Tucker Carlson was insulting, demanding and rude
Comments
-
Watching the GOP infighting of these last two weeks has been great theatre. Throw in the Rudy variety hour/clown show and the unhinged Twitter Trump rants, and it even beats the long liberal mourning of 2016 and the accompanied march of a million pussy hats.dflea said:
I agree. He's not obliged to acknowledge Biden's win until the states certify their elections, and he goes through all the legal challenges at his disposal.GrundleStiltzkin said:
My mind is made up, but that's complete inconsequential. When's the electoral college? Dec. 12-ish? Then.insinceredawg said:
It's been 2.5 weeks and they have not shared any substantial that would overturn the election. If it's not time to dismiss it, when will it?GrundleStiltzkin said:
This whole voting affair should be treated with the utmost critical thought by journalists. The stakes are too high to take Trump at his word, or to dismiss it completely. After watching that Tucker bit last night, I think that's where he's at.RaceBannon said:Tucker has always been hard on the "donor class" GOP and what we now commonly call the deep state. He's right about the two parties being one in the DC power center. He has DNC guests on and some interesting debate. That's why I watched.
ATBS
He's not going to stake his reputation on the word of the Kraken or Lin Wood. I wouldn't either. I'd love it if it was all true but it has to be something 81% o the people can sink their teeth into. Time is running out
And FOX signed up Tucker to try to keep some of the massive audience bleed they are going through. We'll see
I give zero fucks whether Ms. Powell's feelings were hurt.
I do love her voice though.
Trump has the right to play it out in court. Anything you might want to do to stop that would be worse than the problem.
The burden of @proof is on Team Trump. The election is valid until shown otherwise.
It makes him a cunty sore loser, IMO, but that's his right.
Plus, it keeps the losing going on for weeks - which I find delightful. Because of the TDS.
Right now we're somewhere between denial and anger in the five step process. @Sources are telling me the bargaining phase is going to be epic. -
Do me like a DAWG!GrundleStiltzkin said:
This whole voting affair should be treated with the utmost critical thought by journalists. The stakes are too high to take Trump at his word, or to dismiss it completely. After watching that Tucker bit last night, I think that's where he's at.RaceBannon said:Tucker has always been hard on the "donor class" GOP and what we now commonly call the deep state. He's right about the two parties being one in the DC power center. He has DNC guests on and some interesting debate. That's why I watched.
ATBS
He's not going to stake his reputation on the word of the Kraken or Lin Wood. I wouldn't either. I'd love it if it was all true but it has to be something 81% o the people can sink their teeth into. Time is running out
And FOX signed up Tucker to try to keep some of the massive audience bleed they are going through. We'll see
I give zero fucks whether Ms. Powell's feelings were hurt.
I do love her voice though.
(Read that in Sydney Powell's voice). -
Why is the left rioting and looting exactly?
-
-
I agree except there is a difference. Regular conservatives and classical liberals (like Brett Weinstein) are reasonable people who want the truth. The left and the far right are the ones that are throwing the childish tantrums that are so disappointing and damaging.RoadDawg55 said:
This is a problem. If it’s not what someone wants to hear, they dismiss it and/or make it out to be something different. They frame it the way they want it to be or when they can’t escape the truth, they point the finger at the other side for doing something worse. It seems very few want the truth unless the truth is what they want to hear. It’s not a left or right thing because both do it.creepycoug said:Carlson has always been rude, insulting and demanding. Is this new?
It's what I've always liked about him. Come on guysm. There's a lot of bitching in the Tug about cutting through the bullshit and getting the straight straight.
If someone reporting the news is being honest and truthful, it stands to reason at some point they're going to tell you what you don't want to hear.
I have no idea of the validity of any of Trump's suits. I would expect they are taking a guerilla warfare, scorched earth, "sue everybody and every thing" approach. But I wouldn't begin to doubt or believe the merits.
I doubt Tucker sold out. Besides, he's WAY past the point of no return and will never be embraced by the left. He's a smart dude. He knows there's no place for him at MSN. -
There are strange events large anomalies that are easy to see. They won't let anyone look at anything. Want it to end faster then allow access. Want to drag it out because you've been caught makes it take longer.
If Joe really won why doesn't he want anyone to look at the votes? He should be all in. But he knows where they came from and they didn't come from actual voters.
How did the repubs win all the toss ups and flip seat in congress? All of those repubs voted for Slo Joe? Fucking BS.
Half the nation thinks it's been stolen. That's a lot of fucking people. -
Trump refusing to concede + Biden not backing down is the best possible outcome for the United States and the rest of the World.
America should use this opportunity to dismantle the System that brought it Convid 1984, purge all government officials from top to bottom, as the "Elections" system is compromised, and reshuffle International Alliances in preparation for the coming Wars.
Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, etc. are not America's friends and allies. They are part of the Fourth Reich System of Medical Tyranny. -
Exactly I admired them both, but this is frustrating. Shit or get off the pot.SFGbob said:Powell and Rudy are well past the point of put up or shut up. And I say that as someone who admires the work she did on the Flynn case.
-
Yes! Prove it in two weeks and prove your case to the biased media before court. How clownish.SFGbob said:Powell and Rudy are well past the point of put up or shut up. And I say that as someone who admires the work she did on the Flynn case.
Meanwhile, you did nothing as the Rats spent 3 years investigating Drumpf and Russia based on zero evidence. You get-along and play-along Bush-GOPers can go vote Rat. -
Trump has lost the Washington Examiner
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/its-time-for-trump-to-concede-and-move-onWhen President Trump refused to concede the election to Joe Biden in the immediate aftermath of Nov. 3, we argued that he had the right to mount legal challenges if he believed there had been irregularities, mistakes, fraud, or all three. Democratic objections and outrage were as hypocritical as they were inevitable, coming as they did from a corps that refused to accept the 2016 election result not for days, weeks, or even months, but for four years.
But although fair-minded people know there are legitimate procedures for litigation, and that these should be allowed to play out, there is also wisdom in the phrase, “put up or shut up.” If you are going to mount legal challenges and allege on national television that there has been massive and systematic election fraud, you had better provide evidence in addition to assertion. Trump’s legal team has not done that.
When more than 150 million voters participate in an election in 50 states that, in our federal system, decide their own rules for balloting and vote counting, there are bound to be irregularities and mistakes, even if there isn’t fraud. And, contrary to what Democrats repeatedly say, there have been plenty of well-documented cases of fraud in elections over the years. Doubtless, there was some of it this year, too.
But not remotely enough to change the result. The vast spread of American democracy, which makes error and malfeasance inevitable, also makes it plain that neither of these regrettable concomitants of mass voting robbed Trump of victory. No fraud or error produced tens of thousands of additional votes for Biden in battleground states. -
Presenting your evidence to Tucker is hardly proving your case to a biased media. She doesn't have to set forth her entire case but she needed to provide some evidence in support of her assertions. Tucker would have been a very friendly audience for that. You would have slaughtered any liberal who tried to pull the same act.NorthwestFresh said:
Yes! Prove it in two weeks and prove your case to the biased media before court. How clownish.SFGbob said:Powell and Rudy are well past the point of put up or shut up. And I say that as someone who admires the work she did on the Flynn case.
Meanwhile, you did nothing as the Rats spent 3 years investigating Drumpf and Russia based on zero evidence. You get-along and play-along Bush-GOPers can go vote Rat. -
How old is this picture? Fuck Me.doogie said:
She almost looks fuckable in that shot. Not now.
Today she looks like an un-sliced loaf of wonder bread. -
Yup agree 100%SFGbob said:
Presenting your evidence to Tucker is hardly proving your case to a biased media. She doesn't have to set forth her entire case but she needed to provide some evidence in support of her assertions. Tucker would have been a very friendly audience for that. You would have slaughtered any liberal who tried to pull the same act.NorthwestFresh said:
Yes! Prove it in two weeks and prove your case to the biased media before court. How clownish.SFGbob said:Powell and Rudy are well past the point of put up or shut up. And I say that as someone who admires the work she did on the Flynn case.
Meanwhile, you did nothing as the Rats spent 3 years investigating Drumpf and Russia based on zero evidence. You get-along and play-along Bush-GOPers can go vote Rat. -
Tucker wanted Powell to spill the beans on his show. He fucked up. It happens. Story isn’t going away
-
Agreed. Fine people on both sides. Douche canoes on both sides.DerekJohnson said:
I agree except there is a difference. Regular conservatives and classical liberals (like Brett Weinstein) are reasonable people who want the truth. The left and the far right are the ones that are throwing the childish tantrums that are so disappointing and damaging.RoadDawg55 said:
This is a problem. If it’s not what someone wants to hear, they dismiss it and/or make it out to be something different. They frame it the way they want it to be or when they can’t escape the truth, they point the finger at the other side for doing something worse. It seems very few want the truth unless the truth is what they want to hear. It’s not a left or right thing because both do it.creepycoug said:Carlson has always been rude, insulting and demanding. Is this new?
It's what I've always liked about him. Come on guysm. There's a lot of bitching in the Tug about cutting through the bullshit and getting the straight straight.
If someone reporting the news is being honest and truthful, it stands to reason at some point they're going to tell you what you don't want to hear.
I have no idea of the validity of any of Trump's suits. I would expect they are taking a guerilla warfare, scorched earth, "sue everybody and every thing" approach. But I wouldn't begin to doubt or believe the merits.
I doubt Tucker sold out. Besides, he's WAY past the point of no return and will never be embraced by the left. He's a smart dude. He knows there's no place for him at MSN. -
Sadly these guys represent a large swath of the right wing movement. It’s not going to stop when Trump leaves office. I bet it’ll actually get more energy.insinceredawg said:
Pizzagate, Seth Rich, Obama’s birth certificate, Michelle Obama being a man, Qanon... All of these insane conspiracy theories are incredibly popular on the right and incredibly dangerous. We have a political movement that is becoming increasingly detached from reality and this election is only going to drive them further into their derangement. It doesn’t help that the current figurehead of the party is conspiracy nut himself and is beloved by the worst parts of the right. The militia nuts and the white nationalist crazies are already going nuts over the reality that is setting in. The next few years could be pretty ugly. I’m more than happy to be wrong about this but I bet some shit is going to go down. -
-
Didn’t listen all the way through for no good reason.doogie said:Tucker does a 180* turn tonight. I wonder what he has seen, do You?
https://youtu.be/-I-fqDf62tI
Honest question. Assuming this isn’t the first time we’ve used electronic voting, why do we now care so much about its vulnerabilities?
I remember hanging chads. I don’t remember this being a big area of focus before. -
Actually dems focused on it and complained about it quite a bit. Elizabeth Warren was one of them. PBS, NYT and several others did articles on vulnerabilities, cheating possibilities.
In person unless disabled with ID on paper ballots. That's what we need. -
So the DNC pointed out vulnerability before the election. And, what. Trump waited to lose before expressing concern?Sledog said:Actually dems focused on it and complained about it quite a bit. Elizabeth Warren was one of them. PBS, NYT and several others did articles on vulnerabilities, cheating possibilities.
In person unless disabled with ID on paper ballots. That's what we need.
Would it have been an issue if the outcome were different? -
How could he change it? The left didn't think they needed to go this far in '16. They pulled out all the stops this year. Odd every swing state quite counting once Trump was out to a large unexpected lead? All had observer issues, one a fake pipe break, one said counting was over for the night sent observers home but they all kept counting. And during this time is when massive numbers of Biden only votes showed up. Over 100k all for Biden on a few instances. Sound normal? Not to me.creepycoug said:
So the DNC pointed out vulnerability before the election. And, what. Trump waited to lose before expressing concern?Sledog said:Actually dems focused on it and complained about it quite a bit. Elizabeth Warren was one of them. PBS, NYT and several others did articles on vulnerabilities, cheating possibilities.
In person unless disabled with ID on paper ballots. That's what we need.
Would it have been an issue if the outcome were different? -
I’m not jumping into all that. We have different standards for what each of us counts as something he thinks he knows as a fact. I have absolutely no idea about any of that. If it’s there, I assume Trump’s team of lawyers will be able to make something of it in court.Sledog said:
How could he change it? The left didn't think they needed to go this far in '16. They pulled out all the stops this year. Odd every swing state quite counting once Trump was out to a large unexpected lead? All had observer issues, one a fake pipe break, one said counting was over for the night sent observers home but they all kept counting. And during this time is when massive numbers of Biden only votes showed up. Over 100k all for Biden on a few instances. Sound normal? Not to me.creepycoug said:
So the DNC pointed out vulnerability before the election. And, what. Trump waited to lose before expressing concern?Sledog said:Actually dems focused on it and complained about it quite a bit. Elizabeth Warren was one of them. PBS, NYT and several others did articles on vulnerabilities, cheating possibilities.
In person unless disabled with ID on paper ballots. That's what we need.
Would it have been an issue if the outcome were different?
I’m talking about why electronic voting is an issue now. If it is, wasn’t it an issue in 2016? B4? Or are the democrats the only guys who know how to and willing to fuck around with the machines? No dirty Rs out there? Seems implausible. -
He didn't 180 at all, he just wanted Powell not to run and hide.
-
Well, we've had many things in our history that didn't work correctly and took time to improve, if not perfect.creepycoug said:
Didn’t listen all the way through for no good reason.doogie said:Tucker does a 180* turn tonight. I wonder what he has seen, do You?
https://youtu.be/-I-fqDf62tI
Honest question. Assuming this isn’t the first time we’ve used electronic voting, why do we now care so much about its vulnerabilities?
I remember hanging chads. I don’t remember this being a big area of focus before.
Kids used to go through windows of cars all the time. We improved the cars and added seatbelts. Then airbags. Then carseats.
You know, to improve known hazards and risks.
-
Agree but there has been any evidence dug up in the voting data like there is this time. But we don't know if anyone really examined it. Needs looking into as more than half the country says they don't trust it.creepycoug said:
I’m not jumping into all that. We have different standards for what each of us counts as something he thinks he knows as a fact. I have absolutely no idea about any of that. If it’s there, I assume Trump’s team of lawyers will be able to make something of it in court.Sledog said:
How could he change it? The left didn't think they needed to go this far in '16. They pulled out all the stops this year. Odd every swing state quite counting once Trump was out to a large unexpected lead? All had observer issues, one a fake pipe break, one said counting was over for the night sent observers home but they all kept counting. And during this time is when massive numbers of Biden only votes showed up. Over 100k all for Biden on a few instances. Sound normal? Not to me.creepycoug said:
So the DNC pointed out vulnerability before the election. And, what. Trump waited to lose before expressing concern?Sledog said:Actually dems focused on it and complained about it quite a bit. Elizabeth Warren was one of them. PBS, NYT and several others did articles on vulnerabilities, cheating possibilities.
In person unless disabled with ID on paper ballots. That's what we need.
Would it have been an issue if the outcome were different?
I’m talking about why electronic voting is an issue now. If it is, wasn’t it an issue in 2016? B4? Or are the democrats the only guys who know how to and willing to fuck around with the machines? No dirty Rs out there? Seems implausible. -
Trump tried to bring it up about six months ago. Bannon went public saying the Issue is a guaranteed loser for Trump and that he should stick with his main messages. Trump dropped it like a hot potato and here we are!creepycoug said:
So the DNC pointed out vulnerability before the election. And, what. Trump waited to lose before expressing concern?Sledog said:Actually dems focused on it and complained about it quite a bit. Elizabeth Warren was one of them. PBS, NYT and several others did articles on vulnerabilities, cheating possibilities.
In person unless disabled with ID on paper ballots. That's what we need.
Would it have been an issue if the outcome were different? -
Sure. We're just at a natural "improve society for all of us" inflexion point on electronic voter machines.PurpleThrobber said:
Well, we've had many things in our history that didn't work correctly and took time to improve, if not perfect.creepycoug said:
Didn’t listen all the way through for no good reason.doogie said:Tucker does a 180* turn tonight. I wonder what he has seen, do You?
https://youtu.be/-I-fqDf62tI
Honest question. Assuming this isn’t the first time we’ve used electronic voting, why do we now care so much about its vulnerabilities?
I remember hanging chads. I don’t remember this being a big area of focus before.
Kids used to go through windows of cars all the time. We improved the cars and added seatbelts. Then airbags. Then carseats.
You know, to improve known hazards and risks.
Like I said, I have no idea what went on here or there and to what degree and who it helped. None. I also doubt anyone here does either. Like I said, pay someone well to audit the thing. Absent that, if there was massive voter fraud this time, then I'm going to assume it wasn't the first time, and it wasn't just for this one candidate. -
Yeah, six months ago.doogie said:
Trump tried to bring it up about six months ago. Bannon went public saying the Issue is a guaranteed loser for Trump and that he should stick with his main messages. Trump dropped it like a hot potato and here we are!creepycoug said:
So the DNC pointed out vulnerability before the election. And, what. Trump waited to lose before expressing concern?Sledog said:Actually dems focused on it and complained about it quite a bit. Elizabeth Warren was one of them. PBS, NYT and several others did articles on vulnerabilities, cheating possibilities.
In person unless disabled with ID on paper ballots. That's what we need.
Would it have been an issue if the outcome were different?
Like I said, if we do, in fact, have this issue in our country, then I'll assume until it's established otherwise that it happens in every election and that the cheating goes back and forth. Either that, or the entire political and judicial machinery is just against Trump, which I don't believe. I certainly know people who do. Lots and lots of them. -
Agree with looking into it. Disagree with "this time." Trump has done a lot of good things. But he comes across to me pretty clearly as a guy who will do what he has to do to get from point A to B, regardless of what it is.Sledog said:
Agree but there has been any evidence dug up in the voting data like there is this time. But we don't know if anyone really examined it. Needs looking into as more than half the country says they don't trust it.creepycoug said:
I’m not jumping into all that. We have different standards for what each of us counts as something he thinks he knows as a fact. I have absolutely no idea about any of that. If it’s there, I assume Trump’s team of lawyers will be able to make something of it in court.Sledog said:
How could he change it? The left didn't think they needed to go this far in '16. They pulled out all the stops this year. Odd every swing state quite counting once Trump was out to a large unexpected lead? All had observer issues, one a fake pipe break, one said counting was over for the night sent observers home but they all kept counting. And during this time is when massive numbers of Biden only votes showed up. Over 100k all for Biden on a few instances. Sound normal? Not to me.creepycoug said:
So the DNC pointed out vulnerability before the election. And, what. Trump waited to lose before expressing concern?Sledog said:Actually dems focused on it and complained about it quite a bit. Elizabeth Warren was one of them. PBS, NYT and several others did articles on vulnerabilities, cheating possibilities.
In person unless disabled with ID on paper ballots. That's what we need.
Would it have been an issue if the outcome were different?
I’m talking about why electronic voting is an issue now. If it is, wasn’t it an issue in 2016? B4? Or are the democrats the only guys who know how to and willing to fuck around with the machines? No dirty Rs out there? Seems implausible.
