Tucker's attempt to normalize Nick Fuentes

273,639 Views | 3371 Replies | Last: 12 hrs ago by Realitybites
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Realitybites said:

The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:



As for Genesis, the exact quote to Abraham is: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." God is referring to Abraham's descendants, not necessarily the modern day state of Israel.




Yes.

And Romans 4:12-13 explicitly makes absolutely clear that this promise has transferred to the church.

"and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

I am surprised at how badly you misinterpret these verses, and just blatantly ignore others that don't fit your narrative.

Romans 4:12-13 does not teach that God's covenant with Abraham was transferred from Israel to the Church (and it certainly doesn't say that explicitly); rather, it teaches that the promise comes through faith and therefore includes both Jews and Gentiles. Paul's point is that Abraham is the father not only of the circumcised (Jews) who share his faith, but also of uncircumcised Gentiles who believe, showing that righteousness and inheritance are based on faith rather than the Law.

This expands the scope of the promise but does not revoke or transfer it. When read alongside Romans 9 and 11, Paul makes it explicit that God has not rejected Israel (Romans 11:1) and that His covenantal calling is "irrevocable" (Romans 11:29). The olive tree analogy in Romans 11 further clarifies this: Gentiles are grafted into the existing covenantal root, not replacing the natural branches. Therefore, the correct conclusion is that the Abrahamic promise is broadened to include Gentile believers by faith, not transferred away from the Jewish people.

We believe in Fulfillment Theology, not replacement theology.

The Church is not a new entity that replaced Israel, nor is it a separate group grafted into a Jewish root, the Church is Israel, fully realized. When Paul talks about the 'root' and the 'olive tree' in Romans 11, he's talking about Christ and the community of faith. Israel was always intended to be the womb of the Messiah and the assembly of God. When Christ came, the true Israel moved forward in Him.

Abraham's fatherhood is spiritual, not biological. Those Jews who rejected the Messiah cut themselves off from their own tree, while Gentiles who believe were grafted into it. There's not two peoples of God, nor is there a 'holding pattern' for national Israel. There's only the Body of Christ, which is the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). The promise didn't move from one nation to another, it was fulfilled in Christ, and all who are baptized into Christ inherit it completely.
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:

The_barBEARian said:

I hope Fishback plays this song when he wins the nomination




Care for a friendly wager on this? Thousand dollars says the teen diddler isn't the nominee. I'm just curious whether you'll put your money where your mouth is. Let me know.



Well then, should be an easy wager for you. What say you?

the thing is your side(Establishment/Uniparty/Israel First) steals elections... FIshback will need a decisive victory well past the margin or error... probably at least +5 to prevent you guys from stealing it.

There is a reason you guys wont pass the SAVE act(the most germane election integrity law imaginable) despite controlling congress.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is a lot harder to steal an election in Florida than California. I think that is why Jay Collins filed his frivolous lawsuit to try and have Fishback removed from the ballot. Interestingly, Collins who moved from Montana in 2019, was ineligible to be Lt Governor under the same condition he is citing. Fishback on the other hand is a lifelong Floridian, born and raised in the state. Let's see what the court system does, but I think the establishment may well have his name removed. At which point Jolly will win the general election over Donalds.
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Win or lose, Fishback has an actual following. He excites people which is encouraging to see.

His events have far more people and energy than anything that Bryon Donald's puts on.

Donald's is your average political swamp rat. No one actually likes him.
Sic 'em Bears and Go Birds
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:

The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:

The_barBEARian said:

I hope Fishback plays this song when he wins the nomination




Care for a friendly wager on this? Thousand dollars says the teen diddler isn't the nominee. I'm just curious whether you'll put your money where your mouth is. Let me know.



Well then, should be an easy wager for you. What say you?

the thing is your side(Establishment/Uniparty/Israel First) steals elections... FIshback will need a decisive victory well past the margin or error... probably at least +5 to prevent you guys from stealing it.

There is a reason you guys wont pass the SAVE act(the most germane election integrity law imaginable) despite controlling congress.


Yeah, about what I figured. You talk a big game but aren't going to put your money where your mouth is because you realize what you're saying is bull*****

But hey, at least you now have the unprovable built-in excuse. The election will be stolen.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Mothra said:

Realitybites said:

The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:



As for Genesis, the exact quote to Abraham is: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." God is referring to Abraham's descendants, not necessarily the modern day state of Israel.




Yes.

And Romans 4:12-13 explicitly makes absolutely clear that this promise has transferred to the church.

"and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

I am surprised at how badly you misinterpret these verses, and just blatantly ignore others that don't fit your narrative.

Romans 4:12-13 does not teach that God's covenant with Abraham was transferred from Israel to the Church (and it certainly doesn't say that explicitly); rather, it teaches that the promise comes through faith and therefore includes both Jews and Gentiles. Paul's point is that Abraham is the father not only of the circumcised (Jews) who share his faith, but also of uncircumcised Gentiles who believe, showing that righteousness and inheritance are based on faith rather than the Law.

This expands the scope of the promise but does not revoke or transfer it. When read alongside Romans 9 and 11, Paul makes it explicit that God has not rejected Israel (Romans 11:1) and that His covenantal calling is "irrevocable" (Romans 11:29). The olive tree analogy in Romans 11 further clarifies this: Gentiles are grafted into the existing covenantal root, not replacing the natural branches. Therefore, the correct conclusion is that the Abrahamic promise is broadened to include Gentile believers by faith, not transferred away from the Jewish people.

We believe in Fulfillment Theology, not replacement theology.

The Church is not a new entity that replaced Israel, nor is it a separate group grafted into a Jewish root, the Church is Israel, fully realized. When Paul talks about the 'root' and the 'olive tree' in Romans 11, he's talking about Christ and the community of faith. Israel was always intended to be the womb of the Messiah and the assembly of God. When Christ came, the true Israel moved forward in Him.

Abraham's fatherhood is spiritual, not biological. Those Jews who rejected the Messiah cut themselves off from their own tree, while Gentiles who believe were grafted into it. There's not two peoples of God, nor is there a 'holding pattern' for national Israel. There's only the Body of Christ, which is the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). The promise didn't move from one nation to another, it was fulfilled in Christ, and all who are baptized into Christ inherit it completely.

While I agree that the promises to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ and that all who belong to Christ share in those promises by faith, your error is the fact that your conclusion goes beyond what Paul actually says in Romans 11.

Paul does not collapse Israel into the Church; he continues to distinguish between Israel and Gentiles throughout the passage. In the olive tree analogy, he explicitly describes Gentiles as "wild branches" grafted in among the natural branches, which only makes sense if there remains a real distinction between the two.

He also states that Israel has experienced a partial hardening until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, indicating a temporary condition and a future turning of Israel, not a completed fulfillment that removes them from the picture.

Most importantly, Paul says that even in their current unbelief, they are still "beloved for the sake of the fathers" and that God's gifts and calling are irrevocable (Romans 11:28-29), which directly ties back to the Abrahamic covenant. Indeed, Paul never says the promise is taken away from Israel. In fact, Galatians 3:17 explicitly says that the Law, which came later, does not nullify the covenant previously ratified by God. That means the Abrahamic covenant itself is still intact - it hasn't been canceled, replaced, or transferred. This aligns directly with Romans 11:29, where Paul says God's gifts and calling are "irrevocable."

So while fulfillment in Christ expands the promise to include all believers, it does not eliminate Israel's distinct identity or future role. Your view rightly emphasizes fulfillment, but it ultimately reads over the distinctions and future expectations that Paul himself carefully maintains. It ignores the plain meaning of Romans 11 in favor of a narrative that is not biblically grounded.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




FATIGUE
Sic 'em Bears and Go Birds
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?


I just saw this. I havent been keeping up with this race that much even though I've been spending a lot of time in Jax beach lately and headed to Orlando tomorrow. I just dont see Fishback winning but he is gaining from what I can tell.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

boognish_bear said:




FATIGUE

We agree on this. Just a completely ridiculous statement by the Huckster.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



Ambassador Huckabee is correct: the US was founded by Christian's and based on Judeo-Christian principles. God clearly has blessed Israel repeatedly throughout history. The modern state of Israel is an obvious manifestation of that. It's a miracle that Israel exists at all, that it continues to exist since 1948, and that it thrives. And God's covenant with Abraham & Israel is still in effect. He Himself described it as eternal.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

boognish_bear said:



Ambassador Huckabee is correct: the US was founded by Christian's and based on Judeo-Christian principles. God clearly has blessed Israel repeatedly throughout history. The modern state of Israel is an obvious manifestation of that. It's a miracle that Israel exists at all, that it continues to exist since 1948, and that it thrives. And God's covenant with Abraham & Israel is still in effect. He Himself described it as eternal.

You think the modern state of Israel that was created by the Rothschilds is some how a manifestation of God? The Rothschilds worship the devil.

historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't believe any such nonsense. But I'm not an antisemite and don't accept most conspiracies.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Doc Holliday said:

Mothra said:

Realitybites said:

The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:



As for Genesis, the exact quote to Abraham is: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." God is referring to Abraham's descendants, not necessarily the modern day state of Israel.




Yes.

And Romans 4:12-13 explicitly makes absolutely clear that this promise has transferred to the church.

"and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

I am surprised at how badly you misinterpret these verses, and just blatantly ignore others that don't fit your narrative.

Romans 4:12-13 does not teach that God's covenant with Abraham was transferred from Israel to the Church (and it certainly doesn't say that explicitly); rather, it teaches that the promise comes through faith and therefore includes both Jews and Gentiles. Paul's point is that Abraham is the father not only of the circumcised (Jews) who share his faith, but also of uncircumcised Gentiles who believe, showing that righteousness and inheritance are based on faith rather than the Law.

This expands the scope of the promise but does not revoke or transfer it. When read alongside Romans 9 and 11, Paul makes it explicit that God has not rejected Israel (Romans 11:1) and that His covenantal calling is "irrevocable" (Romans 11:29). The olive tree analogy in Romans 11 further clarifies this: Gentiles are grafted into the existing covenantal root, not replacing the natural branches. Therefore, the correct conclusion is that the Abrahamic promise is broadened to include Gentile believers by faith, not transferred away from the Jewish people.

We believe in Fulfillment Theology, not replacement theology.

The Church is not a new entity that replaced Israel, nor is it a separate group grafted into a Jewish root, the Church is Israel, fully realized. When Paul talks about the 'root' and the 'olive tree' in Romans 11, he's talking about Christ and the community of faith. Israel was always intended to be the womb of the Messiah and the assembly of God. When Christ came, the true Israel moved forward in Him.

Abraham's fatherhood is spiritual, not biological. Those Jews who rejected the Messiah cut themselves off from their own tree, while Gentiles who believe were grafted into it. There's not two peoples of God, nor is there a 'holding pattern' for national Israel. There's only the Body of Christ, which is the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). The promise didn't move from one nation to another, it was fulfilled in Christ, and all who are baptized into Christ inherit it completely.

While I agree that the promises to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ and that all who belong to Christ share in those promises by faith, your error is the fact that your conclusion goes beyond what Paul actually says in Romans 11.

Paul does not collapse Israel into the Church; he continues to distinguish between Israel and Gentiles throughout the passage. In the olive tree analogy, he explicitly describes Gentiles as "wild branches" grafted in among the natural branches, which only makes sense if there remains a real distinction between the two.

He also states that Israel has experienced a partial hardening until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, indicating a temporary condition and a future turning of Israel, not a completed fulfillment that removes them from the picture.

Most importantly, Paul says that even in their current unbelief, they are still "beloved for the sake of the fathers" and that God's gifts and calling are irrevocable (Romans 11:28-29), which directly ties back to the Abrahamic covenant. Indeed, Paul never says the promise is taken away from Israel. In fact, Galatians 3:17 explicitly says that the Law, which came later, does not nullify the covenant previously ratified by God. That means the Abrahamic covenant itself is still intact - it hasn't been canceled, replaced, or transferred. This aligns directly with Romans 11:29, where Paul says God's gifts and calling are "irrevocable."

So while fulfillment in Christ expands the promise to include all believers, it does not eliminate Israel's distinct identity or future role. Your view rightly emphasizes fulfillment, but it ultimately reads over the distinctions and future expectations that Paul himself carefully maintains. It ignores the plain meaning of Romans 11 in favor of a narrative that is not biblically grounded.

We're talking past each other because of how we define 'the Church.' I get your position: if the Church is Israel, it forces you to deal with the historic, liturgical, visible Church which you're totally denying.

Look closely at the olive tree analogy you brought up. When the 'partial hardening' lifts and ethnic Israel turns back to God, Paul says they are grafted back into their own olive tree (Romans 11:24). He does not say a second, separate tree is grown for them. They're restored by being united to the exact same body of believers that Gentile Christians are currently grafted into. That body is the Church.

You mentioned Galatians 3:17 to show the Abrahamic covenant is irrevocable. I completely agree! But just a few verses earlier, Paul explicitly defines how that covenant works: 'The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed... meaning one person, who is Christ' (Gal 3:16). He concludes the chapter by saying, 'If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise' (Gal 3:29).
So the covenant isn't canceled, replaced, or transferred away from Christ. It's restricted to those in Christ.

When ethnic Israel is saved at the end of the age, it will be because they recognize Jesus as the Messiah and enter His Body. There is no biological inheritance of the promise apart from Christ.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FYI: Dispensationalist views and dual covenant theology came about, because Rome asked "If you are the true Church, where have you been for the last 1,500 years?". John Nelson Darby solved this Protestant identity crisis by redefining the Church. He argued that the Church is an invisible "parenthesis" or a temporary "mystery" in God's timeline. Same guy who created the Scofield bible.

That bible basically single handedly shaped modern American Protestantism and Christian Zionism. Without the Scofield Bible, modern American evangelicalism would look completely different. Because Scofield taught that God's physical, territorial promises to ethnic Israel were completely separate from the Church and must be literally fulfilled, generations of American Christians grew up believing that the return of Jewish people to Palestine was a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ. It's also why so many buy into the pre tib rapture: it came from the Scofield bible.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Mothra said:

Doc Holliday said:

Mothra said:

Realitybites said:

The_barBEARian said:

Mothra said:



As for Genesis, the exact quote to Abraham is: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." God is referring to Abraham's descendants, not necessarily the modern day state of Israel.




Yes.

And Romans 4:12-13 explicitly makes absolutely clear that this promise has transferred to the church.

"and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

I am surprised at how badly you misinterpret these verses, and just blatantly ignore others that don't fit your narrative.

Romans 4:12-13 does not teach that God's covenant with Abraham was transferred from Israel to the Church (and it certainly doesn't say that explicitly); rather, it teaches that the promise comes through faith and therefore includes both Jews and Gentiles. Paul's point is that Abraham is the father not only of the circumcised (Jews) who share his faith, but also of uncircumcised Gentiles who believe, showing that righteousness and inheritance are based on faith rather than the Law.

This expands the scope of the promise but does not revoke or transfer it. When read alongside Romans 9 and 11, Paul makes it explicit that God has not rejected Israel (Romans 11:1) and that His covenantal calling is "irrevocable" (Romans 11:29). The olive tree analogy in Romans 11 further clarifies this: Gentiles are grafted into the existing covenantal root, not replacing the natural branches. Therefore, the correct conclusion is that the Abrahamic promise is broadened to include Gentile believers by faith, not transferred away from the Jewish people.

We believe in Fulfillment Theology, not replacement theology.

The Church is not a new entity that replaced Israel, nor is it a separate group grafted into a Jewish root, the Church is Israel, fully realized. When Paul talks about the 'root' and the 'olive tree' in Romans 11, he's talking about Christ and the community of faith. Israel was always intended to be the womb of the Messiah and the assembly of God. When Christ came, the true Israel moved forward in Him.

Abraham's fatherhood is spiritual, not biological. Those Jews who rejected the Messiah cut themselves off from their own tree, while Gentiles who believe were grafted into it. There's not two peoples of God, nor is there a 'holding pattern' for national Israel. There's only the Body of Christ, which is the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). The promise didn't move from one nation to another, it was fulfilled in Christ, and all who are baptized into Christ inherit it completely.

While I agree that the promises to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ and that all who belong to Christ share in those promises by faith, your error is the fact that your conclusion goes beyond what Paul actually says in Romans 11.

Paul does not collapse Israel into the Church; he continues to distinguish between Israel and Gentiles throughout the passage. In the olive tree analogy, he explicitly describes Gentiles as "wild branches" grafted in among the natural branches, which only makes sense if there remains a real distinction between the two.

He also states that Israel has experienced a partial hardening until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, indicating a temporary condition and a future turning of Israel, not a completed fulfillment that removes them from the picture.

Most importantly, Paul says that even in their current unbelief, they are still "beloved for the sake of the fathers" and that God's gifts and calling are irrevocable (Romans 11:28-29), which directly ties back to the Abrahamic covenant. Indeed, Paul never says the promise is taken away from Israel. In fact, Galatians 3:17 explicitly says that the Law, which came later, does not nullify the covenant previously ratified by God. That means the Abrahamic covenant itself is still intact - it hasn't been canceled, replaced, or transferred. This aligns directly with Romans 11:29, where Paul says God's gifts and calling are "irrevocable."

So while fulfillment in Christ expands the promise to include all believers, it does not eliminate Israel's distinct identity or future role. Your view rightly emphasizes fulfillment, but it ultimately reads over the distinctions and future expectations that Paul himself carefully maintains. It ignores the plain meaning of Romans 11 in favor of a narrative that is not biblically grounded.

We're talking past each other because of how we define 'the Church.' I get your position: if the Church is Israel, it forces you to deal with the historic, liturgical, visible Church which you're totally denying.

Look closely at the olive tree analogy you brought up. When the 'partial hardening' lifts and ethnic Israel turns back to God, Paul says they are grafted back into their own olive tree (Romans 11:24). He does not say a second, separate tree is grown for them. They're restored by being united to the exact same body of believers that Gentile Christians are currently grafted into. That body is the Church.

You mentioned Galatians 3:17 to show the Abrahamic covenant is irrevocable. I completely agree! But just a few verses earlier, Paul explicitly defines how that covenant works: 'The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed... meaning one person, who is Christ' (Gal 3:16). He concludes the chapter by saying, 'If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise' (Gal 3:29).
So the covenant isn't canceled, replaced, or transferred away from Christ. It's restricted to those in Christ.

When ethnic Israel is saved at the end of the age, it will be because they recognize Jesus as the Messiah and enter His Body. There is no biological inheritance of the promise apart from Christ.

I agree there's one people of God, not two. I agree Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way - through Christ. I agree that when ethnic Israel turns to Christ, they're grafted back into the same olive tree.

But none of that proves Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

Romans 11 says people are in the olive tree because of faith in Christ. In fact, Paul specifically says the Jews were broken off because of unbelief and the Gentiles stand by faith. The issue is faith, not membership in a particular church institution.

The same thing is true in Galatians 3. Paul says the promises belong to those who are in Christ. Amen.

But that's my point. The promises belong to Christ and His people - not automatically to any church hierarchy, bishop, or tradition.

What I don't see is where Scripture makes the jump from "there is one people of God" to "therefore the Orthodox/Catholic Church is the infallible interpreter of Scripture." Those are two completely different arguments.

The New Testament teaches one body of believers united to Christ. What it doesn't teach is that every tradition claimed by a later church is therefore beyond question. In fact, the apostles repeatedly warn that error can arise within the visible church itself. Paul even publicly corrected Peter when Peter was wrong.

So yes, there is one olive tree. Yes, there is one covenant people. Yes, salvation is only through Christ.
But I still don't see any passage that says the Church cannot err, or that church tradition carries the same authority as Scripture.

That's the point that still needs to be proven.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




Republicans are smart.

They cater and bend over backwards for 2% of the population that traditionally votes against them while alienating and offending their voting base.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




I don't know why Chris Cuomo isn't allowed into Russia, but it is clearly because he has done something.

Tucker Carlson is allowed in. Brittany Griner was allowed in and tried to sneak illegal drugs into the country.

Americans (with a visa) can go to Russia. It doesn't mean you are a Russian agent.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

boognish_bear said:



Ambassador Huckabee is correct: the US was founded by Christian's and based on Judeo-Christian principles. God clearly has blessed Israel repeatedly throughout history. The modern state of Israel is an obvious manifestation of that. It's a miracle that Israel exists at all, that it continues to exist since 1948, and that it thrives. And God's covenant with Abraham & Israel is still in effect. He Himself described it as eternal.


John Hagee, is that you?
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




Cruz has another 4 years to peddle this. By 2030, the electorate will have shifted to the point that if the Democrats can find someone saner than Talarico, he's toast. All it will take is a general election opponent who is willing to run ads showing the dysfunction in America interspersed with Cruz's Israel talking points ending with the line: "Shouldn't Texas have a senator that represents THIS Lone Star State?"
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:



And...?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

boognish_bear said:




Cruz has another 4 years to peddle this. By 2030, the electorate will have shifted to the point that if the Democrats can find someone saner than Talarico, he's toast. All it will take is a general election opponent who is willing to run ads showing the dysfunction in America interspersed with Cruz's Israel talking points ending with the line: "Shouldn't Texas have a senator that represents THIS Lone Star State?"

Yeah, we've heard this sort of thing for decades.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



Glad people are starting to see the doughboy for the nutcase, anti-American grifter he is. At this point, he's nothing but a propagandist for dictators and despots.

Here is another doozy. He initially lies after the interviewer asked him about his comments about Trump being the anti-Christ. He claims he never said that. Then she actually shows him the video.

And incredibly, he maintained the lie, insinuating that the video had been doctored:



I guess we shouldn't be surprised by someone who said this: "I lie if I'm really cornered or something... I try never to lie on TV. I just don't... I don't like lying. I certainly do it... out of weakness or whatever".

It's incredible to me that so many on this board still listen to this guy.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I recently saw a report that Tucker has left the GOP. He hasn't been a conservative in some time, probably since he was fired by Fox. Now, it's more a Never Trumper & antisemite with more and more cringe and less that can pass for sane.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Realitybites said:

boognish_bear said:




Cruz has another 4 years to peddle this. By 2030, the electorate will have shifted to the point that if the Democrats can find someone saner than Talarico, he's toast. All it will take is a general election opponent who is willing to run ads showing the dysfunction in America interspersed with Cruz's Israel talking points ending with the line: "Shouldn't Texas have a senator that represents THIS Lone Star State?"

Yeah, we've heard this sort of thing for decades.


You and your Boomer buddies are reaching your twilight years and Millennials and Gen Z on either side of the political spectrum are dissatisfied with your Israel First platform.

Ted Cruz embodies Israel First corruption of our congress more than any other with the possible exception of brain damaged Fetterman.
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Remember, white men are the most dangerous demographic in America...

The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.