I watched the vast majority of it. Back to my point.

The interview made Cruz look bad. And the attack dogs have been sent after tucker. The interview was filled with gotcha style questions designed to make cruz look foolish (right or wrong)..

Perception is reality. Some bad press and sound bites from that interview for ted. I guarantee he wouldn't agree to another interview with tucker, absent terms of engagement laid out, after that...

Aston04 said:

---

I watched the vast majority of it. Back to my point.

The interview made Cruz look bad. And the attack dogs have been sent after tucker. The interview was filled with gotcha style questions designed to make cruz look foolish (right or wrong)..

Perception is reality. Some bad press and sound bites from that interview for ted. I guarantee he wouldn't agree to another interview with tucker, absent terms of engagement laid out, after that...

---

There's no reason for anyone to do an interview with Tucker. He's proven to not be a journalist or a serious person - just an obviously paid-for activist for whatever opinions generate the most attention.

titan said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

titan said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

Tucker embarrassed Cruz in an interview for his pro-Israel policies. Ted was awful in the interview. It appeared he thought the interview would be friendly and Tucker did not.

Ever since then the conservative pundits have been directed to go after Tucker.

---

Did you watch the whole interview? (I think it was 90 minutes) The clips don't really capture what unfolded. Tucker was being absurdly snarky and `question set up leading' and even admitted it a few times. What he didnt' seem to get is Cruz's Israel support pre-dated all this stuff going on and went back to the time the Obamians were on full offensive on behalf of Palestinian takes like the "1967" borders issue. At the time, Cruz was something of an outlier in his openly pushing back. (Remember his example even pre-dates Trump -- Cruz was the actual template that first annoyed the go-along RINOs and Uniparty types. Exactly why has become very clear)

Tucker was saying absurd stuff like why haven't we nuked Iran if they are trying to kill the President. Well not least because even that doesn't rate blowing the world up, and its just not how you react to a threat like that -- you send your own agents to kill the assassins. And so on.

---

Tucker was snarky for sure. Was it a good interview for Cruz? No, really bad.

Shocking the core group of 3-4 here goaltending against admitting this.

---

So you did watch the full 90 minutes and think Cruz did really bad? He had some stumble moments, but just didn't see that. He made rather clear what kind of right wing he isn't (not a "no war didn't like" interventionist Neocon) and what he thought should be the guiding interest.

---

Remember, Tucker will ask pressing questions like, "What is the population of Iran?" to people he doesn't like.

But when Nick Fuentes comes on and expresses admiration of Joseph Stalin…he just glosses over it.

Plenty have been critical of Tucker before the Cruz interview.

Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, and Dave Rubin are easy ones.

Red State writers have been pretty critical of him.

Steve Deace of The Blaze wasn't as direct

You have an IQ barely registering double digits if you'd rather live in Iran/Qatar than Israel.

Or you're a Muslim. pic.twitter.com/LE4aNsldc2

— Steve Deace (@SteveDeaceShow) March 9, 2025

I would say the criticism picked up steam around May 1st when Tucker refused to debate Ben

K2-HMFIC said:

---

titan said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

titan said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

Tucker embarrassed Cruz in an interview for his pro-Israel policies. Ted was awful in the interview. It appeared he thought the interview would be friendly and Tucker did not.

Ever since then the conservative pundits have been directed to go after Tucker.

---

Did you watch the whole interview? (I think it was 90 minutes) The clips don't really capture what unfolded. Tucker was being absurdly snarky and `question set up leading' and even admitted it a few times. What he didnt' seem to get is Cruz's Israel support pre-dated all this stuff going on and went back to the time the Obamians were on full offensive on behalf of Palestinian takes like the "1967" borders issue. At the time, Cruz was something of an outlier in his openly pushing back. (Remember his example even pre-dates Trump -- Cruz was the actual template that first annoyed the go-along RINOs and Uniparty types. Exactly why has become very clear)

Tucker was saying absurd stuff like why haven't we nuked Iran if they are trying to kill the President. Well not least because even that doesn't rate blowing the world up, and its just not how you react to a threat like that -- you send your own agents to kill the assassins. And so on.

---

Tucker was snarky for sure. Was it a good interview for Cruz? No, really bad.

Shocking the core group of 3-4 here goaltending against admitting this.

---

So you did watch the full 90 minutes and think Cruz did really bad? He had some stumble moments, but just didn't see that. He made rather clear what kind of right wing he isn't (not a "no war didn't like" interventionist Neocon) and what he thought should be the guiding interest.

---

Remember, Tucker will ask pressing questions like, "What is the population of Iran?" to people he doesn't like.

But when Nick Fuentes comes on and expresses admiration of Joseph Stalin…he just glosses over it.

---

Yeah, almost forgot that but had *not*. It was annoying -- what is there to like about Stalin, even as despots go? Its not like he even for a while made things much better and a prosperous place like some of the other ones.

Giving that a pass was serious over-sight, for what it could reveal of character.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

titan said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

titan said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

Tucker embarrassed Cruz in an interview for his pro-Israel policies. Ted was awful in the interview. It appeared he thought the interview would be friendly and Tucker did not.

Ever since then the conservative pundits have been directed to go after Tucker.

---

Did you watch the whole interview? (I think it was 90 minutes) The clips don't really capture what unfolded. Tucker was being absurdly snarky and `question set up leading' and even admitted it a few times. What he didnt' seem to get is Cruz's Israel support pre-dated all this stuff going on and went back to the time the Obamians were on full offensive on behalf of Palestinian takes like the "1967" borders issue. At the time, Cruz was something of an outlier in his openly pushing back. (Remember his example even pre-dates Trump -- Cruz was the actual template that first annoyed the go-along RINOs and Uniparty types. Exactly why has become very clear)

Tucker was saying absurd stuff like why haven't we nuked Iran if they are trying to kill the President. Well not least because even that doesn't rate blowing the world up, and its just not how you react to a threat like that -- you send your own agents to kill the assassins. And so on.

---

Tucker was snarky for sure. Was it a good interview for Cruz? No, really bad.

Shocking the core group of 3-4 here goaltending against admitting this.

---

So you did watch the full 90 minutes and think Cruz did really bad? He had some stumble moments, but just didn't see that. He made rather clear what kind of right wing he isn't (not a "no war didn't like" interventionist Neocon) and what he thought should be the guiding interest.

---

Remember, Tucker will ask pressing questions like, "What is the population of Iran?" to people he doesn't like.

---

The second Tucker asked this question I knew the interview was off the rails. So did Cruz for that matter.

It was like trying to make the point that a general doesn't know the battlefield because he cannot name every one of the sergeants under his command. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Then, when he asserted that we should nuke Iran because they want Trump dead, I knew that Tucker was being patently unserious and simply going for clicks.

The only reason it might not have been a "good" interview for Cruz was the ridiculous line of questioning that Tucker was leading him down. Cruz had sat down for a serious interview, and Tucker was going for a Jerry Springer slap fight.

titan said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

titan said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

titan said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

Tucker embarrassed Cruz in an interview for his pro-Israel policies. Ted was awful in the interview. It appeared he thought the interview would be friendly and Tucker did not.

Ever since then the conservative pundits have been directed to go after Tucker.

---

Did you watch the whole interview? (I think it was 90 minutes) The clips don't really capture what unfolded. Tucker was being absurdly snarky and `question set up leading' and even admitted it a few times. What he didnt' seem to get is Cruz's Israel support pre-dated all this stuff going on and went back to the time the Obamians were on full offensive on behalf of Palestinian takes like the "1967" borders issue. At the time, Cruz was something of an outlier in his openly pushing back. (Remember his example even pre-dates Trump -- Cruz was the actual template that first annoyed the go-along RINOs and Uniparty types. Exactly why has become very clear)

Tucker was saying absurd stuff like why haven't we nuked Iran if they are trying to kill the President. Well not least because even that doesn't rate blowing the world up, and its just not how you react to a threat like that -- you send your own agents to kill the assassins. And so on.

---

Tucker was snarky for sure. Was it a good interview for Cruz? No, really bad.

Shocking the core group of 3-4 here goaltending against admitting this.

---

So you did watch the full 90 minutes and think Cruz did really bad? He had some stumble moments, but just didn't see that. He made rather clear what kind of right wing he isn't (not a "no war didn't like" interventionist Neocon) and what he thought should be the guiding interest.

---

Remember, Tucker will ask pressing questions like, "What is the population of Iran?" to people he doesn't like.

But when Nick Fuentes comes on and expresses admiration of Joseph Stalin…he just glosses over it.

---

Yeah, almost forgot that but had *not*. It was annoying -- what is there to like about Stalin, even as despots go? Its not like he even for a while made things much better and a prosperous place like some of the other ones.

Giving that a pass was serious over-sight, for what it could reveal of character.

---

Honestly, I think Tucker has fallen into his own trap of predetermining what he wants out of an interview before the interview even begins. As such, there are times he doesn't really listen to what the person he is interviewing is saying if it is not relevant to Tucker's overall objective with the interview.

I think that more likely explains Tucker's whiff on the Fuentes/Stalin comment than does the idea that Tucker is some sort of closet Groyper...

Queso1 said:

---

1. "Conservatives" are pissed at Tucker because he speaks to power and it's a threat to the uni-party.

2. "Conservatives" are pissed because their pastor or Fox News host told them that it's our duty to do the bidding of Israel. And they hate Tucker because he exposed Cruz for what he is not: a representative of the State of Texas.

3. "Conservatives" are worried that we are real close to turning our backs on Trump.

---

Urban Ag said:

---

I just want to win.

I define winning as beating the democrats/leftists/commies/purple hair malcontents/etc, by whatever means.

As such I am a big tent conservative/Republican. We can not allow a fracture via purity tests.

I don't like a lot of what I am seeing on the right these days. That said, the left has no problem at all rationalizing Islam and LGBTQwhatever. Whenever in doubt of the outliers of the conservative movement, just remember that fact.

Taken a step further, the most vocal and popular leaders of the Islamists in America are completely embracing radical leftist social positions (see Omar, Mamdani, Tlaib, etc). Think on that. It's weird I know.

We just have to win and sort it out later.

---

jrdaustin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

titan said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

titan said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

Tucker embarrassed Cruz in an interview for his pro-Israel policies. Ted was awful in the interview. It appeared he thought the interview would be friendly and Tucker did not.

Ever since then the conservative pundits have been directed to go after Tucker.

---

Did you watch the whole interview? (I think it was 90 minutes) The clips don't really capture what unfolded. Tucker was being absurdly snarky and `question set up leading' and even admitted it a few times. What he didnt' seem to get is Cruz's Israel support pre-dated all this stuff going on and went back to the time the Obamians were on full offensive on behalf of Palestinian takes like the "1967" borders issue. At the time, Cruz was something of an outlier in his openly pushing back. (Remember his example even pre-dates Trump -- Cruz was the actual template that first annoyed the go-along RINOs and Uniparty types. Exactly why has become very clear)

Tucker was saying absurd stuff like why haven't we nuked Iran if they are trying to kill the President. Well not least because even that doesn't rate blowing the world up, and its just not how you react to a threat like that -- you send your own agents to kill the assassins. And so on.

---

Tucker was snarky for sure. Was it a good interview for Cruz? No, really bad.

Shocking the core group of 3-4 here goaltending against admitting this.

---

So you did watch the full 90 minutes and think Cruz did really bad? He had some stumble moments, but just didn't see that. He made rather clear what kind of right wing he isn't (not a "no war didn't like" interventionist Neocon) and what he thought should be the guiding interest.

---

Remember, Tucker will ask pressing questions like, "What is the population of Iran?" to people he doesn't like.

---

The second Tucker asked this question I knew the interview was off the rails. So did Cruz for that matter.

It was like trying to make the point that a general doesn't know the battlefield because he cannot name every one of the sergeants under his command. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Then, when he asserted that we should nuke Iran because they want Trump dead, I knew that Tucker was being patently unserious and simply going for clicks.

The only reason it might not have been a "good" interview for Cruz was the ridiculous line of questioning that Tucker was leading him down. Cruz had sat down for a serious interview, and Tucker was going for a Jerry Springer slap fight.

---

Well said.

Exactly. So yes can concede and 'admit' the interview can make Cruz look bad , it was in sense of an MSNBC interview making a Republican look bad. Stacked queries of leading character.

If you wanted to know just what Cruz thought or did not think appropriate in foreign policy you got. Much to like about his position.

Phatbob said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

If your support for Israel the nation state based scripture then you must also support all Christians having equal share of the land. We are JOINT heirs to the promises to Abraham. Not in part. Nothing excluded. The full benefit. So if your scriptural take is there is some benefit geopolitically to the nation state it must be equal to all Christians. But alas the scriptures aren't about a nation state set up by men in vain but the Kingdom of God.

I would encourage reading early church fathers on this topic.

---

My view is that He will use both the Church and His chosen people for His own glory. His promises also endure, and I am thankful for it. There is no need to be jealous or to tell God whom He is and is not allowed to work through, especially when He has promised to do so.

Also, entirely aside from that, there is absolutely 0 doubt which side in the region is worth supporting. There is a legitimate evil that lives in a portion of the Islamists there and everyone deems Israel as the one who gets to live side by side with them.

---

For the record I used to share your sentiments. I was previously a big Dispensationalist guy, rapture, end of church age, the. Jacob's trouble/tribulation and Israel gets saved etc etc. But doing my own study and reading church Fathers I became aware the truth is the church is Gods chosen people. You cannot arbitrarily separate Christianity from being descendants of Abraham. He is our father. The Gospel makes this point over and over again. Being a son of Abraham (Gods people) is NOT about genetics. We are JOINt heirs of the promises, not in part. In entirety. There is no caveat for land or political nation excluding Christians.

God makes this point abundantly clear to Peter sending him to Cornelius. Which Peter witnesses him receive the Holy Spirit. There is ZERO genetic benefit as God is demonstrating to Peter.

Jesus is the recipient of the Promises. There is not Gods Kingdom and a kingdom of "Gods chosen people".

I would challenge you to some introspection to really think about what you're saying. What benefit do you believe "Gods chosen people" receive? And further more once you figure that out you have to figure out who are they? Because if your answer is the "Jews" well you're forgetting 10 of the 12 tribes of the Hebrew people. And it begs the question what if some of those people aren't the ones the Jews are fighting today? Maybe their civil war is still raging for all we know.

But religion aside. I do believe the only arguments is based on geopolitics. And certainly there's a lot to benefit from a mutual relationship. Although I don't believe it's so mutually beneficial currently.

But let's also not have recency bias. It wasn't that long ago we created Al Qeda to fight the Russians. Or we worked with Tehran and Iran during WW2. Or that we overthrew Iran leadership. So part of our geopolitical issues today are by our own doing. And it begs the question who has benefited from those decisions?

But we have good relationships with SA, Qatar, Jordan too. But for whatever reasons the Israel one seems to garner much more devotion from our politicians.

really bizarre and sad to see this "civil war" play out at the tpusa conference. what should have been a memorial to kirk's legacy ended up just being a pissing match between influencers jockeying for their place in the post-trump gop.

Time to shut this thread down. It's devolved into name calling.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

You cannot serve two masters. US politicians are paid for and or blackmailed by Israel. The policy decisions are being made from a globalist perspective because our politicians are by definition globalists by the donor dollars.


Ted Cruz has stated he makes political decisions to "Bless Israel". Not America but a foreign country. Remove the name Israel and no one would support this nonsense. It's hard to take people like you seriously who turn a blind eye because of bad theology.

Imagine if Russia was able to get the Texas governor to shutdown criticism of Russia on Texas campuses?

Anyways my point is trying to answer the OP. Younger generations who aren't so predisposed to dispensationalism are bothered why conservative leaders and politicians are so obsessed with Israel over their own country. And I think the GOP is in for a very rough time at the polls due to it.

---

This is the core of the so called "civil war" in the conservative movement. Trump famously declared "America First" in his first Inaugural Address in 2017. This idea captured the hearts of many, but over the years we have seen that, for whatever reason, our politicians refuse to do "America First" when it comes to a certain country.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

This is a good example of your preconceived ideas superimposed onto reality. It's the same ballistic program they have always had. We've never had to intervene over there. In fact it's our own intervention in the 50s-70s post WW2 that's created this mess. But it was we couldn't allow nuclear weapons etc. now Israel is lobbying for the geopolitical shift to be not to allow ballistic missiles. And you've already fallen for it. So do you think we should have never ending bombing campaigns deep inside Iran everytime a ballistic missile factory pops up? Which they've had for decades now?

It's asinine.

---

How is being blind to Iran's military buildup and threats to annihilate Israel a strategy? Eventually, as they continue to build upif left uncheckedit becomes an existential issue for Israel. The longer Israel waits while those circumstances hold true, the harder it will be to address. They absolutely should continue to bomb Iran to degrade that threat.

Old McDonald said:

---

really bizarre and sad to see this "civil war" play out at the tpusa conference. what should have been a memorial to kirk's legacy ended up just being a pissing match between influencers jockeying for their place in the post-trump gop.

---

You are rarely right on this forum, but this has some truth to it.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

really bizarre and sad to see this "civil war" play out at the tpusa conference. what should have been a memorial to kirk's legacy ended up just being a pissing match between influencers jockeying for their place in the post-trump gop.

---

You are rarely right on this forum, but this has some truth to it.

---

It is playing out at TPUSA conference because they are the main conservative group of the youth. And the youth will eventually become the policy makers.

You're missing the entire point. The goalposts are being moved. Af first it was nuclear weapons, which were never verified by our intel but that's another story.

Now it's ballistic missiles. Which Iran has had for decades and have only used on Israel when first attacked by Israel.

What's occurring geopolitically around the world over the last 20 years is the ONLY deterrent from US/Israel regime changes is having nuclear weapons. The only countries that we haven't regime changed or caused to bend the knee have nuclear weapons.

Let's also not forget we gave Iran billions upon billions of dollars.

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

Time to shut this thread down. It's devolved into name calling.

---

Better than accusing a widow of murdering her husband.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

You're missing the entire point. The goalposts are being moved. Af first it was nuclear weapons, which were never verified by our intel but that's another story.

Now it's ballistic missiles. Which Iran has had for decades and have only used on Israel when first attacked by Israel.

What's occurring geopolitically around the world over the last 20 years is the ONLY deterrent from US/Israel regime changes is having nuclear weapons. The only countries that we haven't regime changed or caused to bend the knee have nuclear weapons.

Let's also not forget we gave Iran billions upon billions of dollars.

---

I agree with you on the cash - giving them billions was a massive strategic error that funded the very escalation we are seeing now. But that's exactly why the "goalpost" have to move.

The ballistic missiles of 20 years ago were dumb rockets. Today, with that funding, they have precision guidance that can hit specific infrastructure. That isn't a "regime change'" narrative - it is a distinct shift in military capability. Israel can't afford to sit and wait for a nuclear breakout. It is in America's interest to let Israel degrade that capability now so we don't get dragged into a massive cleanup operation later, imo.

I've come to the conclusion that God's purpose for Israel (Biblically speaking) is as a microcosm of humanity and as the template for the relationship between God and man, essentially the "demonstrator model" if you will.

Dispite their chosen status, they still wandered from Him over and over and over, and yet He still honored His promise to them when they turned back to Him. Their promise in the physical world is the physical representation of the spiritual promises we have as the spiritual sons of Abraham.

The physical version is not the important part, other than as an easy to see manifestation of the spiritual. Just as all of humanity does not deserve God's spiritual inheritance, Israel often has not deserved the physical inheritance, but He still honors His promises.

Old McDonald said:

---

really bizarre and sad to see this "civil war" play out at the tpusa conference. what should have been a memorial to kirk's legacy ended up just being a pissing match between influencers jockeying for their place in the post-trump gop.

---

Shapiro didn't get on stage and say everyone needs to get behind Israel. In fact, I don't think he mentioned Israel a single time. He called out evil things being said about tpusa and Erika Kirk. This has more to do with Candace, Tucker, etc. trying to hijack the movement and disgusting accusations. They swooped in like a bunch of vultures to make this about Israel before CK's body was even cold.

Well said! I agree with a lot there.

If that's Israel's strategic view then more power to them. The fundamental issue is they do not make that decision in a vacuum. It involved us. So again to my point about sovereignty, we don't have sovereignty. Israel right wrong or indifferent decided to strike Iran. It lead to us being militarily involved. Again right wrong or indifferent I do not like us as a nation half way around the world having our sovereignty diminished by a 4000 year old fued. Which that status quo is defended by what I consider religious zealotry by a large portion of American evangelicals.

There's enough American blood soaking the sands of the Middle East for eternity. We just lost another few Americans in Syria. It's heartbreaking every time.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

If that's Israel's strategic view then more power to them. The fundamental issue is they do not make that decision in a vacuum. It involved us. So again to my point about sovereignty, we don't have sovereignty. Israel right wrong or indifferent decided to strike Iran. It lead to us being militarily involved. Again right wrong or indifferent I do not like us as a nation half way around the world having our sovereignty diminished by a 4000 year old fued. Which that status quo is defended by what I consider religious zealotry by a large portion of American evangelicals.

There's enough American blood soaking the sands of the Middle East for eternity. We just lost another few Americans in Syria. It's heartbreaking every time.

---

Well said. Your point about sovereignty is the key. A foreign nation dictating whether we attack another foreign nation means we do not have sovereignty.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

If that's Israel's strategic view then more power to them. The fundamental issue is they do not make that decision in a vacuum. It involved us. So again to my point about sovereignty, we don't have sovereignty. Israel right wrong or indifferent decided to strike Iran. It lead to us being militarily involved. Again right wrong or indifferent I do not like us as a nation half way around the world having our sovereignty diminished by a 4000 year old fued. Which that status quo is defended by what I consider religious zealotry by a large portion of American evangelicals.

There's enough American blood soaking the sands of the Middle East for eternity. We just lost another few Americans in Syria. It's heartbreaking every time.

---

Blaming Israel for the loss of American lives in Syria is a copout that lets our own politicians off the accountability hook, imo. Israel didn't ever frce us to put troops in Syria - our own elected officials did that. That is where our sovereignty lies, and that is where the accountability should be at the end of the day.

So, this isn't about religious zealotry on my view rather it's about the geopolitics at play here. For example,if Israel wants to take the risk to bomb Iranian missile factories, that is them exercising their sovereignty, imo. If the US decides to jump in, that is us making another sovereign choice. I am arguing for the US to step back and let Israel handle the dirty work in summary.

On the other side: handcuffing Israel is exactly what prolongs the conflict and keeps America endlessly entangled.

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

really bizarre and sad to see this "civil war" play out at the tpusa conference. what should have been a memorial to kirk's legacy ended up just being a pissing match between influencers jockeying for their place in the post-trump gop.

---

Shapiro didn't get on stage and say everyone needs to get behind Israel. In fact, I don't think he mentioned Israel a single time. He called out evil things being said about tpusa and Erika Kirk. This has more to do with Candace, Tucker, etc. trying to hijack the movement and disgusting accusations. They swooped in like a bunch of vultures to make this about Israel before CK's body was even cold.

---

He called out a number of people who have nothing in common other than they have all criticized Israel's conduct in Gaza and the Israel lobby in the United States

Cyprian said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

If that's Israel's strategic view then more power to them. The fundamental issue is they do not make that decision in a vacuum. It involved us. So again to my point about sovereignty, we don't have sovereignty. Israel right wrong or indifferent decided to strike Iran. It lead to us being militarily involved. Again right wrong or indifferent I do not like us as a nation half way around the world having our sovereignty diminished by a 4000 year old fued. Which that status quo is defended by what I consider religious zealotry by a large portion of American evangelicals.

There's enough American blood soaking the sands of the Middle East for eternity. We just lost another few Americans in Syria. It's heartbreaking every time.

---

Blaming Israel for the loss of American lives in Syria is a copout that lets our own politicians off the accountability hook, imo. Israel didn't ever frce us to put troops in Syria - our own elected officials did that. That is where our sovereignty lies, and that is where the accountability should be at the end of the day.

So, this isn't about religious zealotry on my view rather it's about the geopolitics at play here. For example,if Israel wants to take the risk to bomb Iranian missile factories, that is them exercising their sovereignty, imo. If the US decides to jump in, that is us making another sovereign choice. I am arguing for the US to step back and let Israel handle the dirty work in summary.

On the other side: handcuffing Israel is exactly what prolongs the conflict and keeps America endlessly entangled.

---

Correct. We can't forget we insist on telling Israel "how" they can do things. True neutrality would be indifference. Another thing -- Syria isn't Israel's fault. That has as much to do with McCain and his clique dragging us into that. And do you blame Israel for Libya intervention fiasco? If you look at it, much of this is at much traceable to our insistence on carrying on cold war postures (worry about Syria as Russia proxy) as it does anything Israel is behind.

Keyno said:

---

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

really bizarre and sad to see this "civil war" play out at the tpusa conference. what should have been a memorial to kirk's legacy ended up just being a pissing match between influencers jockeying for their place in the post-trump gop.

---

Shapiro didn't get on stage and say everyone needs to get behind Israel. In fact, I don't think he mentioned Israel a single time. He called out evil things being said about tpusa and Erika Kirk. This has more to do with Candace, Tucker, etc. trying to hijack the movement and disgusting accusations. They swooped in like a bunch of vultures to make this about Israel before CK's body was even cold.

---

He called out a number of people who have nothing in common other than they have all criticized Israel's conduct in Gaza and the Israel lobby in the United States

---

Tucker Carlson who tried to say the Egyptian plane thing is fact.
Megyn Kelly who called Shapiro a liar when he said candace is accusing Erika of being involved.
Candace Owens - enough said.
Jeffrey Epstein's buddy Steve Bannon.

All deserved to be called out. There's a lot of cowards not denouncing Candace's claims, which are spreading like wild fire. How hard is it to denounce a bat **** crazy ***** accusing your buddy's wife of murdering him?

Ben was the only one with the gumption to call it what it is. A disgusting grift with zero evidence to support.

Cyprian said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

If that's Israel's strategic view then more power to them. The fundamental issue is they do not make that decision in a vacuum. It involved us. So again to my point about sovereignty, we don't have sovereignty. Israel right wrong or indifferent decided to strike Iran. It lead to us being militarily involved. Again right wrong or indifferent I do not like us as a nation half way around the world having our sovereignty diminished by a 4000 year old fued. Which that status quo is defended by what I consider religious zealotry by a large portion of American evangelicals.

There's enough American blood soaking the sands of the Middle East for eternity. We just lost another few Americans in Syria. It's heartbreaking every time.

---

Blaming Israel for the loss of American lives in Syria is a copout that lets our own politicians off the accountability hook, imo. Israel didn't ever frce us to put troops in Syria - our own elected officials did that. That is where our sovereignty lies, and that is where the accountability should be at the end of the day.

So, this isn't about religious zealotry on my view rather it's about the geopolitics at play here. For example,if Israel wants to take the risk to bomb Iranian missile factories, that is them exercising their sovereignty, imo. If the US decides to jump in, that is us making another sovereign choice. I am arguing for the US to step back and let Israel handle the dirty work in summary.

On the other side: handcuffing Israel is exactly what prolongs the conflict and keeps America endlessly entangled.

---

I agree wholeheartedly. However one must ask the question is our sovereignty being exercised? And when you have someone like Ted Cruz go on and pontificate on US involvement and supporting Israel he is doing so based on what's good for Israel and not what's good for the United States of America. And He justifies that backwards process by using "religion" and butchering scriptures. And it's no surprise he holds that viewpoint when you look at his AIPAC dollars.

I'm all for Israel's sovereign choices to what they see fit to operate their country. I'm also for Americans to criticize it if they so choose. Sadly I do not believe American Politicians are exercising US sovereignty but have subjugated the US to foreign interests. And this is not just an issue on the right. You have people like chuck schummer decrying border walls are racist for the United States but has no issue sending US taxpayer money to Israel for Israel border walls.

Would you look at that.

It's called Red Seat Ventures, actually.https://t.co/ViPEXH9Gu3 https://t.co/iYiTK0rXTd pic.twitter.com/FiT8NCcvp1

— FilmLadd (@FilmLadd) December 23, 2025

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

You're missing the entire point. The goalposts are being moved. Af first it was nuclear weapons, which were never verified by our intel but that's another story.

Now it's ballistic missiles. Which Iran has had for decades and have only used on Israel when first attacked by Israel.

What's occurring geopolitically around the world over the last 20 years is the ONLY deterrent from US/Israel regime changes is having nuclear weapons. The only countries that we haven't regime changed or caused to bend the knee have nuclear weapons.

Let's also not forget we gave Iran billions upon billions of dollars.

---

There are 9 nuclear armed countries. So, it's your position that the US has done regime change in the other 180+ countries?

Some of this is about Israel. There are some here and in the "conservative" movement that don't like Israel (and/or Jews).

There is another component though. There is a significant cadre of isolationists in the "conservative" movement that want us to pull everything back to our borders and stay away from the rest of the world. Israel is just a very visible face of how we are not doing that.

You should reread the bolded part lol. Or caused them to bend the knee. Do what we want or you get regime changed.

We used to do it behind closed doors. Now we are doing in broad day light. Venezuela the latest example. Our President on Twitter is actively demanding regime change or we start killing people.

We are showing the world if you want sovereignty from the United States you better have nuclear weapons.

We have global influence. Not global authority.

Iraq is another good example. We invaded a Sovereign nation and killed a million people.

Ag with kids said:

---

Some of this is about Israel. There are some here and in the "conservative" movement that don't like Israel (and/or Jews).

There is another component though. There is a significant cadre of isolationists in the "conservative" movement that want us to pull everything back to our borders and stay away from the rest of the world. Israel is just a very visible face of how we are not doing that.

---

That seems a good summation.

Would add another. There is a cadre that are not so much isolationist, as they want the realities of the future trends to be recognized. For example prioritizing the Western hemisphere to make more secure, and there is also the fact that as far as liberty and freedom are concerned, Western Europe is becoming less worthy of support by the day, while Eastern Europe probably rates more than has. Somewhat belong to that camp.

But this still doesn't explain the right-wing anxiety about Gaza --- it seems from what Oct 7th rated if anything something less is still happening. Is there some belief there is some oversized cover-up like Covid?