ATX_AG_08 said:

---

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.

---

Query -- has MTG and that brouhaha shown any connections to this? Is she now part of that or no-
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3286451/6

No, we just don't like our tax dollars used to kill babies - whether by abortion or Mark 82 bombs.

Queso1 said:

---

No, we just don't like our tax dollars used to kill babies - whether by abortion or Mark 82 bombs.

---

That seems overly simplistic. As if that is the Israeli goal. Surely there is a deeper thought to it all?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

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.

---

I'm currently in Sint Maarten.

Can you tell me when the US has made them bend the knee or we'd institute regime change? I'd love to hear that.

I realize you're looking for the boogey man, but you're not going to find it with me. It's so sad that many among us decried the race card, but then they decided to start using it.

What's simple about being able to decide where my tax dollars go?

titan said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

No, we just don't like our tax dollars used to kill babies - whether by abortion or Mark 82 bombs.

---

That seems overly simplistic. As if that is the Israeli goal. Surely there is a deeper thought to it all?

---

There's a legitimate debate about the US-Israeli relationship...

However, the people who are the talking heads on the right who are for pulling out of that relationship entirely happen to be conspiratorial nut jobs who talk about the "global Jewry," or deny the holocaust.

Queso1 said:

---

I realize you're looking for the boogey man, but you're not going to find it with me. It's so sad that many among us decried the race card, but then they decided to start using it.

What's simple about being able to decide where my tax dollars go?

---

I don't look for boogey men. I don't know what you are talking about. I just wonder what you really mean. What does race card have to do with anything. Wondering about the opposition's babies in a war just seemed simplistic. In fact, that doesn't even involve race so where is the taxpayer connection?

If you mean you don't want our taxpayer dollars funding anyone else's war because their war kills their enemie's babies, than that can hold to a point. Fine. Yet it does seem somewhat unrealistic and certainly wasn't follow by us. Its also a very limiting act. But even there why would race come up?

Look at the post just above yours. It's not unreasonable, considering the accusations on this board, to assume that you were hinting that anyone's opposition to Gaza is based in antisemitism. I mean, it's everywhere, so I think it's reasonable to assume that is your boogey man (it certainly was the poster above your's thought) was antisemitism.

My point is pretty clear. I don't care if it is Ukraine or Israel, I personally am done with supporting the wars and killing. I have no hidden motives. I also do not want my tax dollars bringing in the refugees from these wars.

Queso1 said:

---

Look at the post just above yours. It's not unreasonable, considering the accusations on this board, to assume that you were hinting that anyone's opposition to Gaza is based in antisemitism. I mean, it's everywhere, so I think it's reasonable to assume that is your boogey man (it certainly was the poster above you's thought) was antisemitism.

My point is pretty clear. I don't care if it is Ukraine or Israel, I personally am done with supporting the wars and killing. I have no hidden motives. I also do not want my tax dollars bringing in the refugees from these wars.

---

Ah, I see. No, I genuinely meant only what written. I don't even understand fully what is going on both with all these `anti-semitism' charges flying around, and also the "zionist" what is Zionist in the 21st C? That was the establishment of Israel. That has been accomplished.

In any case, no your assumption in italics might have been reasonable, but it was incorrect and in error. But it does explain why you mentioned race.

What I was expressing surprise at was putting the killing of the opposition's children as a limit to war. We certainly haven't practiced it, so shouldn't impose it on Israel.

That said, you have clarified, so see where you are coming from.

The Jews odd history being discussed in the public square.

The old guard doesn't seem to like that

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The Jews odd history being discussed in the public square.

The old guard doesn't seem to like that

---

There is an obvious contradiction if you are wanting your politicians to do "America First" policy. This kind of discussion used to be just outright not allowed. But since Elon bought twitter and is letting everyone do free speech, the discussion is being had

titan said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

Look at the post just above yours. It's not unreasonable, considering the accusations on this board, to assume that you were hinting that anyone's opposition to Gaza is based in antisemitism. I mean, it's everywhere, so I think it's reasonable to assume that is your boogey man (it certainly was the poster above you's thought) was antisemitism.

My point is pretty clear. I don't care if it is Ukraine or Israel, I personally am done with supporting the wars and killing. I have no hidden motives. I also do not want my tax dollars bringing in the refugees from these wars.

---

Ah, I see. No, I genuinely meant only what written. I don't even understand fully what is going on both with all these `anti-semitism' charges flying around, and also the "zionist" what is Zionist in the 21st C? That was the establishment of Israel. That has been accomplished.

In any case, no your assumption in italics might have been reasonable, but it was incorrect and in error. But it does explain why you mentioned race.

What I was expressing surprise at was putting the killing of the opposition's children as a limit to war. We certainly haven't practiced it, so shouldn't impose it on Israel.

That said, you have clarified, so see where you are coming from.

---

There are a number of pundits and "conservatives" that are either overtly or covertly anti-semitic in there comments. Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes are two of the most vocal and visible.

There is also a portion of the "conservative" movement that are just plain anti-Israel, the same way many people on the left are (except for the large portion of the left that IS anti-semitic). Many of these folks think Israel is the problem in that area of the middle east.

Well the idea of something not being allowed was also never acceptable. A good example being what Scott Adams popularized that had been a true trend for a while. It was one of those areas where we had no business pointing fingers at Russia or others overseas claiming we had full liberty of dialogue.

Keyno said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The Jews odd history being discussed in the public square.

The old guard doesn't seem to like that

---

There is an obvious contradiction if you are wanting your politicians to do "America First" policy. This kind of discussion used to be just outright not allowed. But since Elon bought twitter and is letting everyone do free speech, the discussion is being had

---

There's a decent sized portion of the "America First" movement that is either fully isolationist, or somewhere close to that.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

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.

---

Regarding our politicians, you'll get no argument from me defending the hypocrisy of the political class. Cruz, Schumer (and that's just getting started) - they often play to their donors rather than the national interest. And I agree that border security should start at the Rio Grande, not the Jordan River.

However, here is the area where we disagree. Just because a corrupt politician supports something for the wrong reason (donors, votes, etc) it doesn't make it the wrong strategic move for America.

If Israel turns Iran's missile factories into empty parking lots, that helps the US by effectively neutering a global threat, which effects us here in the US. To put it another way, my politics on this topic are highly pragmatic. I don't care why politicians like Cruz, etc, supports it; I care that the outcome, especially if it keeps US troops from having to do it later. We shouldn't oppose a strategic win just because we dislike the people cheering for it.

Ag with kids said:

---

titan said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

Look at the post just above yours. It's not unreasonable, considering the accusations on this board, to assume that you were hinting that anyone's opposition to Gaza is based in antisemitism. I mean, it's everywhere, so I think it's reasonable to assume that is your boogey man (it certainly was the poster above you's thought) was antisemitism.

My point is pretty clear. I don't care if it is Ukraine or Israel, I personally am done with supporting the wars and killing. I have no hidden motives. I also do not want my tax dollars bringing in the refugees from these wars.

---

Ah, I see. No, I genuinely meant only what written. I don't even understand fully what is going on both with all these `anti-semitism' charges flying around, and also the "zionist" what is Zionist in the 21st C? That was the establishment of Israel. That has been accomplished.

In any case, no your assumption in italics might have been reasonable, but it was incorrect and in error. But it does explain why you mentioned race.

What I was expressing surprise at was putting the killing of the opposition's children as a limit to war. We certainly haven't practiced it, so shouldn't impose it on Israel.

That said, you have clarified, so see where you are coming from.

---

There are a number of pundits and "conservatives" that are either overtly or covertly anti-semitic in there comments. Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes are two of the most vocal and visible.

There is also a portion of the "conservative" movement that are just plain anti-Israel, the same way many people on the left are (except for the large portion of the left that IS anti-semitic). Many of these folks think Israel is the problem in that area of the middle east.

---

Yes, and from what can see, ironically types like Fuentes get some traction from the constant conflation of the two.

I go back to an analogy I think needs to be born in mind.

If being anti-Moscow govt doesn't make one ant-Slavic,

It should be okay to beanti-Tel Aviv govt without being dubbed anti-Semitic.

With the big disclaimer that if you are pro Gaza or Palestine, since they *are* anti-semitic, then yes, a good case can be made one supporting them is also.

Ag with kids said:

---

Keyno said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The Jews odd history being discussed in the public square.

The old guard doesn't seem to like that

---

There is an obvious contradiction if you are wanting your politicians to do "America First" policy. This kind of discussion used to be just outright not allowed. But since Elon bought twitter and is letting everyone do free speech, the discussion is being had

---

There's a decent sized portion of the "America First" movement that is either fully isolationist, or somewhere close to that.

---

Yeah, that's true to an extent. The "America First" movement is sick of the foreign war. This mindset was triggered by Trump himself, when he was campaigning in 2015 and talking about how Iraq was a mistake and we need to get out of the middle east entirely. That is an "America First" position. But that would not be beneficial to a certain foreign nation.

Well said. I agree a wrong intent doesn't inherently make it a bad decision strategically. But we have the benefit of 23 years in the ME to look back on those strategies. I'd challenge anyone to show a net benefit to the US. Is it the patriot act? Trillions in debt? 100 thousand servicemen dead by suicide? US weapons in the hands of the taliban? Million dead Iraqis? 1000s upon 1000s of Muslims refugees?

At a certain point I think an Intellectually honest person has to ask the question who has benefited from our ME involvement for over two decades? It certainly hasn't been the Untied States! And who keeps pushing for further Me involvement? Coincidentally it's both Israel and AIPAC politicians.

I mean we have servicemen dying in Syria for over a decade. What are we doing there?!?!

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Well said. I agree a wrong intent doesn't inherently make it a bad decision strategically. But we have the benefit of 23 years in the ME to look back on those strategies. I'd challenge anyone to show a net benefit to the US. Is it the patriot act? Trillions in debt? 100 thousand servicemen dead by suicide? US weapons in the hands of the taliban? Million dead Iraqis? 1000s upon 1000s of Muslims refugees?

At a certain point I think an Intellectually honest person has to ask the question who has benefited from our ME involvement for over two decades? It certainly hasn't been the Untied States! And who keeps pushing for further Me involvement? Coincidentally it's both Israel and AIPAC politicians.

I mean we have servicemen dying in Syria for over a decade. What are we doing there?!?!

---

There is much truth to what you say, but it seems you are giving State Dept too much a pass and putting it on Israel. Syria is our boondoggle -- from insistence on interfering with them because they are Russia's proxy (or were) since the Cold War. As Egypt had somewhat been ours since Sadat. But we couldn't leave that alone, that relative stability alone -- McCain and company had to stick it to Russia. They even enabled ISIS to do it, killing all those Christians and destroying those archeological sites among the cost. And No, we have nothing to show for it compared to if we had just left Assad there.

Rapier108 said:

---

SunrayAg said:

---

Basically, Tucker and Candace have lost their f-ing minds, but a faction of the brainless shrieking huddled masses worship them and consider their every word gospel truth.

---

And it is always about the Jews, so the brainless shrieking huddled masses love Owens and Qatarlson because they put out regular antisemitic red meat.

There is a loud subset on the right who are consumed with hating Jews because they need someone to blame for their ****ty lives, and Jews are always a target for losers like that, some going so far to say we should have fought with the Nazis in WWII, and that that Hitler was right.

Keeping these knuckle dragging troglodytes from becoming the face of conservatism is what is about. Those with brains know that if that happened, the Democrats would never lose another election that mattered.

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The Jews odd history being discussed in the public square.

The old guard doesn't seem to like that

---

For clarity, this post right here is an example of Anti-Semitic talk.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The Jews odd history being discussed in the public square.

The old guard doesn't seem to like that

---

For clarity, this post right here is an example of Anti-Semitic talk.

---

For clarity, this right here is an example of bizarre speech gatekeeping. This is what the youth is sick of. This is why there is a "civil war" in the conservative movement

K2-HMFIC said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The Jews odd history being discussed in the public square.

The old guard doesn't seem to like that

---

For clarity, this post right here is an example of Anti-Semitic talk.

---

No one cares.

titan said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

Look at the post just above yours. It's not unreasonable, considering the accusations on this board, to assume that you were hinting that anyone's opposition to Gaza is based in antisemitism. I mean, it's everywhere, so I think it's reasonable to assume that is your boogey man (it certainly was the poster above you's thought) was antisemitism.

My point is pretty clear. I don't care if it is Ukraine or Israel, I personally am done with supporting the wars and killing. I have no hidden motives. I also do not want my tax dollars bringing in the refugees from these wars.

---

Ah, I see. No, I genuinely meant only what written. I don't even understand fully what is going on both with all these `anti-semitism' charges flying around, and also the "zionist" what is Zionist in the 21st C? That was the establishment of Israel. That has been accomplished.

In any case, no your assumption in italics might have been reasonable, but it was incorrect and in error. But it does explain why you mentioned race.

What I was expressing surprise at was putting the killing of the opposition's children as a limit to war. We certainly haven't practiced it, so shouldn't impose it on Israel.

That said, you have clarified, so see where you are coming from.

---

Thank you for the clarification. I guess I am sensitive to this issue since most of my questions towards the State of Israel have been met with such accusation. My apologies for assuming/insinuation that you were making an assumption/insinuation.

I agree with you 100% that it's hypocritical to hold others to a standard that we do not practice. Also, I am not ignorant to the fact that civilians will be harmed in most military actions - especially one in an urban environment such as Gaza. I'd like to believe that we practice some restraint and our rules of engagement take civilians into account. However, we are held to that standard and are often attacked for not protecting innocents, but it is off limits to do the same to Israel. That in itself is hypocrisy.

Keyno said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The Jews odd history being discussed in the public square.

The old guard doesn't seem to like that

---

For clarity, this post right here is an example of Anti-Semitic talk.

---

For clarity, this right here is an example of bizarre speech gatekeeping. This is what the youth is sick of. This is why there is a "civil war" in the conservative movement

---

Every political movement should have boundaries, and if conservatism lets itself define a group of people by some sort of vague negative generality and not by the character of an individual… Then that is no longer a conservative movement.

And so yes, this is a Civil War… And people that subscribe to antisemitic talk should be purged from the movement.

Queso1 said:

---

titan said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

Look at the post just above yours. It's not unreasonable, considering the accusations on this board, to assume that you were hinting that anyone's opposition to Gaza is based in antisemitism. I mean, it's everywhere, so I think it's reasonable to assume that is your boogey man (it certainly was the poster above you's thought) was antisemitism.

My point is pretty clear. I don't care if it is Ukraine or Israel, I personally am done with supporting the wars and killing. I have no hidden motives. I also do not want my tax dollars bringing in the refugees from these wars.

---

Ah, I see. No, I genuinely meant only what written. I don't even understand fully what is going on both with all these `anti-semitism' charges flying around, and also the "zionist" what is Zionist in the 21st C? That was the establishment of Israel. That has been accomplished.

In any case, no your assumption in italics might have been reasonable, but it was incorrect and in error. But it does explain why you mentioned race.

What I was expressing surprise at was putting the killing of the opposition's children as a limit to war. We certainly haven't practiced it, so shouldn't impose it on Israel.

That said, you have clarified, so see where you are coming from.

---

Thank you for the clarification. I guess I am sensitive to this issue since most of my questions towards the State of Israel have been met with such accusation. My apologies for assuming/insinuation that you were making an assumption/insinuation.

I agree with you 100% that it's hypocritical to hold others to a standard that we do not practice. Also, I am not ignorant to the fact that civilians will be harmed in most military actions - especially one in an urban environment such as Gaza. I'd like to believe that we practice some restraint and our rules of engagement take civilians into account. However, we are held to that standard and are often attacked for not protecting innocents, but it is off limits to do the same to Israel. That in itself is hypocrisy.

---

Umm, I wouldn't call accusations of genocide "questions toward the state if Israel". That's just gaslighting at its finest

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Keyno said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The Jews odd history being discussed in the public square.

The old guard doesn't seem to like that

---

For clarity, this post right here is an example of Anti-Semitic talk.

---

For clarity, this right here is an example of bizarre speech gatekeeping. This is what the youth is sick of. This is why there is a "civil war" in the conservative movement

---

Every political movement should have boundaries, and if conservatism lets itself define a group of people by some sort of vague negative generality and not by the character of an individual… Then that is no longer a conservative movement.

And so yes, this is a Civil War… And people that subscribe to antisemitic talk should be purged from the movement.

---

OK cool, but the post you responded to was not antisemitic. You threw that charge out there because you didn't like the speech. Free speech is a core tenant of the conservative movement. We had 4 years of cancel culture and censorship with Biden. No more

Keyno said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Keyno said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The Jews odd history being discussed in the public square.

The old guard doesn't seem to like that

---

For clarity, this post right here is an example of Anti-Semitic talk.

---

For clarity, this right here is an example of bizarre speech gatekeeping. This is what the youth is sick of. This is why there is a "civil war" in the conservative movement

---

Every political movement should have boundaries, and if conservatism lets itself define a group of people by some sort of vague negative generality and not by the character of an individual… Then that is no longer a conservative movement.

And so yes, this is a Civil War… And people that subscribe to antisemitic talk should be purged from the movement.

---

OK cool, but the post you responded to was not antisemitic. You threw that charge out there because you didn't like the speech. Free speech is a core tenant of the conservative movement. We had 4 years of cancel culture and censorship with Biden. No more

---

Anyone referring to "odd history" of the Jews is saying antisemitic talk.

Full stop.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Keyno said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Keyno said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The Jews odd history being discussed in the public square.

The old guard doesn't seem to like that

---

For clarity, this post right here is an example of Anti-Semitic talk.

---

For clarity, this right here is an example of bizarre speech gatekeeping. This is what the youth is sick of. This is why there is a "civil war" in the conservative movement

---

Every political movement should have boundaries, and if conservatism lets itself define a group of people by some sort of vague negative generality and not by the character of an individual… Then that is no longer a conservative movement.

And so yes, this is a Civil War… And people that subscribe to antisemitic talk should be purged from the movement.

---

OK cool, but the post you responded to was not antisemitic. You threw that charge out there because you didn't like the speech. Free speech is a core tenant of the conservative movement. We had 4 years of cancel culture and censorship with Biden. No more

---

Anyone referring to "odd history" of the Jews is saying antisemitic talk.

Full stop.

---

If you say so. I'm telling you that the youth does not care about any of that. That's why there is a huge rift in the conservative movement.

Queso1 said:

---

titan said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

Look at the post just above yours. It's not unreasonable, considering the accusations on this board, to assume that you were hinting that anyone's opposition to Gaza is based in antisemitism. I mean, it's everywhere, so I think it's reasonable to assume that is your boogey man (it certainly was the poster above you's thought) was antisemitism.

My point is pretty clear. I don't care if it is Ukraine or Israel, I personally am done with supporting the wars and killing. I have no hidden motives. I also do not want my tax dollars bringing in the refugees from these wars.

---

Ah, I see. No, I genuinely meant only what written. I don't even understand fully what is going on both with all these `anti-semitism' charges flying around, and also the "zionist" what is Zionist in the 21st C? That was the establishment of Israel. That has been accomplished.

In any case, no your assumption in italics might have been reasonable, but it was incorrect and in error. But it does explain why you mentioned race.

What I was expressing surprise at was putting the killing of the opposition's children as a limit to war. We certainly haven't practiced it, so shouldn't impose it on Israel.

That said, you have clarified, so see where you are coming from.

---

Thank you for the clarification. I guess I am sensitive to this issue since most of my questions towards the State of Israel have been met with such accusation. My apologies for assuming/insinuation that you were making an assumption/insinuation.

I agree with you 100% that it's hypocritical to hold others to a standard that we do not practice. Also, I am not ignorant to the fact that civilians will be harmed in most military actions - especially one in an urban environment such as Gaza. I'd like to believe that we practice some restraint and our rules of engagement take civilians into account. However, we are held to that standard and are often attacked for not protecting innocents, but it is off limits to do the same to Israel. That in itself is hypocrisy.

---

In Iraq, we figured out the difficulties of facing Muslims in an urban environment. They don't fear death because martyrdom is celebrated in their twisted religion. They believe they're going to the highest levels of paradise with 72 virgins awaiting. They'll sit inside a house with a belted machine gun, ieds, etc.

Isreal quickly figured out going house to house is a suicide mission. Therefore, they alert the civilians and level the houses. Hamas won't allow the civilians to leave because civilian deaths are part of their twisted pr strategy. That's not on isreal. The civilian deaths are on Hamas. You should be blaming them but you'd rather blame isreal because that's your shtick. Hth

And Hamas showed the world how much they care about civilian deaths on 10/7 where they slaughtered men, women, children, babies, the elderly, etc.

Snake Jazz said:

---

Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly and others just seem to be flailing at each other right now. Israel/Palestine seems to be a big part of this, as does the Kirk assassination. I have no idea what to make of this, as there are clearly a lot of different agendas and egos involved.

Can anybody make sense of this?

---

All of these slick conmen make their money on perpetual victimhood. Although there is a lot of perpetual victimhood to monetize, it isn't unlimited. They are simply fighting over the pie, nothing more. The 'issues' are facades, it's all about money (capturing audience).

No different than "professional" wrestling in my opinion. Manufactured much like the WWE.

paid for clicks and views.

I do not defend Hamas. They are a terrorist organization. Their attack on Israeli civilians was abhorrent. I'm not sure why this is even an issue. I do not recognize Palestine as a sovereign nation.

Am I not allowed to say a state actor is committing genocide? Can I not say that there was genocide in Rwanda? Are only certain states able to commit genocide?

JohnClark929 said:

---

Snake Jazz said:

---

Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly and others just seem to be flailing at each other right now. Israel/Palestine seems to be a big part of this, as does the Kirk assassination. I have no idea what to make of this, as there are clearly a lot of different agendas and egos involved.

Can anybody make sense of this?

---

All of these slick conmen make their money on perpetual victimhood. Although there is a lot of perpetual victimhood to monetize, it isn't unlimited. They are simply fighting over the pie, nothing more. The 'issues' are facades, it's all about money (capturing audience).

---

Needs another star.