reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that he used his “personality” to prevent starting wars, and claims he was the first president in decades who “started no new wars.” He repeatedly emphasizes that under him the U.S. had “peace” and “prosperity,” and that they “never got into a war” while he was president. He says there was no need for wars involving “foreign lands” and countries “you’ve never heard of,” claiming those countries “don’t even want us there.” He states, “We will expel the war mongers from our government,” and contrasts his record with critics who predicted he would “start a war.” He references the deaths from “horrible wars” in the Middle East and claims opponents support war, saying “They love wars” and “like a war… love killing people.” He declares he is “the only president” who did not start a war and argues that Donald Trump would also keep the country out of war: “We had no wars with Donald Trump as your president.” The speaker also mentions Hillary Clinton’s claim that Trump’s rhetoric would get the U.S. into a war, responding that his own “rhetoric’s gonna keep us out of wars,” and asserting that this is what happened.

Trump's comments about Liz Cheney were misrepresented by the media; he criticized her as a war hawk but did not call for her execution. The discussion touches on the hypocrisy of politicians advocating for military action while being removed from its consequences. There are also claims about the legitimacy of elections, with some asserting that Trump is an illegitimate president due to alleged interference in the 2016 election by Russia. Protests erupted following Trump's election, with some turning violent, reflecting deep divisions over his presidency. The conversation highlights the ongoing debates about election integrity and political violence in America.

Trump's bombing of Baghdad airport, resulting in the targeted killing of Iran's top military general, is considered an act of war lacking congressional authorization. This action has escalated the conflict with Iran, potentially leading to an endless quagmire. The speaker questions the ultimate goal of this action, asserting that Trump's policies are damaging and undermine national security. The proposed solution is to withdraw troops from Iraq and Syria to prevent further entanglement in a war with Iran.

I woke up to the headline that Trump called for a firing squad for Liz Cheney, which is misleading. He criticized her for being a war hawk, as she is Dick Cheney's daughter. He expressed this poorly, suggesting she should face consequences for her views on sending troops to war. This reflects a common sentiment that it's easy for politicians to advocate for war from the safety of Washington. His comments echo what anti-war activists have said in the past about the disconnect between decision-makers and the realities of war. Just to clarify, I don't like Trump, but let's not misrepresent his statements.

Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney's daughter, is running against Kamala Harris, which I believe hurts Harris. Cheney is a deranged person who has always wanted to go to war. She wanted to stay in Syria and Iraq, while I chose to withdraw. If it were up to her, we’d be involved in conflicts in many countries. She's a radical war hawk. It’s easy for her to advocate for sending troops from the comfort of Washington, but she wouldn’t feel the same if she were in the line of fire. I’ve had meetings with many people, and she consistently pushed for military action.

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.

Donald Trump has escalated his violent rhetoric, suggesting Liz Cheney should have guns trained on her. Cheney responded, stating this behavior is how dictators threaten free nations. A Trump campaign spokeswoman clarified that Trump was criticizing Cheney for advocating wars while avoiding combat herself. Congressman Tim Burchard defended Trump, arguing he was emphasizing that those who support war should be on the front lines. When pressed about the implications of Trump's language, Burchard downplayed the seriousness, suggesting it was a distraction for Cheney to promote her agenda. The conversation shifted to healthcare, with Burchard expressing a desire to modify Obamacare rather than repeal it, advocating for a system that prioritizes patients and doctors over intermediaries.

The conversation centers on multiple competing narratives about the war and its wider regional significance, with the speakers presenting their interpretations and challenging each other’s points. - The hosts open by acknowledging competing narratives: some view the war as a necessary action against a regime seen as destabilizing and dangerous (nuclear ambitions, regional havoc); others see it as Israel removing a geopolitical threat with U.S. involvement; a third perspective argues it stemmed from miscalculations by Trump, perhaps driven by Israeli influence. The dialogue frames the war within broader questions of American, Israeli, and Iranian aims. - Speaker 1 references Joseph Kent’s resignation letter, arguing Iran was not an immediate U.S. threat and that Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby influenced Trump toward war. They assert Trump’s stated interest in Iranian oil and control of the Strait of Hormuz; they describe Trump as guided by business interests. They frame U.S. actions as part of a long-standing pattern of demonizing enemies to justify intervention, citing Trump’s “animals” comment toward Iranians and labeling this demonization as colonial practice. - Speaker 0 pushes back on Trump’s rhetoric but notes it suggested a willingness to pressure Iran for concessions. They question whether Trump could transition from ending some wars to endorsing genocidal framing, acknowledging disagreement with some of Trump’s statements but agreeing that Israeli influence and Hormuz control were important factors. They also inquire whether Trump miscalculated a prolonged conflict and ask how Iran continued to fire missiles and drones despite expectations of regime collapse, seeking clarity on Iran’s resilience. - Speaker 1 clarifies that the Iranian system is a government, not a regime, and explains that Iranian missile and drone capabilities were prepared in advance, especially after Gaza conflicts. They note Iran’s warning that an attack would trigger a regional war, and reference U.S. intelligence assessments stating Iran does not have a nuclear weapon or a program for one at present, which Trump publicly dismissed in favor of Netanyahu’s view. They recount that Iran’s leaders warned of stronger responses if attacked, and argue Iran’s counterstrikes reflected a strategic calculus to deter further aggression while acknowledging Iran’s weaker, yet still capable, position. - The discussion shifts to regional dynamics: the balance of power, the loss of Israel’s “card” of American support if Iran can close Hormuz, and the broader implications for U.S.-Israel regional leverage. Speaker 1 emphasizes the influence of the Israeli lobby in Congress, while also suggesting Mossad files could influence Trump, and notes that the war leverages Netanyahu’s stance but may not fully explain U.S. decisions. - The two then debate Gulf states’ roles: Saudi Arabia and the UAE are depicted as providing bases and support to the United States; Kuwait as a near neighbor with vulnerability to Iranian action and strategic bases for American forces. They discuss international law, noting the war’s alleged illegality without a UN Security Council authorization, and reference the unwilling-or-unable doctrine to explain Gulf state complicity. - The conversation covers Iran’s and Lebanon’s involvement: Iran’s leverage via missiles and drones, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah as a Lebanese organization with Iranian support. They discuss Hezbollah’s origins in response to Israeli aggression and their current stance—driving Lebanon into conflict for Iran’s sake, while Hezbollah asserts independence and Lebanon’s interests. They acknowledge Lebanon’s ceasefire violations on both sides and debate who bears responsibility for dragging Lebanon into war; Hezbollah’s leaders are described as navigating loyalties to Iran, Lebanon, and their people, with some insistence that Hezbollah acts as a defender of Lebanon rather than a mere proxy. - Towards the end, the speakers reflect on personal impact and future dialogue. They acknowledge the war’s wide, long-lasting consequences for Lebanon and the region, and express interest in continuing the discussion, potentially in person, to further explore these complex dynamics.

CBS likely didn't air the full Rubio interview because of comments like the one about Liz Cheney. The media is misrepresenting what Trump meant when he said he'd give Cheney a gun. He wasn't suggesting violence. The full context reveals he meant she's eager for war while safely in Washington. He's saying, let's see how eager you are for war when you're the one in combat. It's a common point made by both parties, that it's easy to advocate for war from a safe distance. Trump's language might be unconventional, but the media's portrayal is unfair and egregious.

Many Muslim and Arab Americans have connections in the Middle East, yet Kamala is campaigning with Liz Cheney, a figure associated with war. Cheney often advocates for military action but lacks the courage to face the consequences herself. She pushes for attacks on nations while remaining comfortably in Washington, benefiting from her father's legacy tied to Middle Eastern conflicts. Cheney's rhetoric is empty; she wouldn't fight herself. She lost her congressional seat by nearly 40 points, marking a historic defeat. This shows her disconnect with the public and the consequences of her warmongering stance.

Trump has made derogatory comments about military service members, calling them stupid and cowardly. He avoided serving in Vietnam by allegedly faking medical documents. This raises questions about why he is idolized despite these actions. His wealth allowed him to evade military service, which contrasts sharply with the sacrifices made by veterans. The perception of him as a draft dodger and a coward contributes to a negative view of his character, yet he still won the election.

She's a radical war hawk, always eager to send troops into danger without understanding the real consequences. It's easy to advocate for war from the comfort of Washington, but I wonder how she'd feel if faced with the reality of combat. In meetings, she consistently pushed for military action, showing a reckless disregard for the lives at stake.

Speaker 0 argues that most Americans oppose the war, citing polling and the president’s failure to make a case for it. The speaker asserts that people don’t feel threatened by Iran and don’t fear an Iranian ballistic missile landing in the United States. The speaker lists a set of American concerns: 72% can’t afford health insurance, 58% can’t afford car insurance, 67% live paycheck to paycheck, 31% can’t afford back taxes, and 50% carry massive credit card debt. They state they campaigned with the president and were among the few Republicans supporting Donald Trump when others opposed him in a primary, emphasizing a “America first” stance focused on American problems rather than foreign countries or foreign peoples. The speaker expresses concern for the Iranian people and hopes for a government that treats women fairly, but asserts that “we have seen over 100 little girls killed at a school from a bomb,” and claims that “America and Israel attacked Iran,” implying this is not good for Iranian women. They criticize the president’s claim that the Iranian people will topple their regime, saying the Iranian people won’t topple their regime while being bombed by the United States and Israel in an unprovoked attack, which the speaker claims is true. They reference Pete Hegseth’s comment that the U.S. did not start the war, but the speaker counters that America and Israel definitely started it and states, “you can’t lie that away to the American people.” The speaker declares being irate and furious about the situation, noting the national debt approaching $40 trillion and questioning the war’s cost. They argue that American troops have been killed and murdered for foreign countries, and that four Americans have died for Israel and the Iranian people, not for Americans. The speaker laments the loss of American military members and acknowledges the families who may be grieving. They mention Trump’s past statements that he doesn’t think he will go to heaven, and question what that implies about his decision-making, given that the president has said he may place troops on the ground and that what began as “a few day war” could extend to four weeks or more. The speaker recalls prior commitments by JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard to end foreign wars and regime change, but notes that “we’re a year in” and yet “we’re in another fucking war” with Americans killed. The speech ends with a call for America to “rip the Band Aid off” and to have a serious conversation about who is making these decisions and for whom.

Trump's critics are accusing him of actions they themselves are committing. The Democratic Party is repeatedly pushing debunked hoaxes while claiming to be the honest ones. For example, they misrepresent Trump's comments on protecting women from illegal immigrants, twisting his words to suggest he opposes women's rights. Another instance involves a false claim that Trump wants to execute Liz Cheney. In reality, he was criticizing her warmongering stance, suggesting that if she faced frontline combat, she'd reconsider her views on war. Despite this, the media has distorted his words, leading many to believe outrageous lies about him. The ongoing misrepresentation and manipulation of facts by the media and political opponents is concerning.

The speakers discuss the potential for war between Iran and Israel, with one noting the US embassy in Iraq evacuated nonessential personnel and military bases were told to evacuate non-military personnel. One speaker expresses disappointment that Trump, who campaigned on preventing new wars, seems to be leading the US toward conflict. One speaker claims Trump could stop the conflict by telling Israel they are on their own, withholding intelligence and support. They lament American troops being in danger for no reason. The speakers criticize Trump for acting like Biden, merely expressing disapproval without taking action. They claim Congress is completely in Israel's pocket, despite public opinion, especially among younger Republicans, being unfavorable towards Israel. One speaker cites a post from Tom Cotton about Iran seeking nuclear weapons, likening it to the lead-up to the Iraq War.

Ashwin Rutansi hosts Going Underground, opening with a broad claim about Iran, retaliation, and world events surrounding a US-Israeli military posture in the region. He notes that it is Easter Monday, with Iranians mourning the targeting of Iranian Christians by the USA and Iran’s Jewish community observing Passover. He references ongoing tensions, a looming deadline for actions like opening the Strait of Hormuz, and describes Iran as retaining “the world’s most powerful military” capabilities to choke world trade, while saying Trump’s leadership appears unstable and that “the dissembling of Trump has some in The USA wanting to invoke the twenty fifth amendment.” Rutansi frames Iran as potentially threatening regime-change in the USA, while asserting that in Iran, Supreme Leader Khamenei remains officially in charge. He contends that Trump’s unpopularity foreshadows Republican losses in Congress and situates a recent confrontation in which a combat veteran was forcibly removed from a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing as part of broader anti-war sentiment. The program transitions to the incident: an Iraq invasion-era US Marine Corps veteran, Sergeant Brian McGinnis, is shown being removed from a hearing, his arm broken during the confrontation. The veteran, who is running as a Green Party candidate for the US Senate in North Carolina, joins Rutansi by phone. McGinnis reports that his arm is “doing well” after treatment at George Washington University Hospital, and explains he cannot discuss the incident in detail due to legal charges, but asserts that his message about “troops for dying for another country, Israel, not The United States Of America” came through clearly. McGinnis accuses U.S. leadership of being beholden to Israel and argues that the American people are waking up to that reality, contrasting a long-standing narrative with what he calls “the Gaza genocide” and Israel’s “greater Israel project.” He blames corporate donors and lobby groups, specifically APAC, for political decisions, insisting that his Green Party candidacy rejects “big money” and represents “the people.” He discusses public opinion in the United States, noting a shift toward unfavorable views of Israel, and links this to the influence of the military-industrial complex and media complicity. On military conduct and media: McGinnis reflects on the mood among troops, acknowledging their training and obedience to orders, while criticizing the current use of the U.S. military “for nefarious reasons” and “the profiteering of the Epstein class.” He discusses how social media and digital connectivity expose soldiers to anti-war sentiments and suggests conscientious objection as an option. He recalls incidents from his own experience, including Camp Lejeune controversies, and remarks on the bombing of U.S. assets in Iraq and the West Bank’s humanitarian crises. McGinnis condemns the West Bank occupation and settler violence, describing it as evidence of an “apartheid government” and detailing personal horror at Palestinian suffering. He criticizes Pentagon rhetoric that frames a war against Islam as a “holy war,” calling Pete Hegseth a propagandist who fails to gain the respect of true military figures. He references the USS Liberty incident to illustrate perceived deliberate misdirection by U.S. leadership in allied actions. Regarding political and financial dynamics, McGinnis argues that war profits accrue to a small elite and that “APAC” and other pro-Israel interests shape policy, urging voters to reject two-party limitations. He cites Joe Kent’s resignation over concerns that the Iran war serves Israel’s interests and contrasts that with his own stance against “the Epstein class” profiting from bloodshed. He reiterates his commitment to a Green Party platform, asserting he can defeat Israeli money in North Carolina’s Senate race and condemning corporate donors. In closing, Rutansi confirms the program’s direction and hints at continued coverage of the Trump-Netanyahu Iran war, inviting viewers to engage via social media and the program’s platform.

Trump criticized the military industrial complex and the foreign policy establishment, blaming them for the current war. He specifically mentioned Victoria Nuland, comparing her to Fauci in terms of responsibility. Nuland was involved in backing an insurrection in Ukraine in 2014, which led to strained relations with Russia and the subsequent seizure of Crimea. Trump's willingness to address this issue is noteworthy.

NATO may have just took its last breath with the announcement by president Trump that thousands of US forces stationed in Germany would be removed. More on that part of the story in a minute. But first, some breaking news to cover. Over the last few hours, Iran struck multiple targets throughout the Middle East, including oil infrastructure in The United Arab Emirates. And of course, this is vital infrastructure to that region and to the world, and now a lot of it on fire. Different oil infrastructure here in The UAE on fire. The US Navy also reportedly attacked, by Iranian ships. Iran hit US Navy ships with multiple missile strikes. CENTCOM is saying that that didn't happen, but Iran is saying, yes, it absolutely did happen. Here is the British news covering it. Watch. State media that a US warship has turned back from the area of the Strait Of Hormuz, and that according to Iran's navy, it's prevented the entry of US warships into the Hormuz area according to state television. Going on to add that two missiles hit a US warship near Jask Island Island after it ignored Iranian warnings. Now this is being reported by the Fars News Agency. That's state media in Iran. I cannot, at this moment, independently verify that for you. So this what we're hearing from the Iranian. On their side saying that this didn't happen, but the Iranian is saying it did. So we're at this sort of end pass now. But things are deteriorating, it seems, quickly. And Iran says, look, we threatened you. If you try to move through the Strait Of Hormuz, we will attack you. And that's by all assumptions, that's exactly what happened. Colonel Daniel Davis is the host of the deep dive with Dan Davis, and he joins us now to break down the NATO piece of this, US forces missing in Africa, and what is happening route right now with the Strait Of Hormuz. Colonel, great to see you as always. Welcome back to the show. Our pleasure as always. I think we maybe should start with the NATO piece of this. As we've been covering here for a couple of years, it seems that NATO has been on its last legs. Now this move seems a straight affront to the NATO structure by moving thousands of forces out of Germany and basically saying you're on your own. What do you make of this latest move? And is this just the latest sort of death by a thousand cuts for NATO? I it it may just be the latest one, death by a thousand cuts. It's just the next one in line, I suppose. And and, of course, it's it came about like so many other things that the Trump administration does as a knee jerk reaction to something because Friedrich Metz, the lead chancellor of Germany, came out and said that United States has no strategy. They don't know what they're doing in the Iran war just like they didn't in Afghanistan and the Iraq wars. And, what a shock. Trump didn't like that very much. And so I I think within a day, he, you know, first of all said, oh, well, he's dumb and whatever. But then he said, you know, we're thinking about taking some troops out. And then that seemed to pick up some some speed. And then we said, know, actually, we're thinking about maybe taking 5,000 troops out now.

Peter Schiff discusses the economic dimension of the Iran war, arguing it will have negative implications for the U.S. and global economy. He notes the economy was weak before the war, citing February jobs data showing 92,000 lost jobs (the worst report in five years on the initial numbers) and later downward revisions indicating a larger October 2025 job loss. He says three of the last five monthly job reports show net losses, indicating a weakening labor market that will deteriorate due to the war. Inflationary pressures are already present, and he expects oil to rise toward $90 a barrel (up more than 60% so far in 2026). As a result, consumers face a weakening economy, job losses, and a higher cost of living. He also highlights the war’s cost and the likelihood that, if it lasts longer than anticipated, it will extend the period of volatility and expenditure. Schiff questions whether the war can achieve its stated objectives, suggesting that bombing alone may not produce regime change and that the ensuing vacuum could be filled by a regime more hostile to the United States. He warns that a ground campaign could entail substantial casualties on both sides and implies that a prolonged conflict could be economically and politically damaging. He argues wars are expensive and tend to fuel inflation through debt and money printing, describing the war as a net negative. Politically, he expects increased Republican losses in the midterms and a Democratic White House in 2028, which he views as detrimental to the U.S. economy due to a presumed shift toward more expansive socialist policies. Regarding whether war can serve as a distraction from domestic problems, Schiff allows the possibility but points out related risks: he notes Trump had accused Obama of starting a war with Iran to distract from domestic shortcomings and argues the current conflict could similarly divert attention from other problems. He contends that Trump’s tariffs and broader economic policies have been problematic, and he criticizes the administration’s handling of various policy areas, asserting that the war could undermine Trump’s previous anti-war stance and appeal. On regional dynamics and energy, Schiff emphasizes that Iran may target U.S. assets in neighboring countries, and missiles in the region could cause collateral damage and draw in other countries. He discusses potential spillovers, including possible alignment changes among regional powers and Russia and China, and raises the specter of a broader regional or even global confrontation. He criticizes the idea that the United States should be deeply engaged across multiple theaters and reiterates his preference for accountable congressional deliberation on war decisions. He argues that a wider conflict could involve escalation risks and that the U.S. finding itself bogged down and unable to achieve swift victory would damage its standing. Energy implications are highlighted: higher energy prices would burden consumers and limit spending elsewhere, with some winners (oil producers benefiting from higher prices) and many losers. Schiff notes Europe’s energy choices, political shifts toward restricting fossil fuels, and argues that energy costs will eventually impose political consequences in Europe. He also discusses the potential for the Gulf States to move away from the dollar as the petrodollar system faces stress, predicting that the war could hasten dedollarization and increased interest in gold. Gold and silver are discussed as price hedges: Schiff notes that gold and silver prices were not quickly dramatic in the immediate aftermath, with gold around $5,150–$5,300 and silver around $82–$83, but he remains bullish that prices will rise as the dollar declines and deficits expand. He predicts a substantial upside for precious metals and contends that the long-term trend toward dedollarization and greater gold ownership will intensify. He frames the war as a strategic and economic inflection point, with potential winners and losers, and argues that the overall effect on the world is negative, even if some actors profit.

Mark Cuban's comment about Donald Trump avoiding intelligent women seems to target figures like Kellyanne Conway and Kayleigh McEnany, but there's a deeper implication. Cuban suggests that strong women are defined by figures like Liz Cheney, who advocate for military action without bearing the consequences themselves. Recently, I witnessed the graduation of new soldiers, reflecting on the sacrifices they may face due to the decisions of leaders like Cheney and Kamala Harris. This experience reinforces my support for Trump, as I believe he would work to end wars rather than initiate them.

The media is echoing Kamala Harris's talking points in their accusations against Donald Trump. He highlights the hypocrisy of Liz and Dick Cheney, who advocate for military action but do not volunteer to fight in the wars they promote. This pattern shows that the media acts as a propaganda arm for Kamala Harris, furthering her agenda instead of providing unbiased coverage.

Speaker 0 describes a high-stakes geopolitical confrontation framed as a poker match between the United States and BRICS, especially China. He asserts that the early 2026 period is explosive and that US actions against Iran are imminent, escalating the stakes. He then lays out a narrative beginning with Venezuela, a key Chinese trading partner, where the United States not only sanctioned and condemned Venezuela but launched “devastating strikes,” captured Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and brought them to New York City for prosecution. He claims the Chinese delegation was meeting Maduro in Venezuela on Saturday, but Trump’s actions disrupted the meeting, and the Chinese delegation remains in Venezuela as of Sunday morning. He argues that this is not about narcoterrorism or fentanyl but a larger strategic move, and notes the apparent lack of resistance from Maduro’s side, suggesting direct CIA involvement and a stand-down agreement to allow the operation. He condenms what he calls “phony outrage,” arguing Democrats are not truly anti-war and contending that the incident marks a dangerous precedent for militarized actions in sovereign nations. Speaker 1 contributes by agreeing that China and Russia are not stupid enough to threaten the United States militarily in the homeland, but contends they will act through economic and financial measures. He predicts China and Russia will liquidate debt holdings and trigger negative impacts on the U.S. bond market, while avoiding direct military confrontation. He emphasizes that the response will be economic rather than kinetic. Speaker 0 returns to the 30,000-foot view, stating that the Venezuelan event signals an open head-to-head between the U.S. and China, with globalization receding and regionalization rising. He highlights two key leverage moves: the United States using tariffs as a market-access tool, while China employs choke points through export controls on critical materials. He notes that China quietly moved nearly $2 billion worth of silver out of Venezuela before Trump’s invasion. He points to China’s January 1 policy implementing a new export license system for silver, requiring government permission and designed to squeeze foreign buyers, which coincided with a sharp rise in silver prices. He connects this to broader concerns about supply chains and critical inputs like rare earths and magnets, noting that China produces over 90% of the world’s processed rare earth minerals and magnets, a powerfully strategic lever. He argues that China has tightened rare earth export controls targeting overseas defenses and semiconductor users, and that these factors contribute to a shift from globalization to regionalization where supply chains become weapons. He frames Trump’s tariff strategy as a means to gain access to the U.S. market, branding April 2 as “liberation day” for tariffs due to how markets reacted, and mentions discussions of a tariff dividend proposal to fund a new economic model, as floated by the administration. Speaker 0 concludes that Venezuela is a focal point where resources, influence, and dollars collide, with potential implications for the U.S. dollar, and asserts that the geopolitical chessboard is being redrawn as the U.S. and China move into open competition. He ends by forecasting further moves, including a controversial note about Greenland, and invites viewers to subscribe for coverage of stories the “Mockingbird media” will not discuss.

Donald Trump has intensified his violent rhetoric just days before the election, suggesting that Liz Cheney should be shot. This statement is seen as inappropriate and dangerous, especially as it targets a political opponent. The imagery of a firing squad evokes thoughts of execution, raising concerns about the implications of such language. Some argue that this rhetoric may not effectively mobilize low-propensity voters. Additionally, there are harsh critiques of Cheney, labeling her as a "dumb individual" and a "radical war hawk," with calls for her to face the consequences of her beliefs in a more direct manner.

While on a plane with President Trump, we discussed the Middle East. He drew a map, noting troop strengths in various countries. He highlighted the border between Syria and Turkey, mentioning the 500 U.S. troops stationed there and the significant forces in both Turkey (750,000) and Syria (250,000). Trump expressed concern about a potential conflict between these nations and asked his generals about the fate of the 500 U.S. troops. The generals warned that they would become cannon fodder. In response, Trump ordered their withdrawal.