States just yet.

The speaker reports aggressive military actions and ongoing negotiations with Iran. They state that they have “destroyed a lot of additional targets today” and that “the navy's gone” and “the air force is gone,” while noting that “we know that” and that they “destroyed many, many targets today” in what was “a big day.” Negotiations are described as both direct and indirect, with emissaries involved as well as direct dealings. On the diplomatic side, the speaker says Iran “agreed to send eight votes two days ago, and then they added another two, so it was 10 votes,” and that “today, they gave us as a tribute I don't know. Can't define it exactly, but they gave us, I think out of a sign of respect, 20 boats of oil.” These vessels would be moving “through the Hormoz Strait” and would begin “starting tomorrow morning over the next couple of days.” The speaker claims to be “doing extremely well in that negotiation,” while acknowledging uncertainty in dealings with Iran: “you never know with Iran because we negotiate with them and then we always have to blow them up.” Historical references are cited to explain current posture: the “b two bombers” and the termination of the “Iran nuclear deal done by Barack Hussein Obama, probably the worst deal we've ever done as a country, of the dumbest deals we've ever done.” The speaker asserts that the deal was terminated, otherwise “right now, they'd have a nuclear weapon,” and that an attack with the B-2 bombers was used to stop them from having nuclear capability. The speaker suggests a possible future deal with Iran but notes it is not certain: “I think we'll make a deal with them. Pretty sure. But it's possible we won't.” Regarding regime change, the speaker asserts that “we've had regime change, if you look already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed. They're all dead.” The “next regime is mostly dead,” and the “third regime” involves “a whole different group of people” than any before. The speaker contends that this constitutes regime change and characterizes the first regime as “really bad, really evil,” which is claimed to be “done.” The second regime is described as “appointed, and they're gone.” The third group is described as “much more reasonable,” leading the speaker to say that regime change appears to be achieved and may be automatic.

Speaker 0 suggests Trump's history of targeting businesses and leaders who he perceives as political enemies should make him "radioactive" to the business world. Speaker 1 notes that, with the exception of Elon Musk, few CEOs of large companies publicly support Trump, fearing retribution. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to elaborate on a statement that some business leaders support Trump because they believe they can manipulate him. Speaker 1 explains that these leaders see the relationship as transactional, believing they can influence policy with the right amount of money, citing crypto as an example.

I found it interesting that Putin didn't criticize Joe Biden or NATO during our conversation. As an American, it would feel strange to badmouth the American president to a foreign leader, even if I have doubts about Biden's presidency. It just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

I want to highlight a classic exchange that stood out. There was a discussion about the aftermath of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suggesting that the cities have recovered and are thriving again. This perspective, more aligned with Elon Musk than Donald Trump, downplays the historical significance and impact of those events, implying that the situation isn't as dire as many believe.

I want to highlight a notable exchange that exemplifies classic Donald Trump moments. In a discussion, there was a reference to cities that were bombed but have since recovered, suggesting that the situation isn't as frightening as people perceive. This comment, while reflecting on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nearly 80 years ago, downplays the significant impact of those events.

If a tragedy occurs while Biden is in office and he remains silent, no one criticizes him. Yet, when Trump refuses to stand by the water during a crisis, he faces backlash. Biden hasn't addressed the needs of people in North Carolina, Florida, or California, showing indifference. Trump questioned the benefit of being at the site and pointed out issues with helicopters designed to avoid missiles. Critics overlook Biden's inaction but focus on Trump's comments. It's frustrating how minor incidents are amplified while significant failures by Biden go unaddressed.

We will establish a new department of government efficiency led by Elon Musk. He is not taking over the presidency; I appreciate having smart people around. There's a narrative circulating about President Trump ceding the presidency to Elon Musk, but that's not true. Elon has accomplished remarkable things, like successfully landing a rocket recently. It was coming down at an incredible speed of 17,000 miles per hour, and it landed safely. It's great to have capable individuals we can depend on.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the concept of nuclear weapons and related military tactics. Speaker 1 asserts that nukes are fake, claiming there are no real nuclear weapons and that if nukes were real they would have been used long ago. They say what has been done instead is firebombing, noting that the United States dropped 1,700 tons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo on the night of March 9, destroying about 16 square miles of the city, and compare that to actions in Gaza. The claim is made that they “level it” with firebombing, and that similarly in other contexts a large explosion is presented as a nuclear strike. Speaker 1 continues by arguing that what is shown are 1,000,000 pounds of TNT exploded in the desert, producing a mushroom cloud as part of the sensation of an explosion, and then it is labeled a nuclear test or event. They urge listeners to “put on your glasses just like those DuPont eclipse glasses,” implying an orchestrated deception behind claims of nuclear explosions. The overarching claim is that there are no nukes, and that when invasions are planned, the narrative centers on nukes as a justification, though Speaker 1 contends the nukes are invisible and not real. Speaker 0 reinforces the point by stating that without their current actions, there would have been a nuclear war, and emphasizes the absence of real nuclear weapons. The dialogue then pivots toward a broader skepticism of military capability, suggesting that if such weapons truly existed, they would have been used to "level an entire country in one second," which according to Speaker 0 would have already happened. The conversation shifts to a metaphorical comparison to the Wizard of Oz, describing a scenario where a powerful figure hides behind a facade and is not as purported. The analogy is extended to germs, bioweapons, and lab leaks, with Speaker 0 asserting that there are no germs, viruses, or bioweapons that are jumping to infect people and that such claims are fear-based. The exchange presents a persistent claim that fears about bioweapons and related lab leaks are unfounded, and frames all such narratives as fear-driven or illusory rather than factual.

Former President Trump's response to being hit was to say "fight, fight, fight," which some find inappropriate given the current heated rhetoric. People are looking to de-escalate tensions, not incite further conflict.

Trump's actions, such as the alleged desecration of Arlington National Cemetery and repeated lies, would be career-ending for a normal politician. His claim about his building being the tallest until 9/11 exemplifies his self-centeredness. Trump's behavior doesn't harm him because his supporters share his lack of compassion and empathy. His narcissism and focus on himself, even in relation to 9/11, resonate with his base. They admire his crass and classless actions and want to emulate them. Trump hates the people they hate. The claim that Muslims in New Jersey were cheering when the towers came down appeals to his supporters' prejudices.

Speaker 0 argues that during the Gaza/Israel conflict, genocide is taking place and that the United States is complicit, stating there is “no question” about it. He says, “If we had Nuremberg trials, we’re not gonna have them,” and asserts that Joe Biden and his principal lieutenants, and Donald Trump and his principal lieutenants, would be hanged, because “we are talking about a genocide.” He notes that “the greatest of all crimes” is happening and that hardly a word was said in the liberal establishment in the United States against Israel’s actions, with the United States helping to commit genocide. He adds that this is “truly remarkable” and that even a realist like him is among the few in mainstream academia speaking out. He then references a “remarkable truth post” on Truth Social, in which Trump says that if the Iranians don’t surrender by nighttime, he will destroy Iran as a civilization and make it impossible for Iran to come back from the dead, calling this “truly stunning” and labeling it genocidal language. He asks rhetorically if anyone thought an American president would speak this way, comparing the rhetoric to Adolf Hitler’s with the aim to exterminate Iran and erase it from the planet, noting it sounds like a Carthaginian solution. Speaker 0 contends that Trump is desperate, understanding “the basic logic” he laid out and “the hand” is losing, with consequences that would extend beyond Trump’s presidency and threaten the global economy. He suggests that Trump’s shift to extermination is a sign of this desperation. He asserts that “every state on the planet outside of The United States knows now being close to The United States gets you in trouble,” and cites Henry Kissinger’s maxim that “there’s only one thing worse than being an adversary of The United States, and that’s being an ally of The United States.” In summary, he claims genocide is occurring with US complicity, envisions harsh post-Nuremberg consequences for Biden and Trump, highlights Trump’s genocidal rhetoric toward Iran, labels the language as Hitler-like and Carthaginian, and suggests Trump’s strategy reflects desperation tied to a fragile global economic outlook and U.S. geopolitical dominance as summarized by Kissinger.

A prominent figure at a presidential rally gave two Nazi salutes. If he didn't mean it, he should apologize, as he knows the significance of those gestures. Neo-Nazis celebrated this act, highlighting its importance. Following this, he made jokes about Nazis and appeared in a video for far-right groups in Germany, which is harmful for the U.S., Jews globally, and Germany itself. President Trump should address this situation. If he disagrees with Elon Musk or the Nazi support at the rally, he needs to speak out against it. Why isn't he doing so?

Elon Musk did not perform any salutes at the rally. He is a visionary who supports the U.S. space program and aims to improve government efficiency. The American people recognize his contributions and support successful entrepreneurs. Concerns were raised about reactions from right-wing commentators and extremist groups who interpreted a visual from the rally as a neo-Nazi salute. However, the focus should be on combating antisemitism, which has surged recently. The intention is to bring moral clarity to the role at the United Nations and to continue condemning antisemitism, emphasizing President Trump's strong leadership in this area.

Speaker 0 begins by noting a new escalation in the war: after the president's Easter-weekend speech, the United States struck a massive bridge in Tehran, described as part of Tehran’s pride because it would cut about an hour from Iranians’ commutes. Trump posts, “the biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again,” and says, “Make a deal before it’s too late.” He warns that nothing is left of what could still become a great country. Speaker 1 responds with skepticism about the administration, mocking the idea of “the Nord Stream pipeline” being blown up as a lie by the prior administration. Speaker 0 notes that Trump boasted about the bridge strike on Truth Social and questions the strategic value of targeting civilian infrastructure, comparing it to striking the Golden Gate Bridge and asking whether that would be labeled a war crime. Iranian retaliation follows: a strike at the center of Tehran (clarified as Tel Aviv in error in the transcript) with a ballistic missile, causing a neighborhood to burn, as shown on Fox News and circulating on social media. Reports also emerge that an Amazon data center was struck in Bahrain, Oracle in the UAE, and that Iran had claimed it would strike Microsoft, Google, Amazon and other large American companies. The United States is not protecting them. Speaker 2 engages Colonel Daniel Davis, host of The Deep Dive with Dan Davis, to assess the latest moves alongside the president’s speech. Speaker 2 argues that the president’s remarks about “bomb you back into the stone age” indicate punishing the civilian population, not just military targets, which could unite Iranians against the United States and Israel. The bridge strike appears to align with that stance, making a regional outcome that contradicts any stated aims. He calls it nearly a war crime, since civilian infrastructure has no military utility in this context. He suggests the action undermines any potential peace path and could prompt stronger resistance within Iran. He warns that, politically, Trump could face war-crimes scrutiny, especially under a Democratic-controlled House, and that it damages the United States’ reputation by appearing to disregard the rule of law and morality. Speaker 1 asks whether such tactics are ever effective, noting a lack of evidence that inflicting civilian suffering yields political concession. Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 reference historical examples (Nazis, British during the Battle of Britain, Hiroshima-era considerations) to suggest such tactics have not succeeded in breaking civilian resolve, arguing this approach would harden Iranian resistance. Speaker 2 cites broader historical or regional patterns: torture or collective punishment has failed against Germans, Japanese, Palestinians in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. He contends the appeal of using such power is seductive but dangerous, likening it to “war porn.” He notes that the number of Iranian fatalities floated by Trump has fluctuated (3,000, 10,000, 30,000, then 45,000), describing them as not credible, yet the administration seems unconcerned with accuracy. Speaker 3 adds that the rhetoric justifies escalating violence with humanitarian consequences, including potential energy-system disruption. Speaker 0 asks about the discrepancy between Trump’s claim of decimating Iran and subsequent attacks on multiple targets in the Gulf and the firepower Iran still holds, including underground facilities and missile capabilities. Speaker 2 explains that Iran can absorb punishment and still strike back, suggesting that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be opened by force and that escalation could involve considerations of a larger false-flag scenario. He mentions a warning about a potential nine-eleven-level attack and potential media complicity, implying fears of a false-flag operation blamed on Iran. Speaker 0 notes the possibility of Israeli involvement undermining negotiations and cites JD Vance’s planned meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi, noting Kharazi’s injury and his wife’s death, implying an assassination attempt. Speaker 2 critiques U.S. reliance on allies, arguing that Israel’s actions threaten U.S. interests and that the White House should constrain Israel. He asserts there is no military solution to the conflict, warns of long-term costs to the United States and its European and Asian relations, and predicts economic consequences if the conflict continues. Speaker 1 remarks that Iranian leaders’ letter to the American people shows civilian intent not to surrender, while Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 emphasize the risk of ongoing conflict, with Colonel Davis concluding that there is no feasible open-strand resolution. The discussion ends with thanks to Colonel Davis for his analysis.

Rappers used to mention Trump in their songs, portraying him as a charismatic billionaire. As president, his regulations were beneficial for the economy. However, the current state of the world, with COVID and other issues, is concerning. The Ukraine situation and the Middle East are particularly alarming, as they have the potential to lead to catastrophic consequences, such as nuclear warfare. This possibility was never felt before, but now it feels real.

Elon Musk is described as a leading spreader of disinformation, including lies about hurricane relief and illegal immigrants. He appeared on stage with Donald Trump, making what was described as an unathletic leap. Musk then spoke briefly on the former president's behalf. Musk is said to not have much of a vertical leap.

I'm proud to announce that Donald J. Trump is our 47th President. Today, I want to speak about Elon Musk, a man of dignity and honor who has contributed greatly to our country. The media is disgraceful, twisting narratives and spreading falsehoods. Comparing Elon Musk to Hitler is outrageous. He is being unfairly targeted, and we must stand up against this propaganda. We’ve seen how the media and the left have tried to undermine both President Trump and Elon Musk. However, Elon's goodwill towards the Jewish community and his commitment to America will prevail over this negativity. He is humble and dedicated to making our nation stronger. Elon, we appreciate you. God bless.