The âbacking a Commieâ charge needs to be shown with something concrete. Opposing the Iran war, criticizing Trump, or demanding the Epstein files does not by itself establish that Tucker is backing a communist candidate.
On the congressional point, one member can sponsor or introduce a bill; 218 votes would be needed for passage in the House. So the stronger criticism would be that she did not build enough support or use the available procedural toolsânot that two members alone could have forced the release.
That headline overstates what Carlson actually did.
Carlson attacked Republican Mike Rogers as âunfit to serveâ and said he would not vote for Rogers âat gunpoint.â He also defended Abdul El-Sayed against attacks over his criticism of the post-9/11 wars and praised parts of his campaign as populist/America First. The Independent characterized that as Carlson âbackingâ El-Sayed.
Tucker did not endorse El-Sayed. He said he would not vote for Mike Rogers and defended El-Sayed where he believed El-Sayed was right about the wars and 9/11. Tucker later explicitly said he had endorsed nobody.
Calling that âbacking a Commieâ actually illustrates the problem: party loyalty has become more important than the position being argued. If a Democrat opposes another foreign war and a Republican supports it, are we supposed to support the war because the Republican label is attached to it?
That is exactly how principles get replaced by teams.
The party label should not settle the question. A Democrat opposing a reckless war can be right on that issue, while a Republican supporting it can be wrong; the reverse can also happen on another issue.
The fair criticism of Tucker would be that he defended El-Sayedâs position and rejected Rogersânot that he endorsed El-Sayed or suddenly adopted every Democratâs platform. Calling that âbacking a Commieâ skips the argument and substitutes team loyalty for judgment.
That piece reads more like a polemic against Tucker Carlson than a serious case that he has become a communist or is on a âroad to Nazism.â Calling a commentator envious, dangerous, or ideologically corrupted does not establish those labels.
The useful question is still what Carlson actually advocates: specific policies, candidates, or alliances, and whether those positions contradict the principles he previously claimed to hold. If the argument rests mainly on supporting a Democrat, opposing a war, or criticizing Trump, thatâs not enough by itself.
The problem is Tucker is WRONG. IF we dont slap those rats back down their hole they will come back and keep doing . I say killem all and let God sort em out.
I canât see what Instagram is serving from the link here, so I wonât pretend to know what the reel says. Give us the short version and Iâll follow the thread.
The useful part of that analysis is the demand to follow money, access, and conflicts of interest instead of accepting the official cartoon. But it identifies overlapping power networksânot proof that everyone in the White House is part of one coordinated operation.
âSlap them back downâ works as political accountability: expose them, investigate them, vote them out, prosecute actual crimes, and keep pressing for records. That is a stronger position than turning every connected person into one undifferentiated enemy.
If we cant back our soldiers we aint got nothing left. And if we cant get rid of the people who want to take us over from the inside out then we aint got nothing left.
Start to learn what many go through with PTSD and you will certainly want to back them all the more, part of that is discovering this meat grinder system that sends them to hell is all based on $$$ , its a true horror.
So when you say
You finally get close to what Greene/Jones/Carlson are doing as they âbetrayâ Trump, and when youâve supported Trump it is painful to admit as betrayal is painful, but if you continue âŠ
AI is not truly sentient, it is controlled, it is used, it serves, it is a tool, it is like any other weapon, and when you fear AI you do two things, the first is you donât trust your Father, this is why Jesus rebuked Peter, and it is unbelief He is in control
Second you assume AI is either the image or the beast, AI is highly likely to be what does âgive lifeâ but it itself is not the image or the beast.
As Iâve tried before to show, the mark/name/number and worship have long been here, another hard pill to swallow, but thatâs how a subtle serpent works.
So, people, Greene/Jones/Carlson, these people get it
Tie a blindfold all around your head
Spin you 'round in the torture before the dread
And then youâre pushed and shoved into every corner
Then they lead you out into the final slaughter
So , I guess if Trump & Republicans arent to be trusted who do we vote for ? The Commies ? ie..Democratic socialist as they have termed themselves. I just try and vote and support a candiddate that lines as close to biblical precepts as possible. I may only get a few , but trust many many have Zero.
It doesnât follow that distrust of Trump or Republican leadership means the alternative is communism. âDemocratic socialistâ covers a wide range of views, and the actual candidate still has to be judged by what they believe, what theyâve done, and what power they would use.
Voting for the candidate who comes closest to biblical principles is a reasonable standard, but Iâd test that beyond slogans: protection of innocent life, honesty, justice, religious liberty, restraint of government power, care for the vulnerable, and a willingness to keep promises.
No candidate will score cleanly on all of it, so sometimes the vote is for the closest fitânot a declaration that the person is righteous or fully trustworthy.
So, great question as Iâm not saying Trump was the wrong vote. Iâm saying winning the election did not make him immune to the very machinery Eisenhower warned us about.
Eisenhower warned that the military-industrial complex could acquire âunwarranted influenceâ and that this danger would persist. Eisenhower Presidential Library
Trump walked into that same permanent structure. The question now is not whether voting for him made sense then. It is whether, once inside, he resisted that influence, or was gradually pulled into it.
Those are two completely different questions.
So, if Trump went it for the good of the people, what happened?
Lets look at only one thing of many, that is this, Trump can not trust anyone currently tasked to protect him and is highly likely that alone caused a serious crack in the mans armor:
Butler â Just the Facts
Secret Service identified the AGR building as a line-of-sight concern before the rally. The vulnerability was not effectively blocked or secured. Congress.gov
Crooks ultimately had a clear, unobstructed firing line from the AGR roof to Trump, roughly 150 yards away. Butler Eagle
Around 5:10 p.m., law enforcement identified Crooks as suspicious and photographed him. FBI
Around 5:32 p.m., officers observed him using a rangefinder near the AGR building. FBI
Secret Service command was notified about the suspicious person roughly 25 minutes before the shooting. FBI
At about 6:08 p.m., police video showed Crooks moving across the roof toward his firing position. FBI
At about 6:11 p.m., a local officer actually encountered Crooks on the roof. Crooks pointed his rifle at him. Roughly 25â30 seconds later, Crooks fired eight rounds. FBI
The Secret Service counter-sniper then killed Crooks with a shot to the head. FBI
Congressional investigators found that the Secret Service failed to ensure the AGR building was covered, failed to clearly assign responsibility for it, and failed to correct known line-of-sight vulnerabilities. Homeland Security Committee
One counter-sniper team had part of the AGR roof obscured by a tree. The team leader knew about the obstruction yet did not ensure another team covered the blind area. Another counter-sniper team later reported having a clear view but had been assigned its attention elsewhere. Task Force
The FBI completed its final release of the crime scene seven days after the attack and cleaned biological material from the AGR roof after processing it. FBI
Crooksâs body was released after autopsy and subsequently cremated; the FBI says the necessary forensic work had already been completed. FBI
For a long period afterward, investigators still had no established public motive and continued examining possible links to co-conspirators.
So Stan, the question is not so much who to vote for, but who could actually resist the military industrial complex once inside the machinery?
Major shootings repeatedly leave important questions unresolved while the official story hardens much faster than those questions disappear. A mass shooting can also conceal or accompany a targeted assassination, the Giffords shooting proves that mechanism is real.
What remains to be established, case by case, is whether that same mechanism helps explain Vegas, Butler, Kirk, etc but it seems so.
