Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

A generation addicted to the dopamine fixes via social media algorithms who seek belonging in echo chamber feedback loops..

---

Everyone and every general is now in their own bubble of social media echo chamber and dopamine fixing algorithms.

The boomers are no different.

Go listen to Jon Stewart or Professor Scott Galloway.

I will say at least Stewart and Galloway offer a solution to what is now a universal problem (every generation and political or ethnic group is doing the same thing)

Go out there and get into the bubble/or algorithm loop of the people who are taking about instead of attacking them. Go actually take the time to talk to them and engage with them.

You break the loop by creating a new one…not just complaining about its existence

---

The difference is young minds are neuro-developmentally impacted by it. We're literally rewiring the human brain.

And I don't need to socialize bad ideas. Sometimes it's just enough to say no, you're wrong. This is the woke right's LGBTQ movement. Nuanced policy framed at extremes intended to push it to the limit. Everyone avoided shaming or going hard at the left over there's, and it's been a burden on society ever since.

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This merging of personal weakness with political persecution narratives might be one of the saddest things to witness. A generation addicted to the dopamine fixes via social media algorithms who seek belonging in echo chamber feedback loops. Nick Fuentes isn't smart. He just articulates inanity to audiences looking for affirmation of their blame culture. This isn't edgy truth telling. It's the recycling of concepts centuries old, and a manifesting of victimhood politics the right used to mock when other minorities groups would play it.

What a pathetically weak movement. This isn't America First. It's Blame First.

---

That's the ticket!

So what if we sold off every American industry we inherited to foreign interests for a few easy bucks(see Bain Capital)?...

So what if the highly skilled jobs were outsourced to H1Bs who worked for half the wages and now Americans don't have the skills to manufacture at home(see Steve Jobs/Apple Computer Chips in the 90ties)?...

So what if they are starting from scratch and having the compete against highly subsidized industries in the global marketplace(see any industrial)?...

Its those damn kids fault for not being so damn lazy and not entrepreneurial enough!

I'm a Gen-X finance guy... I grew up in the Golden Age of America where the national debt was a measly $2 trillion and I didn't have to worry about global competition or AI replacing my worthless degree.

My generation played life on easy mode and I'm completely oblivious to how good I had it!

---

You want some cheese with that whine?

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This merging of personal weakness with political persecution narratives might be one of the saddest things to witness. A generation addicted to the dopamine fixes via social media algorithms who seek belonging in echo chamber feedback loops. Nick Fuentes isn't smart. He just articulates inanity to audiences looking for affirmation of their blame culture. This isn't edgy truth telling. It's the recycling of concepts centuries old, and a manifesting of victimhood politics the right used to mock when other minorities groups would play it.

What a pathetically weak movement. This isn't America First. It's Blame First.

---

That's the ticket!

So what if we sold off every American industry we inherited to foreign interests for a few easy bucks(see Bain Capital)?...

So what if the highly skilled jobs were outsourced to H1Bs who worked for half the wages and now Americans don't have the skills to manufacture at home(see Steve Jobs/Apple Computer Chips in the 90ties)?...

So what if they are starting from scratch and having the compete against highly subsidized industries in the global marketplace(see any industrial)?...

Its those damn kids fault for not being so damn lazy and not entrepreneurial enough!

I'm a Gen-X finance guy... I grew up in the Golden Age of America where the national debt was a measly $2 trillion and I didn't have to worry about global competition or AI replacing my worthless degree.

My generation played life on easy mode and I'm completely oblivious to how good I had it!

---

You want some cheese with that whine?

---

To reference the famous Warren Buffet quote, you won the genetic lottery ATL_Bear.

You were born in the perfect time and place in human history.

To believe you'd be any less "petulant" than the kids starting from scratch today with mid-5 figure salaries trying to make ends meet and live a decent life is extremely dubious.

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

At one time I would have agreed with you on Tucker. And then in the last two years, after reading his bible for the first time, Tucker apparently found some flawed version of the Catholic God, and then began guzzling the conspiracy theory kool-aid like gin at a sorority party. It's what has led to his praise of despots, murderers, and racists - like Putin, the Iranian president, Candace Owens, and now, Fuentes - and then excoriating people like Ted Cruz, a fellow conservative who supports Israel.

I'd suggest there is a happy medium between the Mark Levins of the world, and complete anti-semitic radicalism that blames Jews for most of the world's ills, and believes everything is a conspiracy. The fact you are willing to give such hateful and racist rhetoric a pass says all one needs to know about you on these issues. You may be slightly more polished than the other anti-semites who've made an appearance on this thread, but the fact is you subscribe a flawed replacement theology that contradicts the plain language of scripture, and have also swallowed the kool-aid blaming the Jews for the world's ills.

The kind of hateful rhetoric that Fuentes spouts has no place in the conservative party if we desire to win anymore elections. But maybe like Fuentes, you're just interested in burning it down. You've also yet to learn that your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

---

There is no conservative party any more. It was sold for a penny's worth of "pragmatism."

A happy medium would mean free and honest criticism of Israel, or any country, without prejudice for or against any race or religion. There's practically no tolerance for that, as I can attest.

---

Criticism of Israel is fine. Racism isn't. Some people on this board like to blur the two.

---

Let's cut to the chase, Mothra. Has America given too much money to Israel, the nation?

---

Yes, and we agree Israel has had too much influence over American foreign policy at times. I also agree that Netanyahu is a POS.

One can hold that view and also not say the holocaust wasn't that bad or believe a Jewish cabal runs the world - like some of your groyper buddies on this thread.

---

Good for you, Mothra. I am afraid one begets the other though. For example, if we gave less money to Israel, there would be less ammunition for conspiracy theorists and the groyper movement would be much smaller because perceptions of America's future would be much better for young people. It also doesn't help if Nick's claim is true that Shapiro called an 18 year old Fuentes an antisemite for raising questions about why we were giving all this money to Israel. Maybe if Shapiro had handled that situation with a lot more grace and humility, we would be in a different place. But my guess is Shapiro ad hom attacked Fuentes because he didn't feel he could defend the spending with facts.

---

Have you ever listened to Nick's comments about Jews? He IS an anti-semite. I mean, that word gets thrown around a lot I know, but there's no other way to describe him. Neo-nazi is probably the most accurate term.

When a guy denies the Holocaust, and blames Jews for all of the world's ills, the label is accurate.

Asking a Jewish person to be more sympathetic or understanding of a very hateful and racist dude that literally hates that individual because of his race is asking a whole hell of a lot. If I were a Jew, I'd be saying a lot stronger things to that POS.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

At one time I would have agreed with you on Tucker. And then in the last two years, after reading his bible for the first time, Tucker apparently found some flawed version of the Catholic God, and then began guzzling the conspiracy theory kool-aid like gin at a sorority party. It's what has led to his praise of despots, murderers, and racists - like Putin, the Iranian president, Candace Owens, and now, Fuentes - and then excoriating people like Ted Cruz, a fellow conservative who supports Israel.

I'd suggest there is a happy medium between the Mark Levins of the world, and complete anti-semitic radicalism that blames Jews for most of the world's ills, and believes everything is a conspiracy. The fact you are willing to give such hateful and racist rhetoric a pass says all one needs to know about you on these issues. You may be slightly more polished than the other anti-semites who've made an appearance on this thread, but the fact is you subscribe a flawed replacement theology that contradicts the plain language of scripture, and have also swallowed the kool-aid blaming the Jews for the world's ills.

The kind of hateful rhetoric that Fuentes spouts has no place in the conservative party if we desire to win anymore elections. But maybe like Fuentes, you're just interested in burning it down. You've also yet to learn that your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

---

There is no conservative party any more. It was sold for a penny's worth of "pragmatism."

A happy medium would mean free and honest criticism of Israel, or any country, without prejudice for or against any race or religion. There's practically no tolerance for that, as I can attest.

---

Criticism of Israel is fine. Racism isn't. Some people on this board like to blur the two.

---

Almost everyone on this board likes to blur the two, and the same goes for the Republican Party. At some point you'll have to choose a side. I mean you won't have to, but if you want to be pragmatic, the likes of Fuentes will be seen as a lesser evil than the likes of Mamdani.

---

I guess I'll just have to hold out for the perfect party/candidate like you, or I'll vote for the party that, though flawed, is much more in line with my values and better for the country.

---

Yes, you will. And when you've supported the lesser of two evils enough times, you'll be left with people like Fuentes. You can't defeat the other side's evils if you won't root out your own.

---

We disagree. Any conservative sitting it out and allowing people who literally support gender reassignment surgery for children, abortion up to (and in some cases, after) the point of birth, or restricting the free speech of one's opponent isn't going to solve anything within the Republican Party. In fact, I'd argue it's that type of conduct that makes candidates like Trump more appealing to the masses.

I thank God Trump, as nutty as he can be, has turned the cultural tide. We have young people actually attending church again, and children leaving the gender identity race in droves. Any conservative who isn't thankful for the pendulum swing in the cultural war isn't really a conservative.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

Ben Shapiro in WSJ"

The American right is at a crossroads.'''

Mr. Carlson's most common tactic is ideological laundering: He hosts guests with ugly ideologies, soft-pedals their views and launders them into mainstream respectability. He claims he's "just asking questions," and that's precisely what he did last week:

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party before it, is at risk of being eaten alive by fringe actors. To allow it is both morally unjustifiable and politically obtuse. Americans reject this garbage.

---

I don't listen to Shapiro, but it's hard to argue with any of the above.

---

1. The American Right is not at a "crossroads"....most normal people are not even aware of these internet fights.

2. This is the same language that liberals use to silence conservatives all the time...."dangerous", "soft-pedals and launder views"

He is essentially arguing for the same kind of liberal and leftist tactics used against free speech on college campuses and the Media that he claims to have been fighting against.

3. The Republican party is in no danger of being "eaten alive" by anti-Israel and anti-jewish views.

That is a hysteric statement....and not close to reality.

Most normal Republicans and certainly the majority of Congress are not in any danger of moving on their very pro-Israel positions.

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap..]

Massive supermajority support inside the party.

He would be better served and more accurate to say there is a danger of YOUNG republicans or conservatives losing support for Israel. Something that would take decades to play out.

There is zero chance for any change in the foresable future on the issue of Israel among the GOP

---

I disagree with you completely that this is some fringe issue that may not affect future elections. We have very conservative friends here in our community that feel the same way as the groypers, and have advised they will not vote for future Republican candidates based on same.

I think you underestimate how big the faction is. When Tucker, given his influence and audience, starts preaching it, it's time to take notice. Ignoring the issue only makes it worse.

---

And you will always have people who don't fit the mainstream on this or that issue. Or are just straight up on on the fringe.

But still....look at the real data

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap is easily the largest since Gallup began tracking the data, and three times as large as the 18-point difference between Democratic and Republican voters that existed between 2001 and 2023.]

The GOP is as much of a pro-Israel party as can be.

Now there is a debate about the young conservatives and their views on Israel....but again that would take decades to play out.

25 year olds don't hold power in the party (or anywhere else)


And if there is a debate to be had....then make the arguments for why being pro-Israel is needed. That is what Shapiro has to do.

He can't win the argument by falling back on the old authoritarian tactics of the American Liberal-Left.....trying to silence people that he does not like, shut down debate, intimidate people, de-platform, drive them off the college campus, calling them defamatory names "racist:, ect.

That does not even work anymore as a tactic.....Jon Stewart was chastised this past week by some New York Times bootlicker about talking to the "wrong kind of people" or "platforming people"....Joe Rogan specifically... and Stewart made the accurate assessment that if you don't talk to people you can't find out what they really think and that EVERYONE has a platform now with the internet and you can't shut it down anyway....you just look like a censor in trying.

"There is not a person in this world right now who is not platformed" -Jon Stewart

🔥 Jon Stewart Wrecks New Yorker Editor David Remnick for Whining About Joe Rogan

REMNICK: “He's had people on who are kind of N*** curious. That's not good.”

STEWART: “I've interviewed Kissinger. And he was carpet bomb curious.”

REMNICK: “But I don't have the audience that… pic.twitter.com/N3X3wI2Jbd

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) November 1, 2025

---

From National Review

Robert Rector a welfare scholar who said he has been with Heritage for 47 years, compared Carlson and Fuentes to members of the John Birch Society and argued that they need to be sidelined in the same way that National Review founder William F. Buckley sidelined the Birchers in the 1960's.

"Tucker's show is like stepping into a lunatic asylum," Rector said in remarks first reported by the Beacon, arguing that Carlson failed to confront Fuentes over his bigoted views and also gave a pass to the revisionist amateur historian Darryl Cooper, who argued during an appearance on Carlson's show that Winston Churchill was the real villain of World War II.

---

A basic argument for censorship…a very old line.

You don't have to out of your way to support John Birch nuttiness.

And you should absolutely speak out against the ideas they bring up you think are wrong, or inaccurate, or just plan crazy.

But as Jon Stewart pointed out this week you can't actually de-platform anyone in the internet age.

EVERYONE has a platform.

This is not 1980

You have to do the work to get out there and debate the ideas and win the battle of arguments.

Not just expect the legacy corporate media or political think tanks to do it for you.

---

I think you're confusing de-platform with giving a much bigger platform to heinous ideas. These are two very distinct scenarios.

Nobody said let's de-platform Tucker or even Fuentes. What they're saying is Tucker shouldn't give his platform to racist and hateful ideas. And there's absolutely nothing unamerican about that.

---

lol a sitting member of Congress and the Jewish Republican Coalition said Tucker is "the leader of the modern day Hitler youth" and had a bunch of kids hold signs saying "Tucker is not MAGA"

Please explain how this isnt saying "let's de-platform Tucker"

Republican Rep. Randy Fine says that Tucker Carlson is “the most dangerous anti-Semite in America” and “the leader of a modern day Hitler Youth.” pic.twitter.com/S4dbSDbhTm

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 2, 2025

---

I was referring to the posters on this thread.

Moreover, I am fine with people calling out the bull**** Tucker allows on his show. That's not de-platforming. That's criticizing horrendous conduct.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Nick Fuentes goes scorched earth in a rant on Kevin Roberts, Mark Levin & Randy Fine 🔥 pic.twitter.com/MqQun1Ba6T

— KaizerRev (@Kaizerrev) November 6, 2025

The kid is a really skilled orator.

I can see why the Boomers and Zionists are so afraid of him.

---

I suspected the racist white supremacist was your hero.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

Ben Shapiro in WSJ"

The American right is at a crossroads.'''

Mr. Carlson's most common tactic is ideological laundering: He hosts guests with ugly ideologies, soft-pedals their views and launders them into mainstream respectability. He claims he's "just asking questions," and that's precisely what he did last week:

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party before it, is at risk of being eaten alive by fringe actors. To allow it is both morally unjustifiable and politically obtuse. Americans reject this garbage.

---

I don't listen to Shapiro, but it's hard to argue with any of the above.

---

1. The American Right is not at a "crossroads"....most normal people are not even aware of these internet fights.

2. This is the same language that liberals use to silence conservatives all the time...."dangerous", "soft-pedals and launder views"

He is essentially arguing for the same kind of liberal and leftist tactics used against free speech on college campuses and the Media that he claims to have been fighting against.

3. The Republican party is in no danger of being "eaten alive" by anti-Israel and anti-jewish views.

That is a hysteric statement....and not close to reality.

Most normal Republicans and certainly the majority of Congress are not in any danger of moving on their very pro-Israel positions.

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap..]

Massive supermajority support inside the party.

He would be better served and more accurate to say there is a danger of YOUNG republicans or conservatives losing support for Israel. Something that would take decades to play out.

There is zero chance for any change in the foresable future on the issue of Israel among the GOP

---

I disagree with you completely that this is some fringe issue that may not affect future elections. We have very conservative friends here in our community that feel the same way as the groypers, and have advised they will not vote for future Republican candidates based on same.

I think you underestimate how big the faction is. When Tucker, given his influence and audience, starts preaching it, it's time to take notice. Ignoring the issue only makes it worse.

---

And you will always have people who don't fit the mainstream on this or that issue. Or are just straight up on on the fringe.

But still....look at the real data

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap is easily the largest since Gallup began tracking the data, and three times as large as the 18-point difference between Democratic and Republican voters that existed between 2001 and 2023.]

The GOP is as much of a pro-Israel party as can be.

Now there is a debate about the young conservatives and their views on Israel....but again that would take decades to play out.

25 year olds don't hold power in the party (or anywhere else)


And if there is a debate to be had....then make the arguments for why being pro-Israel is needed. That is what Shapiro has to do.

He can't win the argument by falling back on the old authoritarian tactics of the American Liberal-Left.....trying to silence people that he does not like, shut down debate, intimidate people, de-platform, drive them off the college campus, calling them defamatory names "racist:, ect.

That does not even work anymore as a tactic.....Jon Stewart was chastised this past week by some New York Times bootlicker about talking to the "wrong kind of people" or "platforming people"....Joe Rogan specifically... and Stewart made the accurate assessment that if you don't talk to people you can't find out what they really think and that EVERYONE has a platform now with the internet and you can't shut it down anyway....you just look like a censor in trying.

"There is not a person in this world right now who is not platformed" -Jon Stewart

🔥 Jon Stewart Wrecks New Yorker Editor David Remnick for Whining About Joe Rogan

REMNICK: “He's had people on who are kind of N*** curious. That's not good.”

STEWART: “I've interviewed Kissinger. And he was carpet bomb curious.”

REMNICK: “But I don't have the audience that… pic.twitter.com/N3X3wI2Jbd

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) November 1, 2025

---

From National Review

Robert Rector a welfare scholar who said he has been with Heritage for 47 years, compared Carlson and Fuentes to members of the John Birch Society and argued that they need to be sidelined in the same way that National Review founder William F. Buckley sidelined the Birchers in the 1960's.

"Tucker's show is like stepping into a lunatic asylum," Rector said in remarks first reported by the Beacon, arguing that Carlson failed to confront Fuentes over his bigoted views and also gave a pass to the revisionist amateur historian Darryl Cooper, who argued during an appearance on Carlson's show that Winston Churchill was the real villain of World War II.

---

A basic argument for censorship…a very old line.

You don't have to out of your way to support John Birch nuttiness.

And you should absolutely speak out against the ideas they bring up you think are wrong, or inaccurate, or just plan crazy.

But as Jon Stewart pointed out this week you can't actually de-platform anyone in the internet age.

EVERYONE has a platform.

This is not 1980

You have to do the work to get out there and debate the ideas and win the battle of arguments.

Not just expect the legacy corporate media or political think tanks to do it for you.

---

I think you're confusing de-platform with giving a much bigger platform to heinous ideas. These are two very distinct scenarios.

Nobody said let's de-platform Tucker or even Fuentes. What they're saying is Tucker shouldn't give his platform to racist and hateful ideas. And there's absolutely nothing unamerican about that.

---

The people attacking Tucker or Fuentes were not platforming them before this…in the case of Fuentes I'm sure they did not even know he existed (heck I'm a online millennial and I barely am aware of him…he is Gen Z coded content of a very troll-ish or Howard stern in the 90s kind of shock jock schtick)

But these groups attacking them have been successful in one way…that is turning the Right into an inside slap fight clown match about some mostly meaningless podcasters with 1/50th the audience of Joe Rogan on the eve of a big election fight….a fight the GOP just lost big by the way. Maybe setting up to lose the House and watch the Left impeach Trump again for the 3rd time.

And while the attacks on Tucker and Fuentes are fine by me in a general way….they are using standard coded liberal-leftist language…."muh racism", "dangerous viewpoints", "mainstreaming hate"

Instead of arguing with the actual statements, making a convincing counter argument, and winning the battle of ideas.

Go out and make the case to 20 year old conservatives online why we need to give Israel billions. If you have the arguments then make them. Explain to the terminal online kids how it helps them and the USA.

Go out and explain why Churchill was not wrong in WWII to stand up to Hitler and advocate for never trusting him…and how Churchill was not a "villain". But also be willing to grapple with the young folks in the USA and Europe sick to death of WWII being used at a modern weaponized argument for pushing endless Leftist ideas like anti-nationalism and mass 3rd world migration.

Just drop the tactics we have seen used against milk toast conservatives by the far left on college campuses for 50 years.

Young people are sick of that ****

---

It's not about coding. They're calling Fuentes a dangerous racist because that's what he is. And you're playing into the lie by conflating his racism with opposition to Israel.

---

And the left has used that term so often against so many people who are not that it becomes meaningless to most people.

Certainly to the young who have seen that old game play out 100,000 times in their short lives.

Again you are not convincing them by argument….you're throwing out insults…possibly true insult. But still the same insults they see the Left use constantly.

If this is the best you have…then it's not surprising the youth are not listening anymore. This stuff just rolls off them

---

I don't agree that the reaction is insignificant. The youth will set our course in the not too distant future.

---

Then you have to get out there (even on these pod casts) and meet them and debate them. And bring them over to your side.

Let the youth know you hear them, understand their concerns, and how your way is better or how the person they are listening to is wrong.

But the biggest way to get 20 year old rightwingers to run to the podcast shock jock you dislike is to call him "racist" or "hater".

They will run to him just to be contrarian and to listen the guy the old folks are scared of….

PS

And while we are fighting about Israel and podcast hosts the Left is racking up electoral wins on the ground and taking control of whole states and the most important city in the country

---

We agree on a lot of things, but you're wrong here. We need to be critical of the fringe, hateful elements of our side. Giving credence to and legitimizing racist ideas by treating them as normal ideas that should be debated is doing a huge disservice to conservatism.

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This merging of personal weakness with political persecution narratives might be one of the saddest things to witness. A generation addicted to the dopamine fixes via social media algorithms who seek belonging in echo chamber feedback loops. Nick Fuentes isn't smart. He just articulates inanity to audiences looking for affirmation of their blame culture. This isn't edgy truth telling. It's the recycling of concepts centuries old, and a manifesting of victimhood politics the right used to mock when other minorities groups would play it.

What a pathetically weak movement. This isn't America First. It's Blame First.

---

That's the ticket!

So what if we sold off every American industry we inherited to foreign interests for a few easy bucks(see Bain Capital)?...

So what if the highly skilled jobs were outsourced to H1Bs who worked for half the wages and now Americans don't have the skills to manufacture at home(see Steve Jobs/Apple Computer Chips in the 90ties)?...

So what if they are starting from scratch and having the compete against highly subsidized industries in the global marketplace(see any industrial)?...

Its those damn kids fault for not being so damn lazy and not entrepreneurial enough!

I'm a Gen-X finance guy... I grew up in the Golden Age of America where the national debt was a measly $2 trillion and I didn't have to worry about global competition or AI replacing my worthless degree.

My generation played life on easy mode and I'm completely oblivious to how good I had it!

---

Stop the press...you're GenX?

This might be the most hilarious thing I've read on this site. You're my age yet play the part of millenial snowflake on this website.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

At one time I would have agreed with you on Tucker. And then in the last two years, after reading his bible for the first time, Tucker apparently found some flawed version of the Catholic God, and then began guzzling the conspiracy theory kool-aid like gin at a sorority party. It's what has led to his praise of despots, murderers, and racists - like Putin, the Iranian president, Candace Owens, and now, Fuentes - and then excoriating people like Ted Cruz, a fellow conservative who supports Israel.

I'd suggest there is a happy medium between the Mark Levins of the world, and complete anti-semitic radicalism that blames Jews for most of the world's ills, and believes everything is a conspiracy. The fact you are willing to give such hateful and racist rhetoric a pass says all one needs to know about you on these issues. You may be slightly more polished than the other anti-semites who've made an appearance on this thread, but the fact is you subscribe a flawed replacement theology that contradicts the plain language of scripture, and have also swallowed the kool-aid blaming the Jews for the world's ills.

The kind of hateful rhetoric that Fuentes spouts has no place in the conservative party if we desire to win anymore elections. But maybe like Fuentes, you're just interested in burning it down. You've also yet to learn that your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

---

There is no conservative party any more. It was sold for a penny's worth of "pragmatism."

A happy medium would mean free and honest criticism of Israel, or any country, without prejudice for or against any race or religion. There's practically no tolerance for that, as I can attest.

---

Criticism of Israel is fine. Racism isn't. Some people on this board like to blur the two.

---

Almost everyone on this board likes to blur the two, and the same goes for the Republican Party. At some point you'll have to choose a side. I mean you won't have to, but if you want to be pragmatic, the likes of Fuentes will be seen as a lesser evil than the likes of Mamdani.

---

I guess I'll just have to hold out for the perfect party/candidate like you, or I'll vote for the party that, though flawed, is much more in line with my values and better for the country.

---

Yes, you will. And when you've supported the lesser of two evils enough times, you'll be left with people like Fuentes. You can't defeat the other side's evils if you won't root out your own.

---

We disagree. Any conservative sitting it out and allowing people who literally support gender reassignment surgery for children, abortion up to (and in some cases, after) the point of birth, or restricting the free speech of one's opponent isn't going to solve anything within the Republican Party. In fact, I'd argue it's that type of conduct that makes candidates like Trump more appealing to the masses.

I thank God Trump, as nutty as he can be, has turned the cultural tide. We have young people actually attending church again, and children leaving the gender identity race in droves. Any conservative who isn't thankful for the pendulum swing in the cultural war isn't really a conservative.

---

That's the mindset that will have you voting for a Nick Fuentes at some point.

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

1. Should he only interview people he agrees with?
2. Does Nick not ask some reasonable questions about the US's involvement with the nation of Israel?
3. Do we no longer accept the democratic marketplace of ideas system and opt for a totalitarian system where only certain views are allowed to be expressed and others are suppressed? And if so, who gets to decide which views rightthink and which are beyond the pale?

---

You seem to be confusing this with a free speech issue. Tucker can interview anyone he likes. And of course, his viewers and sponsors can express their thoughts about who he interviews through their pocketbooks. It's called capitalism. And last I checked, Nick already had a website where he promotes some of his more heinous views. A quick search of google, and you'll find a ton of videos.

---

As you said, Tucker can interview anyone he likes. That is all that matters.

Response: This is a strawman. Nobody said or suggested Tucker couldn't interview anyone he likes.

Mothra said:

---

The main critique of Tucker is the softball questions and soft-pedaling of heinous and racist ideas, as well as giving a platform to same. And that is of course a legitimate critique. It's not just that he chooses to interview evil and despicable (and in some case, murderous) people, it's that he fails to challenge them on those ideas and has a tendency to make them appear sympathetic. Or in some instances, he outright praises them (see Putin).

---

So Tucker is a soft interviewer in your opinion because he wanted to focus on certain things and not others. So what? Tucker asked him about the issues that Tucker was interested in. Tucker asked him:
1. Nick's origin story going from Cruz campaigner to America First.
2. Tucker asked Nick about young people and how they feel about certain issues (marriage, porn, etc.)
3. He asked Nick about his views of America First and the nation of Israel.

Response: I am glad you went on record as saying you take no issue with Tucker interviewing a Holocaust denier, Hitler sympathizer, Stalin lover, minority hater, and women loather. This was the point of my post, to find out where the groypers stand on such issues. Noted.

Mothra said:

---

Unless it's the evil Ted Cruz of course.

---

A 25 year old with a podcast isn't the same as a 54 year old seasoned Senator.

Response: Agreed they're not the same. Other areas where they differ? Cruz isn't a white supremacist, woman hating racist.

Mothra said:

---

As for Nick, I suspect there are a lot of things he and I agree on, just like a lot of people who hold some conservative views. It's the more heinous views on the Holocaust, Hitler, Stalin, minorities and women that are untenable, and the reason I don't listen to a POS like him.

---

Again, so what? The real reason you feel threatened by Fuentes is because you recognize that he can be persuasive and you fear he will persuade others. Fuentes speaks out of a disenchanted group of young people who have seen their country ravaged thru greed, selfishness and virtue signaling via the boomer generation's influence on society. Fix that issue and his support will dwindle. Ignore it, and his support will grow.

Saw what you will about Tucker but he has a heart for young people as this interview shows. If you watch it again, you will see Tucker trying to breath life into Nick especially with regard to marriage. You seem to want Nick (and those who follow him) destroyed but Tucker wants them redeemed.

---

See above and below.

Response: An even bigger issue is the sad, disenfranchised young and awkward white males always looking for a bogeyman to blame for their impotence. The answer is not to find the bogeyman. The answer is to point them to the truth. And the truth is, the Jews aren't responsible for their sad lot in life or the reason they can't get laid.

And yes, it does concern me that a racist, white supremacist, hate-monger is gaining such a foothold in the Republican party. That should concern anyone, because we need to look no further than the Democrats to find where that path leads. When you let the fringe elements speak loudest, and give credence to and a platform for their views, you are going to have a very hard time winning future elections. And that is absolutely what will happen to the Republicans if it allows groypers to gain control of the party. Kiss future elections goodbye.

So if we want to lose elections, we should absolutely take your advice, because that's the surest way to assure defeat.

As for Nick, I don't want him destroyed. I want him to repent and see the light. The way to do that is not by tossing him softballs, failing to challenge his extremists views, or giving him a platform to spew garbage. Sorry.

---

your comments illustrate well the dilemma of repressive tolerance. How does classical liberalism survive if its enemies use free speech rights to destroy it, yet how do we restrict the free speech rights of enemies without restricting the free speech rights of everyone? More importantly: who makes the decision about what speech deserves repressive tolerance?

The guideposts for me are:
Collective action to squelch speech (cancel culture) is at odds with classical liberalism.
The proper response to bad speech is more speech.
The only just cancellation is the decision of the individual to quit listening.

There is nothing wrong with a western journalist publishing an interview with controversial or even deplorable people. That means objectionable speech will get published. Some journalists will try to turn the interview into a debate (see alphabet media treatment of Trump) while others will simply let the interview be an interview (publishing the content with little or no comment).

I don't yet think Tucker is trying to promote bad ideas. I think he's trying to brand himself as an iconoclast. . That's hardly outside the journalistic tradition. And its not a bad business model, given how mainstream journalism has so thoroughly fused with the socio-political establishments it ostensibly exists to constrain. He's definitely pushing boundaries, though......

Nick Fuentes is the only person I've ever blocked on Twitter. I'll read the leftist nutjobs just for perspective, to understand my enemies. I'll read the libertarian nutjobs to remind myself that I'm not very much of a right winger. And I try to give allowance to shock jocks who have a hard road to stay fresh. Alex Stein manages it by being funny and punching up. But Fuentes is just an odious little bomb-thrower, flat out mean, coarse, degrading. Babies will repeat dirty words when they realize they make the adults laugh, but they don't yet understand the concept of words, much less the meanings of the words they say. Fuentes knows exactly what he's doing. He'll reach down into the chamber pot and throw excrement into the airwaves just for the shock value of it. He takes it all the way down to nihilism. So I've quit listening. No clicks from me.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

At one time I would have agreed with you on Tucker. And then in the last two years, after reading his bible for the first time, Tucker apparently found some flawed version of the Catholic God, and then began guzzling the conspiracy theory kool-aid like gin at a sorority party. It's what has led to his praise of despots, murderers, and racists - like Putin, the Iranian president, Candace Owens, and now, Fuentes - and then excoriating people like Ted Cruz, a fellow conservative who supports Israel.

I'd suggest there is a happy medium between the Mark Levins of the world, and complete anti-semitic radicalism that blames Jews for most of the world's ills, and believes everything is a conspiracy. The fact you are willing to give such hateful and racist rhetoric a pass says all one needs to know about you on these issues. You may be slightly more polished than the other anti-semites who've made an appearance on this thread, but the fact is you subscribe a flawed replacement theology that contradicts the plain language of scripture, and have also swallowed the kool-aid blaming the Jews for the world's ills.

The kind of hateful rhetoric that Fuentes spouts has no place in the conservative party if we desire to win anymore elections. But maybe like Fuentes, you're just interested in burning it down. You've also yet to learn that your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

---

There is no conservative party any more. It was sold for a penny's worth of "pragmatism."

A happy medium would mean free and honest criticism of Israel, or any country, without prejudice for or against any race or religion. There's practically no tolerance for that, as I can attest.

---

Criticism of Israel is fine. Racism isn't. Some people on this board like to blur the two.

---

Almost everyone on this board likes to blur the two, and the same goes for the Republican Party. At some point you'll have to choose a side. I mean you won't have to, but if you want to be pragmatic, the likes of Fuentes will be seen as a lesser evil than the likes of Mamdani.

---

I guess I'll just have to hold out for the perfect party/candidate like you, or I'll vote for the party that, though flawed, is much more in line with my values and better for the country.

---

Yes, you will. And when you've supported the lesser of two evils enough times, you'll be left with people like Fuentes. You can't defeat the other side's evils if you won't root out your own.

---

We disagree. Any conservative sitting it out and allowing people who literally support gender reassignment surgery for children, abortion up to (and in some cases, after) the point of birth, or restricting the free speech of one's opponent isn't going to solve anything within the Republican Party. In fact, I'd argue it's that type of conduct that makes candidates like Trump more appealing to the masses.

I thank God Trump, as nutty as he can be, has turned the cultural tide. We have young people actually attending church again, and children leaving the gender identity race in droves. Any conservative who isn't thankful for the pendulum swing in the cultural war isn't really a conservative.

---

That's the mindset that will have you voting for a Nick Fuentes at some point.

---

Tell me you don't give a **** about the culture war without telling me you don't give a **** about the culture war...

As I said, perfect is your enemy.

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

At one time I would have agreed with you on Tucker. And then in the last two years, after reading his bible for the first time, Tucker apparently found some flawed version of the Catholic God, and then began guzzling the conspiracy theory kool-aid like gin at a sorority party. It's what has led to his praise of despots, murderers, and racists - like Putin, the Iranian president, Candace Owens, and now, Fuentes - and then excoriating people like Ted Cruz, a fellow conservative who supports Israel.

I'd suggest there is a happy medium between the Mark Levins of the world, and complete anti-semitic radicalism that blames Jews for most of the world's ills, and believes everything is a conspiracy. The fact you are willing to give such hateful and racist rhetoric a pass says all one needs to know about you on these issues. You may be slightly more polished than the other anti-semites who've made an appearance on this thread, but the fact is you subscribe a flawed replacement theology that contradicts the plain language of scripture, and have also swallowed the kool-aid blaming the Jews for the world's ills.

The kind of hateful rhetoric that Fuentes spouts has no place in the conservative party if we desire to win anymore elections. But maybe like Fuentes, you're just interested in burning it down. You've also yet to learn that your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

---

There is no conservative party any more. It was sold for a penny's worth of "pragmatism."

A happy medium would mean free and honest criticism of Israel, or any country, without prejudice for or against any race or religion. There's practically no tolerance for that, as I can attest.

---

Criticism of Israel is fine. Racism isn't. Some people on this board like to blur the two.

---

Let's cut to the chase, Mothra. Has America given too much money to Israel, the nation?

---

Yes, and we agree Israel has had too much influence over American foreign policy at times. I also agree that Netanyahu is a POS.

One can hold that view and also not say the holocaust wasn't that bad or believe a Jewish cabal runs the world - like some of your groyper buddies on this thread.

---

Good for you, Mothra. I am afraid one begets the other though. For example, if we gave less money to Israel, there would be less ammunition for conspiracy theorists and the groyper movement would be much smaller because perceptions of America's future would be much better for young people. It also doesn't help if Nick's claim is true that Shapiro called an 18 year old Fuentes an antisemite for raising questions about why we were giving all this money to Israel. Maybe if Shapiro had handled that situation with a lot more grace and humility, we would be in a different place. But my guess is Shapiro ad hom attacked Fuentes because he didn't feel he could defend the spending with facts.

---

Have you ever listened to Nick's comments about Jews? He IS an anti-semite. I mean, that word gets thrown around a lot I know, but there's no other way to describe him. Neo-nazi is probably the most accurate term.

When a guy denies the Holocaust, and blames Jews for all of the world's ills, the label is accurate.

Asking a Jewish person to be more sympathetic or understanding of a very hateful and racist dude that literally hates that individual because of his race is asking a whole hell of a lot. If I were a Jew, I'd be saying a lot stronger things to that POS.

---

Not at 18 he wasn't. At that point, Fuentes was a campaigner for Ted Cruz. And Shapiro was an accomplished political commentator at that time who had heard it all. Yet, he went out of his way to attack an 18 year old on social media showing no maturity or self control. Shapiro was the adult in the room but didn't behave like it.

And I am still not sure how much of the current Fuentes we see is an act. He is obviously a provocateur so it is hard to know given a lot of his appeal is based off him being a troll saying the things current polite society says you cannot not say. He says some things that I would say are in conflict with his own beliefs as a practicing Catholic like saying he is a fan of Stalin. Catholics and other Christians were treated terribly under Stalin so I am not sure he could defend that position if challenged with those realities. But I think from his perspective he just knows it gets a rise out of people and that is the point.

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

At one time I would have agreed with you on Tucker. And then in the last two years, after reading his bible for the first time, Tucker apparently found some flawed version of the Catholic God, and then began guzzling the conspiracy theory kool-aid like gin at a sorority party. It's what has led to his praise of despots, murderers, and racists - like Putin, the Iranian president, Candace Owens, and now, Fuentes - and then excoriating people like Ted Cruz, a fellow conservative who supports Israel.

I'd suggest there is a happy medium between the Mark Levins of the world, and complete anti-semitic radicalism that blames Jews for most of the world's ills, and believes everything is a conspiracy. The fact you are willing to give such hateful and racist rhetoric a pass says all one needs to know about you on these issues. You may be slightly more polished than the other anti-semites who've made an appearance on this thread, but the fact is you subscribe a flawed replacement theology that contradicts the plain language of scripture, and have also swallowed the kool-aid blaming the Jews for the world's ills.

The kind of hateful rhetoric that Fuentes spouts has no place in the conservative party if we desire to win anymore elections. But maybe like Fuentes, you're just interested in burning it down. You've also yet to learn that your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

---

There is no conservative party any more. It was sold for a penny's worth of "pragmatism."

A happy medium would mean free and honest criticism of Israel, or any country, without prejudice for or against any race or religion. There's practically no tolerance for that, as I can attest.

---

Criticism of Israel is fine. Racism isn't. Some people on this board like to blur the two.

---

Let's cut to the chase, Mothra. Has America given too much money to Israel, the nation?

---

Yes, and we agree Israel has had too much influence over American foreign policy at times. I also agree that Netanyahu is a POS.

One can hold that view and also not say the holocaust wasn't that bad or believe a Jewish cabal runs the world - like some of your groyper buddies on this thread.

---

Good for you, Mothra. I am afraid one begets the other though. For example, if we gave less money to Israel, there would be less ammunition for conspiracy theorists and the groyper movement would be much smaller because perceptions of America's future would be much better for young people. It also doesn't help if Nick's claim is true that Shapiro called an 18 year old Fuentes an antisemite for raising questions about why we were giving all this money to Israel. Maybe if Shapiro had handled that situation with a lot more grace and humility, we would be in a different place. But my guess is Shapiro ad hom attacked Fuentes because he didn't feel he could defend the spending with facts.

---

Have you ever listened to Nick's comments about Jews? He IS an anti-semite. I mean, that word gets thrown around a lot I know, but there's no other way to describe him. Neo-nazi is probably the most accurate term.

When a guy denies the Holocaust, and blames Jews for all of the world's ills, the label is accurate.

Asking a Jewish person to be more sympathetic or understanding of a very hateful and racist dude that literally hates that individual because of his race is asking a whole hell of a lot. If I were a Jew, I'd be saying a lot stronger things to that POS.

---

Not at 18 he wasn't. At that point, Fuentes was a campaigner for Ted Cruz. And Shapiro was an accomplished political commentator at that time who had heard it all. Yet, he went out of his way to attack an 18 year old on social media showing no maturity or self control. Shapiro was the adult in the room but didn't behave like it.

And I am still not sure how much of the current Fuentes we see is an act. He is obviously a provocateur so it is hard to know given a lot of his appeal is based off him being a troll saying the things current polite society says you cannot not say. He says some things that I would say are in conflict with his own beliefs as a practicing Catholic like saying he is a fan of Stalin. Catholics and other Christians were treated terribly under Stalin so I am not sure he could defend that position if challenged with those realities. But I think from his perspective he just knows it gets a rise out of people and that is the point.

---

Agree he is a troll, which is why what he says is so destructive. He is not the sympathetic figure you seem to make him.

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

At one time I would have agreed with you on Tucker. And then in the last two years, after reading his bible for the first time, Tucker apparently found some flawed version of the Catholic God, and then began guzzling the conspiracy theory kool-aid like gin at a sorority party. It's what has led to his praise of despots, murderers, and racists - like Putin, the Iranian president, Candace Owens, and now, Fuentes - and then excoriating people like Ted Cruz, a fellow conservative who supports Israel.

I'd suggest there is a happy medium between the Mark Levins of the world, and complete anti-semitic radicalism that blames Jews for most of the world's ills, and believes everything is a conspiracy. The fact you are willing to give such hateful and racist rhetoric a pass says all one needs to know about you on these issues. You may be slightly more polished than the other anti-semites who've made an appearance on this thread, but the fact is you subscribe a flawed replacement theology that contradicts the plain language of scripture, and have also swallowed the kool-aid blaming the Jews for the world's ills.

The kind of hateful rhetoric that Fuentes spouts has no place in the conservative party if we desire to win anymore elections. But maybe like Fuentes, you're just interested in burning it down. You've also yet to learn that your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

---

There is no conservative party any more. It was sold for a penny's worth of "pragmatism."

A happy medium would mean free and honest criticism of Israel, or any country, without prejudice for or against any race or religion. There's practically no tolerance for that, as I can attest.

---

Criticism of Israel is fine. Racism isn't. Some people on this board like to blur the two.

---

Let's cut to the chase, Mothra. Has America given too much money to Israel, the nation?

---

Yes, and we agree Israel has had too much influence over American foreign policy at times. I also agree that Netanyahu is a POS.

One can hold that view and also not say the holocaust wasn't that bad or believe a Jewish cabal runs the world - like some of your groyper buddies on this thread.

---

Good for you, Mothra. I am afraid one begets the other though. For example, if we gave less money to Israel, there would be less ammunition for conspiracy theorists and the groyper movement would be much smaller because perceptions of America's future would be much better for young people. It also doesn't help if Nick's claim is true that Shapiro called an 18 year old Fuentes an antisemite for raising questions about why we were giving all this money to Israel. Maybe if Shapiro had handled that situation with a lot more grace and humility, we would be in a different place. But my guess is Shapiro ad hom attacked Fuentes because he didn't feel he could defend the spending with facts.

---

Have you ever listened to Nick's comments about Jews? He IS an anti-semite. I mean, that word gets thrown around a lot I know, but there's no other way to describe him. Neo-nazi is probably the most accurate term.

When a guy denies the Holocaust, and blames Jews for all of the world's ills, the label is accurate.

Asking a Jewish person to be more sympathetic or understanding of a very hateful and racist dude that literally hates that individual because of his race is asking a whole hell of a lot. If I were a Jew, I'd be saying a lot stronger things to that POS.

---

Not at 18 he wasn't. At that point, Fuentes was a campaigner for Ted Cruz. And Shapiro was an accomplished political commentator at that time who had heard it all. Yet, he went out of his way to attack an 18 year old on social media showing no maturity or self control. Shapiro was the adult in the room but didn't behave like it.

And I am still not sure how much of the current Fuentes we see is an act. He is obviously a provocateur so it is hard to know given a lot of his appeal is based off him being a troll saying the things current polite society says you cannot not say. He says some things that I would say are in conflict with his own beliefs as a practicing Catholic like saying he is a fan of Stalin. Catholics and other Christians were treated terribly under Stalin so I am not sure he could defend that position if challenged with those realities. But I think from his perspective he just knows it gets a rise out of people and that is the point.

---

Agree he is a troll, which is why what he says is so destructive. He is not the sympathetic figure you seem to make him.

---

He is a sympathetic figure to young people. When you attack him, you are attacking young people by default. He is popular with them because he voices their frustration. The older generations really need to own their culpability here and start caring about the next generations. They created this mess which is why they aren't being listened to now. Tone policing and putting pressure on dissidents to rightthink isn't the answer.

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

At one time I would have agreed with you on Tucker. And then in the last two years, after reading his bible for the first time, Tucker apparently found some flawed version of the Catholic God, and then began guzzling the conspiracy theory kool-aid like gin at a sorority party. It's what has led to his praise of despots, murderers, and racists - like Putin, the Iranian president, Candace Owens, and now, Fuentes - and then excoriating people like Ted Cruz, a fellow conservative who supports Israel.

I'd suggest there is a happy medium between the Mark Levins of the world, and complete anti-semitic radicalism that blames Jews for most of the world's ills, and believes everything is a conspiracy. The fact you are willing to give such hateful and racist rhetoric a pass says all one needs to know about you on these issues. You may be slightly more polished than the other anti-semites who've made an appearance on this thread, but the fact is you subscribe a flawed replacement theology that contradicts the plain language of scripture, and have also swallowed the kool-aid blaming the Jews for the world's ills.

The kind of hateful rhetoric that Fuentes spouts has no place in the conservative party if we desire to win anymore elections. But maybe like Fuentes, you're just interested in burning it down. You've also yet to learn that your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

---

There is no conservative party any more. It was sold for a penny's worth of "pragmatism."

A happy medium would mean free and honest criticism of Israel, or any country, without prejudice for or against any race or religion. There's practically no tolerance for that, as I can attest.

---

Criticism of Israel is fine. Racism isn't. Some people on this board like to blur the two.

---

Let's cut to the chase, Mothra. Has America given too much money to Israel, the nation?

---

Yes, and we agree Israel has had too much influence over American foreign policy at times. I also agree that Netanyahu is a POS.

One can hold that view and also not say the holocaust wasn't that bad or believe a Jewish cabal runs the world - like some of your groyper buddies on this thread.

---

Good for you, Mothra. I am afraid one begets the other though. For example, if we gave less money to Israel, there would be less ammunition for conspiracy theorists and the groyper movement would be much smaller because perceptions of America's future would be much better for young people. It also doesn't help if Nick's claim is true that Shapiro called an 18 year old Fuentes an antisemite for raising questions about why we were giving all this money to Israel. Maybe if Shapiro had handled that situation with a lot more grace and humility, we would be in a different place. But my guess is Shapiro ad hom attacked Fuentes because he didn't feel he could defend the spending with facts.

---

Have you ever listened to Nick's comments about Jews? He IS an anti-semite. I mean, that word gets thrown around a lot I know, but there's no other way to describe him. Neo-nazi is probably the most accurate term.

When a guy denies the Holocaust, and blames Jews for all of the world's ills, the label is accurate.

Asking a Jewish person to be more sympathetic or understanding of a very hateful and racist dude that literally hates that individual because of his race is asking a whole hell of a lot. If I were a Jew, I'd be saying a lot stronger things to that POS.

---

Not at 18 he wasn't. At that point, Fuentes was a campaigner for Ted Cruz. And Shapiro was an accomplished political commentator at that time who had heard it all. Yet, he went out of his way to attack an 18 year old on social media showing no maturity or self control. Shapiro was the adult in the room but didn't behave like it.

And I am still not sure how much of the current Fuentes we see is an act. He is obviously a provocateur so it is hard to know given a lot of his appeal is based off him being a troll saying the things current polite society says you cannot not say. He says some things that I would say are in conflict with his own beliefs as a practicing Catholic like saying he is a fan of Stalin. Catholics and other Christians were treated terribly under Stalin so I am not sure he could defend that position if challenged with those realities. But I think from his perspective he just knows it gets a rise out of people and that is the point.

---

Agree he is a troll, which is why what he says is so destructive. He is not the sympathetic figure you seem to make him.

---

He is a sympathetic figure to young people. When you attack him, you are attacking young people by default. He is popular with them because he voices their frustration. The older generations really need to own their culpability here and start caring about the next generations. They created this mess which is why they aren't being listened to now. Tone policing and putting pressure on dissidents to rightthink isn't the answer.

---

good point.

The disaffection we see is derivative of failing policy Too many people are not being well served by social contract. the conspiracy theories flow from there.

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

At one time I would have agreed with you on Tucker. And then in the last two years, after reading his bible for the first time, Tucker apparently found some flawed version of the Catholic God, and then began guzzling the conspiracy theory kool-aid like gin at a sorority party. It's what has led to his praise of despots, murderers, and racists - like Putin, the Iranian president, Candace Owens, and now, Fuentes - and then excoriating people like Ted Cruz, a fellow conservative who supports Israel.

I'd suggest there is a happy medium between the Mark Levins of the world, and complete anti-semitic radicalism that blames Jews for most of the world's ills, and believes everything is a conspiracy. The fact you are willing to give such hateful and racist rhetoric a pass says all one needs to know about you on these issues. You may be slightly more polished than the other anti-semites who've made an appearance on this thread, but the fact is you subscribe a flawed replacement theology that contradicts the plain language of scripture, and have also swallowed the kool-aid blaming the Jews for the world's ills.

The kind of hateful rhetoric that Fuentes spouts has no place in the conservative party if we desire to win anymore elections. But maybe like Fuentes, you're just interested in burning it down. You've also yet to learn that your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

---

There is no conservative party any more. It was sold for a penny's worth of "pragmatism."

A happy medium would mean free and honest criticism of Israel, or any country, without prejudice for or against any race or religion. There's practically no tolerance for that, as I can attest.

---

Criticism of Israel is fine. Racism isn't. Some people on this board like to blur the two.

---

Let's cut to the chase, Mothra. Has America given too much money to Israel, the nation?

---

Yes, and we agree Israel has had too much influence over American foreign policy at times. I also agree that Netanyahu is a POS.

One can hold that view and also not say the holocaust wasn't that bad or believe a Jewish cabal runs the world - like some of your groyper buddies on this thread.

---

Good for you, Mothra. I am afraid one begets the other though. For example, if we gave less money to Israel, there would be less ammunition for conspiracy theorists and the groyper movement would be much smaller because perceptions of America's future would be much better for young people. It also doesn't help if Nick's claim is true that Shapiro called an 18 year old Fuentes an antisemite for raising questions about why we were giving all this money to Israel. Maybe if Shapiro had handled that situation with a lot more grace and humility, we would be in a different place. But my guess is Shapiro ad hom attacked Fuentes because he didn't feel he could defend the spending with facts.

---

Have you ever listened to Nick's comments about Jews? He IS an anti-semite. I mean, that word gets thrown around a lot I know, but there's no other way to describe him. Neo-nazi is probably the most accurate term.

When a guy denies the Holocaust, and blames Jews for all of the world's ills, the label is accurate.

Asking a Jewish person to be more sympathetic or understanding of a very hateful and racist dude that literally hates that individual because of his race is asking a whole hell of a lot. If I were a Jew, I'd be saying a lot stronger things to that POS.

---

Not at 18 he wasn't. At that point, Fuentes was a campaigner for Ted Cruz. And Shapiro was an accomplished political commentator at that time who had heard it all. Yet, he went out of his way to attack an 18 year old on social media showing no maturity or self control. Shapiro was the adult in the room but didn't behave like it.

And I am still not sure how much of the current Fuentes we see is an act. He is obviously a provocateur so it is hard to know given a lot of his appeal is based off him being a troll saying the things current polite society says you cannot not say. He says some things that I would say are in conflict with his own beliefs as a practicing Catholic like saying he is a fan of Stalin. Catholics and other Christians were treated terribly under Stalin so I am not sure he could defend that position if challenged with those realities. But I think from his perspective he just knows it gets a rise out of people and that is the point.

---

Agree he is a troll, which is why what he says is so destructive. He is not the sympathetic figure you seem to make him.

---

He is a sympathetic figure to young people. When you attack him, you are attacking young people by default. He is popular with them because he voices their frustration. The older generations really need to own their culpability here and start caring about the next generations. They created this mess which is why they aren't being listened to now. Tone policing and putting pressure on dissidents to rightthink isn't the answer.

---

So how would you deal with him then? Not with the kid gloves that Tucker treated him, I would hope. Not by failing to discuss his more incendiary and hateful rhetoric, I would hope.

Nick Fuentes and Tucker find common ground on the disastrous effects of the porn industry 🔥

“Young men— they know it's a problem. It's ruining their lives.” pic.twitter.com/HUrI0RZGwP

— 𝔼𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣-𝕎𝕒𝕧𝕖 (@etherXwave) October 28, 2025

muddybrazos said:

---

Nick Fuentes and Tucker find common ground on the disastrous effects of the porn industry 🔥

“Young men— they know it's a problem. It's ruining their lives.” pic.twitter.com/HUrI0RZGwP

— 𝔼𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣-𝕎𝕒𝕧𝕖 (@etherXwave) October 28, 2025

---

Lots of antisemites brush their teeth and comb their hair. Doesn't make them right just because they do something most accept as good.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Nick Fuentes and Tucker find common ground on the disastrous effects of the porn industry 🔥

“Young men— they know it's a problem. It's ruining their lives.” pic.twitter.com/HUrI0RZGwP

— 𝔼𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣-𝕎𝕒𝕧𝕖 (@etherXwave) October 28, 2025

---

Lots of antisemites brush their teeth and comb their hair. Doesn't make them right just because they do something most accept as good.

---

Yup.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

Ben Shapiro in WSJ"

The American right is at a crossroads.'''

Mr. Carlson's most common tactic is ideological laundering: He hosts guests with ugly ideologies, soft-pedals their views and launders them into mainstream respectability. He claims he's "just asking questions," and that's precisely what he did last week:

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party before it, is at risk of being eaten alive by fringe actors. To allow it is both morally unjustifiable and politically obtuse. Americans reject this garbage.

---

I don't listen to Shapiro, but it's hard to argue with any of the above.

---

1. The American Right is not at a "crossroads"....most normal people are not even aware of these internet fights.

2. This is the same language that liberals use to silence conservatives all the time...."dangerous", "soft-pedals and launder views"

He is essentially arguing for the same kind of liberal and leftist tactics used against free speech on college campuses and the Media that he claims to have been fighting against.

3. The Republican party is in no danger of being "eaten alive" by anti-Israel and anti-jewish views.

That is a hysteric statement....and not close to reality.

Most normal Republicans and certainly the majority of Congress are not in any danger of moving on their very pro-Israel positions.

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap..]

Massive supermajority support inside the party.

He would be better served and more accurate to say there is a danger of YOUNG republicans or conservatives losing support for Israel. Something that would take decades to play out.

There is zero chance for any change in the foresable future on the issue of Israel among the GOP

---

I disagree with you completely that this is some fringe issue that may not affect future elections. We have very conservative friends here in our community that feel the same way as the groypers, and have advised they will not vote for future Republican candidates based on same.

I think you underestimate how big the faction is. When Tucker, given his influence and audience, starts preaching it, it's time to take notice. Ignoring the issue only makes it worse.

---

And you will always have people who don't fit the mainstream on this or that issue. Or are just straight up on on the fringe.

But still....look at the real data

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap is easily the largest since Gallup began tracking the data, and three times as large as the 18-point difference between Democratic and Republican voters that existed between 2001 and 2023.]

The GOP is as much of a pro-Israel party as can be.

Now there is a debate about the young conservatives and their views on Israel....but again that would take decades to play out.

25 year olds don't hold power in the party (or anywhere else)


And if there is a debate to be had....then make the arguments for why being pro-Israel is needed. That is what Shapiro has to do.

He can't win the argument by falling back on the old authoritarian tactics of the American Liberal-Left.....trying to silence people that he does not like, shut down debate, intimidate people, de-platform, drive them off the college campus, calling them defamatory names "racist:, ect.

That does not even work anymore as a tactic.....Jon Stewart was chastised this past week by some New York Times bootlicker about talking to the "wrong kind of people" or "platforming people"....Joe Rogan specifically... and Stewart made the accurate assessment that if you don't talk to people you can't find out what they really think and that EVERYONE has a platform now with the internet and you can't shut it down anyway....you just look like a censor in trying.

"There is not a person in this world right now who is not platformed" -Jon Stewart

🔥 Jon Stewart Wrecks New Yorker Editor David Remnick for Whining About Joe Rogan

REMNICK: “He's had people on who are kind of N*** curious. That's not good.”

STEWART: “I've interviewed Kissinger. And he was carpet bomb curious.”

REMNICK: “But I don't have the audience that… pic.twitter.com/N3X3wI2Jbd

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) November 1, 2025

---

From National Review

Robert Rector a welfare scholar who said he has been with Heritage for 47 years, compared Carlson and Fuentes to members of the John Birch Society and argued that they need to be sidelined in the same way that National Review founder William F. Buckley sidelined the Birchers in the 1960's.

"Tucker's show is like stepping into a lunatic asylum," Rector said in remarks first reported by the Beacon, arguing that Carlson failed to confront Fuentes over his bigoted views and also gave a pass to the revisionist amateur historian Darryl Cooper, who argued during an appearance on Carlson's show that Winston Churchill was the real villain of World War II.

---

A basic argument for censorship…a very old line.

You don't have to out of your way to support John Birch nuttiness.

And you should absolutely speak out against the ideas they bring up you think are wrong, or inaccurate, or just plan crazy.

But as Jon Stewart pointed out this week you can't actually de-platform anyone in the internet age.

EVERYONE has a platform.

This is not 1980

You have to do the work to get out there and debate the ideas and win the battle of arguments.

Not just expect the legacy corporate media or political think tanks to do it for you.

---

I think you're confusing de-platform with giving a much bigger platform to heinous ideas. These are two very distinct scenarios.

Nobody said let's de-platform Tucker or even Fuentes. What they're saying is Tucker shouldn't give his platform to racist and hateful ideas. And there's absolutely nothing unamerican about that.

---

The people attacking Tucker or Fuentes were not platforming them before this…in the case of Fuentes I'm sure they did not even know he existed (heck I'm a online millennial and I barely am aware of him…he is Gen Z coded content of a very troll-ish or Howard stern in the 90s kind of shock jock schtick)

But these groups attacking them have been successful in one way…that is turning the Right into an inside slap fight clown match about some mostly meaningless podcasters with 1/50th the audience of Joe Rogan on the eve of a big election fight….a fight the GOP just lost big by the way. Maybe setting up to lose the House and watch the Left impeach Trump again for the 3rd time.

And while the attacks on Tucker and Fuentes are fine by me in a general way….they are using standard coded liberal-leftist language…."muh racism", "dangerous viewpoints", "mainstreaming hate"

Instead of arguing with the actual statements, making a convincing counter argument, and winning the battle of ideas.

Go out and make the case to 20 year old conservatives online why we need to give Israel billions. If you have the arguments then make them. Explain to the terminal online kids how it helps them and the USA.

Go out and explain why Churchill was not wrong in WWII to stand up to Hitler and advocate for never trusting him…and how Churchill was not a "villain". But also be willing to grapple with the young folks in the USA and Europe sick to death of WWII being used at a modern weaponized argument for pushing endless Leftist ideas like anti-nationalism and mass 3rd world migration.

Just drop the tactics we have seen used against milk toast conservatives by the far left on college campuses for 50 years.

Young people are sick of that ****

---

It's not about coding. They're calling Fuentes a dangerous racist because that's what he is. And you're playing into the lie by conflating his racism with opposition to Israel.

---

And the left has used that term so often against so many people who are not that it becomes meaningless to most people.

Certainly to the young who have seen that old game play out 100,000 times in their short lives.

Again you are not convincing them by argument….you're throwing out insults…possibly true insult. But still the same insults they see the Left use constantly.

If this is the best you have…then it's not surprising the youth are not listening anymore. This stuff just rolls off them

---

I don't agree that the reaction is insignificant. The youth will set our course in the not too distant future.

---

Then you have to get out there (even on these pod casts) and meet them and debate them. And bring them over to your side.

Let the youth know you hear them, understand their concerns, and how your way is better or how the person they are listening to is wrong.

But the biggest way to get 20 year old rightwingers to run to the podcast shock jock you dislike is to call him "racist" or "hater".

They will run to him just to be contrarian and to listen the guy the old folks are scared of….

PS

And while we are fighting about Israel and podcast hosts the Left is racking up electoral wins on the ground and taking control of whole states and the most important city in the country

---

We agree on a lot of things, but you're wrong here. We need to be critical of the fringe, hateful elements of our side. Giving credence to and legitimizing racist ideas by treating them as normal ideas that should be debated is doing a huge disservice to conservatism.

---

But no one has legitimized Fuentes and platformed him

He has a podcast

Not sure what this Republican infighting is supposed to accomplish being that he is not embraced by Republican leaders and he has podcast none of them can do anything about.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

Ben Shapiro in WSJ"

The American right is at a crossroads.'''

Mr. Carlson's most common tactic is ideological laundering: He hosts guests with ugly ideologies, soft-pedals their views and launders them into mainstream respectability. He claims he's "just asking questions," and that's precisely what he did last week:

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party before it, is at risk of being eaten alive by fringe actors. To allow it is both morally unjustifiable and politically obtuse. Americans reject this garbage.

---

I don't listen to Shapiro, but it's hard to argue with any of the above.

---

1. The American Right is not at a "crossroads"....most normal people are not even aware of these internet fights.

2. This is the same language that liberals use to silence conservatives all the time...."dangerous", "soft-pedals and launder views"

He is essentially arguing for the same kind of liberal and leftist tactics used against free speech on college campuses and the Media that he claims to have been fighting against.

3. The Republican party is in no danger of being "eaten alive" by anti-Israel and anti-jewish views.

That is a hysteric statement....and not close to reality.

Most normal Republicans and certainly the majority of Congress are not in any danger of moving on their very pro-Israel positions.

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap..]

Massive supermajority support inside the party.

He would be better served and more accurate to say there is a danger of YOUNG republicans or conservatives losing support for Israel. Something that would take decades to play out.

There is zero chance for any change in the foresable future on the issue of Israel among the GOP

---

I disagree with you completely that this is some fringe issue that may not affect future elections. We have very conservative friends here in our community that feel the same way as the groypers, and have advised they will not vote for future Republican candidates based on same.

I think you underestimate how big the faction is. When Tucker, given his influence and audience, starts preaching it, it's time to take notice. Ignoring the issue only makes it worse.

---

And you will always have people who don't fit the mainstream on this or that issue. Or are just straight up on on the fringe.

But still....look at the real data

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap is easily the largest since Gallup began tracking the data, and three times as large as the 18-point difference between Democratic and Republican voters that existed between 2001 and 2023.]

The GOP is as much of a pro-Israel party as can be.

Now there is a debate about the young conservatives and their views on Israel....but again that would take decades to play out.

25 year olds don't hold power in the party (or anywhere else)


And if there is a debate to be had....then make the arguments for why being pro-Israel is needed. That is what Shapiro has to do.

He can't win the argument by falling back on the old authoritarian tactics of the American Liberal-Left.....trying to silence people that he does not like, shut down debate, intimidate people, de-platform, drive them off the college campus, calling them defamatory names "racist:, ect.

That does not even work anymore as a tactic.....Jon Stewart was chastised this past week by some New York Times bootlicker about talking to the "wrong kind of people" or "platforming people"....Joe Rogan specifically... and Stewart made the accurate assessment that if you don't talk to people you can't find out what they really think and that EVERYONE has a platform now with the internet and you can't shut it down anyway....you just look like a censor in trying.

"There is not a person in this world right now who is not platformed" -Jon Stewart

🔥 Jon Stewart Wrecks New Yorker Editor David Remnick for Whining About Joe Rogan

REMNICK: “He's had people on who are kind of N*** curious. That's not good.”

STEWART: “I've interviewed Kissinger. And he was carpet bomb curious.”

REMNICK: “But I don't have the audience that… pic.twitter.com/N3X3wI2Jbd

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) November 1, 2025

---

From National Review

Robert Rector a welfare scholar who said he has been with Heritage for 47 years, compared Carlson and Fuentes to members of the John Birch Society and argued that they need to be sidelined in the same way that National Review founder William F. Buckley sidelined the Birchers in the 1960's.

"Tucker's show is like stepping into a lunatic asylum," Rector said in remarks first reported by the Beacon, arguing that Carlson failed to confront Fuentes over his bigoted views and also gave a pass to the revisionist amateur historian Darryl Cooper, who argued during an appearance on Carlson's show that Winston Churchill was the real villain of World War II.

---

A basic argument for censorship…a very old line.

You don't have to out of your way to support John Birch nuttiness.

And you should absolutely speak out against the ideas they bring up you think are wrong, or inaccurate, or just plan crazy.

But as Jon Stewart pointed out this week you can't actually de-platform anyone in the internet age.

EVERYONE has a platform.

This is not 1980

You have to do the work to get out there and debate the ideas and win the battle of arguments.

Not just expect the legacy corporate media or political think tanks to do it for you.

---

I think you're confusing de-platform with giving a much bigger platform to heinous ideas. These are two very distinct scenarios.

Nobody said let's de-platform Tucker or even Fuentes. What they're saying is Tucker shouldn't give his platform to racist and hateful ideas. And there's absolutely nothing unamerican about that.

---

The people attacking Tucker or Fuentes were not platforming them before this…in the case of Fuentes I'm sure they did not even know he existed (heck I'm a online millennial and I barely am aware of him…he is Gen Z coded content of a very troll-ish or Howard stern in the 90s kind of shock jock schtick)

But these groups attacking them have been successful in one way…that is turning the Right into an inside slap fight clown match about some mostly meaningless podcasters with 1/50th the audience of Joe Rogan on the eve of a big election fight….a fight the GOP just lost big by the way. Maybe setting up to lose the House and watch the Left impeach Trump again for the 3rd time.

And while the attacks on Tucker and Fuentes are fine by me in a general way….they are using standard coded liberal-leftist language…."muh racism", "dangerous viewpoints", "mainstreaming hate"

Instead of arguing with the actual statements, making a convincing counter argument, and winning the battle of ideas.

Go out and make the case to 20 year old conservatives online why we need to give Israel billions. If you have the arguments then make them. Explain to the terminal online kids how it helps them and the USA.

Go out and explain why Churchill was not wrong in WWII to stand up to Hitler and advocate for never trusting him…and how Churchill was not a "villain". But also be willing to grapple with the young folks in the USA and Europe sick to death of WWII being used at a modern weaponized argument for pushing endless Leftist ideas like anti-nationalism and mass 3rd world migration.

Just drop the tactics we have seen used against milk toast conservatives by the far left on college campuses for 50 years.

Young people are sick of that ****

---

It's not about coding. They're calling Fuentes a dangerous racist because that's what he is. And you're playing into the lie by conflating his racism with opposition to Israel.

---

And the left has used that term so often against so many people who are not that it becomes meaningless to most people.

Certainly to the young who have seen that old game play out 100,000 times in their short lives.

Again you are not convincing them by argument….you're throwing out insults…possibly true insult. But still the same insults they see the Left use constantly.

If this is the best you have…then it's not surprising the youth are not listening anymore. This stuff just rolls off them

---

I don't agree that the reaction is insignificant. The youth will set our course in the not too distant future.

---

Then you have to get out there (even on these pod casts) and meet them and debate them. And bring them over to your side.

Let the youth know you hear them, understand their concerns, and how your way is better or how the person they are listening to is wrong.

But the biggest way to get 20 year old rightwingers to run to the podcast shock jock you dislike is to call him "racist" or "hater".

They will run to him just to be contrarian and to listen the guy the old folks are scared of….

PS

And while we are fighting about Israel and podcast hosts the Left is racking up electoral wins on the ground and taking control of whole states and the most important city in the country

---

We agree on a lot of things, but you're wrong here. We need to be critical of the fringe, hateful elements of our side. Giving credence to and legitimizing racist ideas by treating them as normal ideas that should be debated is doing a huge disservice to conservatism.

---

But no one has legitimized Fuentes and platformed him

He has a podcast

Not sure what this Republican infighting is supposed to accomplish being that he is not embraced by Republican leaders and he has podcast none of them can do anything about.

---

Tucker did. Tossed him softball questions that gave him credibility, and refused to challenge him at all on the incendiary stuff.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

Ben Shapiro in WSJ"

The American right is at a crossroads.'''

Mr. Carlson's most common tactic is ideological laundering: He hosts guests with ugly ideologies, soft-pedals their views and launders them into mainstream respectability. He claims he's "just asking questions," and that's precisely what he did last week:

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party before it, is at risk of being eaten alive by fringe actors. To allow it is both morally unjustifiable and politically obtuse. Americans reject this garbage.

---

I don't listen to Shapiro, but it's hard to argue with any of the above.

---

1. The American Right is not at a "crossroads"....most normal people are not even aware of these internet fights.

2. This is the same language that liberals use to silence conservatives all the time...."dangerous", "soft-pedals and launder views"

He is essentially arguing for the same kind of liberal and leftist tactics used against free speech on college campuses and the Media that he claims to have been fighting against.

3. The Republican party is in no danger of being "eaten alive" by anti-Israel and anti-jewish views.

That is a hysteric statement....and not close to reality.

Most normal Republicans and certainly the majority of Congress are not in any danger of moving on their very pro-Israel positions.

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap..]

Massive supermajority support inside the party.

He would be better served and more accurate to say there is a danger of YOUNG republicans or conservatives losing support for Israel. Something that would take decades to play out.

There is zero chance for any change in the foresable future on the issue of Israel among the GOP

---

I disagree with you completely that this is some fringe issue that may not affect future elections. We have very conservative friends here in our community that feel the same way as the groypers, and have advised they will not vote for future Republican candidates based on same.

I think you underestimate how big the faction is. When Tucker, given his influence and audience, starts preaching it, it's time to take notice. Ignoring the issue only makes it worse.

---

And you will always have people who don't fit the mainstream on this or that issue. Or are just straight up on on the fringe.

But still....look at the real data

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap is easily the largest since Gallup began tracking the data, and three times as large as the 18-point difference between Democratic and Republican voters that existed between 2001 and 2023.]

The GOP is as much of a pro-Israel party as can be.

Now there is a debate about the young conservatives and their views on Israel....but again that would take decades to play out.

25 year olds don't hold power in the party (or anywhere else)


And if there is a debate to be had....then make the arguments for why being pro-Israel is needed. That is what Shapiro has to do.

He can't win the argument by falling back on the old authoritarian tactics of the American Liberal-Left.....trying to silence people that he does not like, shut down debate, intimidate people, de-platform, drive them off the college campus, calling them defamatory names "racist:, ect.

That does not even work anymore as a tactic.....Jon Stewart was chastised this past week by some New York Times bootlicker about talking to the "wrong kind of people" or "platforming people"....Joe Rogan specifically... and Stewart made the accurate assessment that if you don't talk to people you can't find out what they really think and that EVERYONE has a platform now with the internet and you can't shut it down anyway....you just look like a censor in trying.

"There is not a person in this world right now who is not platformed" -Jon Stewart

🔥 Jon Stewart Wrecks New Yorker Editor David Remnick for Whining About Joe Rogan

REMNICK: “He's had people on who are kind of N*** curious. That's not good.”

STEWART: “I've interviewed Kissinger. And he was carpet bomb curious.”

REMNICK: “But I don't have the audience that… pic.twitter.com/N3X3wI2Jbd

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) November 1, 2025

---

From National Review

Robert Rector a welfare scholar who said he has been with Heritage for 47 years, compared Carlson and Fuentes to members of the John Birch Society and argued that they need to be sidelined in the same way that National Review founder William F. Buckley sidelined the Birchers in the 1960's.

"Tucker's show is like stepping into a lunatic asylum," Rector said in remarks first reported by the Beacon, arguing that Carlson failed to confront Fuentes over his bigoted views and also gave a pass to the revisionist amateur historian Darryl Cooper, who argued during an appearance on Carlson's show that Winston Churchill was the real villain of World War II.

---

A basic argument for censorship…a very old line.

You don't have to out of your way to support John Birch nuttiness.

And you should absolutely speak out against the ideas they bring up you think are wrong, or inaccurate, or just plan crazy.

But as Jon Stewart pointed out this week you can't actually de-platform anyone in the internet age.

EVERYONE has a platform.

This is not 1980

You have to do the work to get out there and debate the ideas and win the battle of arguments.

Not just expect the legacy corporate media or political think tanks to do it for you.

---

I think you're confusing de-platform with giving a much bigger platform to heinous ideas. These are two very distinct scenarios.

Nobody said let's de-platform Tucker or even Fuentes. What they're saying is Tucker shouldn't give his platform to racist and hateful ideas. And there's absolutely nothing unamerican about that.

---

The people attacking Tucker or Fuentes were not platforming them before this…in the case of Fuentes I'm sure they did not even know he existed (heck I'm a online millennial and I barely am aware of him…he is Gen Z coded content of a very troll-ish or Howard stern in the 90s kind of shock jock schtick)

But these groups attacking them have been successful in one way…that is turning the Right into an inside slap fight clown match about some mostly meaningless podcasters with 1/50th the audience of Joe Rogan on the eve of a big election fight….a fight the GOP just lost big by the way. Maybe setting up to lose the House and watch the Left impeach Trump again for the 3rd time.

And while the attacks on Tucker and Fuentes are fine by me in a general way….they are using standard coded liberal-leftist language…."muh racism", "dangerous viewpoints", "mainstreaming hate"

Instead of arguing with the actual statements, making a convincing counter argument, and winning the battle of ideas.

Go out and make the case to 20 year old conservatives online why we need to give Israel billions. If you have the arguments then make them. Explain to the terminal online kids how it helps them and the USA.

Go out and explain why Churchill was not wrong in WWII to stand up to Hitler and advocate for never trusting him…and how Churchill was not a "villain". But also be willing to grapple with the young folks in the USA and Europe sick to death of WWII being used at a modern weaponized argument for pushing endless Leftist ideas like anti-nationalism and mass 3rd world migration.

Just drop the tactics we have seen used against milk toast conservatives by the far left on college campuses for 50 years.

Young people are sick of that ****

---

It's not about coding. They're calling Fuentes a dangerous racist because that's what he is. And you're playing into the lie by conflating his racism with opposition to Israel.

---

And the left has used that term so often against so many people who are not that it becomes meaningless to most people.

Certainly to the young who have seen that old game play out 100,000 times in their short lives.

Again you are not convincing them by argument….you're throwing out insults…possibly true insult. But still the same insults they see the Left use constantly.

If this is the best you have…then it's not surprising the youth are not listening anymore. This stuff just rolls off them

---

I don't agree that the reaction is insignificant. The youth will set our course in the not too distant future.

---

Then you have to get out there (even on these pod casts) and meet them and debate them. And bring them over to your side.

Let the youth know you hear them, understand their concerns, and how your way is better or how the person they are listening to is wrong.

But the biggest way to get 20 year old rightwingers to run to the podcast shock jock you dislike is to call him "racist" or "hater".

They will run to him just to be contrarian and to listen the guy the old folks are scared of….

PS

And while we are fighting about Israel and podcast hosts the Left is racking up electoral wins on the ground and taking control of whole states and the most important city in the country

---

We agree on a lot of things, but you're wrong here. We need to be critical of the fringe, hateful elements of our side. Giving credence to and legitimizing racist ideas by treating them as normal ideas that should be debated is doing a huge disservice to conservatism.

---

But no one has legitimized Fuentes and platformed him

He has a podcast

Not sure what this Republican infighting is supposed to accomplish being that he is not embraced by Republican leaders and he has podcast none of them can do anything about.

---

Tucker did. Tossed him softball questions that gave him credibility, and refused to challenge him at all on the incendiary stuff.

---

The Heritage Foundation is erupting in open revolt against its president, Kevin Roberts, as the right-wing think tank struggles to deal with internal and external anger over his defense of former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
The furor began after Carlson invited Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist who routinely espouses antisemitic views, onto his popular podcast. Roberts then posted a video that castigated a "venomous coalition" and "the globalist class" for attacking Carlson, whom Roberts called "a close friend of the Heritage Foundation." Numerous Heritage staffers and conservative figures said the comments played on antisemitic tropes.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

Ben Shapiro in WSJ"

The American right is at a crossroads.'''

Mr. Carlson's most common tactic is ideological laundering: He hosts guests with ugly ideologies, soft-pedals their views and launders them into mainstream respectability. He claims he's "just asking questions," and that's precisely what he did last week:

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party before it, is at risk of being eaten alive by fringe actors. To allow it is both morally unjustifiable and politically obtuse. Americans reject this garbage.

---

I don't listen to Shapiro, but it's hard to argue with any of the above.

---

1. The American Right is not at a "crossroads"....most normal people are not even aware of these internet fights.

2. This is the same language that liberals use to silence conservatives all the time...."dangerous", "soft-pedals and launder views"

He is essentially arguing for the same kind of liberal and leftist tactics used against free speech on college campuses and the Media that he claims to have been fighting against.

3. The Republican party is in no danger of being "eaten alive" by anti-Israel and anti-jewish views.

That is a hysteric statement....and not close to reality.

Most normal Republicans and certainly the majority of Congress are not in any danger of moving on their very pro-Israel positions.

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap..]

Massive supermajority support inside the party.

He would be better served and more accurate to say there is a danger of YOUNG republicans or conservatives losing support for Israel. Something that would take decades to play out.

There is zero chance for any change in the foresable future on the issue of Israel among the GOP

---

I disagree with you completely that this is some fringe issue that may not affect future elections. We have very conservative friends here in our community that feel the same way as the groypers, and have advised they will not vote for future Republican candidates based on same.

I think you underestimate how big the faction is. When Tucker, given his influence and audience, starts preaching it, it's time to take notice. Ignoring the issue only makes it worse.

---

And you will always have people who don't fit the mainstream on this or that issue. Or are just straight up on on the fringe.

But still....look at the real data

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap is easily the largest since Gallup began tracking the data, and three times as large as the 18-point difference between Democratic and Republican voters that existed between 2001 and 2023.]

The GOP is as much of a pro-Israel party as can be.

Now there is a debate about the young conservatives and their views on Israel....but again that would take decades to play out.

25 year olds don't hold power in the party (or anywhere else)


And if there is a debate to be had....then make the arguments for why being pro-Israel is needed. That is what Shapiro has to do.

He can't win the argument by falling back on the old authoritarian tactics of the American Liberal-Left.....trying to silence people that he does not like, shut down debate, intimidate people, de-platform, drive them off the college campus, calling them defamatory names "racist:, ect.

That does not even work anymore as a tactic.....Jon Stewart was chastised this past week by some New York Times bootlicker about talking to the "wrong kind of people" or "platforming people"....Joe Rogan specifically... and Stewart made the accurate assessment that if you don't talk to people you can't find out what they really think and that EVERYONE has a platform now with the internet and you can't shut it down anyway....you just look like a censor in trying.

"There is not a person in this world right now who is not platformed" -Jon Stewart

🔥 Jon Stewart Wrecks New Yorker Editor David Remnick for Whining About Joe Rogan

REMNICK: “He's had people on who are kind of N*** curious. That's not good.”

STEWART: “I've interviewed Kissinger. And he was carpet bomb curious.”

REMNICK: “But I don't have the audience that… pic.twitter.com/N3X3wI2Jbd

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) November 1, 2025

---

From National Review

Robert Rector a welfare scholar who said he has been with Heritage for 47 years, compared Carlson and Fuentes to members of the John Birch Society and argued that they need to be sidelined in the same way that National Review founder William F. Buckley sidelined the Birchers in the 1960's.

"Tucker's show is like stepping into a lunatic asylum," Rector said in remarks first reported by the Beacon, arguing that Carlson failed to confront Fuentes over his bigoted views and also gave a pass to the revisionist amateur historian Darryl Cooper, who argued during an appearance on Carlson's show that Winston Churchill was the real villain of World War II.

---

A basic argument for censorship…a very old line.

You don't have to out of your way to support John Birch nuttiness.

And you should absolutely speak out against the ideas they bring up you think are wrong, or inaccurate, or just plan crazy.

But as Jon Stewart pointed out this week you can't actually de-platform anyone in the internet age.

EVERYONE has a platform.

This is not 1980

You have to do the work to get out there and debate the ideas and win the battle of arguments.

Not just expect the legacy corporate media or political think tanks to do it for you.

---

I think you're confusing de-platform with giving a much bigger platform to heinous ideas. These are two very distinct scenarios.

Nobody said let's de-platform Tucker or even Fuentes. What they're saying is Tucker shouldn't give his platform to racist and hateful ideas. And there's absolutely nothing unamerican about that.

---

The people attacking Tucker or Fuentes were not platforming them before this…in the case of Fuentes I'm sure they did not even know he existed (heck I'm a online millennial and I barely am aware of him…he is Gen Z coded content of a very troll-ish or Howard stern in the 90s kind of shock jock schtick)

But these groups attacking them have been successful in one way…that is turning the Right into an inside slap fight clown match about some mostly meaningless podcasters with 1/50th the audience of Joe Rogan on the eve of a big election fight….a fight the GOP just lost big by the way. Maybe setting up to lose the House and watch the Left impeach Trump again for the 3rd time.

And while the attacks on Tucker and Fuentes are fine by me in a general way….they are using standard coded liberal-leftist language…."muh racism", "dangerous viewpoints", "mainstreaming hate"

Instead of arguing with the actual statements, making a convincing counter argument, and winning the battle of ideas.

Go out and make the case to 20 year old conservatives online why we need to give Israel billions. If you have the arguments then make them. Explain to the terminal online kids how it helps them and the USA.

Go out and explain why Churchill was not wrong in WWII to stand up to Hitler and advocate for never trusting him…and how Churchill was not a "villain". But also be willing to grapple with the young folks in the USA and Europe sick to death of WWII being used at a modern weaponized argument for pushing endless Leftist ideas like anti-nationalism and mass 3rd world migration.

Just drop the tactics we have seen used against milk toast conservatives by the far left on college campuses for 50 years.

Young people are sick of that ****

---

It's not about coding. They're calling Fuentes a dangerous racist because that's what he is. And you're playing into the lie by conflating his racism with opposition to Israel.

---

And the left has used that term so often against so many people who are not that it becomes meaningless to most people.

Certainly to the young who have seen that old game play out 100,000 times in their short lives.

Again you are not convincing them by argument….you're throwing out insults…possibly true insult. But still the same insults they see the Left use constantly.

If this is the best you have…then it's not surprising the youth are not listening anymore. This stuff just rolls off them

---

I don't agree that the reaction is insignificant. The youth will set our course in the not too distant future.

---

Then you have to get out there (even on these pod casts) and meet them and debate them. And bring them over to your side.

Let the youth know you hear them, understand their concerns, and how your way is better or how the person they are listening to is wrong.

But the biggest way to get 20 year old rightwingers to run to the podcast shock jock you dislike is to call him "racist" or "hater".

They will run to him just to be contrarian and to listen the guy the old folks are scared of….

PS

And while we are fighting about Israel and podcast hosts the Left is racking up electoral wins on the ground and taking control of whole states and the most important city in the country

---

We agree on a lot of things, but you're wrong here. We need to be critical of the fringe, hateful elements of our side. Giving credence to and legitimizing racist ideas by treating them as normal ideas that should be debated is doing a huge disservice to conservatism.

---

But no one has legitimized Fuentes and platformed him

He has a podcast

Not sure what this Republican infighting is supposed to accomplish being that he is not embraced by Republican leaders and he has podcast none of them can do anything about.

---

Tucker did. Tossed him softball questions that gave him credibility, and refused to challenge him at all on the incendiary stuff.

---

And Tucker is not a Republican elected official, does not work for Fox News, or for a major Conservative think tank in DC

You are mad that one podcaster talked to another podcaster?

I really do not understand what you want the GOP leadership to do.....other than call for censorship of these private podcasters

This is exactly what the Editor of the New Yorker David Remnick was whining to Jon Stewart about (Joe Rogan existing, Rogan having people on he does not like, and Jon Stewart daring to go on and talk to Rogan)

Stewart had to tell him....."stop complaining about someone having a podcast and get out there and make the counter argument...you can't censor or deplatform people now days....everyone in the world has a platform"

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

Ben Shapiro in WSJ"

The American right is at a crossroads.'''

Mr. Carlson's most common tactic is ideological laundering: He hosts guests with ugly ideologies, soft-pedals their views and launders them into mainstream respectability. He claims he's "just asking questions," and that's precisely what he did last week:

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party before it, is at risk of being eaten alive by fringe actors. To allow it is both morally unjustifiable and politically obtuse. Americans reject this garbage.

---

I don't listen to Shapiro, but it's hard to argue with any of the above.

---

1. The American Right is not at a "crossroads"....most normal people are not even aware of these internet fights.

2. This is the same language that liberals use to silence conservatives all the time...."dangerous", "soft-pedals and launder views"

He is essentially arguing for the same kind of liberal and leftist tactics used against free speech on college campuses and the Media that he claims to have been fighting against.

3. The Republican party is in no danger of being "eaten alive" by anti-Israel and anti-jewish views.

That is a hysteric statement....and not close to reality.

Most normal Republicans and certainly the majority of Congress are not in any danger of moving on their very pro-Israel positions.

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap..]

Massive supermajority support inside the party.

He would be better served and more accurate to say there is a danger of YOUNG republicans or conservatives losing support for Israel. Something that would take decades to play out.

There is zero chance for any change in the foresable future on the issue of Israel among the GOP

---

I disagree with you completely that this is some fringe issue that may not affect future elections. We have very conservative friends here in our community that feel the same way as the groypers, and have advised they will not vote for future Republican candidates based on same.

I think you underestimate how big the faction is. When Tucker, given his influence and audience, starts preaching it, it's time to take notice. Ignoring the issue only makes it worse.

---

And you will always have people who don't fit the mainstream on this or that issue. Or are just straight up on on the fringe.

But still....look at the real data

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap is easily the largest since Gallup began tracking the data, and three times as large as the 18-point difference between Democratic and Republican voters that existed between 2001 and 2023.]

The GOP is as much of a pro-Israel party as can be.

Now there is a debate about the young conservatives and their views on Israel....but again that would take decades to play out.

25 year olds don't hold power in the party (or anywhere else)


And if there is a debate to be had....then make the arguments for why being pro-Israel is needed. That is what Shapiro has to do.

He can't win the argument by falling back on the old authoritarian tactics of the American Liberal-Left.....trying to silence people that he does not like, shut down debate, intimidate people, de-platform, drive them off the college campus, calling them defamatory names "racist:, ect.

That does not even work anymore as a tactic.....Jon Stewart was chastised this past week by some New York Times bootlicker about talking to the "wrong kind of people" or "platforming people"....Joe Rogan specifically... and Stewart made the accurate assessment that if you don't talk to people you can't find out what they really think and that EVERYONE has a platform now with the internet and you can't shut it down anyway....you just look like a censor in trying.

"There is not a person in this world right now who is not platformed" -Jon Stewart

🔥 Jon Stewart Wrecks New Yorker Editor David Remnick for Whining About Joe Rogan

REMNICK: “He's had people on who are kind of N*** curious. That's not good.”

STEWART: “I've interviewed Kissinger. And he was carpet bomb curious.”

REMNICK: “But I don't have the audience that… pic.twitter.com/N3X3wI2Jbd

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) November 1, 2025

---

From National Review

Robert Rector a welfare scholar who said he has been with Heritage for 47 years, compared Carlson and Fuentes to members of the John Birch Society and argued that they need to be sidelined in the same way that National Review founder William F. Buckley sidelined the Birchers in the 1960's.

"Tucker's show is like stepping into a lunatic asylum," Rector said in remarks first reported by the Beacon, arguing that Carlson failed to confront Fuentes over his bigoted views and also gave a pass to the revisionist amateur historian Darryl Cooper, who argued during an appearance on Carlson's show that Winston Churchill was the real villain of World War II.

---

A basic argument for censorship…a very old line.

You don't have to out of your way to support John Birch nuttiness.

And you should absolutely speak out against the ideas they bring up you think are wrong, or inaccurate, or just plan crazy.

But as Jon Stewart pointed out this week you can't actually de-platform anyone in the internet age.

EVERYONE has a platform.

This is not 1980

You have to do the work to get out there and debate the ideas and win the battle of arguments.

Not just expect the legacy corporate media or political think tanks to do it for you.

---

I think you're confusing de-platform with giving a much bigger platform to heinous ideas. These are two very distinct scenarios.

Nobody said let's de-platform Tucker or even Fuentes. What they're saying is Tucker shouldn't give his platform to racist and hateful ideas. And there's absolutely nothing unamerican about that.

---

The people attacking Tucker or Fuentes were not platforming them before this…in the case of Fuentes I'm sure they did not even know he existed (heck I'm a online millennial and I barely am aware of him…he is Gen Z coded content of a very troll-ish or Howard stern in the 90s kind of shock jock schtick)

But these groups attacking them have been successful in one way…that is turning the Right into an inside slap fight clown match about some mostly meaningless podcasters with 1/50th the audience of Joe Rogan on the eve of a big election fight….a fight the GOP just lost big by the way. Maybe setting up to lose the House and watch the Left impeach Trump again for the 3rd time.

And while the attacks on Tucker and Fuentes are fine by me in a general way….they are using standard coded liberal-leftist language…."muh racism", "dangerous viewpoints", "mainstreaming hate"

Instead of arguing with the actual statements, making a convincing counter argument, and winning the battle of ideas.

Go out and make the case to 20 year old conservatives online why we need to give Israel billions. If you have the arguments then make them. Explain to the terminal online kids how it helps them and the USA.

Go out and explain why Churchill was not wrong in WWII to stand up to Hitler and advocate for never trusting him…and how Churchill was not a "villain". But also be willing to grapple with the young folks in the USA and Europe sick to death of WWII being used at a modern weaponized argument for pushing endless Leftist ideas like anti-nationalism and mass 3rd world migration.

Just drop the tactics we have seen used against milk toast conservatives by the far left on college campuses for 50 years.

Young people are sick of that ****

---

It's not about coding. They're calling Fuentes a dangerous racist because that's what he is. And you're playing into the lie by conflating his racism with opposition to Israel.

---

And the left has used that term so often against so many people who are not that it becomes meaningless to most people.

Certainly to the young who have seen that old game play out 100,000 times in their short lives.

Again you are not convincing them by argument….you're throwing out insults…possibly true insult. But still the same insults they see the Left use constantly.

If this is the best you have…then it's not surprising the youth are not listening anymore. This stuff just rolls off them

---

I don't agree that the reaction is insignificant. The youth will set our course in the not too distant future.

---

Then you have to get out there (even on these pod casts) and meet them and debate them. And bring them over to your side.

Let the youth know you hear them, understand their concerns, and how your way is better or how the person they are listening to is wrong.

But the biggest way to get 20 year old rightwingers to run to the podcast shock jock you dislike is to call him "racist" or "hater".

They will run to him just to be contrarian and to listen the guy the old folks are scared of….

PS

And while we are fighting about Israel and podcast hosts the Left is racking up electoral wins on the ground and taking control of whole states and the most important city in the country

---

We agree on a lot of things, but you're wrong here. We need to be critical of the fringe, hateful elements of our side. Giving credence to and legitimizing racist ideas by treating them as normal ideas that should be debated is doing a huge disservice to conservatism.

---

But no one has legitimized Fuentes and platformed him

He has a podcast

Not sure what this Republican infighting is supposed to accomplish being that he is not embraced by Republican leaders and he has podcast none of them can do anything about.

---

Tucker did. Tossed him softball questions that gave him credibility, and refused to challenge him at all on the incendiary stuff.

---

And Tucker is not a Republican elected official, does not work for Fox News, or for a major Conservative think tank in DC

You are mad that one post caster talked to another podcaster?

I really do not understand what you want the GOP leadership to do.....other than calls for censorship of these private podcasters

This is exactly what the Editor of the New Yorker David Remnick was whining to Jon Stewart about (Joe Rogan existing, Joe having people on he does not like, and Jon daring to go on and talk to Rogan)

Stewart had to tell him....."stop complaining about someone having a podcast and get out there and make the counter argument...you can't censor or deplatorm people now days....everyone has a platform"

---

You are reading a lot more into my comments than I have stated. I said nothing about "GOP leadership" nor did I ask them to do anything.

I was instead critical of one of the most influential conservative podcasters for giving a platform to white supremacy and racist ideas. That's it.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Tucker is a facilitator, not a gatekeeper.

You'll understand what he does better if you start there.

---

And then the last of the groypers and Tucker apologists makes an appearance.

Batting 1.000 on this thread.

Tucker only seems to ask the difficult questions of his "fellow" conservatives. If you're a racist or despot, you apparently get a pass.

But he's just a "facilitator" and all...

---

I am a Tucker apologist. He has done more to turn the political right into a movement and inform people than almost any other media figure. He's certainly done more than clowns like Hannity, Shapiro, Levin, and the two successors to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah he gets a pass.

I oppose this: Foreign Lobby Watch

I oppose Israel using AIPAC to circumvent FARA.

I oppose giving foreign nations aid when we have a debt to GDP ratio of 130%.

And yes, I believe that the Church is the Israel of God and the Mosaic covenant is done (Hebrews 8:13).

Apparently this makes me an anti-Semitic Hitler figure or something.

I am not a groyper. And while I disagree with some - possibly even much - of what Fuentes says, the two of us have this in common...after living our adult lives under the political orthodoxy enforced by the political establishment we are both well past caring what those who represent it care about what we think.

---

Ben Shapiro in WSJ"

The American right is at a crossroads.'''

Mr. Carlson's most common tactic is ideological laundering: He hosts guests with ugly ideologies, soft-pedals their views and launders them into mainstream respectability. He claims he's "just asking questions," and that's precisely what he did last week:

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party before it, is at risk of being eaten alive by fringe actors. To allow it is both morally unjustifiable and politically obtuse. Americans reject this garbage.

---

I don't listen to Shapiro, but it's hard to argue with any of the above.

---

1. The American Right is not at a "crossroads"....most normal people are not even aware of these internet fights.

2. This is the same language that liberals use to silence conservatives all the time...."dangerous", "soft-pedals and launder views"

He is essentially arguing for the same kind of liberal and leftist tactics used against free speech on college campuses and the Media that he claims to have been fighting against.

3. The Republican party is in no danger of being "eaten alive" by anti-Israel and anti-jewish views.

That is a hysteric statement....and not close to reality.

Most normal Republicans and certainly the majority of Congress are not in any danger of moving on their very pro-Israel positions.

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap..]

Massive supermajority support inside the party.

He would be better served and more accurate to say there is a danger of YOUNG republicans or conservatives losing support for Israel. Something that would take decades to play out.

There is zero chance for any change in the foresable future on the issue of Israel among the GOP

---

I disagree with you completely that this is some fringe issue that may not affect future elections. We have very conservative friends here in our community that feel the same way as the groypers, and have advised they will not vote for future Republican candidates based on same.

I think you underestimate how big the faction is. When Tucker, given his influence and audience, starts preaching it, it's time to take notice. Ignoring the issue only makes it worse.

---

And you will always have people who don't fit the mainstream on this or that issue. Or are just straight up on on the fringe.

But still....look at the real data

[A Gallup survey from earlier this year found that 83% of Republican voters have a positive view of Israel, compared to just 33% of Democrats. That 50-point gap is easily the largest since Gallup began tracking the data, and three times as large as the 18-point difference between Democratic and Republican voters that existed between 2001 and 2023.]

The GOP is as much of a pro-Israel party as can be.

Now there is a debate about the young conservatives and their views on Israel....but again that would take decades to play out.

25 year olds don't hold power in the party (or anywhere else)


And if there is a debate to be had....then make the arguments for why being pro-Israel is needed. That is what Shapiro has to do.

He can't win the argument by falling back on the old authoritarian tactics of the American Liberal-Left.....trying to silence people that he does not like, shut down debate, intimidate people, de-platform, drive them off the college campus, calling them defamatory names "racist:, ect.

That does not even work anymore as a tactic.....Jon Stewart was chastised this past week by some New York Times bootlicker about talking to the "wrong kind of people" or "platforming people"....Joe Rogan specifically... and Stewart made the accurate assessment that if you don't talk to people you can't find out what they really think and that EVERYONE has a platform now with the internet and you can't shut it down anyway....you just look like a censor in trying.

"There is not a person in this world right now who is not platformed" -Jon Stewart

🔥 Jon Stewart Wrecks New Yorker Editor David Remnick for Whining About Joe Rogan

REMNICK: “He's had people on who are kind of N*** curious. That's not good.”

STEWART: “I've interviewed Kissinger. And he was carpet bomb curious.”

REMNICK: “But I don't have the audience that… pic.twitter.com/N3X3wI2Jbd

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) November 1, 2025

---

From National Review

Robert Rector a welfare scholar who said he has been with Heritage for 47 years, compared Carlson and Fuentes to members of the John Birch Society and argued that they need to be sidelined in the same way that National Review founder William F. Buckley sidelined the Birchers in the 1960's.

"Tucker's show is like stepping into a lunatic asylum," Rector said in remarks first reported by the Beacon, arguing that Carlson failed to confront Fuentes over his bigoted views and also gave a pass to the revisionist amateur historian Darryl Cooper, who argued during an appearance on Carlson's show that Winston Churchill was the real villain of World War II.

---

A basic argument for censorship…a very old line.

You don't have to out of your way to support John Birch nuttiness.

And you should absolutely speak out against the ideas they bring up you think are wrong, or inaccurate, or just plan crazy.

But as Jon Stewart pointed out this week you can't actually de-platform anyone in the internet age.

EVERYONE has a platform.

This is not 1980

You have to do the work to get out there and debate the ideas and win the battle of arguments.

Not just expect the legacy corporate media or political think tanks to do it for you.

---

I think you're confusing de-platform with giving a much bigger platform to heinous ideas. These are two very distinct scenarios.

Nobody said let's de-platform Tucker or even Fuentes. What they're saying is Tucker shouldn't give his platform to racist and hateful ideas. And there's absolutely nothing unamerican about that.

---

The people attacking Tucker or Fuentes were not platforming them before this…in the case of Fuentes I'm sure they did not even know he existed (heck I'm a online millennial and I barely am aware of him…he is Gen Z coded content of a very troll-ish or Howard stern in the 90s kind of shock jock schtick)

But these groups attacking them have been successful in one way…that is turning the Right into an inside slap fight clown match about some mostly meaningless podcasters with 1/50th the audience of Joe Rogan on the eve of a big election fight….a fight the GOP just lost big by the way. Maybe setting up to lose the House and watch the Left impeach Trump again for the 3rd time.

And while the attacks on Tucker and Fuentes are fine by me in a general way….they are using standard coded liberal-leftist language…."muh racism", "dangerous viewpoints", "mainstreaming hate"

Instead of arguing with the actual statements, making a convincing counter argument, and winning the battle of ideas.

Go out and make the case to 20 year old conservatives online why we need to give Israel billions. If you have the arguments then make them. Explain to the terminal online kids how it helps them and the USA.

Go out and explain why Churchill was not wrong in WWII to stand up to Hitler and advocate for never trusting him…and how Churchill was not a "villain". But also be willing to grapple with the young folks in the USA and Europe sick to death of WWII being used at a modern weaponized argument for pushing endless Leftist ideas like anti-nationalism and mass 3rd world migration.

Just drop the tactics we have seen used against milk toast conservatives by the far left on college campuses for 50 years.

Young people are sick of that ****

---

It's not about coding. They're calling Fuentes a dangerous racist because that's what he is. And you're playing into the lie by conflating his racism with opposition to Israel.

---

And the left has used that term so often against so many people who are not that it becomes meaningless to most people.

Certainly to the young who have seen that old game play out 100,000 times in their short lives.

Again you are not convincing them by argument….you're throwing out insults…possibly true insult. But still the same insults they see the Left use constantly.

If this is the best you have…then it's not surprising the youth are not listening anymore. This stuff just rolls off them

---

I don't agree that the reaction is insignificant. The youth will set our course in the not too distant future.

---

Then you have to get out there (even on these pod casts) and meet them and debate them. And bring them over to your side.

Let the youth know you hear them, understand their concerns, and how your way is better or how the person they are listening to is wrong.

But the biggest way to get 20 year old rightwingers to run to the podcast shock jock you dislike is to call him "racist" or "hater".

They will run to him just to be contrarian and to listen the guy the old folks are scared of….

PS

And while we are fighting about Israel and podcast hosts the Left is racking up electoral wins on the ground and taking control of whole states and the most important city in the country

---

We agree on a lot of things, but you're wrong here. We need to be critical of the fringe, hateful elements of our side. Giving credence to and legitimizing racist ideas by treating them as normal ideas that should be debated is doing a huge disservice to conservatism.

---

But no one has legitimized Fuentes and platformed him

He has a podcast

Not sure what this Republican infighting is supposed to accomplish being that he is not embraced by Republican leaders and he has podcast none of them can do anything about.

---

Tucker did. Tossed him softball questions that gave him credibility, and refused to challenge him at all on the incendiary stuff.

---

And Tucker is not a Republican elected official, does not work for Fox News, or for a major Conservative think tank in DC

You are mad that one post caster talked to another podcaster?

I really do not understand what you want the GOP leadership to do.....other than calls for censorship of these private podcasters

This is exactly what the Editor of the New Yorker David Remnick was whining to Jon Stewart about (Joe Rogan existing, Joe having people on he does not like, and Jon daring to go on and talk to Rogan)

Stewart had to tell him....."stop complaining about someone having a podcast and get out there and make the counter argument...you can't censor or deplatorm people now days....everyone has a platform"

---

You are reading a lot more into my comments than I have stated. I said nothing about "GOP leadership" nor did I ask them to do anything.

I was instead critical of one of the most influential conservative podcasters for giving a platform to white supremacy and racist ideas. That's it.

---

So you are just complaining about one podcaster talking to another and having views you don't like.

Views that don't represent the majority of Republicans.

But might be making inroads with young conservatives.

So instead of getting out there an making a counter argument...or gasp...going on these very podcasts and debating the guys and telling their audience what views are wrong.

We just complain and whine....and we now have the whole party infighting over podcasters views instead of focusing on winning major State elections.

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This merging of personal weakness with political persecution narratives might be one of the saddest things to witness. A generation addicted to the dopamine fixes via social media algorithms who seek belonging in echo chamber feedback loops. Nick Fuentes isn't smart. He just articulates inanity to audiences looking for affirmation of their blame culture. This isn't edgy truth telling. It's the recycling of concepts centuries old, and a manifesting of victimhood politics the right used to mock when other minorities groups would play it.

What a pathetically weak movement. This isn't America First. It's Blame First.

---

That's the ticket!

So what if we sold off every American industry we inherited to foreign interests for a few easy bucks(see Bain Capital)?...

So what if the highly skilled jobs were outsourced to H1Bs who worked for half the wages and now Americans don't have the skills to manufacture at home(see Steve Jobs/Apple Computer Chips in the 90ties)?...

So what if they are starting from scratch and having the compete against highly subsidized industries in the global marketplace(see any industrial)?...

Its those damn kids fault for not being so damn lazy and not entrepreneurial enough!

I'm a Gen-X finance guy... I grew up in the Golden Age of America where the national debt was a measly $2 trillion and I didn't have to worry about global competition or AI replacing my worthless degree.

My generation played life on easy mode and I'm completely oblivious to how good I had it!

---

You want some cheese with that whine?

---

To reference the famous Warren Buffet quote, you won the genetic lottery ATL_Bear.

You were born in the perfect time and place in human history.

To believe you'd be any less "petulant" than the kids starting from scratch today with mid-5 figure salaries trying to make ends meet and live a decent life is extremely dubious.

---

If you're so soft as to be complaining about starting your career with a "mid-five figure salary" and trying to make ends meet, I'm not sure what to say. Woe is thee…lol… Nearly everyone born in the United States has won the genetic lottery. The problem is we no longer value sustained sacrifice, only rage fueled jealousy, anger and instant gratification. We've given in to our first world privilege and moved to first world entitlement.

Hard times create strong men
Strong men create good times
Good times create weak men. <-you are between here
Weak men create hard times. <and here

I didn't realize it was so easy to get on Tucker's podcast. Go ahead and sign me up; I'm free this afternoon.

BaylorFTW said:

---

The older generations really need to own their culpability here and start caring about the next generations. They created this mess which is why they aren't being listened to now.

---

Can you be a little more specific?

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This merging of personal weakness with political persecution narratives might be one of the saddest things to witness. A generation addicted to the dopamine fixes via social media algorithms who seek belonging in echo chamber feedback loops. Nick Fuentes isn't smart. He just articulates inanity to audiences looking for affirmation of their blame culture. This isn't edgy truth telling. It's the recycling of concepts centuries old, and a manifesting of victimhood politics the right used to mock when other minorities groups would play it.

What a pathetically weak movement. This isn't America First. It's Blame First.

---

That's the ticket!

So what if we sold off every American industry we inherited to foreign interests for a few easy bucks(see Bain Capital)?...

So what if the highly skilled jobs were outsourced to H1Bs who worked for half the wages and now Americans don't have the skills to manufacture at home(see Steve Jobs/Apple Computer Chips in the 90ties)?...

So what if they are starting from scratch and having the compete against highly subsidized industries in the global marketplace(see any industrial)?...

Its those damn kids fault for not being so damn lazy and not entrepreneurial enough!

I'm a Gen-X finance guy... I grew up in the Golden Age of America where the national debt was a measly $2 trillion and I didn't have to worry about global competition or AI replacing my worthless degree.

My generation played life on easy mode and I'm completely oblivious to how good I had it!

---

You want some cheese with that whine?

---

To reference the famous Warren Buffet quote, you won the genetic lottery ATL_Bear.

You were born in the perfect time and place in human history.

To believe you'd be any less "petulant" than the kids starting from scratch today with mid-5 figure salaries trying to make ends meet and live a decent life is extremely dubious.

---

If you're so soft as to be complaining about starting your career with a "mid-five figure salary" and trying to make ends meet, I'm not sure what to say. Woe is thee…lol… Nearly everyone born in the United States has won the genetic lottery. The problem is we no longer value sustained sacrifice, only rage fueled jealousy, anger and instant gratification. We've given in to our first world privilege and moved to first world entitlement.

Hard times create strong men
Strong men create good times
Good times create weak men. <-you are between here
Weak men create hard times. <and here

---

We are paying the tax on the dividend from a half century of relative peace.

I suppose we could try to pretend Tucker is some mere "podcaster" operating out of his basement, doesn't have a nightly audience of 3.25 million, doesn't speak at numerous conservative events all over the country, and doesn't have much sway in the party. But we both know that would be an intellectually dishonest position.

Last I checked, Ben Shapiro (and other Republicans) did exactly what you described - pushed back against the bull**** that Fuentes spouts. The fact they also called out Tucker for giving the dude a platform was also appropriate.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I didn't realize it was so easy to get on Tucker's podcast. Go ahead and sign me up; I'm free this afternoon.

---

You should reach out.....you might be surprised who he will talk to

I will say Mark Levin is part of the group very unhappy with the Tucker and Funetes types.

He has his own radio show to push back on these views about Israel and Jews....and he should go on and talk to these guys and their audience and debate....at the very least he would reach a under age 35 demographic he is probably not reaching right now.

And while Tucker and Fuenetes might not have you on....I am sure they would have him on to debate.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I didn't realize it was so easy to get on Tucker's podcast. Go ahead and sign me up; I'm free this afternoon.

---

LOL. Well, he is just some schmo operating out of his basement, afterall.

Mothra said:

---

I suppose we could try to pretend Tucker is some mere "podcaster" operating out of his basement, doesn't have a nightly audience of 3.25 million, doesn't speak at numerous conservative events all over the country, and doesn't have much sway in the party. But we both know that would be an intellectually dishonest position.

Last I checked, Ben Shapiro (and other Republicans) did exactly what you described - pushed back against the bull**** that Fuentes spouts. The fact they also called out Tucker for giving the dude a platform was also appropriate.

---

1. As Jon Stewart said "everyone now has a platform....if you don't like the other guy then get out there and get an audience". The New Yorker Editor just scoffed about that. But its true. The Editor of the New Yorker just wants them silenced and not to have to do the hard work of earning an audience.

Tucker's actually normal episode audience is more like a million...but still....what exactly are people who don't like it supposed to do? Fox already kicked him off because they found him controversial and no longer liked his views. They can't de-platform him or stop him from saying things they don't like or having people on they don't like.

2. Good for Ben.....he has his show that is very popular and he has every right to push back on views he dislikes....and he has a young demographic that watches him because he talks about their issues and debates lots of different people.

3. GOP leaders should go on all these podcasts and have debates and push back on the things they don't like and advocate to young men the things they do like or believe. And to the National Media they should simply say "I go on lots of podcasts and debate lots of people....liberals, conservatives, and all kinds....I have already said what I think about X position on Y's show...go watch the podcast episode and see what I said", and give the Media nothing to use to suck up oxygen and derail political campaigns before elections

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I didn't realize it was so easy to get on Tucker's podcast. Go ahead and sign me up; I'm free this afternoon.

---

LOL. Well, he is just some schmo operating out of his basement, afterall.

---

I don't think its the basement....but it could be

He is literally operating his podcast out of his own home.

[Tucker Carlson does operate his independent show, Tucker Carlson Uncensored, from a studio built at his home in Woodstock, Maine, following his departure from Fox News. ]