re: Trump new tweet on tucker, candace, megyn, and Alex jones

quote:

---

But first they have to drive a wedge between MAGA and Trump.

---

quote:

---

This post (a lengthy Truth Social rant from President Trump, dated around April 9, 2026) is stupid for several straightforward reasons, mostly tied to its poor reasoning, self-undermining tone, and counterproductive politics.

1. Strawman argument on Iran/nuclear weapons. Trump claims these four (Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, Alex Jones) "think it is wonderful" for Iran (the "Number One State Sponsor of Terror") to have a nuclear weapon. That's a blatant distortion. Their criticism (in context of the ongoing U.S. military actions/escalation with Iran) centers on opposing endless wars, neoconservative-style interventions, potential civilian casualties, or risks of broader regional chaos/nuclear escalation—not cheering for a nuclear-armed Iran. Equating "don't escalate into war" with "love Iranian nukes" is classic bad-faith exaggeration. It dodges their actual points about restraint, costs, or blowback.

2. Petty, low-IQ insults from the guy in charge. The core attack—"they have one thing in common, Low IQs. They're stupid people, they know it, their families know it, and everyone else knows it too!"—is juvenile name-calling. As sitting President handling "World and Country Affairs," this reads like a thin-skinned meltdown rather than presidential leadership. Calling critics "NUT JOBS, TROUBLEMAKERS, LOSERS" who chase "cheap publicity" with "Third Rate Podcasts" while boasting about your own landslide win and MAGA strength makes you look insecure. It signals you can't handle dissent from former allies without descending into personal vendettas (e.g., dredging up old TV firings, college dropout jabs at Carlson, or beauty comparisons with Candace Owens vs. France's First Lady).Smart, confident leaders usually rebut ideas with arguments, not IQ-shaming rants that span nearly 500 words.

3. It fractures his own base for no gain. These aren't random leftists—they're prominent voices in the broader MAGA/conservative ecosystem who helped build Trump's support over years. Attacking them this viciously (while claiming "MAGA agrees with me" and "I could get them on my side anytime") highlights division at a sensitive moment during the Iran conflict. Instead of unifying around shared goals (strong national security, America First skepticism of forever wars), it turns a policy disagreement into a loyalty purge. That risks alienating listeners/viewers who like those podcasters, making the base look chaotic and Trump look thin-skinned. Claiming they're "the opposite of MAGA" while admitting they once aligned with it just underscores the flip.

4. Self-own on relevance and strength.Trump brags that MAGA is about "WINNING and STRENGTH" and that the U.S. is now the "HOTTEST" country—right after a long, rambling attack on people he says nobody cares about anymore. If they're such irrelevant "losers" with dead careers, why devote this much energy to them? It contradicts the "I'm too busy for this" vibe and makes the whole thing feel like sour grapes over criticism of his Iran approach.Personal digs (Alex Jones' bankruptcy/Sandy Hook comments, Megyn Kelly's old debate question, Candace Owens' conspiracy) feel like score-settling rather than advancing any serious case for military action.

5. Style over substance. The whole post is classic Trump stream-of-consciousness: ALL CAPS emphasis, repetition, tangents, and self-praise ("BUT I DO" know how to make America great). It prioritizes emotional venting and dominance signaling over clear policy explanation—like why escalation is necessary now, what the endgame is, or how it avoids past mistakes in the Middle East. Rants like this energize the hardcore base but often come off as unserious or unhinged to everyone else, especially when the U.S. is involved in active conflict.In short, it's stupid because it weakens Trump's position by turning a legitimate debate over war/foreign policy into a petty insult fest that exposes fractures, lacks intellectual rigor, and makes the "strong winner" look reactive and small. Effective leadership on high-stakes issues like preventing Iranian nukes would focus on facts, strategy, and coalition-building—not IQ insults and beauty rankings.

---

quote:

---

centers on opposing endless wars, neoconservative-style interventions, potential civilian casualties, or risks of broader regional chaos/nuclear escalation—not cheering for a nuclear-armed Iran. Equating "don't escalate into war" with "love Iranian nukes" is classic bad-faith exaggeration.

---

quote:

---

Meanwhile, MeggieMoo, Candyass and Cucker are saying that Israel is leading Trump around by the nose. 

---