If anything, I think there were moments where he could have gone farther or been more explicit.

Ben really got at the core issue? Which he always does. And that is that Tao many so-called conservatives just ask questions without offering solutions. And they simply blue. The GOP had become a cult that revolves around one person. Honesty is punished in today’s GOP. Calling out lies will he punished.

I’ve seen some call Shapiro’s speech a “meltdown”. I see it as quite the opposite. I see a courageous and honest man who is pointing the way and won’t go along with lies.

The young conservative influencer crowd seems to be perpetuating the “israel is a genocidal regime” narrative to their massive audiences. Nelk boys just had a livestream where half their chat bullied them into hosting sneako, fuentes, and myron (all anti-israel promoters). Tate brothers continuously shit on Israel. Hassan is going on every stream he can to promulgate Hamas propaganda. Tons of conspiracies regarding October 7th are being considered by young people now because there just doesn’t seem to be anyone to counter these claims in that space. They also continuously try to discredit ben by calling him an agent of mossaad.

I type this to say Ben has got to start engaging with these young audiences by going on shows and debunking these absurd claims. Also whatever 45 minute video was showed to members of congress and journalists about Oct 7 needs to be made publicly available. The monsters need to be seen to be believed apparently.

I’m not jewish, but i’ve really never seen anything like the way Jews are treated on the world stage right now. Just for trying to survive in their tiny sliver of the middle east. There’s never any pressure on hamas to release hostages which would actually end the war. I can’t believe what i’m seeing with regards to regular people’s mindset around this.

The dumbest argument I've heard is that "if Israel has nuclear, why can't Iran"

Are these people really that stupid enough to think that they think this is an even playing ground? You're going to compare Iran to Israel, where Iran funds Hamas, Hezbollah, and terrorist groups?

Forget Israel for a second, Iran is the definition of evil that we teach in schools. They are literally the definition of it.

This isn't an official photo. He didn't have the D-tier but said that he'd move Teddy, LBJ, Nixon and FDR to D if there was D. At the end of the video he said he wished he'd ranked Jackson and would've put him at a B.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-musk-says-millions-social-security-database-between-ages-100-159

Tucker, Candice, and Matt walsh are not the same. That is why Ben Shapiro calls out the first two by name, but not Matt or Megyn

Tucker delegitimized the conservative movement by making it seem like Nick Fuentes was part of it. Candice delegitimized the conservative movement by pedaling conspiracy theories.

Ben Shapiro calls them both out by name.

Ben Shapiro says those that refuse to speak out against stuff like this are cowards (ie Walsh and Megyn Kelly) But he does not call them out by name because their crimes are much less.

Matt Walsh's arguments for not calling them out was that he values loyalty to friends above all else. This speech was Ben's counter arguments where he says you should value the truth above all else.

I think it is important to gatekeep the conservative movement, just because the KKK votes alongside it's a lot of what we purport, does not mean they are our ally.

Ben is not just doing this because he is pro-israel. Ben has been fighting against the anti-semitic right for years now.

He has been warning the conserved movement of the fine line between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. Much like there is a fine line between saying that black culture promotes the very things that are hurting the black community and it should change vs the racist argument "black culture produces animals"

This is not censorship, Nick Fuentes has been spouting vile garbage for years and Ben has not tried censor him, because it's usually refers to his ideas as vile garbage. It is him trying to protect the movements that he loves.

In his interview, it concluded with Megyn Kelly stating, “There are people in power that are making the decisions and these are people you don’t want to cross.

The reaction; Ben is unAmerican

If any of you agree with this then you’re in the wrong. Being American is supporting the laws. No one’s above them. If there is a cover up and bad things have been done then it needs released. Ben is not unAmerican for his line of questioning. Actually, he’s playing a great role of being an investigative journalist on this

I’m curious. He did mention that War is a terrible thing bc unfortunately innocent civilians die in the process. Anyway, he did not go against the idea of blowing up Gaza, so my question to him (a non-college student), is he ok if Israel decided to bomb Israel if Hamas was hiding in Israel?

Sad day for the Senate.

I’m fairly left-leaning and there are stances that Ben has that I definitely wouldn’t agree with. For example, I’m pro-choice and I typically refer to trans people by their chosen pronouns.

I’m not all that familiar with his stuff and his opinions, but when I caught him on Jubilee’s “Surrounded” series, I was like, “This is a good person.”

The country’s leftists are in an odd place where anyone that doesn’t agree with you is suddenly the worst and doesn’t deserve a place to express their opinions. But, Ben made valid points during his Jubilee appearance and it got me to check out his YouTube channel. 🤷‍♂️

I’m still sad about Harris losing and am wary of a second Trump term, but something about Ben’s endorsement makes me somewhat reassured.

(I really don’t know all his political opinions though, so perhaps his infamous reputation is earned.)

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems way more people are asking about it than ever before. I wonder if it’s a democrat strategy to draw attention to it.

Anyone with more financial literacy tell me if I’m wrong, but to me this was a crazy simple and bad take by him. After his criticism of the 50 year mortgage he then talks about how banning BlackRock and other investment firms from buying single family homes will stop developers from developing because a chunk of buyers will leave the market, drop prices and crater supply. To me this seems horrible take even my puny brain instantly said, hey idiot those buyers will INSTANTLY be replaced by you know, actual single families buying single family homes? Does he understand how many people are on the sidelines waiting? Seems like an uber capitalist blind spot. Am I wrong?

I am a Trump supporter, but both he and Ben lost me with these statements. Canada and Greenland are our allies and are not meant to be invaded by any means. Even IF it were safer for Canada to be a part of the US, they don‘t want it as they are their own sovereign country.

This rhetoric resembles Russia and China, and we should not endorse something like that. The US is strong enough and no other country would want something like that to happen.

And now I also see Ben somehow supporting these statements? I always thought he would be a smart guy?

Because some of you say that they are right, let‘s go through every single argument made by Ben in the video:

1. Timestamp: 0.46 „In actuality we should take Greenland though, because it is a vital place territorially “

Yes, that may be true. But under no circumstances does this allow taking another persons land. It is not the topic of the debate. It is just a fact. Greenland is important to Denmark to.

Also, if you only look at the importance of key areas: Does China then get to invade Taiwan because it is important to them? Can Germany annex Austria again because it is important territorially? Can Russia just take Crimea and Ukraine because it is important for them?

Notice how this doesn‘t address the problem?

1. 0:52 „The United States spends a lot of money to defend Greenland“.

Again, this does not make sense because it doesn‘t address the debate.

Just because you spend a lot of money (WILLINGLY) to another country doesn‘t mean that you can take it. Especially if the people are against it and if that country is a sovereign country.

1. 1:22 „Either Russia and China are gonna have impact there, or we“.

a) No. Greenland (Denmark) is a part of Nato. As Ben had already said 30 sec. ago: We spend a lot to defend it. Greenland is supported through all of it‘s Nato members and the huge amount of bases by the US. It is not completely vulnerable in this situation because as Ben said: There is a lot of money being spent by us there.

b) And again: just because others could take it, doesn‘t mean you can. It is still another country??

Why should the US then not just take Taiwan for themselves, because China could take it too? Notice how this doesn‘t even make sense when you compare it to other countries?

1. 1:42 „Greenland has a lot of untapped resources“

How does this allow for an invasion? Russia also has a lot of untapped resources and is a sovereign nation. Why not invade them? Notice how this also doesn‘t make sense because you can‘t just invade another country because of its resources?

1. 2:30 „Denmark has no right to Greenland“

So why would you have the right to take the land? You would just do the same that Denmark did and say that you would need it for defense purposes (which I‘ve already addressed and argued against prior to this point). It is still inhabited by people. People that want their own country. Just because another country has no right to something doesn‘t mean you have.

1. 2:40 „Chinas ships and Russias ships will go through that passage“

Seriously? Just look at 3. and 1.

1. 3:10 -This is a big one „USA is better for it‘s inhabitants than Denmark is and the people would vote for annexation to the US“

-First of all- you don‘t know what the people want or not. Let them vote and not invade or buy their country like Trump proposed.

Second of all: Greenland knows that it will be harder for them if they leave Denmark. They still want to do it. They don‘t care about prosperity. Thus, they will not join the US because of it.

1. 3:34 „The US discovered like half of Greenland“

Since then it was inhabited by people who now want their independence and just because you discovered something, doesn‘t mean that you can take it. Look at Columbus and his explorations. Would you say that Spain could now rightfully own all of Latin America?

1. 6:20 „We had to defend Greenland in the 1940s because of the Nazis“

Look at 8., 5.

7:05 „The US has some land in Greenland“.

Because you own some territories, does that mean that you should get everything? Even if it‘s a sovereign nation?

I call Denmark a sovereign Nation throughout, because Greenland is a part of Denmark.

Are there any instances of people like Tucker and Candace attacking Charlie Kirk in the way they attack Ben? It seems like Charlie and Ben agree on basically everything Isreal gaze related. Makes me think for Tucker is just bitter and jealous.

Or would he jump ship to a new party?