Tucker Carlson throwing Bombs Zero F---s given

Feb 25, 2018
155
217
225
#1
I'm amazed he is still on TV, the guy throws more truth and blackpills in 15 minutes than I've heard on CNN in 15 years. The only sticking point from this video being perfection is his antiquated opinion on weed, he should of included the "drugs" that are actually choking western life including antidepressants, opioids, general pharmaceuticals and mass production of highly refined sugars/carbs in food. Other than that, it's a great fkin segment. The bankers and corporations will shut this guy down at somepoint, but at least we will have videos like this posthumously.

 
Jun 13, 2014
4,037
1,042
345
USA
#7
This monologue has sent shockwaves through conservative media because he basically challenged them to temper their love for free markets if they want to live in a healthier society. I wouldn't say his views on weed are antiquated, especially not in the context of the monologue, because it's killing the ambition of young men and encouraging them to stay at home instead of setting out to conquer the world around them.

He's been talking more about the nexus between family, society, and markets and their interdependence and it warrants more discussion. In 1965 the Department of Labor released a report entitled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” and it immediately caused a firestorm of backlash and suppression. Now the problems that accompany deteriorating families are no longer only black and urban, this is also now white and rural.

I had a similar thought as OP whe I finally got around to watching this - I can't imagine how much longer Tucker is going to be on the air saying things like this. But it's good that the most watched nightly news show is raising awareness about this problem.
 
Jan 9, 2018
542
797
240
#9
In general, he's surprisingly on the right track here in terms of pushing the Right away from market-worshipping, individualistic libertarianism and towards some kind of serious fusion with a populist care for the average, ordinary person who simply needs the means for a stable family & dignified work.

And yes, the Left ceded the right to be any kind of real worker's party ages ago, increasingly embracing the progressivism of the upwardly mobile classes and leaving a vacuum that let populism flourish. So someone has to take up that space, and for the first time in a long time, it's only the Right that has even a chance to make a move--while the supposed Left just doubles down on niche pursuits that target the ideological obsessions of its generally very privileged social strata, from various sexual identity matters to cries for "socialism" that equate to little more than a fantasy of consolidating all power among the managerial class.
 
Last edited:
Nov 5, 2016
7,450
7,648
315
I don't care where (just far)
#10
I am fan of Tucker after being impressed by his calm composure during his recent debate with Cenk Uyger.

I disagree with him most of the time but he seems like a pretty solid guy.

Edit:

As far as anti-depressants, I have an odd history history with them related to my severe anxiety disorder.

My doctor always tries to get me on anti-depressants even though every one I tried gave me horrible side effects. Benzos, like Klonopin and Xanax work wonderfully for me but my doctor refuses to give me refills for these kinds of meds due to fear of dependence, which is ironic to me because the idea behind antidepressants is you take them forever anyway, so what’s the difference?

There’s also meds that aren’t habit forming and tend to be more mild then ADs for anxiety, like BusPar, that I’m trying to get a scrip for but my doctor keeps defaulting back to ADs.

So, as far as the idea that meds like this are over prescribed, I can see it
 
Last edited:
Likes: hariseldon
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
#11
And yes, the Left ceded the right to be any kind of real worker's party ages ago, increasingly embracing the progressivism of the upwardly mobile classes and leaving a vacuum that let populism flourish. So someone has to take up that space, and for the first time in a long time, it's only the Right that has even a chance to make a move--while the supposed Left just doubles down on niche pursuits that target the ideological obsessions of its generally very privileged social strata, from various sexual identity matters to cries for "socialism" that equate to little more than a fantasy of consolidating all power among the managerial class.
Not really, Clinton and Republicans killed/reduced many of their programs. Things like qualifying for unemployment + paid degrees if your job gets shipped overseas and you get laid off in the process. It was a strict but highly valuable system that helped many earn skills to put them in higher income brackets.

Wake me up when the action plans are put fourth, and there's a plan to deal with an evolving society, and better helping people to navigate it.
 
Last edited:
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#14
Imagine the courage of this man to parrot the opinions of Trump supporters back at them. And to do so on a network dedicated to praising Trump! We lesser men can but marvel at the courage of Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson.
 
Likes: chaos789
Jan 9, 2018
542
797
240
#15
Imagine the courage of this man to parrot the opinions of Trump supporters back at them. And to do so on a network dedicated to praising Trump! We lesser men can but marvel at the courage of Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson.
An odd fixation on the family connection. There is plenty of material for reading him in other ways within the same mini-bios; his father was an orphan with a successful adoption story who went on to champion public media (President/CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for years, which means he was in charge of securing federal funding for public news). His stepmother--who evidently entered his life at age 10--brought in the Swanson inheritance, for what it's worth.

And as for the notion that Right-populism cannot possibly be unique or brave on Fox News, it's not so clear. At the very least, there is a tremendous shift taking place within the Right over the past few years, driving a new divide between libertarianism and populist strains, and much of Fox still follows the expected pro-corporate / market ideology shtick despite some carefully evasive Trump defense. It is somewhat refreshing to see that one of their headliners now openly rebukes the market-obsessed Right as representing a legitimate path forward.
 
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#17
An odd fixation on the family connection. There is plenty of material for reading him in other ways within the same mini-bios; his father was an orphan with a successful adoption story who went on to champion public media (President/CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for years, which means he was in charge of securing federal funding for public news). His stepmother--who evidently entered his life at age 10--brought in the Swanson inheritance, for what it's worth.

And as for the notion that Right-populism cannot possibly be unique or brave on Fox News, it's not so clear. At the very least, there is a tremendous shift taking place within the Right over the past few years, driving a new divide between libertarianism and populist strains, and much of Fox still follows the expected pro-corporate / market ideology shtick despite some carefully evasive Trump defense. It is somewhat refreshing to see that one of their headliners now openly rebukes the market-obsessed Right as representing a legitimate path forward.
Anyone who even casually followed Tucker Carlson before 2016 knows that he is a careerist who just drifts wherever the winds of conservative media are blowing. In 2003 he was full on Iraq warmonger. There’s no money in that now, so he’s Trumpist. And, of course, his economic populism is just for show. Is he advocating for stronger worker protections or redistribution? No, or course not, it’s just vague empty noises about wages. He’s nowhere near as comfortable with economic issues as he is culture war bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Jul 26, 2009
1,293
288
650
#19
Anyone who even casually followed Tucker Carlson before 2016 knows that he is a careerist who just drifts wherever the winds of conservative media are blowing. In 2003 he was full on Iraq warmonger. There’s no money in that now, so he’s Trumpist. And, of course, his economic populism is just for show. Is he advocating for stronger worker protections or redistribution? No, or course not, it’s just vague empty noises about wages. He’s nowhere near as comfortable with economic issues as he is culture war bullshit.
Possibly completely baseless. Stop spouting nonsense.

Tucker is NOT a Trumpist. He actively dislikes Trump.

He does not want another Trump and, thus, has been reflecting on WHY people elected Trump. His conclusion is that the elites have left the people behind and the people retaliated by electing Trump to the dismay of the elites.
 
Dec 3, 2018
1,847
3,305
230
#20
He does not want another Trump and, thus, has been reflecting on WHY people elected Trump. His conclusion is that the elites have left the people behind and the people retaliated by electing Trump to the dismay of the elites.
I'm really not sure there is another way to read Trump's election, though I've certainly see Democrats and Republicans come up with every excuse BUT the obvious one.

I honestly think that, within my lifetime, we'll have an armed revolution in the US. If things don't change. I mean, we're trying to change things the legitimate ways, through media, politics, and public support - but it hasn't been working all that well, and things have been getting progressively more stupid as things go on. The riots in France, everything surrounding Brexit, and Trump has more of less convinced me that the globalist viewpoint is vehemently opposed by the common people.
 
Likes: MrRogers
Jun 20, 2018
1,961
2,057
240
#21
Imagine the courage of this man to parrot the opinions of Trump supporters back at them. And to do so on a network dedicated to praising Trump! We lesser men can but marvel at the courage of Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson.
Yes its not like he and his family got attacked by insane and idiotic left wingers all while idiots on far left forums like resetera defended this... oh wait...
 
Last edited:
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#22
Possibly completely baseless. Stop spouting nonsense.

Tucker is NOT a Trumpist. He actively dislikes Trump.

He does not want another Trump and, thus, has been reflecting on WHY people elected Trump. His conclusion is that the elites have left the people behind and the people retaliated by electing Trump to the dismay of the elites.
Who gives a shit. He believes everything Trump believes. Blah blah blah brown hordes invading blah blah blah "globalist" elites controlling the world and a white man can't catch a break.


Yes its not like he and his family got attacked by insane and idiotic left wingers all while idiots on far left forums like resetera defended this... oh wait...
Attacked by the antifa hordes! Truly Tucker Swanson is a modern day Leonidas.
 
Feb 25, 2018
155
217
225
#23
Yes its not like he and his family got attacked by insane and idiotic left wingers all while idiots on far left forums like resetera defended this... oh wait...
Ya when was the last time Tapper, Lemon or cooper ever have a bunch of shitlords scream at them in a restaurant or go to their house and scared/threatened their families? never. Tucker's put more skin the game than pretty much any modern media figure, career and safety wise. It will only get worse as time goes on, and it will come strictly from leftwing agitators, until they get what they want and initially provoked, counter reactions. Hopefully the other side doesn't fall for it.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#24
Who gives a shit. He believes everything Trump believes. Blah blah blah brown hordes invading blah blah blah "globalist" elites controlling the world and a white man can't catch a break.
I love when people are unable to articulate a coherent argument so they presuppose the manner in which the argument would play out. This is essentially why Colbert and the Daily Show were so popular with liberals. Nobody uses that tack when arguing for border security. You know that. But you're so intellectually dishonest that you don't care and reduce the debate to the lowest common denominator. It's obvious liberals have no solutions for our porous border.
 
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#25
Ya when was the last time Tapper, Lemon or cooper ever have a bunch of shitlords scream at them in a restaurant or go to their house and scared/threatened their families? never. Tucker's put more skin the game than pretty much any modern media figure, career and safety wise. It will only get worse as time goes on, and it will come strictly from leftwing agitators, until they get what they want and initially provoked, counter reactions. Hopefully the other side doesn't fall for it.
Yeah it's not like a Trump goon has ever done something like send bombs to media organizations. Oh wait....

I love when people are unable to articulate a coherent argument so they presuppose the manner in which the argument would play out. This is essentially why Colbert and the Daily Show were so popular with liberals. Nobody uses that tack when arguing for border security. You know that. But you're so intellectually dishonest that you don't care and reduce the debate to the lowest common denominator. It's obvious liberals have no solutions for our porous border.
It's funny how people have no ability to think critically and just parrot whatever they see on Fox News and read on Breitbart and The Federalist. Right down to the phrasing.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#26
It's funny how people have no ability to think critically and just parrot whatever they see on Fox News and read on Breitbart and The Federalist. Right down to the phrasing.
You mean like when Chris Wallace pushed back on Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Or when Shepard Smith rips into the Trump administration for its handling of the caravan? Or when Tucker Carlson says that Trump isn't capable of legislating? It's pretty obvious you don't watch Fox and are making comments based on rumor.
 
Likes: danielberg
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#27
You mean like when Chris Wallace pushed back on Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Or when Shepard Smith rips into the Trump administration for its handling of the caravan? Or when Tucker Carlson says that Trump isn't capable of legislating? It's pretty obvious you don't watch Fox and are making comments based on rumor.
Nah, I mean more like when Hannity speaks at a Trump rally or Ingraham speaks at the DNC or Tucker lies about South Africa.
 
Mar 7, 2018
370
200
225
#28
Who gives a shit. He believes everything Trump believes. Blah blah blah brown hordes invading blah blah blah "globalist" elites controlling the world and a white man can't catch a break.




Attacked by the antifa hordes! Truly Tucker Swanson is a modern day Leonidas.
I'm looking for reason but all I see is emotional turmoil. What did they do to you?
 
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#29
Nah, I mean more like when Hannity speaks at a Trump rally or Ingraham speaks at the DNC or Tucker lies about South Africa.
Tucker was AT ODDS with Trump over South Africa. You just argued against yourself. trying to make a point.

I'm sure you were equally as upset when Wolf Blizter was drinking and dancing at the DNC convention? Surely you were. Or how about when Maddow hugged Bernie Sanders and gushed for Hillary? Obviously that triggered your outrage.
 
Likes: danielberg

wzy

Member
Dec 29, 2018
147
170
160
#30
Anyone who even casually followed Tucker Carlson before 2016 knows that he is a careerist who just drifts wherever the winds of conservative media are blowing. In 2003 he was full on Iraq warmonger. There’s no money in that now, so he’s Trumpist. And, of course, his economic populism is just for show. Is he advocating for stronger worker protections or redistribution? No, or course not, it’s just vague empty noises about wages. He’s nowhere near as comfortable with economic issues as he is culture war bullshit.
You're barking up the wrong tree, here. Carlson soured on Iraq long before the general pundit class did, which was never, and for most of his career he has generally been a cut-above his peers in terms of basic intelligence and critical thinking, if for no other reason than his personal brand is a kind of diet Hitchens contrarianism and it's hard to pull that off if you can't actually win the argument. I don't know whether there's some glaring incongruity between his thoughts and deeds (I'm not sure that it matters), nor could I say whether he's deliberately pandering to a specific audience, but basic media literacy will tell you that a) the fact that some of his advertisers are having a stroke over that clip tells you he probably said at least one true thing, and b) he probably does actually believe what he's saying, because media is self-selecting and doesn't want or need the hassle of grooming personalities for professional cynicism when there are plenty of people waiting in the wings who already agree ideologically with what they're expected to sell. If he were simply following the money it would be a lot easier to either say things that don't cost ad revenue, or just simply jump ship entirely and style himself as an anti-Trump defector, which has been plenty lucrative for others in his position.

I don't particularly like the fact that MSNBC et al. are so vicious and reactionary that they make Tucker Carlson look like Noam Chomsky, but you take what you can get. Questioning his personal convictions is honestly a lot less useful than wondering why someone like Mark Blyth can appear safely on Fox without making waves whereas Greenwald is a wanted man on the pages of The Atlantic.
 
Jun 13, 2014
4,037
1,042
345
USA
#31
You're barking up the wrong tree, here. Carlson soured on Iraq long before the general pundit class did, which was never, and for most of his career he has generally been a cut-above his peers in terms of basic intelligence and critical thinking, if for no other reason than his personal brand is a kind of diet Hitchens contrarianism and it's hard to pull that off if you can't actually win the argument. I don't know whether there's some glaring incongruity between his thoughts and deeds (I'm not sure that it matters), nor could I say whether he's deliberately pandering to a specific audience, but basic media literacy will tell you that a) the fact that some of his advertisers are having a stroke over that clip tells you he probably said at least one true thing, and b) he probably does actually believe what he's saying, because media is self-selecting and doesn't want or need the hassle of grooming personalities for professional cynicism when there are plenty of people waiting in the wings who already agree ideologically with what they're expected to sell. If he were simply following the money it would be a lot easier to either say things that don't cost ad revenue, or just simply jump ship entirely and style himself as an anti-Trump defector, which has been plenty lucrative for others in his position.

I don't particularly like the fact that MSNBC et al. are so vicious and reactionary that they make Tucker Carlson look like Noam Chomsky, but you take what you can get. Questioning his personal convictions is honestly a lot less useful than wondering why someone like Mark Blyth can appear safely on Fox without making waves whereas Greenwald is a wanted man on the pages of The Atlantic.
Damn, checkmate lol
 
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#32
Tucker was AT ODDS with Trump over South Africa. You just argued against yourself. trying to make a point.

I'm sure you were equally as upset when Wolf Blizter was drinking and dancing at the DNC convention? Surely you were. Or how about when Maddow hugged Bernie Sanders and gushed for Hillary? Obviously that triggered your outrage.
So at odds that Trump repeated Carlson's lies in a tweet. This thread is about Tucker Carlson, why are you talking about Wolf Blitzer? Strange.

You're barking up the wrong tree, here. Carlson soured on Iraq long before the general pundit class did, which was never, and for most of his career he has generally been a cut-above his peers in terms of basic intelligence and critical thinking, if for no other reason than his personal brand is a kind of diet Hitchens contrarianism and it's hard to pull that off if you can't actually win the argument. I don't know whether there's some glaring incongruity between his thoughts and deeds (I'm not sure that it matters), nor could I say whether he's deliberately pandering to a specific audience, but basic media literacy will tell you that a) the fact that some of his advertisers are having a stroke over that clip tells you he probably said at least one true thing, and b) he probably does actually believe what he's saying, because media is self-selecting and doesn't want or need the hassle of grooming personalities for professional cynicism when there are plenty of people waiting in the wings who already agree ideologically with what they're expected to sell. If he were simply following the money it would be a lot easier to either say things that don't cost ad revenue, or just simply jump ship entirely and style himself as an anti-Trump defector, which has been plenty lucrative for others in his position.

I don't particularly like the fact that MSNBC et al. are so vicious and reactionary that they make Tucker Carlson look like Noam Chomsky, but you take what you can get. Questioning his personal convictions is honestly a lot less useful than wondering why someone like Mark Blyth can appear safely on Fox without making waves whereas Greenwald is a wanted man on the pages of The Atlantic.
Souring on Iraq in 2004 is not "long before the general pundit class did." I guess he beat Max Boot to the punch but that hardly makes him some kind of anti-interventionist gadfly. And of course there are many pundits willing to parrot Trumpisms but Tucker does have a unique prep-school talent for being condescending and cutting people's mics off in such a way that lends itself to Fox viewers posting clips with "Tucker ABSOLUTLEY DESTROYS libtard SJW." There are lot of drunken right-wing blowhards in any outer-borough bar but not all of them could be Bill O'Reilly. And having a full-time gig on Fox is surely more lucrative than being a never-Trumper. How's the Weekly Standard doing?
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,961
2,057
240
#33
Souring on Iraq in 2004 is not "long before the general pundit class did." I guess he beat Max Boot to the punch but that hardly makes him some kind of anti-interventionist gadfly.
And yet today's government establishment, intelligence agencies and war machine bootlickers are mostly among the democrat base and all this blindness because of "trump is for denuclearizastion of north korea so we we want the opposite, trump wants better relations with russia so we want war with them, trump wants to pull out of middle east so we want to stay lolol" the left is behaving like offended children because trump won.. thats literally all it took.. its funny how the sides switched... like you learned nothing from iraq and all because of "orange man bad".
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
841
569
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#34
So at odds that Trump repeated Carlson's lies in a tweet. This thread is about Tucker Carlson, why are you talking about Wolf Blitzer? Strange.
Did Trump parrot Carlson when he said Trump couldn't legislate? And pointing out Wolf Blitzer's behavior and your lack of awareness is a simple way to expose your feigned outrage over Ingraham speaking at the RNC convention.
 
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
#35
And yet today's government establishment, intelligence agencies and war machine bootlickers are mostly among the democrat base and all this blindness because of "trump is for denuclearizastion of north korea so we we want the opposite, trump wants better relations with russia so we want war with them, trump wants to pull out of middle east so we want to stay lolol" the left is behaving like offended children because trump won.. thats literally all it took.. its funny how the sides switched... like you learned nothing from iraq and all because of "orange man bad".
Uh huh. Yes, good thing we've got pacifists like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo running things. You definitely have a firm grasp on the American political scene.

Did Trump parrot Carlson when he said Trump couldn't legislate? And pointing out Wolf Blitzer's behavior and your lack of awareness is a simple way to expose your feigned outrage over Ingraham speaking at the RNC convention.
Lol. He parrots Trump talking points on his show, regardless of what he may have to a foreign newspaper because he knows Fox News viewers can't read. I don't care if Ingraham speaks at the RNC convention because I realize that Fox News is the propaganda arm of the GOP and don't share your bizarre delusions to the contrary. Pointing out facts is not the same as being outraged by them.
 

wzy

Member
Dec 29, 2018
147
170
160
#37
Souring on Iraq in 2004 is not "long before the general pundit class did." I guess he beat Max Boot to the punch but that hardly makes him some kind of anti-interventionist gadfly. And of course there are many pundits willing to parrot Trumpisms but Tucker does have a unique prep-school talent for being condescending and cutting people's mics off in such a way that lends itself to Fox viewers posting clips with "Tucker ABSOLUTLEY DESTROYS libtard SJW." There are lot of drunken right-wing blowhards in any outer-borough bar but not all of them could be Bill O'Reilly. And having a full-time gig on Fox is surely more lucrative than being a never-Trumper. How's the Weekly Standard doing?
I think would be an enormous mistake for Tucker Carlson to cut his guests' audio, and just browsing quickly through the kind of clips you're talking about he clearly prefers to let his opponents talk--because they're usually morons. That kind of de-platforming sounds more like the tactic of the insular, censorious left, which today is in crisis specifically because of its lack of credible public intellectuals, despite having no shortage of anointed luminaries with the same prep school debate club pedigree as Carlson.

This is something they're hammered with over and over precisely because of their hubris and dishonesty throughout this whole post-Soviet liberal triumphalist era and their catastrophic right-turn during the Bush years. I watched in real-time, presumably the same as you did, the democratic re-branding as "more patriotic than the conservatives" (who in years prior they had relentlessly mocked and belittled for the quaintness and gullibility of such straightforward commitments to the national cause) and the vacuous triangulation heralded by pro-war Blue Dog tickets who had every blessing from party loyalists in the press. It was not a pretty picture.

The key difference between Carlson and his left counterparts is that his turn on Iraq was not articulated in terms of Bush and Rumsfeld's failure to be competent stewards of the imperial project, (i.e., a Democrat would do a much better job of crushing Iraq, which was the liberal line for almost the whole decade), he actually just said "I was wrong". Not "wrong to trust Bush to competently prosecute an otherwise fine idea that I still believe in", just wrong. It's clearly a point of principle for him, or at least his persona if we have to assume he doesn't actually believe anything, which is why he broke rank with Trump on the missile strikes when they were happening, and lauded Trump on the larger Syria question when every hawk and spook being welcomed into the DNC tent was out of their minds with rage at the administration's clear lack of interest in new wars. Compare this to Colbert's gaffe on the Comey firing, which is just pure information warfare with zero commitment whatsoever to anything which would could be recognized as politics.

Look, I wouldn't advise anyone to watch Carlson. I don't like his politics generally, but he's clearly the cream of the cable news crop in the Trump era. And precisely the reason he's in a position to be successful is because of the liberal left, who time and again double down on the unbelievably stupid strategy of treating their class enemies as idiot rubes being led through the ringer by dishonest demagogues and trying to fight fire with fire. Tucker's argument here is full of hypocrisy and inaccuracy, which is why I can guarantee you that the left response will be the kind practiced, grating pedantry that always backfires and further entrenches their ideological opposition, i.e., is anyone who opposes a-moral technocracy and actually endorses a worldview beyond what can be sourced and vetted by politifact. If he's as mercenary as you claim, they should probably just hire him because they're burning every bridge and at this rate there won't be anyone left on Team Blue who can actually reach the middle come election season.
 
Last edited:
Feb 22, 2018
1,740
1,951
325
#42
Tucker has been saying things that are anti-corporatism, anti-democrat, anti-republican and people are still giving him shit. He's diverged from the machine, he's on his own path.
 
Likes: MrRogers