Ukraine War and Politics

[Johnny Diamond]

Tucker is the Joel Osteen of conservative media.

On some things Tucker is solid, but his anti-Isreal and pro-russia positions make him unreliable and the truth stretching puts me where I have to dig that much more before I trust something he says, even if I agree.


Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Finding, more and more I agree with that.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

Tucker is the Joel Osteen of conservative media.

On some things Tucker is solid, but his anti-Isreal and pro-russia positions make him unreliable and the truth stretching puts me where I have to dig that much more before I trust something he says, even if I agree.


Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

<>

Disagreement noted.

<>

 

[leVieux]

<>

See; https://tuckercarlson.com/uncensore...mail&utm_source=iterable&utm_content=fisabill

<>

 

[cycleguy2300]

<>

Disagreement noted.

<>

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

I haven't the time to give to listen to the entire show, what're the 'cliff notes'?

 

[Paul Saver]

I haven't the time to give to listen to the entire show, what're the 'cliff notes'?

Cliff notes indicate that GOD is in charge.

 

[studenygreg]

It's like I've heard this before...

Imagine listening to Dan Crenshaw lol. What a joke.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[studenygreg]

Tucker is the Joel Osteen of conservative media.

On some things Tucker is solid, but his anti-Isreal and pro-russia positions make him unreliable and the truth stretching puts me where I have to dig that much more before I trust something he says, even if I agree.


Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

I don't follow tucker but I was unaware that he is pro Russia and anti Israel

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

I don't follow tucker but I was unaware that he is pro Russia and anti Israel

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I don't follow him closely at all either and cant think of a serious disagreement with him with respect to domestic politics but he is decidedly pro-putin/russia and seemingly anti-isreal.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

I don't follow tucker but I was unaware that he is pro Russia and anti Israel

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

<>

Tucker is ‘’pro-USA’’, not ‘’proRussia’’, not anti-Israel !

Some things are in the eye of the beholder.

leVieux

<>

 

[benenglish]

I haven't the time to give to listen to the entire show, what're the 'cliff notes'?

See the Twitter posts just above your post. It'll take less than a minute to read.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

Ben,

Did just that and thanks!

 

[studenygreg]

I don't follow him closely at all either and cant think of a serious disagreement with him with respect to domestic politics but he is decidedly pro-putin/russia and seemingly anti-isreal.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Do you mean literally hail Russia pro Russia or he's against ukraine aid/war, pro Russia?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[benenglish]

Do you mean literally hail Russia pro Russia or he's against ukraine aid/war, pro Russia?

I don't think he's literally "hail Russia."

I do know that he has a habit of livening up his reports with language crafted to be shocking. Lots of people do that, of course, but it's been a standard mode of operation for him. It's not that his immoderate use of language is a fatal flaw but it does indicate a guy who really wants attention. I tend to shy away from that.

Other folks will go much further and accuse him of just making up stuff. I'm not surprised; he seems like the type. But I can't point to examples.

For those reasons, I treat him like I treat Al-Jazeera. When they're reporting on something in the middle east, they're totally untrustworthy and pushing a narrative. Outside the area of their expertise, though, they actually send journalists to the location where the news is happening and they interview people. So Al-Jazeera is totally untrustworthy when it comes to the stuff they care about. Outside of that, they default back to actual journalism because they don't care about pushing other narratives and so, in those cases, they're a good source of news.

The same goes for France24. Don't believe a thing they say about France. But if they're reporting from elsewhere, they're quite good at old style journalism.

For some unknown reason, Carlson really seems to care about Russia. Because of that, I'm more wary of what he says than should be required when listening to a famous media voice. For example, I can excuse his interview with Putin; it wasn't in an adversarial style and that's valid (if a little wimpy). But the follow-up he did where he toured a subway station and marveled over how beautiful and functional it was and implied that this is the sort of thing Russia can do, well, that was embarrassing as hell. That station is maintained like that solely for showing off to foreigners. The fact that he didn't realize he was literally standing inside a huge piece of architectural propaganda was deeply, deeply embarrassing. That segment told me a great deal about his competence as the head of a production company theoretically focused on journalism.

Now that he's on Twitter/X, the only stories he has to do are on things he really cares about. So I've pretty much stopped listening to him. While I agree with lots of what he says, he's just too incompetent to trust.

And this is totally off-topic.

If we want to discuss Tucker Carlson, somebody who cares a lot more than I do should start a thread.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Here are some screen shots from a russian talk show. Please remember if you dont get hold the party line, you dont get to be on the air, you fall from a window...

https://
t.me/liveukraine_media/20016

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

About like placing value in The View…

 

[cycleguy2300]

About like placing value in The View…

The View has value, a lot of value.

You just need to know what value you are placing on it.

For example: The View's take on things as emotional and wrong as they are has value in seeing what the battle space will looks like in the short term because right or wrong, the people who BELIEVE The View's take to be right/true will ACT as if its right/true.

So here is russian state media saying Hawaii, Alaska, California and NATO member states should return to the russian empire. It should not be dismissed. While "ridiculous" the goal is to generate public support for conquest and should be taken seriously, despite the fact russia would never [roll-eyes] invade a peaceful neighbor with the goal of territorial expansion...

Dismissing such comments is equivalent to ignoring the psycho on the next street over, who has broken into houses on their street and says they will break into yours, because they are crazy and burglary is illegal...

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

The point is that it’s like Whoopi threatening to invade another country. Although it may be their opinion, neither of them can do it, and nobody would ever engage in a proxy war against us over something said on The View.

Besides, I’ve read on this forum that the proxy war has been devastating for Russia, so it’s a wonder how someone who believes that to be true could be conconcerned about this.

This is just another example of what I said recently about shotgunning narratives hoping that one of them will convince people to support the proxy war.

 

[cycleguy2300]

The point is that it’s like Whoopi threatening to invade another country. Although it may be their opinion, neither of them can do it, and nobody would ever engage in a proxy war against us over something said on The View.

Besides, I’ve read on this forum that the proxy war has been devastating for Russia, so it’s a wonder how someone who believes that to be true could be conconcerned about this.

This is just another example of what I said recently about shotgunning narratives hoping that one of them will convince people to support the proxy war.

Its like Whoopi saying she wants Trump held accountable for 6JAN... She may be wrong, misguided or malicious, but opinions matter and when enough form opinions, even if they are wrongly held, actions follow.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

I don't think he's literally "hail Russia."

I do know that he has a habit of livening up his reports with language crafted to be shocking. Lots of people do that, of course, but it's been a standard mode of operation for him. It's not that his immoderate use of language is a fatal flaw but it does indicate a guy who really wants attention. I tend to shy away from that.

Other folks will go much further and accuse him of just making up stuff. I'm not surprised; he seems like the type. But I can't point to examples.

For those reasons, I treat him like I treat Al-Jazeera. When they're reporting on something in the middle east, they're totally untrustworthy and pushing a narrative. Outside the area of their expertise, though, they actually send journalists to the location where the news is happening and they interview people. So Al-Jazeera is totally untrustworthy when it comes to the stuff they care about. Outside of that, they default back to actual journalism because they don't care about pushing other narratives and so, in those cases, they're a good source of news.

The same goes for France24. Don't believe a thing they say about France. But if they're reporting from elsewhere, they're quite good at old style journalism.

For some unknown reason, Carlson really seems to care about Russia. Because of that, I'm more wary of what he says than should be required when listening to a famous media voice. For example, I can excuse his interview with Putin; it wasn't in an adversarial style and that's valid (if a little wimpy). But the follow-up he did where he toured a subway station and marveled over how beautiful and functional it was and implied that this is the sort of thing Russia can do, well, that was embarrassing as hell. That station is maintained like that solely for showing off to foreigners. The fact that he didn't realize he was literally standing inside a huge piece of architectural propaganda was deeply, deeply embarrassing. That segment told me a great deal about his competence as the head of a production company theoretically focused on journalism.

Now that he's on Twitter/X, the only stories he has to do are on things he really cares about. So I've pretty much stopped listening to him. While I agree with lots of what he says, he's just too incompetent to trust.

And this is totally off-topic.

If we want to discuss Tucker Carlson, somebody who cares a lot more than I do should start a thread.

<>

‘’he's just too incompetent to trust’’

OK,

But exactly whom on large scale media do you ‘’trust’’ ?

Tucker’s value is that he asks what others avoid.

And, unlike Hannity or O’Reilly; he allows his subjects to fully reply.

So, I do learn things from Tucker which are not easily available elsewhere.

I’m considering subscribing. Especially, now that Chanel Rion isn’t available.

If you could see the uniformity of climate extremism I’ve seen the last few days in Europe; you’d welcome Tucker’s views.

We have waited too late to reject globalism and are now doomed. I just pray that I can get home to die in the South !

leVieux

<>