Farmer_J said:

---

Nick Fuentes is a psyop. Hope that helps.

He's put out there to make the right look crazy. He has a history of attacking moderate voices on the right. He drags down good candidates on the right by endorsing them. Do you think the meeting with Trump during the campaig was an accident?

100% psyop

---

He is also a fed because he was at Jan 6 and did not get thrown in jail

Rapier108 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Charlie Kirk nails the people who “blame the Jews,” perfectly describing why they are trying to take down TPUSA.

“It’s a lot of jealousy. We build, they complain. We win, we succeed, they blame the Jews.”

pic.twitter.com/DiDycOCs7S

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) September 16, 2025

Love it. This is the way.

---

Exactly.

When all one has is to blame and denigrate Jews, blacks, or anyone else who isn't "northern European white" and goes so far as to call for their genocide, then that person should be ostracized from society and considered persona non grata.

They can believe what they want, but no one should give them any attention.

Charlie Kirk hated no one. He wanted a better country for all Americans and would never have supported people like Fuentes or that Hitler praising fake Lutheran "pastor" Mahler.

---

Then he should have debated him and made him look like an idiot. He had no problem doing that with idiot college kids who are anti-white racists and anti-Israel, bordering on low-IQ anti-semitism.

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained. I listened to almost everything I could from Christopher Hitchens up through his death, not because I agreed with him often, but because I believe(d) he was honest and intelligent in his analyses. I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

I have no issue with people who want to take Fuentes seriously. I think it is helpful and informative as to who I should distrust/dismiss strongly.

People will show you who they are, if one listens, as another poster noted recently.

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

You have never watched a fuentes stream. You have seen clips

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

Farmer_J said:

---

Nick Fuentes is a psyop. Hope that helps.

He's put out there to make the right look crazy. He has a history of attacking moderate voices on the right. He drags down good candidates on the right by endorsing them. Do you think the meeting with Trump during the campaig was an accident?

100% psyop

---

This is hilarious when paired with your defenses of Candace Owens on the other thread.

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Kind of reminds me of one time when I saw David Duke back in the day do some shows. He could sound very reasonable and knew how to hit the emotional conservative hot buttons. There is evil on the right as well and people that will gladly manipulate you if you let them. It's a basic sales tactic of talking about pain points to someone enough that eventually they will agree with just about any solution that they think will help without really examining the solution because they are focused on the pain. I hope you eventually see that.

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Kind of reminds me of one time when I saw David Duke back in the day do some shows. He could sound very reasonable and knew how to hit the emotional conservative hot buttons. There is evil on the right as well and people that will gladly manipulate you if you let them. It's a basic sales tactic of talking about pain points to someone enough that eventually they will agree with just about any solution that they think will help without really examining the solution because they are focused on the pain. I hope you eventually see that.

---

When you put it that way you can argue Ben Shapiro is manipulating people and Charlie Kirk was manipulating people. Everybody with a platform is attempting some small form of manipulation by convincing people their positions are correct.

I'm sure you don't know what Nick Fuentes' solutions are. If we continue to vote for Republicans everything will get better.

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% on the issuest they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that be, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

Hell, if Kirk was even just nice and respectful to the guy, that would be enough to set them off. "Look, they are smiliung and laughing like friends!".

It would be too risky to everything Kirk built. Totally not worth it.

Kvetch said:

---

No real conservatives take him seriously. He's a loser.

---

I've always considered him a little ******* who brilliantly figured out a way to drive clicks, likes, follows, views to monetize his personality.

He sadly has connected with a lot of young men in this country. Told my boys I wouldn't be watching his b.s. if I were them, as it wouldn't be good to be seen as a follower of his social media accounts.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% or more of what they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that nbe, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

---

Brilliantly said. That is true. It even has happened to some on threads. You can't indicate some agreement on specific points or open to consider, without it being magnified unless very careful. There is such a thing as delivery being so problematic it makes the risk of debating too great. No legitimate conservative voice can give the MSM that kind of opening. They manufactured entire false legal charges, let alone verbal ones, against Trump. Such a debate would have been interesting, because it might have shown new generation much heavier engagement may be all they need to do, rather than go too far to one side.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% or more of what they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that nbe, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

---

Of course this is correct. This is exactly the point. There is a glaring reason that nobody is debating him, and it's not because he uses vulgar jokes to make a point every now and then.

If Kirk debated Fuentes, all his funding dries up. His YouTube monetization goes away (maybe he isn't allowed to post on YT at all). Maybe he's de-banked. The obvious reason is monetary. And that's fine. Just say that. But he hid behind these weird explanations that any non-Boomer, above-average-intelligence person can see right through.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% on the issuest they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that be, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

Hell, if Kirk was even just nice and respectful to the guy, that would be enough to set them off. It would be too risky to everything Kirk built. Totally not worth it.

---

Ok, but the left already considered Kirk a racist Nazi even when he refused to debate Fuentes. So

shack009 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% or more of what they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that nbe, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

---

Of course this is correct. This is exactly the point. There is a glaring reason that nobody is debating him, and it's not because he uses vulgar jokes to make a point every now and then.

If Kirk debated Fuentes, all his funding dries up. His YouTube monetization goes away (maybe he isn't allowed to post on YT at all). Maybe he's de-banked. The obvious reason is monetary. And that's fine. Just say that. But he hid behind these weird explanations that any non-Boomer, above-average-intelligence person can see right through.

---

I think it goes beyond this. Charlie Kirk actually built something big, and important. Infinitely moreso than anything Nick Fuentes could ever generate. I am not sure Trump gets elected in 2024 without him...I'm serious. His impact with the youth, and his way of introducing diversity of idead to college campuses that were almost entirely run by leftists, was unprecedented.

I don't think Charlie Kirk was AT ALL the fake POS you make him out to be, who is only, or even mostly, concerned about money. I think he was a true-believing evangelist and patriot.

We can agree to disagree here.

Keyno said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% on the issuest they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that be, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

Hell, if Kirk was even just nice and respectful to the guy, that would be enough to set them off. It would be too risky to everything Kirk built. Totally not worth it.

---

Ok, but the left already considered Kirk a racist Nazi even when he refused to debate Fuentes. So

---

True, they are stupid and brainwashed, we all know this. But this could have given the powers that be on the left the real ammo to absolutely burn Turning Point to the ground.

I just think it's funny...a few Nick Fuentes disciples criticizing Charlie Kirk, a 31 yr old who has been more successful and contibuted more good to society and conservatism than they ever could in a million years....for not putting EVERYTHING ON THE LINE just to debate a smirky sarcastic ***** who routinely says overtly racist things just to get a rise out of people.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% or more of what they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that nbe, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

---

Of course this is correct. This is exactly the point. There is a glaring reason that nobody is debating him, and it's not because he uses vulgar jokes to make a point every now and then.

If Kirk debated Fuentes, all his funding dries up. His YouTube monetization goes away (maybe he isn't allowed to post on YT at all). Maybe he's de-banked. The obvious reason is monetary. And that's fine. Just say that. But he hid behind these weird explanations that any non-Boomer, above-average-intelligence person can see right through.

---

I think it goes beyond this. Charlie Kirk actually built something big, and important. Infinitely moreso than anything Nick Fuentes could ever generate. I am not sure Trump gets elected in 2024 without him...I'm serious. His impact with the youth, and his way of introducing diversity of idead to college campuses that were almost entirely run by leftists, was unprecedented.

I don't think Charlie Kirk was AT ALL the fake POS you make him out to be, who is only, or even mostly, concerned about money. I think he was a true-believing evangelist and patriot.

We can agree to disagree here.

---

My bad, that's not exactly what I'm saying. With the money comes influence and reach. Kirk wanted the influence and reach to spread his beliefs. You debate Fuentes and it's very likely you lose a lot of your ability to reach people.

I do believe that Kirk's beliefs were sincere. That's why people are allowed to see him and not allowed to see much more radical voices.

shack009 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% or more of what they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that nbe, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

---

Of course this is correct. This is exactly the point. There is a glaring reason that nobody is debating him, and it's not because he uses vulgar jokes to make a point every now and then.

If Kirk debated Fuentes, all his funding dries up. His YouTube monetization goes away (maybe he isn't allowed to post on YT at all). Maybe he's de-banked. The obvious reason is monetary. And that's fine. Just say that. But he hid behind these weird explanations that any non-Boomer, above-average-intelligence person can see right through.

---

I think it goes beyond this. Charlie Kirk actually built something big, and important. Infinitely moreso than anything Nick Fuentes could ever generate. I am not sure Trump gets elected in 2024 without him...I'm serious. His impact with the youth, and his way of introducing diversity of idead to college campuses that were almost entirely run by leftists, was unprecedented.

I don't think Charlie Kirk was AT ALL the fake POS you make him out to be, who is only, or even mostly, concerned about money. I think he was a true-believing evangelist and patriot.

We can agree to disagree here.

---

My bad, that's not exactly what I'm saying. With the money comes influence and reach. Kirk wanted the influence and reach to spread his beliefs. You debate Fuentes and it's very likely you lose a lot of your ability to reach people.

I do believe that Kirk's beliefs were sincere. That's why people are allowed to see him and not allowed to see much more radical voices.

---

Agreed

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Keyno said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% on the issuest they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that be, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

Hell, if Kirk was even just nice and respectful to the guy, that would be enough to set them off. It would be too risky to everything Kirk built. Totally not worth it.

---

Ok, but the left already considered Kirk a racist Nazi even when he refused to debate Fuentes. So

---

True, they are stupid and brainwashed, we all know this. But this could have given the powers that be on the left the real ammo to absolutely burn Turning Point to the ground.

I just think it's funny...a few Nick Fuentes disciples criticizing Charlie Kirk, a 31 yr old who has been more successful and contibuted more good to society and conservatism than they ever could in a million years....for not putting EVERYTHING ON THE LINE just to debate a smirky sarcastic ***** who routinely says overtly racist things just to get a rise out of people.

---

Burning TPUSA to the ground and pushing people farther right would have been a massive win for the country.

We're just pointing out his obvious hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

shack009 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Keyno said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% on the issuest they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that be, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

Hell, if Kirk was even just nice and respectful to the guy, that would be enough to set them off. It would be too risky to everything Kirk built. Totally not worth it.

---

Ok, but the left already considered Kirk a racist Nazi even when he refused to debate Fuentes. So

---

True, they are stupid and brainwashed, we all know this. But this could have given the powers that be on the left the real ammo to absolutely burn Turning Point to the ground.

I just think it's funny...a few Nick Fuentes disciples criticizing Charlie Kirk, a 31 yr old who has been more successful and contibuted more good to society and conservatism than they ever could in a million years....for not putting EVERYTHING ON THE LINE just to debate a smirky sarcastic ***** who routinely says overtly racist things just to get a rise out of people.

---

Burning TPUSA to the ground and pushing people farther right would have been a massive win for the country.

We're just pointing out his obvious hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

---

Probably from your mother's basement. Get some natural sunlight, start working out, it will greatly increase your chances of finding a woman who might actually like you enough to procreate with you.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Keyno said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% on the issuest they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that be, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

Hell, if Kirk was even just nice and respectful to the guy, that would be enough to set them off. It would be too risky to everything Kirk built. Totally not worth it.

---

Ok, but the left already considered Kirk a racist Nazi even when he refused to debate Fuentes. So

---

True, they are stupid and brainwashed, we all know this. But this could have given the powers that be on the left the real ammo to absolutely burn Turning Point to the ground.

I just think it's funny...a few Nick Fuentes disciples criticizing Charlie Kirk, a 31 yr old who has been more successful and contibuted more good to society and conservatism than they ever could in a million years....for not putting EVERYTHING ON THE LINE just to debate a smirky sarcastic ***** who routinely says overtly racist things just to get a rise out of people.

---

Burning TPUSA to the ground and pushing people farther right would have been a massive win for the country.

We're just pointing out his obvious hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

---

Probably from your mother's basement. Get some natural sunlight, start working out, it will greatly increase your chances of finding a woman who might actually like you enough to procreate with you.

---

I go to the gym almost every day and have 2 kids with another on the way.

Boomers are so sad and such intellectual lightweights.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Keyno said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% on the issuest they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that be, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

Hell, if Kirk was even just nice and respectful to the guy, that would be enough to set them off. It would be too risky to everything Kirk built. Totally not worth it.

---

Ok, but the left already considered Kirk a racist Nazi even when he refused to debate Fuentes. So

---

True, they are stupid and brainwashed, we all know this. But this could have given the powers that be on the left the real ammo to absolutely burn Turning Point to the ground.

I just think it's funny...a few Nick Fuentes disciples criticizing Charlie Kirk, a 31 yr old who has been more successful and contibuted more good to society and conservatism than they ever could in a million years....for not putting EVERYTHING ON THE LINE just to debate a smirky sarcastic ***** who routinely says overtly racist things just to get a rise out of people.

---

Burning TPUSA to the ground and pushing people farther right would have been a massive win for the country.

We're just pointing out his obvious hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

---

Probably from your mother's basement. Get some natural sunlight, start working out, it will greatly increase your chances of finding a woman who might actually like you enough to procreate with you.

---

LMFAO it never fails

Keyno said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Keyno said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Here's the problem...Nick Fuentes is often correct and I think most here would find thesmelves aligning with him on many things. Sometimes it's just the way he says things, to try to poke the be hive. With that cocky abrasive smirk on his face. Then there is the 20% of the time he just crosses the boundaries and is straight up malicious and hateful/racist. I cannot tell if he is trolling or actually believes these things.

Point being, the risk for any legitimate conservative voice in debating Fuentes, is that they end up agreeing on 30-40-50% on the issuest they are discussing. Then the leftist powers that be, the MSM, and the millions of useful idiot democrat foot soldiers on social media could be like "SEEE! Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes are one in the same, listen to them agreeing on FBI crime statristics (or whatever it may be) here!".

Hell, if Kirk was even just nice and respectful to the guy, that would be enough to set them off. It would be too risky to everything Kirk built. Totally not worth it.

---

Ok, but the left already considered Kirk a racist Nazi even when he refused to debate Fuentes. So

---

True, they are stupid and brainwashed, we all know this. But this could have given the powers that be on the left the real ammo to absolutely burn Turning Point to the ground.

I just think it's funny...a few Nick Fuentes disciples criticizing Charlie Kirk, a 31 yr old who has been more successful and contibuted more good to society and conservatism than they ever could in a million years....for not putting EVERYTHING ON THE LINE just to debate a smirky sarcastic ***** who routinely says overtly racist things just to get a rise out of people.

---

Burning TPUSA to the ground and pushing people farther right would have been a massive win for the country.

We're just pointing out his obvious hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

---

Probably from your mother's basement. Get some natural sunlight, start working out, it will greatly increase your chances of finding a woman who might actually like you enough to procreate with you.

---

LMFAO it never fails

---

This should be the new "every single time" meme.

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Kind of reminds me of one time when I saw David Duke back in the day do some shows. He could sound very reasonable and knew how to hit the emotional conservative hot buttons. There is evil on the right as well and people that will gladly manipulate you if you let them. It's a basic sales tactic of talking about pain points to someone enough that eventually they will agree with just about any solution that they think will help without really examining the solution because they are focused on the pain. I hope you eventually see that.

---

When you put it that way you can argue Ben Shapiro is manipulating people and Charlie Kirk was manipulating people. Everybody with a platform is attempting some small form of manipulation by convincing people their positions are correct.

I'm sure you don't know what Nick Fuentes' solutions are. If we continue to vote for Republicans everything will get better.

---

Kirk and Shapiro don't try to blame the Jews for everything and don't encourage harassment if not outright violence against their opponents. Shapiro probably has more to fear from Groypers than he does anyone on the Left in terms of his personal safety.

You also missed the part about pain. Kirk and Shapiro are filled with solutions and ways to fix problems, they don't just spend all their time trying to get people wound up. They also look for civil debate and polite discussion with their opponents.

I also find it funny that you think I am in the "trust the GOP" camp. Anyone that has followed me for the decades I have been on this site knows I like effective leaders that talk about actual solutions and have a plan to implement them, I like results. That's why I was such a big DeSantis guy. That's why I have countless threads getting into the minutia of who we have in leadership.

If you want to trust in a guy like Fuentes go for it but know that there is no one else the Left would like more as the face of the GOP and conservatives than him. He is not a serious person.

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Kind of reminds me of one time when I saw David Duke back in the day do some shows. He could sound very reasonable and knew how to hit the emotional conservative hot buttons. There is evil on the right as well and people that will gladly manipulate you if you let them. It's a basic sales tactic of talking about pain points to someone enough that eventually they will agree with just about any solution that they think will help without really examining the solution because they are focused on the pain. I hope you eventually see that.

---

When you put it that way you can argue Ben Shapiro is manipulating people and Charlie Kirk was manipulating people. Everybody with a platform is attempting some small form of manipulation by convincing people their positions are correct.

I'm sure you don't know what Nick Fuentes' solutions are. If we continue to vote for Republicans everything will get better.

---

---

Quote:

---

Kirk and Shapiro don't try to blame the Jews for everything and don't encourage harassment if not outright violence against their opponents.

---

Neither does Fuentes. You'd know that if you watched his show instead of believing everything you're told from people who also don't watch the show. He also doesn't encourage violence. He encourages his followers to go their events and ask difficult questions.

Quote:

---

Kirk and Shapiro are filled with solutions and ways to fix problems, they don't just spend all their time trying to get people wound up. They also look for civil debate and polite discussion with their opponents.

---

Their solutions, so much as they differ(ed) from Fuentes', are to vote for the GOP. Other than that, Fuentes says basically the same stuff about religion and morality (obviously not religion in the case of Shapiro). I'd encourage you to actually watch his show after the shooting in Minneapolis and the two shows he has done since the Kirk assassination. He talks about spirituality and good vs evil the same way Kirk or Shapiro would. Fuentes also looks for civil debate. He's been trying to debate both of them for years and neither would because they know what it would mean for them.

Quote:

---

I also find it funny that you think I am in the "trust the GOP" camp. Anyone that has followed me for the decades I have been on this site knows I like effective leaders that talk about actual solutions and have a plan to implement them, I like results. That's why I was such a big DeSantis guy. That's why I have countless threads getting into the minutia of who we have in leadership.

---

My comment about the GOP was mostly meant to reflect Kirk and Shapiro's solutions being different from Fuentes'. DeSantis was promising but has been weirdly obsessed with Israel as a state governor.

Quote:

---

If you want to trust in a guy like Fuentes go for it but know that there is no one else the Left would like more as the face of the GOP and conservatives than him. He is not a serious person.

---

The right could do way worse. We've been doing way worse for a long time. You say he's not a serious person, but you don't really know the first thing about him other than what leftist rags and Con, Inc. have told you.

If people don't want to watch his show, that's fine. To each their own... But don't say something about him and not expect to have your uninformed statement challenged by someone who does know what they're talking about.

I've seen "blame the Jews for everything" several times in this thread. Present evidence.

I don't know anything about Nick Fuentes other than being far-right.

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

difficult to believe someone who views nick fuentes as moderate has a solid pulse on the state of conservatism

---

I said he's moderate in comparison to his followers not to general conservatism.

---

what is your view of nick fuentes?

Megyn Kelly to Tucker Carlson: “Everybody under 30 is against Israel.”

Follow: @AFpost
pic.twitter.com/eUlB3b0AUm

— AF Post (@AFpost) September 17, 2025

For anyone who doesn't understand what is happening, no one under the age of 30 supports Israel. Perhaps only 50% under the age of 50 do now at best.

Anyone thinking Fuentes' influence will wane has no clue. His audience is growing daily.

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

difficult to believe someone who views nick fuentes as moderate has a solid pulse on the state of conservatism

---

I said he's moderate in comparison to his followers not to general conservatism.

---

what is your view of nick fuentes?

---

I don't care much for him because he's never really matured beyond what he was in 2017. I'm a married man with kids, what he has to say has little relevance to me. Hence the reason I pay more attention to the Christian nationalist side like Joel Webbon, Stone Choir (Woe and Corey Mahler), etc.

Further, Fuentes is a Yankee and continuously denigrates Southern culture yet he's obsessed with terrible rap. In this regard, I view him as a clown show.

That said, he has a big voice for the younger dissident crowd and speaks for a lot of them. He does have good things to say for them so that's why ultimately I have a positive view of the man. For a generation that views the future with little hope, he speaks to them. Where it goes, I don't know but his audience is growing daily.

Very fair that he is still a very young person who doesn't have a family. He doesn't have a ton of life experience, but that isn't what he offers.

He does encourage people to get married and have babies and raise your kids in the church. So he at least offers the correct general advice, even though he has nothing to specific to offer from his life.

But his show is very much based on the news and foreign policy. It's more wonk-ish than people would think. Then he also offers his insights in to zoomer culture and he's very plugged in to online culture and gaming. So he can still relate to people his age despite already knowing more about history than most of them will ever know in their lifetime.

For all the Woke Righties and Boomers who have said Nick Fuentes blames the Jews for everything, on tonight's show he said that the "Israel killed Charlie" claims are "schizo conspiri-tard" stuff.

shack009 said:

---

For all the Woke Righties and Boomers who have said Nick Fuentes blames the Jews for everything, on tonight's show he said that the "Israel killed Charlie" claims are "schizo conspiri-tard" stuff.

---

Two things can be true at once. Fuentes is still an antisemite.

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

difficult to believe someone who views nick fuentes as moderate has a solid pulse on the state of conservatism

---

I said he's moderate in comparison to his followers not to general conservatism.

---

what is your view of nick fuentes?

---

I don't care much for him because he's never really matured beyond what he was in 2017. I'm a married man with kids, what he has to say has little relevance to me. Hence the reason I pay more attention to the Christian nationalist side like Joel Webbon, Stone Choir (Woe and Corey Mahler), etc.

---

ah, the self-appointed hall monitors of the dying internet polemics subculture. they don't have much to offer but bad sociology stapled to proof-texted lutheranism. tbh you'd be better off just listening to fuentes.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

shack009 said:

---

For all the Woke Righties and Boomers who have said Nick Fuentes blames the Jews for everything, on tonight's show he said that the "Israel killed Charlie" claims are "schizo conspiri-tard" stuff.

---

Two things can be true at once. Fuentes is still an antisemite.

---

"Fuentes blames the Jews for everything"

"Here's proof he doesn't, even when given an opportunity by others."

"He's still anti-semitic"

Do you see how you come off as a woke lefty?

Mahler isn't actually Lutheran. He was excommunicated.