Finished now and I think you also just seem to not be aware of the fact that there already have been significant wins on immigration. Part of the reason plan trusters take issue with those called the retard right is that people like this have a bad habit of just constantly lying about everything.
For example Tucker Carlson who you mentioned here allowed Dan Bovino to lie and say there are 100 million illegals in the US without correcting him. Compare this to John Doyle who has not ever done anything like this. John always cites his sources and has been consistent in his views since Trump took office for the first time back in 2016.
This is also why the plan trusters take issue with the “demoralization”. There’s no problem with making internal critiques. John Doyle for example has always encouraged internal criticism. The problem with the anti Trump right is that their criticism seems to always be rooted in falsehood.
Tucker and MTG saying we will nuke Iran with no evidence. People saying we’ve increased student visas and H1Bs when the opposite is actually true. People saying we’ve are losing the Iran war. This sort of stuff is why they are called retard right. The issue was never criticizing Trump. The issue was the constant lying.
Respectfully you seem to not be aware of this dynamic so maybe it’s worth doing some more research before continuing to comment on American politics.
Yes I hear that and that’s good but what I’m saying is that you seem in this article at least to not take issue with the fact that when “plan trusters” criticize the “retard right” it’s not for simply criticizing Trump but instead for just straight up lying about things. That’s why it’s said to be a demoralization.
What’s a bit funny here is that based on what you’ve said you and John Doyle are basically in the same camp as you both are willing to acknowledge the good Trump has done while critiquing the bad things in good faith. You are both also against the war and are displeased with low IQ anti semitism.
Decent article but you once again fail to properly understand John Doyle’s body of work. John repeatedly expresses disapproval of the Iran war in the months leading up to the mid terms. The video you’re referring to that “requires more context” actually does require more context as the context in question is that in the second half of that video he also criticized the war with America first talking points. The video was him just looking at both sides and explaining where each side is coming from so the context is actually important. It seems like most of your info on John just comes from what other people are saying since this is the second time you’ve made an error like this.
What's the context that negates him saying America had to eventually go to war with Iran to stop the mullahs getting WMDs? Did he ever correct the lie that they told negotiatiors they wouldn't budge on nuclear weapons?
What’s in reference here? They said to our negotiators they wouldn’t budge and John lied about that?
That doesn’t need to be negated because again if you watch that video he’s making a case he’s not saying he agrees with it. He’s actually on record for months prior saying he’s against the war.
Are you saying Doyle wasn't actually claiming Iran refused to budge in negotiations, but was just imagining this is what someone pro-war would say? I find that very hard to believe, especially when he didn't give any aside that it isn't the case, but I'll see if that's the case in the original video. Btw I took that clip from his own clipper/show assistant, who posted it as a standalone take.
Yeah in that case that’s the fault of his producer then but yeah if you look at that original video he’s clearly saying he’s laying out the case for both sides.
However the timing is also important because remember Iran didn’t agree to budge on the nuclear question until the MOU was signed and since then they’ve went back and now are once again saying they won’t make any concessions here.
So again that might be his producers and by extension his fault but it may be the case that you saw this clip after the MOU even though the actual video was from before the MOU.
I personally do believe that the chaff must be culled from the wheat. I don’t believe big tent conservatism will ever truly succeed in enforcing remigration because, fundamentally, not all conservatives want that. As someone who lives in a red state and around conservatives in America (the experience might be different for Europeans), although there’s been an escalation of general anti-immigrant attitudes, most still oppose, specifically, illegal immigration and definitely don’t support any real emigration beyond just some illegals. Why? For the same reason Lenin did; that the masses are too focused on their own daily lives to place enough concern, and thus, organization into a movement to make real change. I’m of the opinion that, for any real “radical” right movement to succeed, it must organize a vanguard that ensures, first and foremost, a loyalty to a specific idea regardless of differing opinions. As seen with the Republican Party, and Trump himself, that there is no such loyalty and and ambitions change constantly and frequently (from promising no new wars to threatening Denmark, abducting Venezuela’s president, and bombing Iran, as an example), it’s no wonder corruption is as rampant as ever. People constantly decry “purity spiraling”, but if anything, division has never been greater. In fact, I’d say that “purity spiraling” is the only way to actually gain a vanguard ready to fight and die for what it believes in because, otherwise, such ideas will be too fragile to succeed without being compromised.
We've been chased out the gulf, are hustling airplanes out of the UK, and the entire Trump cabinet is hiding in military housing in DC out of fear of Iran. The political fallout aside, the depths of this military loss are dizzying to ponder. Trump can only blather and try to save face while looking desperately for an off ramp. We can all see the emperor has no clothes.
Important thing is to learn from mistakes fast, and to remember that the impossible did happened, like the collapse of USSR in 1992. Loyalty to a leader carried an implied duty to give an honest critique of the leader and to keep his feet to the fire so that both leader and followers can benefit together.
Finished now and I think you also just seem to not be aware of the fact that there already have been significant wins on immigration. Part of the reason plan trusters take issue with those called the retard right is that people like this have a bad habit of just constantly lying about everything.
For example Tucker Carlson who you mentioned here allowed Dan Bovino to lie and say there are 100 million illegals in the US without correcting him. Compare this to John Doyle who has not ever done anything like this. John always cites his sources and has been consistent in his views since Trump took office for the first time back in 2016.
This is also why the plan trusters take issue with the “demoralization”. There’s no problem with making internal critiques. John Doyle for example has always encouraged internal criticism. The problem with the anti Trump right is that their criticism seems to always be rooted in falsehood.
Tucker and MTG saying we will nuke Iran with no evidence. People saying we’ve increased student visas and H1Bs when the opposite is actually true. People saying we’ve are losing the Iran war. This sort of stuff is why they are called retard right. The issue was never criticizing Trump. The issue was the constant lying.
Respectfully you seem to not be aware of this dynamic so maybe it’s worth doing some more research before continuing to comment on American politics.
There have been wins sure, I don't deny that. Like I said, I've been equally criticised for praising the occasional good things Trump does
Yes I hear that and that’s good but what I’m saying is that you seem in this article at least to not take issue with the fact that when “plan trusters” criticize the “retard right” it’s not for simply criticizing Trump but instead for just straight up lying about things. That’s why it’s said to be a demoralization.
What’s a bit funny here is that based on what you’ve said you and John Doyle are basically in the same camp as you both are willing to acknowledge the good Trump has done while critiquing the bad things in good faith. You are both also against the war and are displeased with low IQ anti semitism.
Decent article but you once again fail to properly understand John Doyle’s body of work. John repeatedly expresses disapproval of the Iran war in the months leading up to the mid terms. The video you’re referring to that “requires more context” actually does require more context as the context in question is that in the second half of that video he also criticized the war with America first talking points. The video was him just looking at both sides and explaining where each side is coming from so the context is actually important. It seems like most of your info on John just comes from what other people are saying since this is the second time you’ve made an error like this.
What's the context that negates him saying America had to eventually go to war with Iran to stop the mullahs getting WMDs? Did he ever correct the lie that they told negotiatiors they wouldn't budge on nuclear weapons?
What’s in reference here? They said to our negotiators they wouldn’t budge and John lied about that?
That doesn’t need to be negated because again if you watch that video he’s making a case he’s not saying he agrees with it. He’s actually on record for months prior saying he’s against the war.
Are you saying Doyle wasn't actually claiming Iran refused to budge in negotiations, but was just imagining this is what someone pro-war would say? I find that very hard to believe, especially when he didn't give any aside that it isn't the case, but I'll see if that's the case in the original video. Btw I took that clip from his own clipper/show assistant, who posted it as a standalone take.
Yeah in that case that’s the fault of his producer then but yeah if you look at that original video he’s clearly saying he’s laying out the case for both sides.
However the timing is also important because remember Iran didn’t agree to budge on the nuclear question until the MOU was signed and since then they’ve went back and now are once again saying they won’t make any concessions here.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-will-not-allow-enriched-nuclear-material-leave-country-security-chief-says-2026-11-11/
So again that might be his producers and by extension his fault but it may be the case that you saw this clip after the MOU even though the actual video was from before the MOU.
I personally do believe that the chaff must be culled from the wheat. I don’t believe big tent conservatism will ever truly succeed in enforcing remigration because, fundamentally, not all conservatives want that. As someone who lives in a red state and around conservatives in America (the experience might be different for Europeans), although there’s been an escalation of general anti-immigrant attitudes, most still oppose, specifically, illegal immigration and definitely don’t support any real emigration beyond just some illegals. Why? For the same reason Lenin did; that the masses are too focused on their own daily lives to place enough concern, and thus, organization into a movement to make real change. I’m of the opinion that, for any real “radical” right movement to succeed, it must organize a vanguard that ensures, first and foremost, a loyalty to a specific idea regardless of differing opinions. As seen with the Republican Party, and Trump himself, that there is no such loyalty and and ambitions change constantly and frequently (from promising no new wars to threatening Denmark, abducting Venezuela’s president, and bombing Iran, as an example), it’s no wonder corruption is as rampant as ever. People constantly decry “purity spiraling”, but if anything, division has never been greater. In fact, I’d say that “purity spiraling” is the only way to actually gain a vanguard ready to fight and die for what it believes in because, otherwise, such ideas will be too fragile to succeed without being compromised.
We've been chased out the gulf, are hustling airplanes out of the UK, and the entire Trump cabinet is hiding in military housing in DC out of fear of Iran. The political fallout aside, the depths of this military loss are dizzying to ponder. Trump can only blather and try to save face while looking desperately for an off ramp. We can all see the emperor has no clothes.
Important thing is to learn from mistakes fast, and to remember that the impossible did happened, like the collapse of USSR in 1992. Loyalty to a leader carried an implied duty to give an honest critique of the leader and to keep his feet to the fire so that both leader and followers can benefit together.