TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

What right does a nation have to prevent a country from receiving fuel? With this they are not only acting against Cuba and against the Cuban people; with this, how many are being prevented from having a normal trade relationship with Cuba? How many companies and entities are being harmed? Is this not a violation of all international law, of the United Nations Charter? Does this not go against the free trade that capitalism and imperialism defend? But also, who do they think they are, to impose that on us? Can anyone in the world celebrate this, that they are doing that to a country? Is there any trace of humanism, decency, sensitivity, or decorum in someone who acts like this?

People want me to run for president in New Hampshire because they see what's happening in this country. Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are taking advantage of the United States. Japan doesn't pay for defense, costing us billions. Our so-called allies are not treating us fairly. I have respect for the Japanese, but losing billions to them is a shame. I believe this country can be better. Cutting farm aid, help for the homeless, and welfare is not the solution. We need to take actions that will bring in big dollars for this country. I don't plan to run for president, but there are ways to fix things.

And yet we we let Japan come in and dump everything right into our markets and everything. It's not free trade. If you ever go to Japan right now and try to sell something, forget about it, Albert. Just forget about it. It's almost impossible. They don't have laws against it. They just make it impossible. They come over here. They sell their cars, their VCRs. They knock the hell out of our companies.

We will fight back. Shut down the city. We are at war. Anytime a person can pay $250,000,000 into a campaign and be given full access to the Department of Treasury of the United States of America, we are at war.

"it's not antisemitic to talk about this, and it's not antisemitic to question any foreign country's government secular government, including Israel." "We fund a lot of other countries' borders better than we fund our own." "it's over $800,000,000,000,000, actually, close to 900,000,000,000,000 is the total bill." "the 500,000,000 for Israel." "They already received $3,400,000,000 annually every single year through the State Department." "Taiwan for 500,000,000 and for Jordan for 500,000,000 as well." "There's 15,000,000 in there for AIDS prevention education activities." "America's broke. We're $37,000,000,000,000 in debt." "we just can't pay for the world anymore." "Not being an isolationist. That's actually being smart and serving the people that that pay for all of this stuff and have been chained into 37,000,000,000,000 in debt." "And that's not being mean to foreign people and foreign countries, but America's broke."

"Tariffs are vital to the success of this country." "They could possibly replace federal income tax." "From 1850 to 1913, in the 1887, it's about 1887, they had the Great National Tariff Act." "And then in 1929, you had the depression." "They ended them in 1913. How did that work out? And then we went to the income tax." "I settled seven different wars. One going thirty one years, one go look at the Congo and Rwanda." "Thirty one years, ten million people dead. I got it settled." "We have trillions of dollars coming into our country." "If we didn't have tariffs, we would be a very poor nation, and we would be taken advantage of by every other nation in the world."

Our payments to NATO are disproportionate and ridiculous compared to others. Solving this issue is crucial because it will allow us to address important causes like homelessness, farmers, and healthcare. Unfortunately, we don't have the funds to support these priorities because our country is financially strained. If we had better business abilities, we could generate surplus profits that could be used to defend and support our homeless, poor, sick, and farmers. Instead, we are giving money to countries that don't care about us.

You know, you have this little group called BRICS. It's fading out fast. But BRICS is, they wanted to try and take over the dollar, the dominance of the dollar, and, the standard of the dollar. And I said, anybody that's in the BRICS consortium of nations, we're gonna tariff you 10%. And they had a meeting the following day and almost nobody showed up. They were they said, leave me alone. We didn't wanna they didn't wanna be tariffed to their that's amazing. No. We're not gonna let the dollar slide. If we have a smart president, you're never gonna let the dollar slide. If you have a dummy, that could happen.

Speaker 0 vents intense anger about the Israel-Gaza crisis and U.S. involvement. He says: we pivoted to the IDF and after two years of war, with brothers and sisters killed and hostages liberated, “for these sick fucks” to turn it into Disneyland and give it to the Palestinians is unacceptable; he cannot pay for it. He notes Qatar and Turkey’s involvement, and a comment by BB that if Qatar can’t come, they’ll bring them; then “Qatar’s on the board of peace,” which enrages him. He proclaims, “We have nuclear missiles,” and threatens North Korea, claiming he will show them a “Jewish North Korea.” He declares “Gaza is biblically ours” and says the new board of peace has pushed him over the edge; he does not want to come back, and wants “full deportation” of Palestinians. He argues for shutting borders for us and our friends only, envisioning Gaza becoming a banking and tax haven, free of wars. He expresses confusion over the Iran situation and asserts that their weaponry is so advanced they can “melt their flesh with our lasers,” yet laments giving Gaza to their enemies and asks, “What the actual fuck?” He ends by saying, “So I’d like to get” before the transcript cuts off. Speaker 1 adds, “to pay for it,” and then, “you forgot about the part where we pay the price tag because nobody else wants to fucking pay for it.”

Speaker 0 says: "$100,000,000 lost each year. This mollies, and and that's just going over to kill our troops. You know, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We need to stop it." Speaker 1 notes Carolyn Hamm mentioned in the meeting that people are responsible for the fraud they committed because they didn't understand the cultural differences. They wonder what Carolyn Hamm means by people having different cultural values, asking if she is saying that some cultures support fraud. They express being sick of this and that nothing is being done about it. They describe themselves as citizens, normal people, inviting others to join them if they're sick of it as well. They insist, "We will not have our money being smuggled in suitcases through the Minneapolis Airport and sent to Somalia. This has to stop, and their people have to be held accountable. And our elected officials have to be held accountable. And people need to go to prison for this because we're just not gonna take it anymore." They state they did not get the answers they were looking for, basically. They conclude Minnesota taxpayers are being taken to the cleaner, for sure.

President Trump mentioned expanding the U.S. footprint, and it started when Trudeau said that evening out the trade relationship would mean Canada would cease to exist as a country. The President responded that if Canada can't exist without cheating in trade, then it should become a state. Canada is our friend and partner, but for decades, the U.S. allowed uneven trade imbalances. During the Cold War, we wanted countries to be strong economically, even if they were cheating. But these are rich, developed economies now. Whatever they charge us, we should charge them. If they don't allow American companies to operate, we shouldn't allow their companies here. American banks can't even operate in Canada. There has to be reciprocity and fairness. The days where countries take advantage of us have to end because it's not good for the global order and creates friction. This is the case with Canada and other allies.

Speaker 0 warned that if any ally tries to help the ICC, they will be sanctioned. They said, "we're gonna sanction you," and that "we should crush your economy because we're next." They referenced Justin in Canada and his position, asking, "What should the penalty be?"

The government can take your money with a twinkle in their eye and give it to someone else.

The speaker states that countries represented by the European Union will be told "that game is up." If they "get cute," they won't be able to sell cars into the United States anymore. The speaker claims that European unions and other countries gave drug companies a price, expecting America to pay the difference to cover a shortfall. The speaker says "that's what we did, but we're not doing it anymore."

The speaker states that countries represented by the European Union will be told "that game is up." If they "get cute," they won't be able to sell cars into the United States anymore. The speaker claims that European Union countries gave drug companies a price, expecting America to pay the difference to cover a shortfall. The speaker says "that's what we did, but we're not doing it anymore."

That does raise the question, Scott, of sort of how much these export licenses will cost other companies, if that's gonna be the US government's approach to sort of any kind of regulatory interaction with companies. If the US government is doing a deal that benefits a company, does that company have to kick back a certain percentage in tax back to the federal treasury?

We're not, spending any money on the war. The war is, being funded by NATO. NATO is buying our equipment. In fact, we're I don't wanna make money on that war. I don't wanna but we are actually making money on that war because they're buying our equipment, as you know. But we

I don't require money, campaign contributions, lobbyists, or special interests. All I need is to do what's right for the country.

Speaker 0 conveys a policy stance: 'When I came in, the first thing I said is any BRICS state that even mentions the destruction of the dollar will be charged a 150% tariff, and we don't want your goods. We don't wanna partake. And' The central assertion is that any BRICS state mentioning the destruction of the dollar would incur a 150% tariff, with the speaker stating they do not want the goods or participation from those states. The transcript ends with an unfinished conjunction, 'And', suggesting the thought continued beyond the excerpt. The excerpt provided ends abruptly, with 'And' indicating continuation.

Howard Lutnick designs a system of tariffs to tax companies in America, an illegal tariff tax. They get taxed, pay in these millions. Trump says it's billions, but it's illegal. So the courts are gonna overturn it. So before the court Lutnick knows it's illegal, he created it. So before the courts turn it over, he has his sons run out and buy up the debts for, like, 20 to 30¢, not the debt, the claim against the government. So so let's say a company paid a million dollars to the government in tariffs. Lutnick's own sons went and said, we'll give you 200 to 300,000 of that million now. You no longer have a lien against the government in case we find out that those tariffs were illegal. Those tariffs that my dad designed were illegal. Then the supreme court says the tariffs are illegal, and Lutnick's sons now go collect the million dollars back from the government. So instead of the American corporations getting back the tariffs that were illegally taxed to them or the American people who paid the higher rates. Lutnick, who designed the illegal tariff system, is going to pocket it all with his family just like just another grift.

I have paid tariffs. Revenues will stay here, and wages will increase. Our country will become wealthy again. I find it insulting that you are testing my economic knowledge and questioning the president's decisions. I regret giving the Associated Press a question. Mary, you can go ahead.

Any BRICS state that mentions the destruction of the dollar will be charged a 150% tariff, and the U.S. does not want their goods.

The speaker states they were asked how they could smuggle a terrorist into the United States or return one to the United States. The speaker finds the question preposterous. They claim they don't know how they could smuggle someone into the U.S. and assert they lack the power to return anyone to the United States. The speaker states they are not going to do it.

Speaker 0: Do we need this connection with Israel? What is it? No one ever explains what it's for. I feel like. Right? That would help everybody have a much better understanding, you know, because it starts to feel like America is just a shell company, an LLC for Israel. That's what it starts to feel like a lot of times, you know? Do you feel like that that's realistic, or do you feel like that that's off base? Speaker 1: I would I wouldn't send them a dime. Like, that's my position. I don't think whatever we're getting isn't worth it.

America protects and defends countries like South Korea, Japan, Canada, and all of Europe. In exchange, South Korea steals the automobile and electronics industries, Japan closes its market to American cars, Canada runs up a massive trade deficit, and Europe has a $300 billion trade deficit with the United States. America is getting ripped off by every other country in the world, resulting in the deindustrialization of the heartland, destruction of the American dream, and the eradication of the industrial and manufacturing base needed for national security. This has to stop, especially with $36 trillion in debt.