So… Tucker Carlson just ended Ted Cruz’s career

[Anonymous]

Don’t insult a cat’s intelligence by comparing that slob to a feline

[Anonymous]

I sincerely wish that capital punishment was the IMMEDIATE, extrajudicial response to any member of Congress volunteering that their singular focus upon entering public service in the U.S. was actually “how best to serve a foreign country”, but alas, corruption has become so commonplace these days that this worthless shitbag isn’t even aware how badly he “done f^cked up” in this interview.

What a mess. Shame on anyone not outraged by this POS’s responses to Carlson’s questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I sincerely wish that capital punishment was the IMMEDIATE, extrajudicial response to any member of Congress volunteering that their singular focus upon entering public service in the U.S. was actually “how best to serve a foreign country”, but alas, corruption has become so commonplace these days that this worthless shitbag isn’t even aware how badly he “done f^cked up” in this interview.

What a mess. Shame on anyone not outraged by this POS’s responses to Carlson’s questions.

Corruption? That's not corruption. That's just a straight up violation of his oath of office. Too bad he's got another 5 years of his term.

[Anonymous]

So good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WSJ now attacking Carlson in this morning's editorial. They're saying Carlson and Sen. Liz Warren are wedded on this issue. Oy vey, we can't have rational people on both sides of the aisle aligned on anything!

It’ll be “another endless war,” warns Sen. Elizabeth Warren, illustrating that the podcaster right and progressive left increasingly agree on the virtue of American retreat.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/maga-isolationists-iran-israel-tucker-carlson-donald-trump-republicans-b3ada802

The protests against this war are gonna be lit.

[Anonymous]

I haven't finished the interview yet. But here's my issue. He brings up that Iran is actively trying to kill Pompeo, Bolton, and Hook. Yet, Trump had their security details pulled. Cruz made a comment that during the Biden administration, the government was spending- I think he said $2M a month?- to protect these three from serious threats to their lives from Iranian assassins.

If you believed that Iranians were trying to assassinate them for work they did under Trump's first term, why pull their security? If the answer is out of spite (he accused them of disloyalty, against all evidence) then it means that they are okay facilitating Iranian assassinations. Is that okay? And if it is, then lets drop this argument that the existence of Iranian assassins targeting government people is a reason to attack Iran. It wasn't even reason enough to defend our officials that carried out the Iran policy during Trump 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't finished the interview yet. But here's my issue. He brings up that Iran is actively trying to kill Pompeo, Bolton, and Hook. Yet, Trump had their security details pulled. Cruz made a comment that during the Biden administration, the government was spending- I think he said $2M a month?- to protect these three from serious threats to their lives from Iranian assassins.

If you believed that Iranians were trying to assassinate them for work they did under Trump's first term, why pull their security? If the answer is out of spite (he accused them of disloyalty, against all evidence) then it means that they are okay facilitating Iranian assassinations. Is that okay? And if it is, then lets drop this argument that the existence of Iranian assassins targeting government people is a reason to attack Iran. It wasn't even reason enough to defend our officials that carried out the Iran policy during Trump 1.

The interview is full of outright contradictions like this. It's a master class in demonstrating the complete and total lack of seriousness of some of our most powerful leaders. By any standard, Cruz should be one of our most serious statesman - Princeton, Harvard, clerked for Rehnquist. What an embarrassment.

Ted Cruz is on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism. He ought to know the Iran issue inside and out, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sleazy feline

Ngl, it’s a great insult.

Felines are never sleazy. They OWN their decisions and dare you to object. Please don't bring elegant felines into this mudpit of hippos.

Felines can be duplicitous. That’s how I interpreted his use of the term “feline” as a slur.

[Anonymous]

"Sleazy Feline," is as unforgettable as "Beach blonde, bad built, body."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't finished the interview yet. But here's my issue. He brings up that Iran is actively trying to kill Pompeo, Bolton, and Hook. Yet, Trump had their security details pulled. Cruz made a comment that during the Biden administration, the government was spending- I think he said $2M a month?- to protect these three from serious threats to their lives from Iranian assassins.

If you believed that Iranians were trying to assassinate them for work they did under Trump's first term, why pull their security? If the answer is out of spite (he accused them of disloyalty, against all evidence) then it means that they are okay facilitating Iranian assassinations. Is that okay? And if it is, then lets drop this argument that the existence of Iranian assassins targeting government people is a reason to attack Iran. It wasn't even reason enough to defend our officials that carried out the Iran policy during Trump 1.

The interview is full of outright contradictions like this. It's a master class in demonstrating the complete and total lack of seriousness of some of our most powerful leaders. By any standard, Cruz should be one of our most serious statesman - Princeton, Harvard, clerked for Rehnquist. What an embarrassment.

Ted Cruz is on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism. He ought to know the Iran issue inside and out, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes exactly. I'm quite warm to a "peace through strength" approach to foreign policy and I do agree that Iran is a terrible threat to our national security. And I'm a Trump voter. However, that doesn't mean that I will get on board with every war against Iran that we are invited to, especially since we (the US) literally change our policy on Iran every 2-4 years. Every 2-4 years, we literally completely reverse our policy. That's insane and it suggests that we are too incompetent on this issue to manage a war responsibility.

The Pompeo/Bolton/Hook contradiction is really a deal breaker for me. If its true that they are being targeted for assassinations, then we won't spend a couple million to defend them on our own soil-- but we will launch a war because of it? But, wait, I thought (per the President's tweet) this security was unnecessary. Which one is it? Because, America First. I believe in that. We defend our people. And if we aren't doing that, it raises broader questions about the focus and discipline of the foreign policy wing of this administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't finished the interview yet. But here's my issue. He brings up that Iran is actively trying to kill Pompeo, Bolton, and Hook. Yet, Trump had their security details pulled. Cruz made a comment that during the Biden administration, the government was spending- I think he said $2M a month?- to protect these three from serious threats to their lives from Iranian assassins.

If you believed that Iranians were trying to assassinate them for work they did under Trump's first term, why pull their security? If the answer is out of spite (he accused them of disloyalty, against all evidence) then it means that they are okay facilitating Iranian assassinations. Is that okay? And if it is, then lets drop this argument that the existence of Iranian assassins targeting government people is a reason to attack Iran. It wasn't even reason enough to defend our officials that carried out the Iran policy during Trump 1.

The interview is full of outright contradictions like this. It's a master class in demonstrating the complete and total lack of seriousness of some of our most powerful leaders. By any standard, Cruz should be one of our most serious statesman - Princeton, Harvard, clerked for Rehnquist. What an embarrassment.

Ted Cruz is on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism. He ought to know the Iran issue inside and out, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.

The prestigious Ivy degrees and the clerkship were thanks to DEI/URM because a fat ass white guy worm like Cruz got to claim he was an unrepresented minority victim his entire life. Cruz has the symbols of intelligence with no actual brain power. In short, a midwit groomed for and installed to power because he’s a compliant prostitute; a useful idiot who does as told.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Love him or hate him, Tucker just exposed this blood thirsty war mongering dunce.

cia vs cia theatre

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Logan Hall is a moron. And Ted Cruz is quoting bible verses that he doesn’t even know as a reason to go to war. He’s American Taliban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Logan Hall is a moron. And Ted Cruz is quoting bible verses that he doesn’t even know as a reason to go to war. He’s American Taliban.

Did he forget thou shalt not kill? Jesus himself would get killed by these lunatics wanting Middle East wars in perpetuity.