We are not allowed to discuss Tiucker or Candace?
What I meant was partly in fun. But because of the stance on Israel Tucker and Candace take on Israel, it was encouraged in our forum to consider not posting on Tucker or Candace, If I am understanding correctly, in too great a defense posture. I believe it was in the sense of honoring a proper demeanor on the forum. The way I process that sentiment is that both Tucker and Candace go for over-the-top themes that can often carry with them some rather controversial tendencies. The potential of some of the commonly held views would have significant potential to possibly escort our forum into some back and forth that may not be the healthiest types of discussions.
I believe if there is something either of them do that is paise worthy might not be a concern. But from what i have seen of those two, they can shift or pivot on some issues in forum favor but overall will traffic in provocative positions as a rule. So I think it makes sense to have a level of concern regarding themes related to them. I don't believe if there were questions or concerns with what they put out, conversation on them in general was not the concern. I believe it mostly has to do with posting aspects of their content that could be fuel to fire up unnecessary disagreements or arguments.
So for example, it seems that Tucker posted that the CIA is reading his text. And he posted the video to gain support. What is not mentioned in the video he made is who he talked to in Iran. Or what was discussed. From what I understand, something called incidental collection (reading texts of those communicating with Iran officials because Iran is being spied on for example) seems to be what happened. I find it odd that Tucker would not know that the US would be spying on Iran leadership. So this brings up an interesting point. Because of incidental collection, it would seem that the only reason Tucker would likely be informed they were reading his text is if there was something communicated to Iran that was concerning. We don't know if that is true. Nor do we know what the general US concern is.
I don't think this is just a matter of a US citizen trying to interview American opposition. In January of 2025, Tucker's son was hired to be an aide to VP Vance. So there was favor toward Tucker in general. But I don't think it would be unreasonable for US concern for Tucker might be forming if he has interest to interview Iran leadership while his son has inside intel of America. That is just not a healthy optic. But it would seem the reason for concern would be likely something found in Tucker's text. At the end of the day, Tucker may not have broken any laws. But we do live in a day and age where the left (such as Milley warning Xi if Trump were to go against China) will encourage the military to disobey Trump military orders affirmed in open public forum.
In a way we are kind of at war using some violent options but mostly what I would understand to be irregular warfare (non-conventional warfare like psyops). To me, we have been at war with globalism since at least 2017. It is just a different playing field. Venezuela and Iran would likely be symptoms of a much deeper war for America. So the stakes are pretty high right now. Tucker was permitted to interview Putin a while back. As well as going to Israel and interviewing Huckabee (which was more like an opportunity to sell a narrative rather than have a meaningful discuss--at least how it looked to me).
So imagine if during all of this we had posts supporting Tucker in having freedom of speech. There may and then there may not be reasonable support for that. But in my understanding what Tucker tends to bring to the table is questionable morale for the country. Which by nature is controversial. And likely not the best foundation for a Christian forum discussion. Because it is reasonable to assume Tucker may have Christian supporters. But because of his species of leanings, wholesale open discussions regarding him could reasonably be bringing a level of unintended but unnecessary potential contention to a forum. It could be reasonably viewed that Candace and Tucker traffic in the controversial. And by nature of that bent unfortunately, in my mind, bring its own organic inbred natural suspicion. It's kind of baked in, is how i would understand that. If that makes sense?
www.thegatewaypundit.com
