Tucker's attempt to normalize Nick Fuentes

67,724 Views | 1462 Replies | Last: 4 min ago by The_barBEARian
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 9:34a, 11/10/25
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.
Reply Quote
Robert Wilson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to EatMoreSalmon • 9:55a, 11/10/25
EatMoreSalmon said:
boognish_bear said:


What's missing here was the misguided push starting in the 70s to get everyone to go to college. Lots of people went to college who could have been served better in trades or entry jobs.
Blue collar was frowned upon in the classrooms of high schools across the nation.
It was based on the false belief that everyone who went to college would be better paid. Then the labor market didn't do well taking in the increase in supply.

Combine it with college tuition skyrocketing way past inflation for decades. We've made the college experience way too much like summer camp for rich kids. All of this was enabled by (i) telling everyone they should go to college, but really moreso (ii) the federal government pumping cheap money into debt-funded college tuition. We screwed this up ourselves, kinda like the housing market pre 2008.

Fortunately, that's turning around now. Lots of young adults (especially men) realizing they're better served with technical degrees and going the trade / small business route. I suspect may of the newly-minted communists in NYC are gender studies majors who are livid as they find out the plumbers and HVAC techs they grew up with are making way more money than they'll ever make, combined with no student debt.

I feel bad for the youngsters who had no guidance and borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to school, often for degrees that did not meaningfully increase their earning power. Just awful policy. Most of them either didn't have engaged parents or had parents who did not have a clue. I'd be open to some sort of student loan forgiveness for them, but it should be combined with tax credits for those of us who did not go get a bunch of now-free money and separately covered our own educations.

Re: post HS ed, I tell youngsters "If you personally have to pay more than the in-state tuition level at UT, A&M, Tech, do not go there." There still are, and always have been, cheap ways to get a plenty good enough education. But a lot of kids still did get suckered and are paying dearly for it.

College bubble needs to pop, and that process has started.
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 10:05a, 11/10/25
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

Perhaps, but it's also reasonable conservatives who aren't neocons, but merely decent people who don't like despots that spread terror, start unnecessary wars, target innocent civilians, and subjugate their own people, like Putin, the Iranians and the Venezuelans.

You don't need to be neocon to be opposed to that, just a decent human being. And Tucker loves him some despots. It's definitely in the same ballpark for a guy who wants to normalize Nick Fuentes.
Reply Quote
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 10:32a, 11/10/25
The_barBEARian said:
sombear said:
The_barBEARian said:
sombear said:
The_barBEARian said:
sombear said:
AIPACExample 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.



Example 149 of why FARA is so important and Israel shouldn't have special privileges that make them the one foreign country that is excluded from registering it agents.

Wrong. FARA does not apply to AIPAC. Never has. It is an American organization.

But, more importantly, what is the practical difference? Fill out a couple forms.

I mean, AIPAC hardly operates in secret . . . .


Are you making money from Israel?

The only people who lie and say that AIPAC is an American lobby have a financial interest in supporting them.


Their board and their funding is American. That's all that matters under FARA.

And you ignored my second point … what different wound it make? I'll answer for you: No difference.


My understanding is if you are lobbying and making political donations on behalf of another country, you have to register as a foreign agent.

If that is not the case, the law needs to be updated ASAP or will be once enough Boomers die off.

That is not the case. The issue is whether foreigners and foreign money are directly. The US Jewish community has ample money and leaders, so they do need direct Israeli support.

It is also the case that registering under FARA basically means completing a few forms.

The primary purpose of FARA is transparency - as in knowing who these organizations represent, etc. AIPAC is very open about what it espouses.

Finally, recipients of AIPAC $ is public info.
Reply Quote
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 10:44a, 11/10/25
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 12:24p, 11/10/25
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

Perhaps, but it's also reasonable conservatives who aren't neocons, but merely decent people who don't like despots that spread terror, start unnecessary wars, target innocent civilians, and subjugate their own people, like Putin, the Iranians and the Venezuelans.

You don't need to be neocon to be opposed to that, just a decent human being. And Tucker loves him some despots. It's definitely in the same ballpark for a guy who wants to normalize Nick Fuentes.

The pro-war establishment has always equated Israel with Jews and Judaism, implying that to criticize one is to criticize the other. Fuentes is happily taking that fallacy and running with it. You're more or less equating realist foreign policy with groyper ideology, which is a similar fallacy. It alienates potential allies and plays right into Fuentes' hands.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 12:34p, 11/10/25
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. Tucker's interviews are valuable because they give American audiences a chance to hear what foreign leaders like Putin and Pezeshkian have to say (and of course their interests and connections are obvious).
Reply Quote
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 12:50p, 11/10/25
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

FWIW:

I think we should invade Kosovo and give the land back to its indigenous people, the Serbians... you would think that you, as a Serbian, would support that.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 12:55p, 11/10/25
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. Tucker's interviews are valuable because they give American audiences a chance to hear what foreign leaders like Putin and Pezeshkian have to say (and of course their interests and connections are obvious).

I'm not saying Carlson should not interview Iran, Putin of Fuentes. I'm critical of the rigor of the questioning. Carlson went after Cruz tooth and tong, he treated the others with kid gloves.
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:04p, 11/10/25
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

Perhaps, but it's also reasonable conservatives who aren't neocons, but merely decent people who don't like despots that spread terror, start unnecessary wars, target innocent civilians, and subjugate their own people, like Putin, the Iranians and the Venezuelans.

You don't need to be neocon to be opposed to that, just a decent human being. And Tucker loves him some despots. It's definitely in the same ballpark for a guy who wants to normalize Nick Fuentes.

The pro-war establishment has always equated Israel with Jews and Judaism, implying that to criticize one is to criticize the other. Fuentes is happily taking that fallacy and running with it. You're more or less equating realist foreign policy with groyper ideology, which is a similar fallacy. It alienates potential allies and plays right into Fuentes' hands.

Don't disagree on the neo-con mindset.

Realistic, however, is not praising despots and dictators. One doesn't have to do a fluff piece on the dictator Putin to convey the message that involvement in the Russia war of aggression on Ukraine is not a good idea. That's not evidence of a realistic foreign policy. It's just silly and ridiculous cuck behavior.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:06p, 11/10/25
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. Tucker's interviews are valuable because they give American audiences a chance to hear what foreign leaders like Putin and Pezeshkian have to say lie and spread propaganda (and of course their interests and connections are obvious).

FIFY.
Reply Quote
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 1:20p, 11/10/25
Osodecentx said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. Tucker's interviews are valuable because they give American audiences a chance to hear what foreign leaders like Putin and Pezeshkian have to say (and of course their interests and connections are obvious).

I'm not saying Carlson should not interview Iran, Putin of Fuentes. I'm critical of the rigor of the questioning. Carlson went after Cruz tooth and tong, he treated the others with kid gloves.

Cruz is an utter embarassment and looked like a complete moron during his Tucker interview.

Anyone who continues to support him representing Texas in the US Senate is as stupid as he is.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 1:26p, 11/10/25
Osodecentx said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. Tucker's interviews are valuable because they give American audiences a chance to hear what foreign leaders like Putin and Pezeshkian have to say (and of course their interests and connections are obvious).

I'm not saying Carlson should not interview Iran, Putin of Fuentes. I'm critical of the rigor of the questioning. Carlson went after Cruz tooth and tong, he treated the others with kid gloves.

I agree on the difference in treatment between Cruz and Fuentes. Putin is a different kind of interview. Where the American politicians are campaigning, he's engaged in something more like diplomacy. Browbeating him with US talking points would be irrelevant and unproductive. American audiences have heard it all before, and he's already there to address it...which he did.
Reply Quote
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:31p, 11/10/25
Sam Lowry said:
Osodecentx said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. Tucker's interviews are valuable because they give American audiences a chance to hear what foreign leaders like Putin and Pezeshkian have to say (and of course their interests and connections are obvious).

I'm not saying Carlson should not interview Iran, Putin of Fuentes. I'm critical of the rigor of the questioning. Carlson went after Cruz tooth and tong, he treated the others with kid gloves.

I agree on the difference in treatment between Cruz and Fuentes. Putin is a different kind of interview. Where the American politicians are campaigning, he's engaged in something more like diplomacy. Browbeating him with US talking points would be irrelevant and unproductive. American audiences have heard it all before, and he's already there to address it...which he did.


Ted Cruz has been a sitting US Senator dictating American policy for over a decade.

Nick Fuentes is a guy in his parents basement.

Why do Boomers keep crying about Tucker being so mean to Ted Cruz?...
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 1:32p, 11/10/25
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

Perhaps, but it's also reasonable conservatives who aren't neocons, but merely decent people who don't like despots that spread terror, start unnecessary wars, target innocent civilians, and subjugate their own people, like Putin, the Iranians and the Venezuelans.

You don't need to be neocon to be opposed to that, just a decent human being. And Tucker loves him some despots. It's definitely in the same ballpark for a guy who wants to normalize Nick Fuentes.

The pro-war establishment has always equated Israel with Jews and Judaism, implying that to criticize one is to criticize the other. Fuentes is happily taking that fallacy and running with it. You're more or less equating realist foreign policy with groyper ideology, which is a similar fallacy. It alienates potential allies and plays right into Fuentes' hands.

Don't disagree on the neo-con mindset.

Realistic, however, is not praising despots and dictators. One doesn't have to do a fluff piece on the dictator Putin to convey the message that involvement in the Russia war of aggression on Ukraine is not a good idea. That's not evidence of a realistic foreign policy. It's just silly and ridiculous cuck behavior.

Actually that's almost the opposite of the realist position. Realist foreign policy sees the rival or opposing state as a "black box," i.e. something that acts in its own interest and must be dealt with as such. How one feels about its internal workings is irrelevant.
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 3:00p, 11/10/25
Sam Lowry said:
Osodecentx said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. Tucker's interviews are valuable because they give American audiences a chance to hear what foreign leaders like Putin and Pezeshkian have to say (and of course their interests and connections are obvious).

I'm not saying Carlson should not interview Iran, Putin of Fuentes. I'm critical of the rigor of the questioning. Carlson went after Cruz tooth and tong, he treated the others with kid gloves.

I agree on the difference in treatment between Cruz and Fuentes. Putin is a different kind of interview. Where the American politicians are campaigning, he's engaged in something more like diplomacy. Browbeating him with US talking points would be irrelevant and unproductive. American audiences have heard it all before, and he's already there to address it...which he did.


Difficult questions are not necessarily American talking points. They can be asked forthrightly and in a polite manner. I haven't heard Putin or Fuentes answer difficult questions.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 3:32p, 11/10/25
Osodecentx said:
Sam Lowry said:
Osodecentx said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. Tucker's interviews are valuable because they give American audiences a chance to hear what foreign leaders like Putin and Pezeshkian have to say (and of course their interests and connections are obvious).

I'm not saying Carlson should not interview Iran, Putin of Fuentes. I'm critical of the rigor of the questioning. Carlson went after Cruz tooth and tong, he treated the others with kid gloves.

I agree on the difference in treatment between Cruz and Fuentes. Putin is a different kind of interview. Where the American politicians are campaigning, he's engaged in something more like diplomacy. Browbeating him with US talking points would be irrelevant and unproductive. American audiences have heard it all before, and he's already there to address it...which he did.


Difficult questions are not necessarily American talking points. They can be asked forthrightly and in a polite manner. I haven't heard Putin or Fuentes answer difficult questions.

As an example, there's the glaring question of how he justifies the "unprovoked aggression" against Ukraine. I think he answered it about as thoroughly as possible, which is why some people were outraged. They didn't want him to have the chance.

Contrast with Fuentes saying he admires Hitler in some ways and Tucker asking zero follow-up questions.
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 5:01p, 11/10/25
Sam Lowry said:
Osodecentx said:
Sam Lowry said:
Osodecentx said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. Tucker's interviews are valuable because they give American audiences a chance to hear what foreign leaders like Putin and Pezeshkian have to say (and of course their interests and connections are obvious).

I'm not saying Carlson should not interview Iran, Putin of Fuentes. I'm critical of the rigor of the questioning. Carlson went after Cruz tooth and tong, he treated the others with kid gloves.

I agree on the difference in treatment between Cruz and Fuentes. Putin is a different kind of interview. Where the American politicians are campaigning, he's engaged in something more like diplomacy. Browbeating him with US talking points would be irrelevant and unproductive. American audiences have heard it all before, and he's already there to address it...which he did.


Difficult questions are not necessarily American talking points. They can be asked forthrightly and in a polite manner. I haven't heard Putin or Fuentes answer difficult questions.

As an example, there's the glaring question of how he justifies the "unprovoked aggression" against Ukraine. I think he answered it about as thoroughly as possible, which is why some people were outraged. They didn't want him to have the chance.

Contrast with Fuentes saying he admires Hitler in some ways and Tucker asking zero follow-up questions.


How did Putin justify unprovoked aggression? Did his answer satisfy you?
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:56p, 11/10/25
Reply Quote
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 5:57p, 11/10/25
The_barBEARian said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

FWIW:

I think we should invade Kosovo and give the land back to its indigenous people, the Serbians... you would think that you, as a Serbian, would support that.

It's not that simple. Kosovo changed hands so many times and was autonomous anyways. And Milosevic did Serbia and the cause no favors.
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:06p, 11/10/25
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:57p, 11/10/25
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:57p, 11/10/25
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:10p, 11/10/25
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

Perhaps, but it's also reasonable conservatives who aren't neocons, but merely decent people who don't like despots that spread terror, start unnecessary wars, target innocent civilians, and subjugate their own people, like Putin, the Iranians and the Venezuelans.

You don't need to be neocon to be opposed to that, just a decent human being. And Tucker loves him some despots. It's definitely in the same ballpark for a guy who wants to normalize Nick Fuentes.

The pro-war establishment has always equated Israel with Jews and Judaism, implying that to criticize one is to criticize the other. Fuentes is happily taking that fallacy and running with it. You're more or less equating realist foreign policy with groyper ideology, which is a similar fallacy. It alienates potential allies and plays right into Fuentes' hands.

Don't disagree on the neo-con mindset.

Realistic, however, is not praising despots and dictators. One doesn't have to do a fluff piece on the dictator Putin to convey the message that involvement in the Russia war of aggression on Ukraine is not a good idea. That's not evidence of a realistic foreign policy. It's just silly and ridiculous cuck behavior.

Actually that's almost the opposite of the realist position. Realist foreign policy sees the rival or opposing state as a "black box," i.e. something that acts in its own interest and must be dealt with as such. How one feels about its internal workings is irrelevant.

Well, if it's a mere black box and internal workings are "irrelevant," as you say, then there's no reason to fluff dictators and despots, and try to make them good guys, or their countries models we should adhere to.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:21p, 11/10/25
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

Well whaddya know. The blind hog found an acorn.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 7:23p, 11/10/25
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Stay away from the ad hominem rabbit hole on Tucker's motives. Explain why he is wrong on policy. It's not hard to do.

Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:25p, 11/10/25
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons.

North Korea was a signatory to the Agreed Framework, which required its adherence to the NPT and banned its nuclear weapons program, in exchange for millions of dollars in fuel and the funding of two light-water nuclear reactors. And then of course we later find out they had continued their clandestine program (with the "aid" we used to incentivize the regime to cease its program) and is now a nuclear power in large part because of us.

In other words, if you actually think Iran's fatwa against nuclear weapons is going to stop them or that a despotic regime will act in good faith, I have some oceanfront property in AZ for you.

Reply Quote
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 7:27p, 11/10/25
Osodecentx said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. Tucker's interviews are valuable because they give American audiences a chance to hear what foreign leaders like Putin and Pezeshkian have to say (and of course their interests and connections are obvious).

I'm not saying Carlson should not interview Iran, Putin of Fuentes. I'm critical of the rigor of the questioning. Carlson went after Cruz tooth and tong, he treated the others with kid gloves.

Indeed.
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:29p, 11/10/25
Sam Lowry said:
Osodecentx said:
Sam Lowry said:
Osodecentx said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. Tucker's interviews are valuable because they give American audiences a chance to hear what foreign leaders like Putin and Pezeshkian have to say (and of course their interests and connections are obvious).

I'm not saying Carlson should not interview Iran, Putin of Fuentes. I'm critical of the rigor of the questioning. Carlson went after Cruz tooth and tong, he treated the others with kid gloves.

I agree on the difference in treatment between Cruz and Fuentes. Putin is a different kind of interview. Where the American politicians are campaigning, he's engaged in something more like diplomacy. Browbeating him with US talking points would be irrelevant and unproductive. American audiences have heard it all before, and he's already there to address it...which he did.


Difficult questions are not necessarily American talking points. They can be asked forthrightly and in a polite manner. I haven't heard Putin or Fuentes answer difficult questions.

As an example, there's the glaring question of how he justifies the "unprovoked aggression" against Ukraine. I think he answered it about as thoroughly as possible, which is why some people were outraged. They didn't want him to have the chance.

Contrast with Fuentes saying he admires Hitler in some ways and Tucker asking zero follow-up questions.

If by "thoroughly" you mean Putin lied through his teeth, agreed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68255302

As for Fuentes and Tucker, agreed.
Reply Quote
1 edit
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 11:08p, 11/10/25
boognish_bear said:


Reply Quote
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:16p, 11/10/25
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 6:38a, 11/11/25
The_barBEARian said:
boognish_bear said:



I am curious. As a conservative, do you think it's the govt.'s job to get involved in the economy in an attempt to make NY more affordable? And if so, what would that look like?

Just FYI, wanting the kind of govt. involvement in setting prices in NY is not even a brand of conservatism. It's more akin to another political ideology that begins with a "c."
Reply Quote
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:43a, 11/11/25


This is an outstanding interview in terms of working through these issues.

Steve Deace, Christian Zionist, goes to an Assembly of God church.

Auron MacIntyre, Christian Nationalist, Paleoconservative of the mold of Pat Buchahan.

They are friends and have a very rational discussion. MacIntyre raises the issue that this may be an attempt to sideline JD Vance as the obvious heir apparent to the MAGA movement and GOP frontrunner in 2028. One thing becomes clear: there are bad actors in the GOP that are slandering people as "anti-semites" who clearly are not.

It really is worth watching.
Reply Quote
3 edits
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 6:54a, 11/11/25
Realitybites said:


This is an outstanding interview in terms of working through these issues.

Steve Deace, Christian Zionist, goes to an Assembly of God church.

Auron MacIntyre, Christian Nationalist, Paleoconservative of the mold of Pat Buchahan.

They are friends and have a very rational discussion. MacIntyre raises the issue that this may be an attempt to sideline JD Vance as the obvious heir apparent to the MAGA movement and GOP frontrunner in 2028. One thing becomes clear: there are bad actors in the GOP that are slandering people as "anti-semites" who clearly are not.

It really is worth watching.

There are bad actors in the party who slander others as anti-semites. But what you fail to acknowledge is that there is a substantial number of self-described conservatives who are, in fact, anti-semites.

I mean, when you have a guy like Fuentes who claims just a few thousand people died in the Holocaust, and refers to them as "cookies" baking in an oven, and repeatedly blames them for most of the world's ills, as Nick and his followers do, that is a pretty strong indicator that you might be an anti-semite.

And the fact is, the vast majority of these people are likely not Christian, or at the very least, have a very poor and uninformed Christian theology. I've yet to meet someone who subscribes to replacement theology that isn't seriously uninformed about scripture.

Edit: I hope that someone does beat out JD Vance to carry the torch. Saw a poll in the last few days that most men prefer Newsom to Vance, which is a scary thought. He is not the answer. Was one of Trump's bigger mistakes to nominate such a weak dude as the VP candidate, IMO.
Reply Quote
4 edits
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 6:59a, 11/11/25
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Example 149 of Tucker being a total loser and very likely on the take.


Yeah, registering with FARA is as shady as it gets. The only foreign agents I trust are the anonymous ones.

We all know the Fuentes wing of the Right would be up in arms if Tucker was doing a fluff piece on Israel by interviewing a Zionist from AIPAC without disclosing his membership in same.

The neocon right wants to lump all of Tucker's guests in with Fuentes in order to silence disagreement across the board--on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc. This will backfire and end up making Fuentes more popular.

I disagree. I'm not aware of anyone of significance arguing that there are not legitimate alternative views on Russia, Iran, Israel, Venezuela, etc.

The issue is that Tucker has guests with clear and material connections to/interests in those countries that he does not disclose. In addition, as a general rule, Tucker hardly challenges folks in those camps, while grilling the other side.

FWIW:

I'm pro-Israel and have always placed far more blame on their Muslim neighbors. But I see no reason why we give them so much direct $ aid these days. They are a wealthy country. Support them politically and militarily, but stop sending $ hundreds of billions.

I don't think we should invade Venezuela or threaten to.

Nigeria is far too complex to think we can go in there and protect Christians, as much as I wish we could.

As you well know, I despise Putin's Russia and believe, after China, they by far are our biggest geopolitical threat. I pray every day for a Ukraine deal and lasting peace.

Iran is fairly simple to me. It is clear they've always worked toward nukes, and I believe them when they say they will use them. Iran also sponsors organizations that murder Americans and our closest allies.

I would feel 100% comfortable sharing these views in any conservative, even MAGA, setting. What Tucker is doing/saying is in a different universe entirely.

Iran actually has a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons.

North Korea was a signatory to the Agreed Framework, which required its adherence to the NPT and banned its nuclear weapons program, in exchange for millions of dollars in fuel and the funding of two light-water nuclear reactors. And then of course we later find out they had continued their clandestine program (with the "aid" we used to incentivize the regime to cease its program) and is now a nuclear power in large part because of us.

In other words, if you actually think Iran's fatwa against nuclear weapons is going to stop them or that a despotic regime will act in good faith, I have some oceanfront property in AZ for you.

Yes, that's the neocon line. The point is that you can believe Iran or not, but don't believe they said something they never said.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.