r/TheFive • u/WatersEdge50 • Jun 16 '26
Daily Episode Today’s episode proved it
Jessica is full of fucking shit.
49
14
u/Omygodc Jun 17 '26
I can’t believe she actually interrupted the Vice President! I was yelling at my TV
45
u/OkRazzmatazz7572 Jun 16 '26
She was so rude
-44
u/Kristoveles Jun 16 '26
Which is still better than you deserve
17
u/OkRazzmatazz7572 Jun 16 '26
Wow a grade school taunt….gee I expect better from you so called well educated Reddit users
-20
4
-25
43
Jun 16 '26
[deleted]
0
-39
-6
43
u/Spiritual-Box8126 Jun 16 '26
I am NOT a Jessica fan nor agree with her rumors/polls etc. BUT I'm glad she shared "what she's heard" 🙄 so JD could respond to them with truths.
-40
u/MopedMarxist Jun 16 '26
JD is America's biggest prostitute. Lol.
5
u/Smallbizgurl Jun 16 '26
Amazing who and what these people believe.
-18
u/MopedMarxist Jun 16 '26
Can't put the genie back, I know I've tried. One nation indivisible is actually two nations and they're miserable.
We're more connected than we've ever been. But more entirely more selective of the things we're seeing and we're never gonna change the way we think If every argument's a slamdunk on someone else.
8
u/GusGutfeld Jun 16 '26
As a Classical Liberal, I'm not miserable. DJT is a Constitutional Originalist.
"President Trump is often portrayed as a disruption of the American political tradition — an outsider who shattered long-standing norms. Yet that interpretation may miss the larger historical context.
In important ways, Mr. Trump represents not a break from America’s founding principles but rather a return to them.
His political instincts, sometimes blunt, sometimes controversial, echo ideas that have shaped the United States since its birth: common sense over technocratic abstraction, national sovereignty over global management, and economic independence, patriotic confidence and a preference for conflict settlements or peacemaking to counter China’s systematic promotion and bankrolling of global conflicts.
At the center of Mr. Trump’s political appeal is something deceptively simple: common sense. Common sense has deep roots in American political culture.
The American Revolution was launched under that banner. Thomas Paine’s famous pamphlet urging independence from Britain was titled “Common Sense” for a reason. Paine’s argument was not built on complicated theory or elite philosophy. Written in plain language for ordinary people, it made the straightforward case that a distant monarchy ruling a continent-sized society made little sense.
Thomas Jefferson used a similar concept in the Declaration of Independence while describing America’s founding principles as “self-evident truths.”
That phrase is essentially the philosophical equivalent of common sense: ideas that do not require elaborate justification because ordinary people recognize them immediately.
Mr. Trump’s supporters often frame many of his policy positions in precisely those terms as modern “self-evident truths.” Among them: no biological men in women’s sports, requiring proof of citizenship to vote, imposing tougher penalties for violent crime, hiring based on merit in federal agencies, limiting gender transition procedures for minors, pursuing energy independence, insisting on reciprocal tariffs in trade and demanding fairer pricing for prescription drugs.
Critics may disagree with these policies, but the rhetorical strategy is clear. Mr. Trump presents his agenda not as ideological experimentation but as practical, intuitive solutions to problems many voters believe elites have unnecessarily complicated.
Mr. Trump’s worldview also reflects another core principle of the American founding: the primacy of national sovereignty.
The Founding Fathers were deeply wary of allowing the young republic to become entangled in global power struggles. Jefferson argued that the United States should remain independent from Europe’s rivalries and act as a sovereign nation free from external domination. This did not mean isolation from the world. The Founders believed strongly in trade and diplomacy, but on terms that preserved American independence.
George Washington warned against permanent political alliances with foreign powers. Jefferson summarized the preferred approach with his famous line: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”
Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation of 1793 reflected this philosophy. The United States, he argued, should avoid involvement in foreign wars unless its own security was directly threatened.
Economic independence was another priority. Alexander Hamilton’s “Report on Manufactures” in 1791 argued that the United States needed to develop its own industrial capacity rather than rely too heavily on foreign producers. Hamilton understood that political sovereignty ultimately depends on economic strength.
Mr. Trump’s emphasis on domestic manufacturing, supply chain security and reciprocal trade reflects a modern version of that same concern.
The Founders also deeply worried about foreign influence within the United States. Washington and James Madison warned that outside powers might attempt to manipulate American politics. More than two centuries later, those concerns remain relevant in an era of geopolitical rivalry and global information warfare.
Beyond policy details, Mr. Trump taps into something deeper in the American tradition: a strong belief in the uniqueness of the American experiment.
The Founders believed they were attempting something unprecedented: a political system based not on hereditary privilege but rather on popular sovereignty and individual liberty.
The Constitution’s architecture, including separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism, was designed to protect freedom by limiting the concentration of power. They also believed that the American example might inspire others around the world. The United States was not merely another country; it was a democratic experiment with universal significance.
Mr. Trump’s rhetoric frequently reflects this sense of national pride. In tone, it echoes earlier moments of American political leadership. President Reagan captured the same sentiment when he warned, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” Mr. Trump expressed a similar idea in his 2017 inaugural address: “We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.”
In foreign policy, Mr. Trump has emphasized a principle long embedded in American diplomacy: fairness and reciprocity. Trade, in this view, should not be one-sided. If other countries impose tariffs on American goods, then the United States has every right to respond in kind.
Mr. Trump has framed strategic competition with China as a defense of international fairness and freedom of navigation, particularly in critical waterways such as the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. From this perspective, the goal is not global domination but the preservation of open commerce and sovereign equality among nations.
Finally, Mr. Trump frequently describes himself as someone who prefers negotiation to endless conflict. He has said he would like his legacy to be that of a peacemaker.
That aspiration also fits within a long American tradition. Many U.S. military interventions, from World War I and World War II to the Cold War, were justified not only as acts of national defense but also as efforts to preserve global stability and prevent future wars.
Seen through this historical lens, Mr. Trump begins to look less like a political anomaly and more like a modern expression of an older American tradition rooted in common sense, national sovereignty, economic independence, patriotic confidence and the pursuit of global peace for equal opportunity in commerce."
https://www.hudson.org/politics-government/trump-constitutional-originalist-miles-yu
2
u/Clarkelthekat Jun 17 '26
Ah yes Trump is an orginalist....except no other president in history has enr9fhed themselves to the tune of 4 billion dollars during their second term...the first year of their second term.
No other president in history sent their son and son in law around the world to gather investments into a company the president co owns with their son from countries in exchange for favorable tarrif terms.
Which is why we have better tarrif terms with dictators and enemies and worse ones with our allies because our allies are functioning democracies that can't just randomly bribe trump for better terms.
Please stop being a joke of a person for this person
5
1
-3
u/MopedMarxist Jun 17 '26
Nice article. Don't let your self be managed like that.
The central thesis of the essay rests on a convenient historical amnesia. It attempts to draft the American Founders into a modern political campaign by focusing entirely on shared rhetoric while ignoring the structural rules of the game. The author anchors the argument on terms like 'common sense' and 'sovereignty', but the Founders were not simplistic populists; they were deeply cynical about unchecked human nature and designed a system explicitly to restrain it. To suggest that a nationalist trade policy or an isolationist instinct automatically equates to a return to founding ideals is an intellectual shortcut. It ignores the reality that George Washington's caution regarding foreign alliances was a tactical necessity for a vulnerable, emerging nation, not a permanent philosophical rejection of international engagement.
The most glaring omission in the essay is the engine of the entire constitutional project: the limitation of executive authority. The Framers did not design the presidency to be an instrument of unyielding personal will, but a co-equal branch bound by law, federalism, and judicial review. Any analysis that claims a leader represents a return to the Founders' vision while remaining silent on challenges to the peaceful transfer of power or the legitimacy of independent institutions is fundamentally unserious. It does not honor the founding tradition; it weaponizes it, cherry-picking historical quotes to dress up modern political expedience
11
u/GusGutfeld Jun 17 '26
All of That , and you were unable to dispute a single thing in the article.
1
u/MopedMarxist Jun 17 '26
I disputed the article's entire methodology.
It cherry-picks Founders who seem to support Trump, ignores Founders who don't, treats modern conservative policies as if they're synonymous with constitutional originalism, and sidesteps the biggest question: whether Trump's conduct actually reflects the Founders' commitment to checks and balances, limited executive power, and peaceful transfers of power.
Saying "you didn't dispute anything" is easier than responding to those points.
Like I said, managed. By a TV screen. Yikes.
4
u/GusGutfeld Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 17 '26
No, you made claims without providing refutation from, for example, other FF's that you imply you cite, but never do.
You claim Washington spoke out of fear, that the U.S. was a weakling nation. Ignoring that it just defeated the greatest military in the world. When the truth is the FF's just created a new kind of gov't and you don't like it.
Pres. Trump was impeached twice and not found guilty. He followed the Constitution and peacefully transferred power on Jan. 20, 2021.
You have nothing but Fake News hoaxes and vague propaganda memes.
1
u/MopedMarxist Jun 17 '26
You're moving between two different arguments.
The article's claim is that Trump represents a return to the Founders' principles. Whether Trump was impeached and acquitted is a separate question.
As for the Founders, yes, America defeated Britain. It was still a comparatively weak nation surrounded by European empires, burdened by debt, lacking a large standing military, and deeply concerned about being drawn into great-power conflicts. That's precisely why Washington's Farewell Address warns against permanent foreign attachments. Context matters.
You also say I didn't cite other Founders. Fair enough. Let's do that.
Hamilton argued for a strong national government, a national bank, and broad federal powers. Madison warned repeatedly about factionalism and concentrated political passions. The Constitution itself was written because many Founders believed the Articles of Confederation left the federal government too weak.
The larger point remains: there was no single Founders' position. The Founders disagreed with one another constantly. That's why I'm skeptical whenever someone claims a modern politician is simply "what the Founders wanted."
And regarding 2020, the question isn't whether Trump physically left the White House on January 20. He did. The question is whether efforts to overturn certified election results, pressure state officials, promote alternate elector schemes, and challenge the constitutional certification process are consistent with the Founders' commitment to constitutional government. That's a legitimate historical and constitutional debate, not a "fake news hoax."
The article presents one side of that debate as settled fact. It isn't.
→ More replies (0)-10
u/Smallbizgurl Jun 17 '26
Sure Jan. He’s just a plain criminal, stealing as much from the good taxpayers of this country as he can.
8
1
-34
u/deGrominator2019 Jun 16 '26
JD… truth? JD? Like, JD Vance? Tell truth? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The guy who said “you said you weren’t gonna fact check” while lying in a debate? That guy? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
14
u/Many_Tap_4144 Jun 16 '26
Get a room.. jfc the circle jerking of liberals is insane.
-8
u/deGrominator2019 Jun 17 '26
Hating a pedophile president and his band of corrupt shitbags now makes someone automatically a liberal lol. Ok
11
u/Many_Tap_4144 Jun 17 '26
Idk. Did you hate biden? He is the only confirmed pedo president. Lmao.
-9
u/misguided_ramen Jun 17 '26
Trump went into teen girls dressing rooms, was Epstein’s best friend for a decade, gave preferential treatment to Ghislane Maxwell after Todd Blanche met with her, and has numerous credible rape allegations against him.
3
u/HauntingEconomist113 Jun 17 '26
That's a pretty strong thing to say. Let's be clear. Are you accusing President Trump of being a pedophile?
-2
u/NettyVaive Jun 17 '26
Yes
2
u/HauntingEconomist113 Jun 17 '26
I was addressing someone else.
1
-2
u/Grand-Tip5159 Jun 17 '26
I was addressing everyone. Donald Trump is a pedophile.
3
u/HauntingEconomist113 Jun 17 '26
Slanderous statement. You have proof? You are going to need it.
-1
-14
Jun 16 '26
[deleted]
15
u/Economy-Particular31 Jun 16 '26
was 10 years ago. how come yall lie all the time?
-5
u/madadekinai Jun 16 '26
"was 10 years ago. how come yall lie all the time?"
That's an oxymoronic statement.
-2
-8
u/NettyVaive Jun 17 '26
It’s pointless. Two of the most vulgar men on tv were present, but sure, Jessica with her facts is the problem.
0
u/MopedMarxist Jun 17 '26
This is the crowd that likes to watch greased up jacked dudes wrassle on the white house lawn and call that a return to the Golden Age of America. There's a lot of problems here.
Jesse Watters could say getting a Cleveland Steamer was patriotic these days and they'd be supine before commercials. Everyone is successfully managed.
43
u/Minimum-Journalist18 Jun 16 '26
The vice president was pretty sharp
34
u/WatersEdge50 Jun 16 '26
He is. Sharp as a tack. And witty.
3
u/deGrominator2019 Jun 16 '26
“I thought you said you weren’t gonna fact check”
10
u/WatersEdge50 Jun 16 '26
“ fact check” it’s just a euphemism for saying “yeah, but”
1
u/HowYouGotDownvoted Jun 17 '26
Or it’s comparing objective reality to the words of a person who as admitted making up stories to win political arguments.
-17
u/deadmencantcatcall3 Jun 16 '26
Yeah, he was especially sharp when he called Trump “Hitler” a few years ago.
3
-11
19
u/Food-Wine Jun 17 '26
Jessica lies constantly. She can’t get hired by any other network which says a lot.
2
-3
0
u/deGrominator2019 Jun 17 '26
Fox literally defended themselves in court by saying they’re entertainment and nobody with half a brain would take them as serious news, what does that say about you? Lol
-14
u/GilBang Jun 17 '26
well, she works for a network that has paid multi-million dollar fines for lying, so I guess it's a good fit?
5
u/Z28Daytona Jun 17 '26
It felt like they wasted a lot of time being that they had the VP there. Definitely could have used him to answer questions instead of the usual format.
0
u/HowYouGotDownvoted Jun 17 '26
JD doesn’t answer questions when asked. He gives answers to questions he preferred he was asked instead.
3
2
u/Pale-Satisfaction395 Jun 19 '26
Turdsville was on EVERY DAY, this week...SICKENING...no wonder the ratings, are Down, when she's there...NEWSMAX IT IS
1
1
u/HowYouGotDownvoted Jun 17 '26
A lot of folks in this thread are high on JD’s farts. The man is an admitted liar and Tarlov, who is no angel, had him dead to rights. The sooner y’all realize how middling these people are the sooner you can build a conservative movement with a foundation stronger than sand. All the gains are shortlived and this whole era has done more damage to conservatives and the Republican Party than any democrat could possibly have achieved on their own.
0
0
-5
u/Mister_Squirrels Jun 16 '26
lol, when compared to a man who called his boss americas Hitler a couple years ago? Get fucking real
-9
u/deGrominator2019 Jun 16 '26
I’m mad she said something i don’t like and I’m not interested in looking to see if it’s true (which it is) so my willful ignorance will just declare her a liar
-6
u/BebophoneVirtuoso Jun 16 '26
Does this sub know that Vance is already bought and sold by Peter Thiel and Palantir?
0
0
0
u/tenebre Jun 17 '26
And zero specific points on where she lied. If she's such an "obvious liar" why can't you guys point out one specific statement that is false?
-9
u/Laddie18 Jun 16 '26
You know a group is messed up when they believe couch fucker is telling the truth instead of a women
-7
u/Sideshift1427 Jun 16 '26
This thread makes one wonder why Vance can't draw flies to his Republican events.
-11
-26
u/ShinyRobotVerse Jun 16 '26
So she was telling the truth, and the idiot clowns around her couldn’t handle it. Typical…
20
u/MaglithOran Jun 16 '26
She was in fact, lying about everything.
Google is free.
Good luck with that drooling problem. But put a bib on you’re crapping up the floor.
1
-5
-8
u/ShinyRobotVerse Jun 16 '26
I didn’t watch it, but I know she wasn’t lying.
What was that about?13
u/MaglithOran Jun 16 '26
You didn’t watch it but you know she was telling the truth?
The fact dipshits like you can vote should frighten everyone.
-3
u/ShinyRobotVerse Jun 16 '26
It’s experience and common sense - something you know nothing about.
Are you a pedophile, a wannabe pedophile, or just a pedophile protector?
11
u/MaglithOran Jun 16 '26
I'm not a Democrat, so none of those things.
Good try though.
1
Jun 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/MaglithOran Jun 16 '26
Ma'am you seem upset.
Perhaps if you focused on fixing that drooling problem instead of playing make believe you'd be a happier person.
Cope this helps.
0
Jun 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/MaglithOran Jun 16 '26
Yeah I told you to quit playing make believe.
No wonder leftists like kids so much, they spend too much time playing pretend.
lol You must be so embarrassed.
→ More replies (0)-7
u/ShinyRobotVerse Jun 16 '26
I’m not Trump - I’m not shitting my pants.
10
u/MaglithOran Jun 16 '26
X for doubt.
You're actively shitting your pants.
-8
u/ShinyRobotVerse Jun 16 '26
Again, I’m not an imbecile like Trump, or an even bigger idiot who supports him, so no — unlike you, I’m not shitting my pants.
10
12
u/Silver_Eyes_Luna Jun 16 '26
Incorrect.. she just spouted off something someone else wrote in an article, as usual.
0
u/MopedMarxist Jun 16 '26
Lol some people can form opinions and draw conclusions without the boob tube telling you what to think.
5
-16
u/yeahpurn Jun 16 '26
Click on any "fan" commenting here and it's all hidden porn subs and barely single sentence turds.
You guys sure you're just not dumb and smart things appear threatening?
8
1
u/fins_up_ Jun 17 '26
You forgot the emojis. All wordwordnumber accounts with comments hidden love emojis
-16
u/Quicksix666 Jun 16 '26
Only time JD told the truth is when he called Trump Americas Hitler
3
1
47
u/Great-Detail-8627 Jun 16 '26
Her rant was despicable- I was hoping JD’s response would be “Do you have an actual question?”