Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

They didn't crack the code, this is an issue that has come up repeatedly through the history of the church. Here is one mention of the exact same issue from 248 AD.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-africanus2.html

There have been numerous scholars that have mentioned the problems with the usage of the rabbinic text for thousands of years.

Nicholas Donin in 1200s, Johannes Pfefferkorn in 1400s, and many more.

Stone Choir repeatedly made the point that this is not new information at all, it was just something the church seemingly forgot beginning with Jerome's creation of the Vulgate.

The early church solely used the LXX as its text. It never once referred to any Hebrew until Jerome made a mistake with the Latin Vulgate. I understand he needed to create a Latin Bible because Greek usage was dying in the West but he should have translated the LXX and should never have gone to the rabbis to translate ancient Hebrew.

---

you're right that the lxx vs hebrew debate is ancient. origen's correspondence with africanus, jerome's prefaces to the vulgate, the humanist critiques in the renaissance, all of this has always been a live issue in textual history. but that's precisely why stone choir's treatment rings hollow.

serious scholarship doesn't flatten the problem into "jerome made a mistake." the vulgate was part of a broad westward linguistic shift, and jerome had access to hebrew manuscripts we don't. modern textual criticism balances septuagint witnesses, masoretic manuscripts, the dead sea scrolls, targums, and patristic citations. it's complex, scholarly work.

what stone choir offers instead is a polemical cartoon. they take this conversation and reduce it to a morality tale: the church "forgot" the lxx, jerome "betrayed" it, and only now are the enlightened podcasters reviving the true bible. that move betrays their hand. it's branding, not scholarship. by skipping the actual complexity, they reveal themselves as shams dressing up in scholarly language to impress an audience that doesn't know better.

---

You didn't listen to their series and it's obvious. You're basing a 20 hour series on what you think they said. I implore you to listen to it. They don't blame Jerome for all of it, they just said he made the first mistake. Numerous others made similar mistakes and they identify them, including Martin Luther.

They also repeatedly state that the information they gave only scratches the surface and that you should do your own research as well as refer back to the Word. Not once do they ever present themselves as the final authority on this issue.

Old McDonald said:

---

the biggest political streams are presidential debates, state of the union addresses, and high-profile hearings, those involving the actual future of the country. kirk vs. fuentes was a niche quarrel inside the right, with appeal mostly to people already terminally online.

---

The terminally online would have been the biggest voices for it to happen. Once it was set, it would have taken off like wildfire.

The battle for the future of the right wing would have been far more important than any single presidential debate, and almost all political hearings are completely useless other than for campaign donations.

There are also those who are terminally stuck in the old system who don't understand how these online debates matter. It would have been extremely consequential. That's the reason it didn't happen.

Rapier108 said:

---

One raving nutcase chatting with another.

---

its funny cause every time i see someone namecalling a russell brand, tucker carlson, alex jones, ron paul, etc i think of an old saying. "Wake up in the morning and run into an *******? You ran into an *******. Keep running into *******s all day long, youre the *******."

Populism will win, its just that some of you can't seem to grasp what is becoming popular.

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

Kirk was very much a Boomer Con. Young people liked him because he went to the young people, but there's a reason older people liked him too. He was a middle of the road, Republican Party man.

He also didn't hammer the groypers at all, unless you consider ad hominem and straw men to be hammering them. TPUSA could never adequately answer how an*l sex helps the conservative movement. They couldn't answer how America's foreign policy wasn't Israel-first and not America first. He couldn't answer how allowing millions of legal immigrants to take the high quality jobs was America first.

Thinking who came out on top in the groyper wars says a lot about that person. The TPUSA people were made to look like fools, despite having weeks advance knowing these questions would be asked.

---

This statement is just so off base I don't know where to begin. My 18 and 22 year old sons loved Kirk and it sure as hell wasn't because he was a "Boomer Con", they loved him because he spoke to them and took on the left and beat them over and over again with sound logical arguments. My sons loved how they could use Kirk and the points that he made to bring people who were on the Left over to his side. Kirk did more to shift the GOP to the right as anyone since Rush Limbaugh as well. I had my disagreements with Charlie btw and spoke about them here, personally I think he allowed his loyalty to Trump to eskew his conservative values for instance. Still no one is perfect and he did 1000x more good than ill.

Plenty of video out there of Kirk throwing groypers out of his events because he saw them as destructive to the conservative movement. Kirk also saw homosexuality as a sin but he saw everyone as a sinner except Jesus and he separated his religious beliefs from political reality. He knew if you won't work with anyone who doesn't meet your idea of sinfulness you will have no one and he spoke about how there were areas where people can disagree or not and still work together. The other issues also are complex and you are looking for purity tests.

If you think TPUSA looks like fools and groypers are seen as credible I mean that's fine, everyone gets an opinion. That said very few people agree with you and I'll pray for you. Guys like Fuentes are engaging and are great at stirring anger but it's kind of like how a lot of young men start with Andrew Tate and eventually move to Jordan Peterson, I hope you are one of them. It's telling to me that Fuentes is trying to use Charlie's death as a self promotion device, he is adept at trying to channel anger I will give him that.

---

Your last bolded sentence negates the first. He was a Party man who cared more about the GOP/Trump winning elections than he did about policies that help Americans or being a traditional conservative. Being party first with Israel-First foreign policy makes you a Boomer Con, along with name calling anybody further right than him.

Your kids will also be wholly unprepared to grapple with arguments that challenge their positions from the right. That's because of people like Charlie Kirk.

You say "purity test" but what it actually is is an important worldview that shapes someone's thoughts/actions that puts their core beliefs in conflict with your own. We aren't talking about disagreeing on the top marginal tax rate.

I think the Tates are abhorrent and I think Jordan Peterson is a great person for people, particularly young people, to take personal life advice from.

You love saying "stirring anger" as if it's some profound statement. It means nothing. Con, Inc. loves "stirring anger" against Democrats.

I appreciate the prayers, I'll take all I can get!

---

Yes, why should we worry about winning elections and changing the GOP from within? Alrighty. I mean Fuentes doing all he could to attack Trump's campaign late stage when it was either Trump or Harris was freaking brilliant.

My sons are quite prepared to debate but thanks for your concern on that. Simply deciding that you are right and everyone else is wrong is not winning a debate.

You can't make any real change if you expect everyone in your coalition to 100% agree with you. Fuentes lost me when he cheered on his supporters harassing Ben Shapiro to the point he had to up his security detail. You end up with a small group of folks that cheer each other on and become an echo chamber. The reality is that most people see Fuentes as either a racist, a blowhard, or a joke or all 3. Now you can yell and scream that he isn't all you want. You can call me a Boomer (though I'm not). You can tell me about how misguided by kids will be. It's not helping.

I like winning and making actual change, you will never get that from a guy like Fuentes and the groypers. I hope you figure that out.

Yeah we've gotten so much actual change by electing republicans and even Trump, who was supposed to be different.

Trump had Fuentes' support his first time around because of the promises Trump was making. Then Trump did not govern as a change agent. So Fuentes withdrew his support. That's how it works among intellectuals. You change your mind based on new information.

Every criticism of Trump this time around, from the right, was completely legitimate. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And I hope you see that.

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

Kirk was very much a Boomer Con. Young people liked him because he went to the young people, but there's a reason older people liked him too. He was a middle of the road, Republican Party man.

He also didn't hammer the groypers at all, unless you consider ad hominem and straw men to be hammering them. TPUSA could never adequately answer how an*l sex helps the conservative movement. They couldn't answer how America's foreign policy wasn't Israel-first and not America first. He couldn't answer how allowing millions of legal immigrants to take the high quality jobs was America first.

Thinking who came out on top in the groyper wars says a lot about that person. The TPUSA people were made to look like fools, despite having weeks advance knowing these questions would be asked.

---

This statement is just so off base I don't know where to begin. My 18 and 22 year old sons loved Kirk and it sure as hell wasn't because he was a "Boomer Con", they loved him because he spoke to them and took on the left and beat them over and over again with sound logical arguments. My sons loved how they could use Kirk and the points that he made to bring people who were on the Left over to his side. Kirk did more to shift the GOP to the right as anyone since Rush Limbaugh as well. I had my disagreements with Charlie btw and spoke about them here, personally I think he allowed his loyalty to Trump to eskew his conservative values for instance. Still no one is perfect and he did 1000x more good than ill.

Plenty of video out there of Kirk throwing groypers out of his events because he saw them as destructive to the conservative movement. Kirk also saw homosexuality as a sin but he saw everyone as a sinner except Jesus and he separated his religious beliefs from political reality. He knew if you won't work with anyone who doesn't meet your idea of sinfulness you will have no one and he spoke about how there were areas where people can disagree or not and still work together. The other issues also are complex and you are looking for purity tests.

If you think TPUSA looks like fools and groypers are seen as credible I mean that's fine, everyone gets an opinion. That said very few people agree with you and I'll pray for you. Guys like Fuentes are engaging and are great at stirring anger but it's kind of like how a lot of young men start with Andrew Tate and eventually move to Jordan Peterson, I hope you are one of them. It's telling to me that Fuentes is trying to use Charlie's death as a self promotion device, he is adept at trying to channel anger I will give him that.

---

Your last bolded sentence negates the first. He was a Party man who cared more about the GOP/Trump winning elections than he did about policies that help Americans or being a traditional conservative. Being party first with Israel-First foreign policy makes you a Boomer Con, along with name calling anybody further right than him.

Your kids will also be wholly unprepared to grapple with arguments that challenge their positions from the right. That's because of people like Charlie Kirk.

You say "purity test" but what it actually is is an important worldview that shapes someone's thoughts/actions that puts their core beliefs in conflict with your own. We aren't talking about disagreeing on the top marginal tax rate.

I think the Tates are abhorrent and I think Jordan Peterson is a great person for people, particularly young people, to take personal life advice from.

You love saying "stirring anger" as if it's some profound statement. It means nothing. Con, Inc. loves "stirring anger" against Democrats.

I appreciate the prayers, I'll take all I can get!

---

Yes, why should we worry about winning elections and changing the GOP from within? Alrighty. I mean Fuentes doing all he could to attack Trump's campaign late stage when it was either Trump or Harris was freaking brilliant.

My sons are quite prepared to debate but thanks for your concern on that. Simply deciding that you are right and everyone else is wrong is not winning a debate.

You can't make any real change if you expect everyone in your coalition to 100% agree with you. Fuentes lost me when he cheered on his supporters harassing Ben Shapiro to the point he had to up his security detail. You end up with a small group of folks that cheer each other on and become an echo chamber. The reality is that most people see Fuentes as either a racist, a blowhard, or a joke or all 3. Now you can yell and scream that he isn't all you want. You can call me a Boomer (though I'm not). You can tell me about how misguided by kids will be. It's not helping.

I like winning and making actual change, you will never get that from a guy like Fuentes and the groypers. I hope you figure that out.

---

Yup. Even if he you have the best ideas in the world when you come across as a raging blow hard no one will listen to you.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

Kirk was very much a Boomer Con. Young people liked him because he went to the young people, but there's a reason older people liked him too. He was a middle of the road, Republican Party man.

He also didn't hammer the groypers at all, unless you consider ad hominem and straw men to be hammering them. TPUSA could never adequately answer how an*l sex helps the conservative movement. They couldn't answer how America's foreign policy wasn't Israel-first and not America first. He couldn't answer how allowing millions of legal immigrants to take the high quality jobs was America first.

Thinking who came out on top in the groyper wars says a lot about that person. The TPUSA people were made to look like fools, despite having weeks advance knowing these questions would be asked.

---

This statement is just so off base I don't know where to begin. My 18 and 22 year old sons loved Kirk and it sure as hell wasn't because he was a "Boomer Con", they loved him because he spoke to them and took on the left and beat them over and over again with sound logical arguments. My sons loved how they could use Kirk and the points that he made to bring people who were on the Left over to his side. Kirk did more to shift the GOP to the right as anyone since Rush Limbaugh as well. I had my disagreements with Charlie btw and spoke about them here, personally I think he allowed his loyalty to Trump to eskew his conservative values for instance. Still no one is perfect and he did 1000x more good than ill.

Plenty of video out there of Kirk throwing groypers out of his events because he saw them as destructive to the conservative movement. Kirk also saw homosexuality as a sin but he saw everyone as a sinner except Jesus and he separated his religious beliefs from political reality. He knew if you won't work with anyone who doesn't meet your idea of sinfulness you will have no one and he spoke about how there were areas where people can disagree or not and still work together. The other issues also are complex and you are looking for purity tests.

If you think TPUSA looks like fools and groypers are seen as credible I mean that's fine, everyone gets an opinion. That said very few people agree with you and I'll pray for you. Guys like Fuentes are engaging and are great at stirring anger but it's kind of like how a lot of young men start with Andrew Tate and eventually move to Jordan Peterson, I hope you are one of them. It's telling to me that Fuentes is trying to use Charlie's death as a self promotion device, he is adept at trying to channel anger I will give him that.

---

Your last bolded sentence negates the first. He was a Party man who cared more about the GOP/Trump winning elections than he did about policies that help Americans or being a traditional conservative. Being party first with Israel-First foreign policy makes you a Boomer Con, along with name calling anybody further right than him.

Your kids will also be wholly unprepared to grapple with arguments that challenge their positions from the right. That's because of people like Charlie Kirk.

You say "purity test" but what it actually is is an important worldview that shapes someone's thoughts/actions that puts their core beliefs in conflict with your own. We aren't talking about disagreeing on the top marginal tax rate.

I think the Tates are abhorrent and I think Jordan Peterson is a great person for people, particularly young people, to take personal life advice from.

You love saying "stirring anger" as if it's some profound statement. It means nothing. Con, Inc. loves "stirring anger" against Democrats.

I appreciate the prayers, I'll take all I can get!

---

Yes, why should we worry about winning elections and changing the GOP from within? Alrighty. I mean Fuentes doing all he could to attack Trump's campaign late stage when it was either Trump or Harris was freaking brilliant.

My sons are quite prepared to debate but thanks for your concern on that. Simply deciding that you are right and everyone else is wrong is not winning a debate.

You can't make any real change if you expect everyone in your coalition to 100% agree with you. Fuentes lost me when he cheered on his supporters harassing Ben Shapiro to the point he had to up his security detail. You end up with a small group of folks that cheer each other on and become an echo chamber. The reality is that most people see Fuentes as either a racist, a blowhard, or a joke or all 3. Now you can yell and scream that he isn't all you want. You can call me a Boomer (though I'm not). You can tell me about how misguided by kids will be. It's not helping.

I like winning and making actual change, you will never get that from a guy like Fuentes and the groypers. I hope you figure that out.

---

Yup. Even if he you have the best ideas in the world when you come across as a raging blow hard no one will listen to you.

---

I think people are tired of the buttoned up, statesman-ly bs. It's so tired and we all know it's fake. Trump was on to this to some degree. Just be real and be prepared to enact change. If you don't govern as your mandate assumed then be prepared to lose support.

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

They didn't crack the code, this is an issue that has come up repeatedly through the history of the church. Here is one mention of the exact same issue from 248 AD.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-africanus2.html

There have been numerous scholars that have mentioned the problems with the usage of the rabbinic text for thousands of years.

Nicholas Donin in 1200s, Johannes Pfefferkorn in 1400s, and many more.

Stone Choir repeatedly made the point that this is not new information at all, it was just something the church seemingly forgot beginning with Jerome's creation of the Vulgate.

The early church solely used the LXX as its text. It never once referred to any Hebrew until Jerome made a mistake with the Latin Vulgate. I understand he needed to create a Latin Bible because Greek usage was dying in the West but he should have translated the LXX and should never have gone to the rabbis to translate ancient Hebrew.

---

you're right that the lxx vs hebrew debate is ancient. origen's correspondence with africanus, jerome's prefaces to the vulgate, the humanist critiques in the renaissance, all of this has always been a live issue in textual history. but that's precisely why stone choir's treatment rings hollow.

serious scholarship doesn't flatten the problem into "jerome made a mistake." the vulgate was part of a broad westward linguistic shift, and jerome had access to hebrew manuscripts we don't. modern textual criticism balances septuagint witnesses, masoretic manuscripts, the dead sea scrolls, targums, and patristic citations. it's complex, scholarly work.

what stone choir offers instead is a polemical cartoon. they take this conversation and reduce it to a morality tale: the church "forgot" the lxx, jerome "betrayed" it, and only now are the enlightened podcasters reviving the true bible. that move betrays their hand. it's branding, not scholarship. by skipping the actual complexity, they reveal themselves as shams dressing up in scholarly language to impress an audience that doesn't know better.

---

You didn't listen to their series and it's obvious. You're basing a 20 hour series on what you think they said. I implore you to listen to it. They don't blame Jerome for all of it, they just said he made the first mistake. Numerous others made similar mistakes and they identify them, including Martin Luther.

They also repeatedly state that the information they gave only scratches the surface and that you should do your own research as well as refer back to the Word. Not once do they ever present themselves as the final authority on this issue.

---

i'd ask you instead reach for emmanuel tov, natalio marcos, or the cambridge septuagint commentary series. those are scholars who actually work with the manuscripts, weigh the lxx against the masoretic text and dead sea scrolls, and publish in peer-reviewed venues.

stone choir isn't in that league. listening to them instead of real textual critics is like skipping medical school and trusting your diagnosis to a reddit thread.

shack009 said:

---

Yeah we've gotten so much actual change by electing republicans and even Trump, who was supposed to be different.

Trump had Fuentes' support his first time around because of the promises Trump was making. Then Trump did not govern as a change agent. So Fuentes withdrew his support. That's how it works among intellectuals. You change your mind based on new information.

Every criticism of Trump this time around, from the right, was completely legitimate. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And I hope you see that.

---

Yeah nothing has changed since Trump has been in office, definitely feels like Biden's 2nd term so far.

That is unless your main platform is hating on Israel and Jews.

Oh, and calling Fuentes an "intellectual" is hilarious. I think you actually believe that.

Does Trump deserve criticism? Sure, I've not held back on that myself. Acting like "the more things change, the more they stay the same" though is just beyond obtuse and only shows that Fuentes and the groypers aren't serious people.

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. Its not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

He's extremely smart, which you would know if you actually watched his show. Unfortunately you've been misrepresenting yourself throughout this conversation as someone who has.

Look, obviously there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. In that sense, things are different. But we haven't got the mass deportations promised. They are actually talking about more green cards and more foreign students. That's obviously insane and anti-American. We're still getting out of control spending with pork bills. The good EOs aren't being passed as laws, despite having a majority in both house and senate. Not having any major pro O&G laws passed by now is borderline criminal. The sanctity of life hasn't been protected by national law. And of course, there's the Israel-First foreign policy (which I'm sure you and the others will mostly focus on now). And Americans weren't given FEMA relief because their city had opinions about Israel. Israel has been defended full tilt at all costs. That's just true.

There hasn't been any substantive change to make daily life easier on Americans. We didn't even get additional tax cuts. We just got an extension of the ones we already had... Life has not gotten easier for young people and young families.

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

Keyno said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

His arguments are based in logic and fact in the same way Andrew Tate's are based in logic of fact. One kernel of truth surrounded by garbage.

---

And that is the glaring contradiction with anyone claiming that they support "market place of ideas", or the so called "debate me" bros. "Facts don't care about your feelings". Even Kirk's "prove me wrong" slogan. If Fuentes is so off base and incorrect, it would be EASY for anyone to defeat him in a debate. Not only would it be easy, it would destroy his credibility and potentially end his career. But none of these people will debate him. It's both because he is a skilled debater, and he has the truth on his side.

---

This is utter nonsense. Fuentes and Tate do not have the truth on their side, but they are charismatic so they will convince people that they do. The truth is not always what wins in a debate.

Even if they got utterly demolished, they would claim victory and there are plenty of morons on the internet that would take their side because they buy into their ethnocentric, misogynistic views of the world (which are words that I reserve for people who actually deserve them, unlike the left).

People like Tate and Fuentes appeal to people who cannot reason beyond their base passions and just want someone to blame for all the problems in the world. They do not espouse constructive philosophies, they engage in destructive hatred.

Not that you haven't already exposed who you are, but white knighting for them is the cherry on top.

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

His arguments are based in logic and fact in the same way Andrew Tate's are based in logic of fact. One kernel of truth surrounded by garbage.

---

And that is the glaring contradiction with anyone claiming that they support "market place of ideas", or the so called "debate me" bros. "Facts don't care about your feelings". Even Kirk's "prove me wrong" slogan. If Fuentes is so off base and incorrect, it would be EASY for anyone to defeat him in a debate. Not only would it be easy, it would destroy his credibility and potentially end his career. But none of these people will debate him. It's both because he is a skilled debater, and he has the truth on his side.

---

---

Quote:

---

This is utter nonsense. Fuentes and Tate do not have the truth on their side, but they are charismatic so they will convince people that they do. The truth is not always what wins in a debate.

---

Why do you keep throwing Tate in with him. Tate is more Manosphere. Fuentes has a high brow political show. The only people trying to lump t hem together are the normies...

Quote:

---

Even if they got utterly demolished, they would claim victory and there are plenty of morons on the internet that would take their side because they buy into their ethnocentric, misogynistic views of the world (which are words that I reserve for people who actually deserve them, unlike the left).

---

We'll never know because one side refuses to debate. We know why that side refuses to debate. Thus, we can make informed assumptions about how the debate would go.

Quote:

---

People like Tate and Fuentes appeal to people who cannot reason beyond their base passions and just want someone to blame for all the problems in the world. They do not espouse constructive philosophies, they engage in destructive hatred.

---

This is just proving you don't anything about Fuentes. You don't think you're coming off like a lefty, but you absolutely are. Speaking as if you're informed on something you aren't...

Quote:

---

Not that you haven't already exposed who you are, but white knighting for them is the cherry on top.

---

And you've exposed who you are.

high brow? are we talking about the same guy who fantasizes about Brett Cooper on air?

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

high brow? are we talking about the same guy who fantasizes about Brett Cooper on air?

---

Ok, there are some jokes. It's a long show, what do you expect.

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

His arguments are based in logic and fact in the same way Andrew Tate's are based in logic of fact. One kernel of truth surrounded by garbage.

---

And that is the glaring contradiction with anyone claiming that they support "market place of ideas", or the so called "debate me" bros. "Facts don't care about your feelings". Even Kirk's "prove me wrong" slogan. If Fuentes is so off base and incorrect, it would be EASY for anyone to defeat him in a debate. Not only would it be easy, it would destroy his credibility and potentially end his career. But none of these people will debate him. It's both because he is a skilled debater, and he has the truth on his side.

---

---

Quote:

---

This is utter nonsense. Fuentes and Tate do not have the truth on their side, but they are charismatic so they will convince people that they do. The truth is not always what wins in a debate.

---

Why do you keep throwing Tate in with him. Tate is more Manosphere. Fuentes has a high brow political show. The only people trying to lump t hem together are the normies...

Quote:

---

Even if they got utterly demolished, they would claim victory and there are plenty of morons on the internet that would take their side because they buy into their ethnocentric, misogynistic views of the world (which are words that I reserve for people who actually deserve them, unlike the left).

---

We'll never know because one side refuses to debate. We know why that side refuses to debate. Thus, we can make informed assumptions about how the debate would go.

Quote:

---

People like Tate and Fuentes appeal to people who cannot reason beyond their base passions and just want someone to blame for all the problems in the world. They do not espouse constructive philosophies, they engage in destructive hatred.

---

This is just proving you don't anything about Fuentes. You don't think you're coming off like a lefty, but you absolutely are. Speaking as if you're informed on something you aren't...

Quote:

---

Not that you haven't already exposed who you are, but white knighting for them is the cherry on top.

---

And you've exposed who you are.

---

Ok, dude. If you want to go with the guy that blatantly peddles holocaust denial lies, says January 6 was staged by the Israeli government, and suggests women are second class citizens, be my guest. It wont get you very far in life.

The reason nobody debates him is because he is a joke of a "commentator" who doesn't deserve the time of day. Sorry if you're desperate to believe otherwise. It's the same reason there's no point in debating an antifa member. You can't persuade people that are divorced from reality.

shack009 said:

---

Yeah we've gotten so much actual change by electing republicans and even Trump, who was supposed to be different.

Trump had Fuentes' support his first time around because of the promises Trump was making. Then Trump did not govern as a change agent. So Fuentes withdrew his support. That's how it works among intellectuals. You change your mind based on new information.

Every criticism of Trump this time around, from the right, was completely legitimate. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And I hope you see that.

---

You really think Trump even had a reasonably loyal government in the first term with the likes of McCain undermining and Ryan's vacillating leadership. An AG that folded like a tent at the first tap. Being undermined for the brief mid-term even had power, and then having to deal with a Left Democrat hijack of the narrative from 2018 on? No.

This first half a year is the only time he can be said to have had that even a little bit.

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Yeah we've gotten so much actual change by electing republicans and even Trump, who was supposed to be different.

Trump had Fuentes' support his first time around because of the promises Trump was making. Then Trump did not govern as a change agent. So Fuentes withdrew his support. That's how it works among intellectuals. You change your mind based on new information.

Every criticism of Trump this time around, from the right, was completely legitimate. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And I hope you see that.

---

You really think Trump even had a reasonably loyal government in the first term with the likes of McCain undermining and Ryan's vacillating leadership. An AG that folded like a tent at the first tap. Being undermined for the brief mid-term even had power, and then having to deal with a Left Democrat hijack of the narrative from 2018 on? No.

This first half a year is the only time he can be said to have had that even a little bit.

---

He was the president. He was weak and got rolled over by other weak men. That's not admirable.

Kvetch said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

His arguments are based in logic and fact in the same way Andrew Tate's are based in logic of fact. One kernel of truth surrounded by garbage.

---

And that is the glaring contradiction with anyone claiming that they support "market place of ideas", or the so called "debate me" bros. "Facts don't care about your feelings". Even Kirk's "prove me wrong" slogan. If Fuentes is so off base and incorrect, it would be EASY for anyone to defeat him in a debate. Not only would it be easy, it would destroy his credibility and potentially end his career. But none of these people will debate him. It's both because he is a skilled debater, and he has the truth on his side.

---

---

Quote:

---

This is utter nonsense. Fuentes and Tate do not have the truth on their side, but they are charismatic so they will convince people that they do. The truth is not always what wins in a debate.

---

Why do you keep throwing Tate in with him. Tate is more Manosphere. Fuentes has a high brow political show. The only people trying to lump t hem together are the normies...

Quote:

---

Even if they got utterly demolished, they would claim victory and there are plenty of morons on the internet that would take their side because they buy into their ethnocentric, misogynistic views of the world (which are words that I reserve for people who actually deserve them, unlike the left).

---

We'll never know because one side refuses to debate. We know why that side refuses to debate. Thus, we can make informed assumptions about how the debate would go.

Quote:

---

People like Tate and Fuentes appeal to people who cannot reason beyond their base passions and just want someone to blame for all the problems in the world. They do not espouse constructive philosophies, they engage in destructive hatred.

---

This is just proving you don't anything about Fuentes. You don't think you're coming off like a lefty, but you absolutely are. Speaking as if you're informed on something you aren't...

Quote:

---

Not that you haven't already exposed who you are, but white knighting for them is the cherry on top.

---

And you've exposed who you are.

---

Ok, dude. If you want to go with the guy that blatantly peddles holocaust denial lies, says January 6 was staged by the Israeli government, and suggests women are second class citizens, be my guest. It wont get you very far in life.

The reason nobody debates him is because he is a joke of a "commentator" who doesn't deserve the time of day. Sorry if you're desperate to believe otherwise. It's the same reason there's no point in debating an antifa member. You can't persuade people that are divorced from reality.

---

I have learned that very recently.

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Yeah we've gotten so much actual change by electing republicans and even Trump, who was supposed to be different.

Trump had Fuentes' support his first time around because of the promises Trump was making. Then Trump did not govern as a change agent. So Fuentes withdrew his support. That's how it works among intellectuals. You change your mind based on new information.

Every criticism of Trump this time around, from the right, was completely legitimate. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And I hope you see that.

---

You really think Trump even had a reasonably loyal government in the first term with the likes of McCain undermining and Ryan's vacillating leadership. An AG that folded like a tent at the first tap. Being undermined for the brief mid-term even had power, and then having to deal with a Left Democrat hijack of the narrative from 2018 on? No.

This first half a year is the only time he can be said to have had that even a little bit.

---

He was the president. He was weak and got rolled over by other weak men. That's not admirable.

---

You have to know that it is not that simple. In fact, he would have had to roam outside the law and limits to do much against such a stacked deck (some are fine with that) Its still astounding what a mega-corrupt government we had in the legislature and alphabets starting from 2015 and on with the plot, and the entire asterisk * of 46 admin (closest we have had to the anti-Pope problem of the Church in the 14th C)

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

His arguments are based in logic and fact in the same way Andrew Tate's are based in logic of fact. One kernel of truth surrounded by garbage.

---

And that is the glaring contradiction with anyone claiming that they support "market place of ideas", or the so called "debate me" bros. "Facts don't care about your feelings". Even Kirk's "prove me wrong" slogan. If Fuentes is so off base and incorrect, it would be EASY for anyone to defeat him in a debate. Not only would it be easy, it would destroy his credibility and potentially end his career. But none of these people will debate him. It's both because he is a skilled debater, and he has the truth on his side.

---

---

Quote:

---

This is utter nonsense. Fuentes and Tate do not have the truth on their side, but they are charismatic so they will convince people that they do. The truth is not always what wins in a debate.

---

Why do you keep throwing Tate in with him. Tate is more Manosphere. Fuentes has a high brow political show. The only people trying to lump t hem together are the normies...

Quote:

---

Even if they got utterly demolished, they would claim victory and there are plenty of morons on the internet that would take their side because they buy into their ethnocentric, misogynistic views of the world (which are words that I reserve for people who actually deserve them, unlike the left).

---

We'll never know because one side refuses to debate. We know why that side refuses to debate. Thus, we can make informed assumptions about how the debate would go.

Quote:

---

People like Tate and Fuentes appeal to people who cannot reason beyond their base passions and just want someone to blame for all the problems in the world. They do not espouse constructive philosophies, they engage in destructive hatred.

---

This is just proving you don't anything about Fuentes. You don't think you're coming off like a lefty, but you absolutely are. Speaking as if you're informed on something you aren't...

Quote:

---

Not that you haven't already exposed who you are, but white knighting for them is the cherry on top.

---

And you've exposed who you are.

---

Ok, dude. If you want to go with the guy that blatantly peddles holocaust denial lies, says January 6 was staged by the Israeli government, and suggests women are second class citizens, be my guest. It wont get you very far in life.

The reason nobody debates him is because he is a joke of a "commentator" who doesn't deserve the time of day. Sorry if you're desperate to believe otherwise. It's the same reason there's no point in debating an antifa member. You can't persuade people that are divorced from reality.

---

I have learned that very recently.

---

Did Fuentes teach you that when he was on a diatribe about how the Jews and AIPAC really pull all the puppet strings?

Kvetch said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

His arguments are based in logic and fact in the same way Andrew Tate's are based in logic of fact. One kernel of truth surrounded by garbage.

---

And that is the glaring contradiction with anyone claiming that they support "market place of ideas", or the so called "debate me" bros. "Facts don't care about your feelings". Even Kirk's "prove me wrong" slogan. If Fuentes is so off base and incorrect, it would be EASY for anyone to defeat him in a debate. Not only would it be easy, it would destroy his credibility and potentially end his career. But none of these people will debate him. It's both because he is a skilled debater, and he has the truth on his side.

---

---

Quote:

---

This is utter nonsense. Fuentes and Tate do not have the truth on their side, but they are charismatic so they will convince people that they do. The truth is not always what wins in a debate.

---

Why do you keep throwing Tate in with him. Tate is more Manosphere. Fuentes has a high brow political show. The only people trying to lump t hem together are the normies...

Quote:

---

Even if they got utterly demolished, they would claim victory and there are plenty of morons on the internet that would take their side because they buy into their ethnocentric, misogynistic views of the world (which are words that I reserve for people who actually deserve them, unlike the left).

---

We'll never know because one side refuses to debate. We know why that side refuses to debate. Thus, we can make informed assumptions about how the debate would go.

Quote:

---

People like Tate and Fuentes appeal to people who cannot reason beyond their base passions and just want someone to blame for all the problems in the world. They do not espouse constructive philosophies, they engage in destructive hatred.

---

This is just proving you don't anything about Fuentes. You don't think you're coming off like a lefty, but you absolutely are. Speaking as if you're informed on something you aren't...

Quote:

---

Not that you haven't already exposed who you are, but white knighting for them is the cherry on top.

---

And you've exposed who you are.

---

Ok, dude. If you want to go with the guy that blatantly peddles holocaust denial lies, says January 6 was staged by the Israeli government, and suggests women are second class citizens, be my guest. It wont get you very far in life.

The reason nobody debates him is because he is a joke of a "commentator" who doesn't deserve the time of day. Sorry if you're desperate to believe otherwise. It's the same reason there's no point in debating an antifa member. You can't persuade people that are divorced from reality.

---

I have learned that very recently.

---

Did Fuentes teach you that when he was on a diatribe about how the Jews and AIPAC really pull all the puppet strings?

---

Poor attempt at rage bait. No Internet points.

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Yeah we've gotten so much actual change by electing republicans and even Trump, who was supposed to be different.

Trump had Fuentes' support his first time around because of the promises Trump was making. Then Trump did not govern as a change agent. So Fuentes withdrew his support. That's how it works among intellectuals. You change your mind based on new information.

Every criticism of Trump this time around, from the right, was completely legitimate. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And I hope you see that.

---

You really think Trump even had a reasonably loyal government in the first term with the likes of McCain undermining and Ryan's vacillating leadership. An AG that folded like a tent at the first tap. Being undermined for the brief mid-term even had power, and then having to deal with a Left Democrat hijack of the narrative from 2018 on? No.

This first half a year is the only time he can be said to have had that even a little bit.

---

He was the president. He was weak and got rolled over by other weak men. That's not admirable.

---

You have to know that it is not that simple. In fact, he would have had to roam outside the law and limits to do much against such a stacked deck (some are fine with that) Its still astounding what a mega-corrupt government we had in the legislature and alphabets starting from 2015 and on with the plot, and the entire asterisk * of 46 admin (closest we have had to the anti-Pope problem of the Church in the 14th C)

---

Oh no, please, not that.

But in all seriousness he was such a ***** in the first term and the second term is looking like more of the same.

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Yeah we've gotten so much actual change by electing republicans and even Trump, who was supposed to be different.

Trump had Fuentes' support his first time around because of the promises Trump was making. Then Trump did not govern as a change agent. So Fuentes withdrew his support. That's how it works among intellectuals. You change your mind based on new information.

Every criticism of Trump this time around, from the right, was completely legitimate. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And I hope you see that.

---

You really think Trump even had a reasonably loyal government in the first term with the likes of McCain undermining and Ryan's vacillating leadership. An AG that folded like a tent at the first tap. Being undermined for the brief mid-term even had power, and then having to deal with a Left Democrat hijack of the narrative from 2018 on? No.

This first half a year is the only time he can be said to have had that even a little bit.

---

He was the president. He was weak and got rolled over by other weak men. That's not admirable.

---

You have to know that it is not that simple. In fact, he would have had to roam outside the law and limits to do much against such a stacked deck (some are fine with that) Its still astounding what a mega-corrupt government we had in the legislature and alphabets starting from 2015 and on with the plot, and the entire asterisk * of 46 admin (closest we have had to the anti-Pope problem of the Church in the 14th C)

---

Oh no, please, not that.

But in all seriousness he was such a ***** in the first term and the second term is looking like more of the same.

---

The bold was unacceptable at the time. The depths had not been reached. The calculus is probably a bit changed now. Considering his limitations believe he is doing an astounding job trying to get a bit of what needs done. Perhaps you will appreciate a concern he is Aurelian, not the Hitler or even Caesar the foul Left thinks.

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Yeah we've gotten so much actual change by electing republicans and even Trump, who was supposed to be different.

Trump had Fuentes' support his first time around because of the promises Trump was making. Then Trump did not govern as a change agent. So Fuentes withdrew his support. That's how it works among intellectuals. You change your mind based on new information.

Every criticism of Trump this time around, from the right, was completely legitimate. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And I hope you see that.

---

You really think Trump even had a reasonably loyal government in the first term with the likes of McCain undermining and Ryan's vacillating leadership. An AG that folded like a tent at the first tap. Being undermined for the brief mid-term even had power, and then having to deal with a Left Democrat hijack of the narrative from 2018 on? No.

This first half a year is the only time he can be said to have had that even a little bit.

---

He was the president. He was weak and got rolled over by other weak men. That's not admirable.

---

You have to know that it is not that simple. In fact, he would have had to roam outside the law and limits to do much against such a stacked deck (some are fine with that) Its still astounding what a mega-corrupt government we had in the legislature and alphabets starting from 2015 and on with the plot, and the entire asterisk * of 46 admin (closest we have had to the anti-Pope problem of the Church in the 14th C)

---

Oh no, please, not that.

But in all seriousness he was such a ***** in the first term and the second term is looking like more of the same.

---

The bold was unacceptable at the time. The depths had not been reached. The calculus is probably a bit changed now. Considering his limitations believe he is doing an astounding job trying to get a bit of what needs done. Perhaps you will appreciate a concern he is Aurelian, not the Hitler or even Caesar the foul Left thinks.

---

I wish Trump was half the man the left thinks he is.

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

His arguments are based in logic and fact in the same way Andrew Tate's are based in logic of fact. One kernel of truth surrounded by garbage.

---

And that is the glaring contradiction with anyone claiming that they support "market place of ideas", or the so called "debate me" bros. "Facts don't care about your feelings". Even Kirk's "prove me wrong" slogan. If Fuentes is so off base and incorrect, it would be EASY for anyone to defeat him in a debate. Not only would it be easy, it would destroy his credibility and potentially end his career. But none of these people will debate him. It's both because he is a skilled debater, and he has the truth on his side.

---

---

Quote:

---

This is utter nonsense. Fuentes and Tate do not have the truth on their side, but they are charismatic so they will convince people that they do. The truth is not always what wins in a debate.

---

Why do you keep throwing Tate in with him. Tate is more Manosphere. Fuentes has a high brow political show. The only people trying to lump t hem together are the normies...

Quote:

---

Even if they got utterly demolished, they would claim victory and there are plenty of morons on the internet that would take their side because they buy into their ethnocentric, misogynistic views of the world (which are words that I reserve for people who actually deserve them, unlike the left).

---

We'll never know because one side refuses to debate. We know why that side refuses to debate. Thus, we can make informed assumptions about how the debate would go.

Quote:

---

People like Tate and Fuentes appeal to people who cannot reason beyond their base passions and just want someone to blame for all the problems in the world. They do not espouse constructive philosophies, they engage in destructive hatred.

---

This is just proving you don't anything about Fuentes. You don't think you're coming off like a lefty, but you absolutely are. Speaking as if you're informed on something you aren't...

Quote:

---

Not that you haven't already exposed who you are, but white knighting for them is the cherry on top.

---

And you've exposed who you are.

---

Ok, dude. If you want to go with the guy that blatantly peddles holocaust denial lies, says January 6 was staged by the Israeli government, and suggests women are second class citizens, be my guest. It wont get you very far in life.

The reason nobody debates him is because he is a joke of a "commentator" who doesn't deserve the time of day. Sorry if you're desperate to believe otherwise. It's the same reason there's no point in debating an antifa member. You can't persuade people that are divorced from reality.

---

I have learned that very recently.

---

You said it earlier in here I think but some people are just never going to get it. If you are Israel First, you'll never get it. If you were born before 1990, you'll probably never get it. Fuentes target is the zoomers (same as Kirk targeted). As such, a lot of his vernacular and humor is not going to make sense to a boomer or Gen Xer. Zoomers grew up on 4chan and twitter. They grew up calling each other racial and homophobic slurs on call of duty. Before long, they will be the ones in office

shack009 said:

---

He's extremely smart, which you would know if you actually watched his show. Unfortunately you've been misrepresenting yourself throughout this conversation as someone who has.

Look, obviously there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. In that sense, things are different. But we haven't got the mass deportations promised. They are actually talking about more green cards and more foreign students. That's obviously insane and anti-American. We're still getting out of control spending with pork bills. The good EOs aren't being passed as laws, despite having a majority in both house and senate. Not having any major pro O&G laws passed by now is borderline criminal. The sanctity of life hasn't been protected by national law. And of course, there's the Israel-First foreign policy (which I'm sure you and the others will mostly focus on now). And Americans weren't given FEMA relief because their city had opinions about Israel. Israel has been defended full tilt at all costs. That's just true.

There hasn't been any substantive change to make daily life easier on Americans. We didn't even get additional tax cuts. We just got an extension of the ones we already had... Life has not gotten easier for young people and young families.

---

We have very different ideas of "very smart" and "high brow". Fuentes is a college drop out which would be ok (so was Kirk) but he hasn't ever really accomplished anything. His latest big endeavor was to go to war with Trump late in the election by trying to unleash memes at him and obviously that was a complete failure. It's very easy to look at others and say "you haven't done enough" when someone like Fuentes has done nothing except find a small niche of followers and alienate pretty much everyone else. He has succeeded in making himself and groypers incredibly toxic to the point where no one wants to even affiliate with them anymore. When you switch sides over and over with folks on the right and spend most of your time attacking those on the right for not being up to your standards you aren't going to get far.

If you don't think Trump has accomplished anything of note since being in office that's fine, I fervently disagree. He's not a dictator. Much of the change takes time. He has effectively shut off illegal immigration and has deported volumes of people while getting many more to self deport. He's making reforms to visa laws, some have made an impact already but others simply take time and Congressional approval (much less fighting left wing judges). He's certainly been pro life and he has shut off funding for Planned Parenthood, something conservatives have wanted for decades. He's made some significant moves in terms of O&G and encouraging development. He's also making big strides in building back our domestic maritime capabilities and we are increasing our number of US flagged ships, especially in O&G.

Let me guess though, you think if Fuentes were in charge he would do so much better? Is this with voting and working within the Constitution or just making him Dictator btw? He sure as hell isn't ever getting elected anything of note and he isn't even trying to build a realistic coalition to make changes. When Charlie Kirk and Trump aren't America First enough for you then you are living out on a pretty small political island. I'm sure Fuentes is making some good money though and appreciates your support.

Oh and I have watched Fuentes' show before. I was rolling my eyes most of the time and he wasn't impressive to me. I keep a pretty open mind but he is right there with Candace and Milo and Jones and Kanye and others at this point that seem more about self promotion and tearing down other conservatives than anything else. I mean that's really the only way they can stay relevant so I get it but I've seen many others like Fuentes over the years come and go. I just have better ways to spend my time rather than to keep giving him chances. I'll focus on the folks who actually get things done and have a real plan for success.

I will say that Fuentes is every Democrats wet dream of who they would love representing conservatives. He could probably get people to vote for AOC over him.

Keyno said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

His arguments are based in logic and fact in the same way Andrew Tate's are based in logic of fact. One kernel of truth surrounded by garbage.

---

And that is the glaring contradiction with anyone claiming that they support "market place of ideas", or the so called "debate me" bros. "Facts don't care about your feelings". Even Kirk's "prove me wrong" slogan. If Fuentes is so off base and incorrect, it would be EASY for anyone to defeat him in a debate. Not only would it be easy, it would destroy his credibility and potentially end his career. But none of these people will debate him. It's both because he is a skilled debater, and he has the truth on his side.

---

---

Quote:

---

This is utter nonsense. Fuentes and Tate do not have the truth on their side, but they are charismatic so they will convince people that they do. The truth is not always what wins in a debate.

---

Why do you keep throwing Tate in with him. Tate is more Manosphere. Fuentes has a high brow political show. The only people trying to lump t hem together are the normies...

Quote:

---

Even if they got utterly demolished, they would claim victory and there are plenty of morons on the internet that would take their side because they buy into their ethnocentric, misogynistic views of the world (which are words that I reserve for people who actually deserve them, unlike the left).

---

We'll never know because one side refuses to debate. We know why that side refuses to debate. Thus, we can make informed assumptions about how the debate would go.

Quote:

---

People like Tate and Fuentes appeal to people who cannot reason beyond their base passions and just want someone to blame for all the problems in the world. They do not espouse constructive philosophies, they engage in destructive hatred.

---

This is just proving you don't anything about Fuentes. You don't think you're coming off like a lefty, but you absolutely are. Speaking as if you're informed on something you aren't...

Quote:

---

Not that you haven't already exposed who you are, but white knighting for them is the cherry on top.

---

And you've exposed who you are.

---

Ok, dude. If you want to go with the guy that blatantly peddles holocaust denial lies, says January 6 was staged by the Israeli government, and suggests women are second class citizens, be my guest. It wont get you very far in life.

The reason nobody debates him is because he is a joke of a "commentator" who doesn't deserve the time of day. Sorry if you're desperate to believe otherwise. It's the same reason there's no point in debating an antifa member. You can't persuade people that are divorced from reality.

---

I have learned that very recently.

---

You said it earlier in here I think but some people are just never going to get it. If you are Israel First, you'll never get it. If you were born before 1990, you'll probably never get it. Fuentes target is the zoomers (same as Kirk targeted). As such, a lot of his vernacular and humor is not going to make sense to a boomer or Gen Xer. Zoomers grew up on 4chan and twitter. They grew up calling each other racial and homophobic slurs on call of duty. Before long, they will be the ones in office

---

lol that Gen X didn't call each other racial and homophobic slurs. Difference was we did it in person and not behind a keyboard back when people had a sense of humor. Go watch "Heathers" sometime, that was basically my high school. I've got 2 Gen Z boys so I also understand that generation quite well.

Every generation assumes no one else can relate to them. As you get older maybe you will grow to understand that.

You have Fuentes confused for someone who isn't 27 years old...

He supported Trump at first then changed his mind based on what happened with Trump in office. That's what smart people do. Dumb people continued to support Trump thinking "Trump 2.0" was a real thing. They're being proven wrong, unfortunately. Would have loved for Trump 2.0 to be different, but he isn't.

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. Its not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

the grouper war was not some intellectual triumph, it was heckling during q&a. kirk's shifts since then track with donor priorities and whatever keeps his base engaged, not with fuentes pulling strings. a debate wouldn't scale that influence, it would just have handed a clout-chasers a bigger spotlight.

shack009 said:

---

Fuentes has a high brow political show.

---

had to check and make sure i wasn't on the comedy board for a second there

Old McDonald said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Fuentes has a high brow political show.

---

had to check and make sure i wasn't on the comedy board for a second there

---

Nope, you're on the "comment authoritatively with no real knowledge" board.

if that's your idea of serious politics, a fortune cookie must read like the federalist papers