Realitybites said:
Matt Gaetz finally gets to tell his story.
"It used to be that an anti-semite was someone who didn't like Jews. Today, an anti-semite is someone Jews don't like."
A money shot from the interview that you see illustrated by multiple posters here.
Quote:
Does he mention the 17 year old he had sex with?
Oldbear83 said:
" he's hardly a Christian"
Compared to John Paul II, you're right.
Compared to you though, he's a saint.
BigGameBaylorBear said:muddybrazos said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:BigGameBaylorBear said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:
Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?
Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.
What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.
I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?
I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.
But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.
Heck ya!!! Based!!!
Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.
There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.
While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.
That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?
I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.
Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward
I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz
BigGameBaylorBear said:Oldbear83 said:
" he's hardly a Christian"
Compared to John Paul II, you're right.
Compared to you though, he's a saint.
Thanks for the laugh
Robert Wilson said:BigGameBaylorBear said:muddybrazos said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:BigGameBaylorBear said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:
Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?
Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.
What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.
I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?
I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.
But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.
Heck ya!!! Based!!!
Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.
There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.
While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.
That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?
I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.
Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward
I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz
This is a good illustration.
These brain dead jackasses slinging their own version of identity politics on the alt right threaten to be to Republicans what the trans movement was to Democrats. If you cater to grifting nitwits like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, you will make your national candidates unelectable, because many of the sane people you might have attracted will realize that you are in bed with a bunch of ******s that you are afraid to anger.
Just have the fight now, and let the groypers become Bernie Bros. They're mostly a bunch of whiny incels anyway, so they probably won't breed.
Anyone who cares more about race or gender or any identity politics bull**** than they care about merit should be marginalized immediately. You can recognize them on both the left and the right by their whiny ass victimhood narratives and often their general loser status in the actual world.
Realitybites said:Quote:
Does he mention the 17 year old he had sex with?
Take the time to watch the interview if you'd like the answer to that question.
Robert Wilson said:BigGameBaylorBear said:muddybrazos said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:BigGameBaylorBear said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:
Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?
Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.
What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.
I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?
I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.
But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.
Heck ya!!! Based!!!
Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.
There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.
While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.
That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?
I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.
Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward
I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz
This is a good illustration.
These brain dead jackasses slinging their own version of identity politics on the alt right threaten to be to Republicans what the trans movement was to Democrats. If you cater to grifting nitwits like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, you will make your national candidates unelectable, because many of the sane people you might have attracted will realize that you are in bed with a bunch of ******s that you are afraid to anger.
Just have the fight now, and let the groypers become Bernie Bros. They're mostly a bunch of whiny incels anyway, so they probably won't breed.
Anyone who cares more about race or gender or any identity politics bull**** than they care about merit should be marginalized immediately. You can recognize them on both the left and the right by their whiny ass victimhood narratives and often their general loser status in the actual world.
Mothra said:Jack Bauer said:Bearsalwayswin said:
fuentes is such a loser tho lol
I'm all for him going after power - Trump, Ben Shapiro, and the likes but the casual racism just diminishes his message. I know he is a smart guy but he loses credibility calling the 2nd Lady of the US a "jeet".
Honest question - what power do you think he's gone after specifically?
Nick Fuentes passionately lays out why you can never trust Donald Trump again.
— Fractured Light (@FracturedLight0) November 14, 2025
Like many of us, you can see Nick is deeply hurt, betrayed by the man he believed in.
โYou are a fucking criminal.โ
โYou have no one to blame but yourselfโฆthe chickens have come home to roost.โโฆ pic.twitter.com/QDrHB3fKDb
I just watched the whole 60 Minutes segment on CECOT and Trump that was killed by Bari Weiss andโฆ wow. It was devastating for Trump and highlighted how brutally this regime has treated people. Here are some notes I took:
— Harry Sisson (@harryjsisson) December 23, 2025
Oldbear83 said:BigGameBaylorBear said:Oldbear83 said:
" he's hardly a Christian"
Compared to John Paul II, you're right.
Compared to you though, he's a saint.
Thanks for the laugh
Hope you get off the Naughty List next year!
BigGameBaylorBear said:Oldbear83 said:BigGameBaylorBear said:Oldbear83 said:
" he's hardly a Christian"
Compared to John Paul II, you're right.
Compared to you though, he's a saint.
Thanks for the laugh
Hope you get off the Naughty List next year!
I had a mean response typed up but I figured I should make a last ditch effort to get on the nice list this year
Mothra said:Robert Wilson said:BigGameBaylorBear said:muddybrazos said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:BigGameBaylorBear said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:
Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?
Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.
What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.
I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?
I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.
But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.
Heck ya!!! Based!!!
Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.
There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.
While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.
That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?
I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.
Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward
I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz
This is a good illustration.
These brain dead jackasses slinging their own version of identity politics on the alt right threaten to be to Republicans what the trans movement was to Democrats. If you cater to grifting nitwits like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, you will make your national candidates unelectable, because many of the sane people you might have attracted will realize that you are in bed with a bunch of ******s that you are afraid to anger.
Just have the fight now, and let the groypers become Bernie Bros. They're mostly a bunch of whiny incels anyway, so they probably won't breed.
Anyone who cares more about race or gender or any identity politics bull**** than they care about merit should be marginalized immediately. You can recognize them on both the left and the right by their whiny ass victimhood narratives and often their general loser status in the actual world.
I think it's going to take some very one-sided beatdowns in national elections to kill it off, unfortunately. I am hopeful that will do the trick. Dems seem to be moderating big time, after the ass kicking they took in the last election.
Just don't know how making the Republicans the party of white incels is going to help it win national elections.
Jack Bauer said:Mothra said:Jack Bauer said:Bearsalwayswin said:
fuentes is such a loser tho lol
I'm all for him going after power - Trump, Ben Shapiro, and the likes but the casual racism just diminishes his message. I know he is a smart guy but he loses credibility calling the 2nd Lady of the US a "jeet".
Honest question - what power do you think he's gone after specifically?
Somone who doesn't just parrot - "But Biden.."Nick Fuentes passionately lays out why you can never trust Donald Trump again.
— Fractured Light (@FracturedLight0) November 14, 2025
Like many of us, you can see Nick is deeply hurt, betrayed by the man he believed in.
โYou are a fucking criminal.โ
โYou have no one to blame but yourselfโฆthe chickens have come home to roost.โโฆ pic.twitter.com/QDrHB3fKDbI just watched the whole 60 Minutes segment on CECOT and Trump that was killed by Bari Weiss andโฆ wow. It was devastating for Trump and highlighted how brutally this regime has treated people. Here are some notes I took:
— Harry Sisson (@harryjsisson) December 23, 2025
Jack Bauer said:Mothra said:Jack Bauer said:Bearsalwayswin said:
fuentes is such a loser tho lol
I'm all for him going after power - Trump, Ben Shapiro, and the likes but the casual racism just diminishes his message. I know he is a smart guy but he loses credibility calling the 2nd Lady of the US a "jeet".
Honest question - what power do you think he's gone after specifically?
Somone who doesn't just parrot - "But Biden.."Nick Fuentes passionately lays out why you can never trust Donald Trump again.
— Fractured Light (@FracturedLight0) November 14, 2025
Like many of us, you can see Nick is deeply hurt, betrayed by the man he believed in.
โYou are a fucking criminal.โ
โYou have no one to blame but yourselfโฆthe chickens have come home to roost.โโฆ pic.twitter.com/QDrHB3fKDbI just watched the whole 60 Minutes segment on CECOT and Trump that was killed by Bari Weiss andโฆ wow. It was devastating for Trump and highlighted how brutally this regime has treated people. Here are some notes I took:
— Harry Sisson (@harryjsisson) December 23, 2025
BigGameBaylorBear said:Mothra said:BigGameBaylorBear said:Mothra said:BigGameBaylorBear said:muddybrazos said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:BigGameBaylorBear said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:
Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?
Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.
What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.
I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?
I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.
But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.
Heck ya!!! Based!!!
Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.
There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.
While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.
That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?
I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.
Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward
I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz
I am just curious - how do you define America First? What specific policies does it promote?
I want major immigration reform. Something along the lines of the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924. Cut H1-Bs. I want true mass-deportations.
Rework our relationships with our allies, Israel can remain but its need to be reformed in a big way. Im not a total isolationist.
Rework the welfare system. Too many abuse it. Cut the pork out of government (we all want that).
Healthcare seems like something we eventually need to figure out. It's outrageous. I don't have an idea on a solution though.
Hmm. Not sure that's much different from what Trump is attempting.
Trump is all talk. Approval ratings down? Let me go write a semi-racist rant about Somalians on Truth social and call Tim Walz a ret@rd, the people will love it!
He's a great marketer but his execution sucks, the big beautiful bill is disgusting and his deportation numbers are pitiful. Also, he's hardly a Christian
At every stage of the Arab Conquests the Jews jumped immediately to the side of the invader and sided against the Christians. 'The gates of Toledo' has become a well-known example now but it literally was every single time. Read any account of the time period and you'll find theโฆ https://t.co/eCFNk6mP29 pic.twitter.com/wr6vXExnKy
— Zoomer (@ZoomerHistorian) December 22, 2025
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Wait some of you don't believe that Israel is committing genocide in the West Bank? Lmao
Osodecentx said:BigGameBaylorBear said:
Wait some of you don't believe that Israel is committing genocide in the West Bank? Lmao
Genocide Lie Enthusiasts Mourn the Collapse of the Genocide Lie
December 23, 2025
Anti-Israeli activists have never had much use for factual evidence why start now?
For all Israel's martial acumen its military-intelligence coups, its inventive methods for executing highly discriminating strikes on individual targets (even individual targets' pockets), and its "astonishingly low ratio" of civilian-to-combat casualties in a fight against an adversary determined to maximize civilian casualties (according to eminent military historian Sir Andrew Roberts) the Jewish State is terrible at genocide.
That empirical reality has long been a source of cognitive dissonance among those who know Israel is pursuing a genocidal project in the Gaza Strip but are starved for evidence in support of their conviction. While major combat operations inside Gaza were ongoing, the discrepancy was attributed to Israel's refusal to allow Western journalists into a war zone. Now, however, reporters are surveying the post-war devastation for themselves, and what they're concluding is not satisfying the activist class.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/12/genocide-lie-enthusiasts-mourn-the-collapse-of-the-genocide-lie/
— Martyr Made (@martyrmade) December 22, 2025
Oldbear83 said:BigGameBaylorBear said:Oldbear83 said:The_barBEARian said:Oldbear83 said:
I find you more than sus.
Expect you have a closet full of brown shirts, mein herr.
When is the last time the orderly at the nursing home kicked the crap out of you?
Its long overdue.
Sooooooooooooooo many mistakes in your post:
1. I am not in a nursing home (perhaps you are in a facility, that would explain a lot)
2. Orderlies do not as a rule 'kick the crap' out of residents (although again you may have experienced such, which again would explain some of your behavior)
3. I notice you did not actually deny having a closet full of brownshirts
4. You also continue to exhibit anti-semitic opinions consistently.
Btw, I may have found an old photo of you and a buddy in your glory days:
You can't even keep track of who you're responding too, lol
I can respond to two different Nazis at the same time. Did you feel left out?
So far Iโve seen 0 Nazis in the Epstein files.
— Liberal Tears Enjoyer (@uncensored1889) December 23, 2025
Whole lot of Jewish guys and Israelis though.
BigGameBaylorBear said:Osodecentx said:BigGameBaylorBear said:
Wait some of you don't believe that Israel is committing genocide in the West Bank? Lmao
Genocide Lie Enthusiasts Mourn the Collapse of the Genocide Lie
December 23, 2025
Anti-Israeli activists have never had much use for factual evidence why start now?
For all Israel's martial acumen its military-intelligence coups, its inventive methods for executing highly discriminating strikes on individual targets (even individual targets' pockets), and its "astonishingly low ratio" of civilian-to-combat casualties in a fight against an adversary determined to maximize civilian casualties (according to eminent military historian Sir Andrew Roberts) the Jewish State is terrible at genocide.
That empirical reality has long been a source of cognitive dissonance among those who know Israel is pursuing a genocidal project in the Gaza Strip but are starved for evidence in support of their conviction. While major combat operations inside Gaza were ongoing, the discrepancy was attributed to Israel's refusal to allow Western journalists into a war zone. Now, however, reporters are surveying the post-war devastation for themselves, and what they're concluding is not satisfying the activist class.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/12/genocide-lie-enthusiasts-mourn-the-collapse-of-the-genocide-lie/
I'm glad the jewish journalist was able to put the rumors to rest
The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:The_barBEARian said:
Every day I read about a new jewish terror attack from the beginning of the 20th century that I had never heard about before.๐ท๐ด 105 years since the first terrorist attack in Romania:
— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) December 18, 2025
In 1920, Max Goldstein, Leon Lichtblau, and Saul Osias, three Jewish Bolsheviks, detonate a bomb in the Romanian Senate, killing several people and injuring many others with the intent of starting a communist revolution pic.twitter.com/zvMSiI6Bco
If international jewry was responsible for communism, why isn't Israel a communist state?
Communism is just a tool used to take power... just bcs they promoted communism doesnt mean they actually believe in it.
They certainly dont have any shame about taking other countries money, which is a very communist attitude to take.
They've sucked Germany dry with a trillion in reparations and sucked US tax payers dry for another trillion by exploiting the vulnerabilities in the US political system.
LOL. at what point did the kibbutz take over political power and force everyone else to join along.....or else?
"sucked dry." Israel has stolen the entire wealth of Germany AND the USA? Are you mad?
Actually, yes. You are mad.
We are at the point where Israel is a richer country than the US and Germany.
LOL not just unrue, but wildly so (by orders of magnitude) in the case of the USA.
Look at Wealth-to-GDP ratio in far right column.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_private_wealth
They dont have any national debt!!!
LOL also flatly untrue. Type "Israel" in the search box and you will see they have a Debt//GP Ratio of 69%.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country
If they were really an ally, they would be paying us. Not the other way around.
They do pay us, risking and in some cases paying in blood of their sons & daughters.
**** you Boomers for sorry state you left this country in.
Just to be clear, who do you hate worse.....Boomers, or Jews?
Sam Lowry said:
Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?
The late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, one of the most fascinating Jewish minds of the 21st century, said in a powerful speech to the British House of Lords:
— AP (@Average_NY_Guy) December 24, 2025
โA thousand years of Jewish history in Europe added certain words to the human vocabulary: forced conversion, Inquisition,โฆ pic.twitter.com/jHAcL2Zxqp
Nick Fuentes says he's going to campaign against Vivek Ramaswamy in 2026
— ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ (@ImperiumFirst) December 24, 2025
"This anchor baby cannot become governor of Ohioโdo not give this anchor baby your vote." pic.twitter.com/k4fqMBYTsv
Robert Wilson said:Nick Fuentes says he's going to campaign against Vivek Ramaswamy in 2026
— ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ (@ImperiumFirst) December 24, 2025
"This anchor baby cannot become governor of Ohioโdo not give this anchor baby your vote." pic.twitter.com/k4fqMBYTsv
This guy is a pos grifter. He could not hold Vivek's jockstrap.
BigGameBaylorBear said:Robert Wilson said:Nick Fuentes says he's going to campaign against Vivek Ramaswamy in 2026
— ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ (@ImperiumFirst) December 24, 2025
"This anchor baby cannot become governor of Ohioโdo not give this anchor baby your vote." pic.twitter.com/k4fqMBYTsv
This guy is a pos grifter. He could not hold Vivek's jockstrap.
Maybe. So is Vivek, people forget he's a pharma grifter
Osodecentx said:
35 pages on a guy who thinks Hitler is cool
Robert Wilson said:BigGameBaylorBear said:Robert Wilson said:Nick Fuentes says he's going to campaign against Vivek Ramaswamy in 2026
— ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ (@ImperiumFirst) December 24, 2025
"This anchor baby cannot become governor of Ohioโdo not give this anchor baby your vote." pic.twitter.com/k4fqMBYTsv
This guy is a pos grifter. He could not hold Vivek's jockstrap.
Maybe. So is Vivek, people forget he's a pharma grifter
Vivek was a successful businessman. He's also smart as ***** He would humiliate Nick in any sort of debate format.
Robert Wilson said:Osodecentx said:
35 pages on a guy who thinks Hitler is cool
The Vivek vs Nick paradigm pretty well illustrates mainstream views on productive immigration versus the more hardcore populist/nationalist folks Trump scooped up (because they used to be Democrats, and the Democrats abandoned them). Everyone sane agreed that the way immigration was handled (or not handled at all) under Biden was ridiculous and dangerous. So we shut down the borders and start deporting illegal immigrants focusing on the criminals first. Cool. Everyone in both groups is more or less (roughly speaking) good with that.
Ok, now what about legal immigrants and their progeny like Vivek and his parents, Usha Vance and her parents, etc. Turns out ... most people are cool with that. These are highly productive, highly intelligent, excellent citizens who came here legally. People who judge based on merit are good with that.
The blood and soil types, who heavily tend to be the same victimhood clutching losers who are mad at "the Jews" and "the Boomers," are pissed once they realize that the rest of the crowd was not just a blood and soil nationalist (I don't need to use the term racist here, so I won't). So Vivek and the VP's wife are "anchor babies," etc.
Anyone that frames their views based on some sort of ethnic or racial identity or the like rather than merit can pound sand. That goes for the left and the right. We need to breed a society that appreciates and applauds merit, not a bunch of whiners looking to point the finger to blame others for their lack of success.
Just compare Vivek's or Usha's bio/CV to Nick's. Sweet Jesus.
muddybrazos said:Robert Wilson said:BigGameBaylorBear said:Robert Wilson said:Nick Fuentes says he's going to campaign against Vivek Ramaswamy in 2026
— ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ (@ImperiumFirst) December 24, 2025
"This anchor baby cannot become governor of Ohioโdo not give this anchor baby your vote." pic.twitter.com/k4fqMBYTsv
This guy is a pos grifter. He could not hold Vivek's jockstrap.
Maybe. So is Vivek, people forget he's a pharma grifter
Vivek was a successful businessman. He's also smart as ***** He would humiliate Nick in any sort of debate format.
Ya, he successfully did a pharma pump n dump scam. He's never created anything of value. He desrves to lose the gov race and any other repub going against him should win instead.
Robert Wilson said:muddybrazos said:Robert Wilson said:BigGameBaylorBear said:Robert Wilson said:Nick Fuentes says he's going to campaign against Vivek Ramaswamy in 2026
— ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ (@ImperiumFirst) December 24, 2025
"This anchor baby cannot become governor of Ohioโdo not give this anchor baby your vote." pic.twitter.com/k4fqMBYTsv
This guy is a pos grifter. He could not hold Vivek's jockstrap.
Maybe. So is Vivek, people forget he's a pharma grifter
Vivek was a successful businessman. He's also smart as ***** He would humiliate Nick in any sort of debate format.
Ya, he successfully did a pharma pump n dump scam. He's never created anything of value. He desrves to lose the gov race and any other repub going against him should win instead.
Uh huh. Let's compare Vivek's bio to yours. He accomplished more by his mid 20s than you likely ever will. It would be a waste of my time to list off a bunch of things you don't even recognize much less understand.
Anyone whining about "the jews" and/or "the boomers" and saying Vivek "just did a pump n dump scam" has their head so far up their ass that the jaws of life won't remove it.
