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.

The entire world witnessed president Trump cower in the presence of Putin. President Trump obviously seemed frightened the presence of Putin. What was he afraid of?

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.

Trump and Hitler share some striking similarities. Both wore pants, breathed air, and consumed food. While Hitler invaded Poland, Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol on January 6. Hitler aspired to be an artist, and Trump starred in "Home Alone 2." Interestingly, if you rearrange the letters in "Trump" while altering a few, you can spell "Hitler." Both figures have been frequently compared in media. For those interested in premium cigars, check out cigarpage.com/trump for a special offer of 80% off with free shipping.

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 Historical references are cited to explain current posture: the “b two bombers” and the termination of the “Iran nuclear deal done by Barack Hussein Obama, probably the worst deal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.

I've noticed this phenomenon, almost like "Trump derangement syndrome," where people become completely irrational when the former president is mentioned. I saw it firsthand at a friend's birthday dinner, a month or two before the election. It was a normal, quiet gathering until I mentioned the president's name. The reaction was extreme, as if I'd injected them with something that contained methamphetamine and rabies. I was shocked. It was impossible to have a reasonable conversation. It was as if people just couldn't handle a normal conversation.

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.

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.

I want to highlight a notable exchange that reflects classic Donald Trump. He discussed the aftermath of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suggesting that the cities have recovered and are thriving again. This perspective downplays the historical impact of those events, implying that the situation is not as frightening as many believe. It seems more aligned with Elon Musk's viewpoint than Trump's, as it attempts to minimize the significance of what happened nearly 80 years ago.

Donald Trump claims that if he were president in 2022, there would have been no Russian invasion of Ukraine. The speaker believes this is a credible assertion.

In an old quote from Donald Trump's book "The America We Deserve," he expressed concern about the possibility of a large-scale terror attack before 9/11. Trump compared it to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and mentioned Osama bin Laden as the mastermind. The authenticity of the quote is questioned, but it was published in 2000, possibly written in 1999. Trump seemed to predict the attacks.

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.

BuzzFeed unearthed a quote from Donald Trump's 2000 book, *The America We Deserve*, where he predicted a large-scale terror attack, saying it would make the 1993 World Trade Center bombing "look like little kids playing with firecrackers." Trump also mentioned Osama Bin Laden. Later in the segment, there is a discussion regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center. One speaker believes the buildings' destruction was caused by architectural defects or bombs in addition to the planes. He claims the World Trade Center was known as a very strong building that withstood a bomb in the basement in 1993. He questions how the planes could penetrate the heavy steel exterior of the buildings. He speculates that bombs exploded simultaneously with the plane impacts, because the planes alone could not have caused that level of destruction. He adds that the planes seemed to be coming down into the building, increasing their speed.

Donald Trump's presidency and rise to power will be remembered in American history. He had a keen understanding of the country's direction even before others did. Trump's ability to surprise people is not over yet. Some used to believe he understood the spirit of the nation, but now it's clear that he embodies it. Trump's fame was widespread, and his catchphrase "You're fired" became iconic. Despite facing criticism, he remains resilient and is considered a survivor.

Trump was shot at a rally, but media outlets like CNN downplayed it as a fall or incident. The divide in the US deepens.

I was relieved when I heard Trump was shot, but then disappointed to learn it was just in the ear. I don't feel bad about it. He disgusts me.

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?

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.

Donald Trump, an elderly man, was oddly given nine seconds for a photo op during an active shooter situation. Considering that, if the 81-year-old President Biden, who currently has COVID, recovers in a few days, wouldn't that send a similar message? It would show his strength, especially since he is older than Trump, in overcoming an illness that was once deadly for his age group. If Biden recovers and resumes rallies, it should have a similar impact. While not the exact same incident, it's still an elderly man recovering from an illness, which should convey a message of strength and resilience.

Donald Trump, as commander in chief, refused to visit a US cemetery in Paris for fallen American soldiers, calling them "suckers and losers." This disrespectful remark has deeply offended many, including the speaker who questions how Trump could speak about their son and all of them in such a derogatory manner.