WATTERS: And then they sabotaged the teleprompter. I mean, this is an insurrection. And what we need to do is either leave the UN or we need to bomb it. It is in New York though right?

GUTFELD: Yeah, it is.

WATTERS: Could be some fallout there. Alright, maybe gas it?

DANA PERINO (CO-HOST): Let’s not do that.

WATTERS: Don’t gas it. Okay, but we need to destroy it. Maybe can we demolish the building? Have everybody leave and then we will demolish the building.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 days ago

    And it turned out both of these failures were caused by Trump’s team.

    So Trump hires incompetent people (because they are yes men), they fuck up and make him look bad, and the intermediate solution is to kill the people who happened to be near by at the time before there’s any actual information available.

    Got it.

  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Again, why is it ok for rightwing people to openly call for violence using their public platforms?

    Other groups can not and do not do this in US politics, why are rightwing people the only ones allowed to do this?

    I don’t think anybody should speak this callously and invoke specific targeted violence with such carelessness, just because Jesse Watters doesn’t understand or care about the consequences of his words spoken on a large public platform doesn’t mean he isn’t increasing the likelihood of actual violent acts by saying what he does.

    edit I mean really, it would be one thing to sit around a firepit with your drinking buddies and throw something this disgusting out of your mouth and laugh about it, which I still find disgusting and lame, but we are talking about saying these words as a prominent public figure which makes it that much more a damning commitment to bigotry.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because they’re fascists and fascists currently control our government.

      The proper response is to arm yourself and help everyone you know arm themselves.

    • GreenBottles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      It’s not that anyone is “allowed” we all are. We can say basically anything we want in this country. Conservatives are just a bunch of crybaby sheep bitches that can’t handle reality.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        It’s not that anyone is “allowed” we all are. We can say basically anything we want in this country.

        some people can

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      They might build statues to him and put them in the schools. its not safety from school shootings, but we cant say they did ‘nothing’.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yeah, and my favorite part is that the UN said the White House was responsible for the prompter. So they likely just forgot a flash drive or something dumb

      So not only does the host not know what an insurrection is, nor what the UN is apparently, they clearly don’t care at all about anything but spreading hate

      • 🔍🦘🛎@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        2 days ago

        They’re intentionally misusing ‘insurrection’ to try to make it seem like NOBODY knows what it is, so that January 6th seems like a hoax or Democratic hot air.

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          Indeed. These assholes have been doing that ever since J6, really. Everything and anything was an “insurrection”. They’d go apeshit when the media would use that term, even though insurrection is rather neutral, when it’s probably more accurately called terrorism.

          One regular commenter on DP would often just post “INSPLURECTION!” as a response since they basically lost their minds that people even in the corporate media were pointing the finger at their movement. They were even touchy about calling them “rioters” - they wanted them to be called “peaceful protesters” who were just “airing their grievances”, LOL. I have a feeling some of the people that were especially upset about it might have been there and weren’t caught (yet).

      • BanMe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think he just wanted a reason to ramble for an hour so he made up the “teleprompter is broken” story replete with threats.

  • PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    So. Is it ok to ask the universe to cancel this dudes television career? Nothing mean. Just fire his ass and put him on unemployment.

    • DarthFreyr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Let him apply for his own unemployment. Pull himself up by his bootstraps (of other people’s money). Maybe he should even pull the old “as a black man …” while he’s at it and see how it goes there.

  • whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 days ago

    Jesse Watters is a fascist and a terrorist, his fuhrer’s own people fucked up the teleprompter and he’s calling for mass murder of allies and civilians over it.

  • ExtremeDullard@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    327
    ·
    3 days ago

    The UN is headquartered in New York. This guy therefore is directly calling for terrorist acts to be committed on US soil. That’s slammer-worthy.

    Who’s doing the political violence again?

      • ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        108
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        3 days ago

        “akshually.”

        You do get it, right, buddy? It is located within the boundaries of the contiguous lower 48. Moreover, in its most populous city.

        Quit being obtuse.

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah, but he’s right in that it’s not US soil, so if someone does bomb it, the American justice system can just ignore it and foreign powers don’t have any power over American citizens located within the boundaries of the US anyway

          • ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            Nobody disputed that. It’s just exhausting. You think the US would respond neutrally if another entity bombed the UN Building? There’s a tiny park in Tampa that is technically Cuban soil. Do you think Cuba would file articles of war if the US bulldozed José Martí Park for apartments?

            • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              No, I think if an American domestic terrorist does it, there’s a nice little “didn’t happen in America” defense.

        • Global_Liberty@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s distasteful how people who are incorrect can bully and convince others to the contrary to bury truth.

          The United Nations Plaza is firmly extraterritorial as stated in Article III, Section 7(a) of the Headquarters of the United Nations Agreement (1947). US law applies in this territory only to the extent it does not interfere with regulations of the UN which take precedent as defined in Article III, Section 8. So if the United States of America says the land is not American, why are you stating otherwise? Did you bother to look it up before mocking someone else?

          As for your ignorant “but it’s within the borders of…” argument, Vatican City is located within contiguous Italy and even within its most populous city, yet it’s not just extraterritorial but a sovereign country. Did you forget the Holy See existed or do you just deny the validity of the Lateran Treaty because it is surrounded by Rome?

          Finally, if all that weren’t true, the US has bombed its own territory and citizens before: Jayayu in 1950. Of course, if you are ignorant of the Holy See, why would you know that.

          • Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            AFAIK, unlike Vatican City, UNHQ isn’t drawn on any map of the world, and if you were to ask someone to name countries, UNHQ wouldn’t be on anyone’s list.

            Moreover, US laws still apply, which makes the territory not independent. It is a special area of the US, but is still firmly US.

            A similar situation is with, for example, US military bases. They’re part of the county they’re physically in, but the laws are effectively US. It’s more of a “live and let live” situation - even in Cuba.

        • JonEFive@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s like saying an embassy is not US soil. Sure, politically, that might be true, but for all non-political purposes, it very much is within the US.

          • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            It’s not even true. Embassies are not extraterritorial and remain the territory of the host country.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              I’ve never looked into it but thought embassies were “territory” lended to the embassies by the country they were placed in. If not it really shoots holes in the conservative talking point that people applying for political asylum should do so at an embassy, because you can only apply for asylum once on U.S. soil I thought

            • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Try arresting someone who has diplomatic immunity. Tell me how that goes for you. Now explain to me why that person was not arrested. After that replace the person with the embassy building and you will finally understand what people are talking about.

              • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                That is not the same thing as extraterritoriality. Besides, most people who work in embassies do not have diplomatic immunity.

          • dickalan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            Yeah, I know, I just don’t have time for pedantic people trying to make bullshit comments when they know the absolute truth is that it’s on US fucking soil

            • Global_Liberty@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Don’t acuse others of being pedantic when you’re just wrong. If you don’t understand the concepts, then don’t comment until you educate yourself.

              The US signed a treaty granting the extraterritorial status. It’s not US territory unless the UN abandons it.

      • Daemon Silverstein@calckey.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        @hyperhopper@lemmy.world @ExtremeDullard@piefed.social if it’s international soil, why (and how) could US deny Mahmoud Abbas from attending the UNGA, especially during an increasing recognizance of State of Palestine from other countries and the current UN proposals towards a two-state solution? I can also point out examples of this regarding an the country I reside: why (and how) could US make it difficult for part of the Brazilian delegation (such as Ricardo Lewandowski, current Brazilian Ministry of Justice, and Alexandre Padilha, current Brazilian Ministry of Health, the latter of whom ended up not attending in protest to all the restrictions imposed by US) to attend the UNGA?

        • Global_Liberty@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Well, if you read the Headquarters of the United Nations Agreement (1947), you will find that the United States can deny visas for non-member states which includes the Palestinian Authority.

          That doesn’t mean the UN isn’t extraterritorial.

      • Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Downvoted for actually knowing the truth. Am I back on Reddit?

        “though the structure is physically situated in the United States, the land occupied by the United Nations headquarters and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the sole administration of the United Nations. They are technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headquarters_of_the_United_Nations

        • Deceptichum@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Downvoted for being a redditor by missing the point to argue something inconsequential.

          • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            It’s not inconsequential if there’s an attack though? It being on foreign soil means a high level judge appointed by Trump can literally just rule that no laws were broken on US soil.

          • Global_Liberty@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            It isn’t. Someone stated something completely false, and you are behaving like a Reddit brigade to censor truth.

        • Tony Bark@pawb.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Yeah. I’m confused. I mean, it’s legally international territory but functions as part of New York for obvious reasons. It’s a little more nuanced, to say the least.

        • Sanctus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Okay and what would happen if that were bombed or gassed? It doesn’t matter if the land is politically separated. Bombs will physically destroy it and the surrounding area. Therefore it is not the truth in this context because we are speaking of the location of the land itself.

          • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            It makes things worse actually. It being on foreign soil means a high level judge appointed by Trump can literally just rule that no laws were broken on US soil.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          You left out the rest of that paragraph, though:

          However, in exchange for local police, fire protection, and other services, the United Nations agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws.

          • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Ok, but that only says they agree to follow local laws. It’s still not American soil as per the agreement.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Can you get to the United Nations without entering the U.S., no. Do you need a passport to enter or leave the U.N., no.

              Do you need to remember you have a knife in your pocket, you probably should… I saw the metal detectors got worried at 19 or so and went back out front stashed my pocket knife in the trash can next to one of the umpteen NYPD officers that seem to be everywhere.

              Took the tour and when I left I grabbed my knife out between the can and the case while a cop looked at me in a manner that made me wonder how that conversation was going to go.

              “Sorry officer I just needed to stash this because I didn’t know if they would hold it at security.”

            • dhork@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              There’s no dotted line around the UN on maps like Vatican City or Monaco. The UN is a diplomatic construct, and not its own country. It is fully on US soil, and nothing in the treaty says otherwise. (Yes, I checked, at least this copy I found as a pdf , which looks to be the original one. I don’t know if there are any addendums though.

              That agreement was put in place specifically to guarantee worldwide access to the UN facility for diplomats, regardless of the opinion of the host country. It explicitly says that local laws apply there, as long as they don’t conflict with UN regulations. It calls on the local government to maintain access to the facility, but does not allow local government officials on site without permission. It exempts diplomats and other visitors from the local visa requirements, but also states that the site will not used as a refuge for anyone avoiding legal process in the US.

              (The original agreement also has arrangements if the UN wants to build their own “aerodome”…)

  • Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Ok, what corporations do we need to boycott to get this guy fired?

    Edit: Here’s a few as of April Advertisers embrace conservative media in the new Trump era

    According to the TV measurement firm iSpot. tv, new blue-chip advertisers appearing on Fox News national linear broadcasts since the election include Gucci, Busch Beer, and Netflix. New advertisers in this analysis were characterized as having not advertised on the channel since 2022. These brands didn’t respond to requests for comment.

    Fox News has attracted 125 new blue-chip advertisers since the US election, as Rupert Murdoch’s cable television channel commands soaring audiences during Donald Trump’s second presidency.

    Companies including Amazon, GE Vernova, JPMorgan Chase, Netflix and UBS have recently aired advertisements on Fox News for the first time in at least two years.

    Oh cool, even more reason to hate JP Morgan. Pedophile protectors always seem to flock together.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m pretty sure Faux was running in the red for years. The people backing Confederate Pravda view having Faux as an investment that will pay them dividends even if Faux itself were to be in the red. So I don’t think they are really prone to boycotts. I think it’s much the same for hate radio.

      It’s too bad that deep-pocketed billionaires don’t do similar things to prop up something similar for progressives. I’ve been told my entire life by conservatives, moderates, and most especially the corporate news outlets themselves, that we are inundated by “liberal media”, but I still have yet to see evidence of such.

      • Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Idk I think it’s become pretty clear when something hurts their pockets it’s the only way to force changes.

        If they had to give an individual the axe in order to avoid a profit loss, I’m pretty sure they would do it in a heartbeat. Loyalty isn’t really a priority for them, and it’s not like Jesse Watters is America’s sweetheart. He is easily replaceable.

  • Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    211
    ·
    3 days ago

    For anyone curious. This is terrorism. Specifically “Stochastic Terrorism”

    Textbook example. Because there’s a real solid chance some fucking lunatic decides to act on his careless words.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 days ago

    The UN doesn’t control the teleprompter. Trump’s team controlled the teleprompter. If someone else had access to it, they could fuck with the speeches and change words and shit. Under normal circumstances, the speech given by the president to the UN would need to be very carefully worded to avoid international incidents. Trump is a walking international catastrophe, so that’s a silly accusation regardless.

  • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    2 days ago

    UN headquarters needs to be in Geneva or something, not in one of the 5 nuclear powers. Seriously wtf, this looked biased AF. Like how would the average American feel if UN was located in Moscow or Shanghai?

    • Tryenjer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Somewhere in Switzerland would be a better place for the UN headquarters.

      P.S.: That Watters guy is calling for terrorist attacks in New York, what a violent traitor.

    • Tony Bark@pawb.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s complicated. As modern as the building looks today, the UN’s construction and planning began before the nuclear arms race.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well when the UN was founded it was right after a war on European soil. Guess other nations didn’t trust the Europeans after two world wars. Also at the time Europe was the US’s bitch so they didn’t have much influence.

      And New York had probably the best infrastructure at the time to safely receive and transport diplomats to the HQ. Because the rest of the world was either still in rubble or didn’t have modern infrastructure.