reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker notes that there is fear people want Trump to have done something gross with women, but 'I really don't believe wanna be clear. I do not believe that. Yeah. Not covering for Trump. I just don't think that's true.' They insist there is no indication, saying they've spoken to people 'close to Epstein, very close to Epstein, who've told me off camera, in private, no, it's not. Trump never did that shit.' The speaker adds, 'So I don't think it's about that.' They question why 'no one talking to Les Wexner?' and end with 'And' (truncated). The focus remains unclear.

The speaker states they anticipate criticism for their following opinion. They claim that neither Elon Musk nor Donald Trump has ever had consensual sex with a woman, nor sex for which they didn't have to pay, either with money or gifts. The speaker concludes with "Have a great day."

She approached me and said that Donald Trump's wall is meant to keep out women. I asked what he was keeping them out of, and she pointed to how he talks about and treats women, including his wife. She mentioned the inauguration, where he walked ahead and left her behind, showing a lack of care. She expressed that he has disdain for women, citing his infamous comment about grabbing women. I suggested he might have been referring to women who tolerate such behavior, but she had no response to that.

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.

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 speakers agree that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy. One speaker states this is a fact, period, point blank. While both speakers agree Trump is a threat, one suggests that his rhetoric should be toned down.

Speaker addresses rumors that 'Trump did something gross with women' and says, 'I I really don't believe wanna be clear. I do not believe that. Yeah. Not covering for Trump. I just don't think that's true.' They assert they've seen no indication of it and have spoken to people, 'to be totally honest with you, close to Epstein, very close to Epstein, who've told me off camera, in private, no, it's not. Trump never did that shit.' The remarks emphasize that the issue isn't about that alleged conduct. The speaker then questions, 'But why is no one talking to Les Wexner?'

Speaker 1 clarifies that he was not calling Trump supporters garbage, reading: "I refer to the hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump's supporter at his Madison Square Garden rally as garbage, which is the only word I can think of to describe it. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable." "That's all I meant to say." "The comments the comments at the rally don't reflect who we are as a nation." "No." "He does not view Trump supporters or anybody who who supports Trump as garbage." He adds: "If the president has said this for more than three years now, he has said multiple times that he is a president for all. It doesn't matter if you live in a red state. It doesn't matter if you live in a blue state." "He believes that he's a president for all."

The transcript shows a volatile exchange centered on immigration and constitutional rights. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks how many constitutional rights the other participants are willing to give up to “get these people out,” framing the issue as a test of loyalty to the country. He emphasizes a confrontational stance against immigrants and their supporters, pressing for an explicit, finite number of rights to sacrifice. Speaker 1 responds with extreme, inflammatory rhetoric. He declares, “As many constitutional rights as it takes to keep the race in the country alive is how many I’m willing to walk on,” and identifies as a “national socialist authoritarian,” asserting a willingness to sacrifice rights to preserve a “race in the country.” He attacks the idea of protecting the Constitution, stating, “my constitution, my democracy, my fucking… inalienable fucking constitutional car driven rights,” and contrasts that with what he sees as the real priority of protecting the country and race. He references “the force doctrine” and asserts that “your rights are whatever the fucking force doctrine says you’re allowed to do.” He also claims that the United States acts as “the force doctrine of the entire world.” During the exchange, Speaker 0 derides Speaker 1 as “white racist fuck” and “unamerican,” while Speaker 1 escalates, declaring that he does not care about the constitution if it endangers the country or race. He asserts, “What I care about is our country,” and later says, “Willing to let this country burn and your entire race burn if it meant that you didn’t violate the constitution? I don’t give a fuck about that.” He proclaims, “If I need to throw away the first amendment, the second amendment, the third, the fourth, the fifth, sixth, and all of them in order to make sure that The US and its people stays alive,” questioning how that could be acceptable. The dialogue includes explicit harassment and slurs, including “chill faggot,” and culminates in a moment where Speaker 0 calls for clipping the exchange, expressing it as “fucking gold.” The participants debate whether constitutional protections should yield to perceived national or racial imperatives, with both sides railing against the other’s stance and repeatedly foregrounding the primacy of protecting the country over preserving constitutional rights, according to their respective positions.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about Donald Trump having his own "pussy riot moment," similar to Russia's. Speaker 1 declines to comment, citing the prevalence of "pussies" around the presidential campaign on both sides and expressing concern about sounding indecent due to English not being their first language.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1, a mother of two daughters, about Trump's "grab them by the pussy" comment. Speaker 0 asks if that language makes Speaker 1 feel that Trump is not her guy. Speaker 1 responds that she would "rather be grabbed by the pussy than have a pussy for president" and that she is happy with that language, claiming everyone uses rude language behind closed doors. She then brings up Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Speaker 0 reiterates she is talking about the current president-elect, not the past. Speaker 1 says she is not offended by Trump's comments from 8 years ago and tells Speaker 0 to deal with her own issues. Speaker 0 asks if anyone is remotely concerned about the nature of Trump. Speaker 1 responds that America needed someone with a strong lead who would stand up for white and black people, bring back jobs, allow Americans to have weapons, and ensure a conservative Supreme Court. She states that is why pollsters, broadcasters, commentators, and pundits were wrong.

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. They stress the importance of accurate language 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, and misunderstanding trade deficits. They believe Trump's first hundred days have been disastrous, undermining the rule of law and democracy, and benefiting the rich. The first speaker disagrees, stating that the first hundred days align with Trump's promises and what the American people voted for.

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.”

The speaker states they will be politically incorrect and issues a trigger warning. They question the claim that a wealthy man, married to a supermodel, would sexually assault E. Jean Carroll in a Tiffany's store. The speaker highlights that the alleged incident occurred at the height of the man's career, with no prior accusations for twenty years, and only surfaced when he ran for president. The speaker dismisses the accusation as "complete rubbish and political nonsense."

The discussion centers on the president's comments yesterday, referring to "Trump supporter as garbage." Speaker 0 asks two questions: "does he think less of Americans who support Trump than he does of those who do not?" and "why is he using that kind of rhetoric? How is that presidential?" Speaker 1 says: "So so a couple of things. Couple of things. So just to clarify, he was not calling Trump supporters garbage, which is why he put out this is why he wanted to make sure that we put out a statement that clarified what he meant and what he was trying to say."

A debate moderator questioned Donald Trump about his history of disparaging comments about women, citing examples such as calling women "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals," and referencing disparaging comments on his Twitter account about women's looks, as well as a comment he made to a Celebrity Apprentice contestant about seeing her on her knees. The moderator asked if this reflected the temperament of a president and how he would answer Hillary Clinton's charge that he is part of a war on women. Trump responded that the country's big problem is being politically correct, which he doesn't have time for. He stated that the country is in big trouble and losing to other countries. He added that what he says is often in jest, and if the moderator doesn't like it, he is sorry. He concluded that the country needs strength, energy, quickness, and brain to turn it around.

Donald Trump is accused of inappropriate behavior towards women. The speaker finds it disrespectful to women who are victims of rape. They recall a past encounter with Trump involving lingerie. The speaker expresses anger and panic, mentioning death threats. They ponder the possibility of DNA evidence on the lingerie. The conversation shifts to Trump's statement about the accuser not being his type. The speaker challenges the perception of rape as sexy. The discussion pauses briefly.

Speaker 0 expresses doubt about Donald Trump's ability to save the country, suggesting that he should focus on himself first. They mention that people don't appreciate the fact that he is aware of what they have been doing. Speaker 0 believes that Trump cares about the city and women in particular. They emphasize that he is not just concerned about his own family but also about everyone else.

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.

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.

Speaker 1: I believe that together we can make America great again. To secure a better future for your children and your grandchildren and to make America great again. I want to attack these problems and make America great again. It's time for another comeback. Time to make America great again. Speaker 0: Monica puffed on your cigar so hard the hypocrisy smoke is still lingering, decades later. Straight up called her the dog whistle. Speaker 1: That message where yeah. I'll give you America great again is if you're a white southerner, you know exactly what it means, don't you? What it means is I give you economy you had fifty years ago, and I'll move you back up on the social totem pole and other people down. Speaker 0: Either it was racist when he said it or it's not racist when Trump said it. Pick a lane. You can't make this shit up.

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.

Before Donald Trump ran for president, people didn't consider him racist. They liked him because he appeared on WWE and other shows. However, once he ran for president, people didn't like his straightforward and sometimes offensive way of speaking. They felt he should have been held to a higher standard as a presidential candidate. However, some argue that he was just speaking like a real man, engaging in locker room talk. They believe he didn't do anything wrong and that he did his homework and fulfilled his duties as president.

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.

The speaker emphasizes that the president does not insult voters or the American people. They mention instances where the president made controversial statements, such as questioning someone's blackness based on their support for Mayor Trump and making a comment about poor kids and white kids. The speaker also references a viral video where the president denies saying something about taking guns away. Overall, the speaker highlights the president's tendency to avoid insulting people.