The Tucker Carlson thread

MtnMan

Woodpecker
TPR

images


Temperature pressure relief valve. Every boiler has one in case just as the name implies temperature or pressure get too high the tank doesnt explode



I see Tucker as a TPR valve for mainstream conservatives. With him voicing at least some level of truth it seems someone knows, someone cares, someone will do something...right?


6739a75d-1ef2-4e86-a19a-59bbffca106f.jpeg



I love the guy. I love agreeing with him and knowing that Im not alone in thinking the clown world is the clown world but at the end of the day I know he's not coming to our rescue

TCT =TPR
An an HVAC engineer, I love this assessment and I totally agree. I saw Trump as a similar TPR. "We don't have to do anything because Trump and Tucker and handling it." Same with Qanon.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
He's particularly evil because of how devious it is. One year ago I watched Tucker every single night. Here's a guy who is using logic and common sense to explain things in such a great way.

I think the veneer started to fall away from me when his writer had some anonymous Internet posts come up.


If you read what his head writer said (per the article above), it wasn't off the mark. It was blunt, which is what many internet message boards are for. And he thought he was anonymous. He did not represent Tucker or FOX with his posts.

Tucker did not save the man's job, even though he could have. Tucker gladly handed over the scalp.
 

ball dont lie

Kingfisher
Gold Member
He introduces people to ideas that would otherwise be hidden from them.

You see a pressure valve, I see a crack in a prison wall.

I agree completely.

If you are a normal, middle aged guy, Tucker might be the only person speaking these ideas unless you are on very specific websites.

You have to be very careful what you say in public these days - so Tucker is one of the very few places that a "normie" might hear them. Preach on Tucker.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
He introduces people to ideas that would otherwise be hidden from them.

You see a pressure valve, I see a crack in a prison wall.
I agree...We see a crack

"They" see a pressure valve

Hopeless people are desperate people

Desperate people are unpredictable

I think thats why hes tolerated, although begrudgingly and labeled as extremist.

Keep the crack open but dont let too much momentum of people heading toward the light
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
If you're part of the MSM you are part of the system. It's amazing that people are still arguing over whether he's controlled opposition.

I don't think Tucker is controlled opposition, though Fox does use him as a control valve. The kind of subjects he treats like the pieces on Paul Singer and on the ADL cut too close to the bone, you would never see shills like Hannity or even Alex Jones go there.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
Tucker did a segment last night on Andrew Guttman, the father who pulled his daughter out of a very "prestigious" (read expensive) private school in NYC.

The letter the guy wrote is brilliant and worth reading

April 13, 2021

Dear Fellow Brearley Parents,

Our family recently made the decision not to reenroll our daughter at Brearley for the 2021-22 school year. She has been at Brearley for seven years, beginning in kindergarten. In short, we no longer believe that Brearley’s administration and Board of Trustees have any of our children’s best interests at heart. Moreover, we no longer have confidence that our daughter will receive the quality of education necessary to further her development into a critically thinking, responsible, enlightened, and civic minded adult. I write to you, as a fellow parent, to share our reasons for leaving the Brearley community but also to urge you to act before the damage to the school, to its community, and to your own child's education is irreparable.

It cannot be stated strongly enough that Brearley’s obsession with race must stop. It should be abundantly clear to any thinking parent that Brearley has completely lost its way. The administration and the Board of Trustees have displayed a cowardly and appalling lack of leadership by appeasing an anti-intellectual, illiberal mob, and then allowing the school to be captured by that same mob. What follows are my own personal views on Brearley's antiracism initiatives, but these are just a handful of the criticisms that I know other parents have expressed.

I object to the view that I should be judged by the color of my skin. I cannot tolerate a school that not only judges my daughter by the color of her skin, but encourages and instructs her to prejudge others by theirs. By viewing every element of education, every aspect of history, and every facet of society through the lens of skin color and race, we are desecrating the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and utterly violating the movement for which such civil rights leaders believed, fought, and died.

I object to the charge of systemic racism in this country, and at our school. Systemic racism, properly understood, is segregated schools and separate lunch counters. It is the interning of Japanese and the exterminating of Jews. Systemic racism is unequivocally not a small number of isolated incidences over a period of decades. Ask any girl, of any race, if they have ever experienced insults from friends, have ever felt slighted by teachers or have ever suffered the occasional injustice from a school at which they have spent up to 13 years of their life, and you are bound to hear grievances, some petty, some not. We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s, a period of more than 50 years. To state otherwise is a flat-out misrepresentation of our country's history and adds no understanding to any of today's societal issues. If anything, longstanding and widespread policies such as affirmative action, point in precisely the opposite direction.

I object to a definition of systemic racism, apparently supported by Brearley, that any educational, professional, or societal outcome where Blacks are underrepresented is prima facie evidence of the aforementioned systemic racism, or of white supremacy and oppression. Facile and unsupported beliefs such as these are the polar opposite to the intellectual and scientific truth for which Brearley claims to stand. Furthermore, I call bullshit on Brearley's oft-stated assertion that the school welcomes and encourages the truly difficult and uncomfortable conversations regarding race and the roots of racial discrepancies.

I object to the idea that Blacks are unable to succeed in this country without aid from government or from whites. Brearley, by adopting critical race theory, is advocating the abhorrent viewpoint that Blacks should forever be regarded as helpless victims, and are incapable of success regardless of their skills, talents, or hard work. What Brearley is teaching our children is precisely the true and correct definition of racism.

I object to mandatory anti-racism training for parents, especially when presented by the rent-seeking charlatans of Pollyanna. These sessions, in both their content and delivery, are so sophomoric and simplistic, so unsophisticated and inane, that I would be embarrassed if they were taught to Brearley kindergarteners. They are an insult to parents and unbecoming of any educational institution, let alone one of Brearley's caliber.

I object to Brearley’s vacuous, inappropriate, and fanatical use of words such as “equity,” “diversity” and “inclusiveness.” If Brearley’s administration was truly concerned about so-called “equity,” it would be discussing the cessation of admissions preferences for legacies, siblings, and those families with especially deep pockets. If the administration was genuinely serious about “diversity,” it would not insist on the indoctrination of its students, and their families, to a single mindset, most reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Instead, the school would foster an environment of intellectual openness and freedom of thought. And if Brearley really cared about “inclusiveness,” the school would return to the concepts encapsulated in the motto “One Brearley,” instead of teaching the extraordinarily divisive idea that there are only, and always, two groups in this country: victims and oppressors.

l object to Brearley’s advocacy for groups and movements such as Black Lives Matter, a Marxist, anti family, heterophobic, anti-Asian and anti-Semitic organization that neither speaks for the majority of the Black community in this country, nor in any way, shape or form, represents their best interests.

I object to, as we have been told time and time again over the past year, that the school’s first priority is the safety of our children. For goodness sake, Brearley is a school, not a hospital! The number one priority of a school has always been, and always will be, education. Brearley’s misguided priorities exemplify both the safety culture and “cover-your-ass” culture that together have proved so toxic to our society and have so damaged the mental health and resiliency of two generations of children, and counting.

I object to the gutting of the history, civics, and classical literature curriculums. I object to the censorship of books that have been taught for generations because they contain dated language potentially offensive to the thin-skinned and hypersensitive (something that has already happened in my daughter's 4th grade class). I object to the lowering of standards for the admission of students and for the hiring of teachers. I object to the erosion of rigor in classwork and the escalation of grade inflation. Any parent with eyes open can foresee these inevitabilities should antiracism initiatives be allowed to persist.

We have today in our country, from both political parties, and at all levels of government, the most unwise and unvirtuous leaders in our nation’s history. Schools like Brearley are supposed to be the training grounds for those leaders. Our nation will not survive a generation of leadership even more poorly educated than we have now, nor will we survive a generation of students taught to hate its own country and despise its history.

Lastly, I object, with as strong a sentiment as possible, that Brearley has begun to teach what to think, instead of how to think. I object that the school is now fostering an environment where our daughters, and our daughters’ teachers, are afraid to speak their minds in class for fear of “consequences.” I object that Brearley is trying to usurp the role of parents in teaching morality, and bullying parents to adopt that false morality at home. I object that Brearley is fostering a divisive community where families of different races, which until recently were part of the same community, are now segregated into two. These are the reasons why we can no longer send our daughter to Brearley.

Over the past several months, I have personally spoken to many Brearley parents as well as parents of children at peer institutions. It is abundantly clear that the majority of parents believe that Brearley’s antiracism policies are misguided, divisive, counterproductive and cancerous. Many believe, as I do, that these policies will ultimately destroy what was until recently, a wonderful educational institution. But as I am sure will come as no surprise to you, given the insidious cancel culture that has of late permeated our society, most parents are too fearful to speak up.

But speak up you must. There is strength in numbers and I assure you, the numbers are there. Contact the administration and the Board of Trustees and demand an end to the destructive and anti-intellectual claptrap known as antiracism. And if changes are not forthcoming then demand new leadership. For the sake of our community, our city, our country and most of all, our children, silence is no longer an option.

Respectfully,

Andrew Gutmann
 
TPR

images


Temperature pressure relief valve. Every boiler has one in case just as the name implies temperature or pressure get too high the tank doesnt explode



I see Tucker as a TPR valve for mainstream conservatives. With him voicing at least some level of truth it seems someone knows, someone cares, someone will do something...right?


6739a75d-1ef2-4e86-a19a-59bbffca106f.jpeg



I love the guy. I love agreeing with him and knowing that Im not alone in thinking the clown world is the clown world but at the end of the day I know he's not coming to our rescue

TCT =TPR
On the youtube upload of last nights Tucker Carlson Tonight show (soon to be deleted no doubt) someone commented:
"Why should we believe ? What happened to Lou Dobbs ??"

The interesting thing about the show is that it was basically an advert for the new series Tucker Carlson Originals - the new new series .. as distinct from the merely-new series Tucker Carlson Today that started recently as well.

Tucker addressed the rumors of his sacking back in November saying basically, "don't worry, we're not going anywhere, in fact this show is set to expand.."
Last night's show was the full oscars treatment with the whole pull back overhead shots showing Tucker surrounded by stage lights and crew, same for his correspondents standing on bridges - spliced in were hovering overhead shots of them and their lighting crew tiny beneath the camera. Interviews conducted on directors chairs on the red carpet.

I mean.. on the one hand its nice to see Tucker getting the same production values as Al Jazeera.

And on the other I find it hard to trust him anymore.

He did nothing, said practically nothing, after the election steal in November.

He knew it was a choice between still having a platform or speaking the truth.

"we hear you.. its hard to know who to trust these days, we (at Fox) get it.." .. and then he continued by making one snide comment only and then proceeded in tackling just the side issues.

around the Steal end-of-2020 he gave a talk to young conservatives a conference that Conservative Inc pushed to the hilt.
It was on one level tidy your room stuff, telling them to form families as fast as they could and not to put their corporate bosses or political bosses concerns and demands above that.
Some might argue that with the right exposition that message could be revolutionary..
I don't know, he said in that speech that there are no guarantees about the big picture, that "the Bad guys might win" then later he said
==== "maybe the Bad guys have already won and there's nothing you can do about it.." ======
concentrate on you and your own.

Tucker studied Russian and Soviet history at Uni and is probably fully red-pilled on the JQ.

My sense is that (big picture) he sees the writing on the wall and just wants to comment as truthfully as much as he can on Shapiro and Rittenberg's Great Leap Forward/ Cultural Revolution/ Great Reset as it unfolds before our eyes so that there was at least someone mainstream.. somewhere... giving an accurate commentary before the tide rose above everyone's noses.

He's also got a family that he cares about and whose safety he won't risk beyond a certain point. Probably also can see the limits to the efficacy of the Con Inc media pantomime show.

I don't think he has political aspirations at all. He knows his limitations there. He probably has a 'glass back' in political terms and if he hasn't then the knives have been sharpened by countless enemies who will have already concocted one both for him and for his nearest and dearest.

Addendum: for those who enjoy the human drama, keep an eye on Sean Hannity (who doesn't have as many scriptwriters and as a result talks in circles and repeats himself - in contrast to the far smoother but script-written Laura Ingraham and Tucker).
Tucker once said that a news-corporation boss's job is just stopping their channel's ego-maniac millionaire celebrities from chimping out or killing themselves on a daily basis.
Hannity can't stand Tucker's success and the rivalry between them is real (in hannity's mind at least).
the two reached some kind of modus vivendi up until now but that was before Tucker expanded his celebrity cult three-fold (200%) in the last few weeks.
the handover between their shows is a constant barometer as to where they (or just Hannity) are at in dealing with it all..
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member

The above article is long and hard-to-follow but still worth the read in my opinion. If you're behind the paywall, there's a related FTN podcast (episode 400) which discusses this article in much more detail and makes it easier to connect these dots about Tucker.

A few things touched on in that podcast episode and in this article:
  • Tucker founded The Daily Caller with a Dick Cheney Aide
  • Tucker did a positive report on the Israeli army for MSNBC that has since been memory-holed from the Internet.
  • Tucker attended the funeral of the owner of the Bunny Ranch in Nevada (that one was shocking to me -- why on earth would those two be friends--isn't Tucker about family values?)
  • Tucker's dad went from being a journalist, to a banker, to vice-chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a “counter-terrorism” Israeli lobbying firm, to an ambassador under the first Bush and was CEO for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (the point being: Tucker is not his dad, but he's also not an outsider to the system itself)
  • Tucker will talk about UFOs on his show but will not tolerate any questions regarding 9/11 conspiracies
  • Tucker challenged his former colleague John Bolton about supporting the War in Iraq, but so did Rupert Murdoch - -and Tucker will not say a word about Murdoch.
  • Tucker is good at misdirecting -- the point at the end of the article is how Tucker says that we've lost our freedoms and that we were free before the coronavirus. It's easy to believe that but how true is it? Tucker's format makes it hard to question, especially given how his audience is already primed to think a certain way.
  • One thing the podcast was very eye-opening on: Tucker frequently does a segment on how he's upset or something is unfair *after* the event happens, but will not cover things during the event itself. Examples of this are Tucker showing clips of MSNBC and CNN anchors ridiculing people who believe in Q, then saying "No one can tell you what to think. You're free to think whatever you want," all while never investigating whether Q is real. This is done on purpose.
  • I want to reiterate that point above. The MSM shows the Derek Chauvin/George Floyd video endlessly. Daily outrage pieces are produced. This directly leads to rioting and death. Then when it comes out that Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's back, the media does not cover that every single day. Tucker does *not* do this in return. What he does is he waits for the verdict, does a monolog that will pacify his viewers (or get them arrested when he says things like, "Obviously this shows that violence works,") but he does not use the same tactics as the people in the industry he works in. (full disclosure: I have not watched any of Tucker's Chauvin trail coverage)
  • One more reiteration of the point -- Tucker has done absolutely nothing on the people being held without bail for Jan 6. After they announced no charges against the man who shot Ashli Babbitt, Tucker did a segment decrying that decision, but he literally did *no investigation* or any other segments regarding who killed Ashli Babbitt. If Ashli had been black, you would have heard about it every single day by every other MSM outlet. So when the Jan 6th 'insurrectionists' get railroaded or get let go, he'll do a monolog about it and that will be that, instead of daily or even weekly updates on their cases--which may actually lead to some information and scrutiny. I cannot reiterate this point enough.
I think Tucker is so good at what he does that this makes him particularly evil. He never really went after Fox for calling Arizona so early, and merely chided another Fox news anchor from cutting away from a press conference from the president that they didn't like. He does just enough to appear to be /ourguy/ that he slides in under the radar and makes good enough logical arguments to make you feel that your worldview is correct. It's sinister.
 
Last edited:

budoslavic

Owl
Gold Member
  • Tucker did a positive report on the Israeli army for MSNBC that has since been memory-holed from the Internet..
The below image comes from the above mentioned website - it is showing two confusing dates: "January 01, 1910" and "July 21". Which is it? And where did they come up with the below image if it's been "memory-holed from the internet"?


tucker-idf-768x185.png
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member

The above article is long and hard-to-follow but still worth the read in my opinion. If you're behind the paywall, there's a related FTN podcast (episode 400) which discusses this article in much more detail and makes it easier to connect these dots about Tucker.

A few things touched on in that podcast episode and in this article:
  • Tucker founded The Daily Caller with a Dick Cheney Aide
  • Tucker did a positive report on the Israeli army for MSNBC that has since been memory-holed from the Internet.
  • Tucker attended the funeral of the owner of the Bunny Ranch in Nevada (that one was shocking to me -- why on earth would those two be friends--isn't Tucker about family values?)
  • Tucker's dad went from being a journalist, to a banker, to vice-chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a “counter-terrorism” Israeli lobbying firm, to an ambassador under the first Bush and was CEO for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (the point being: Tucker is not his dad, but he's also not an outsider to the system itself)
  • Tucker will talk about UFOs on his show but will not tolerate any questions regarding 9/11 conspiracies
  • Tucker challenged his former colleague John Bolton about supporting the War in Iraq, but so did Rupert Murdoch - -and Tucker will not say a word about Murdoch.
  • Tucker is good at misdirecting -- the point at the end of the article is how Tucker says that we've lost our freedoms and that we were free before the coronavirus. It's easy to believe that but how true is it? Tucker's format makes it hard to question, especially given how his audience is already primed to think a certain way.
  • One thing the podcast was very eye-opening on: Tucker frequently does a segment on how he's upset or something is unfair *after* the event happens, but will not cover things during the event itself. Examples of this are Tucker showing clips of MSNBC and CNN anchors ridiculing people who believe in Q, then saying "No one can tell you what to think. You're free to think whatever you want," all while never investigating whether Q is real. This is done on purpose.
  • I want to reiterate that point above. The MSM shows the Derek Chauvin/George Floyd video endlessly. Daily outrage pieces are produced. This directly leads to rioting and death. Then when it comes out that Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's back, the media does not cover that every single day. Tucker does *not* do this in return. What he does is he waits for the verdict, does a monolog that will pacify his viewers (or get them arrested when he says things like, "Obviously this shows that violence works,") but he does not use the same tactics as the people in the industry he works in. (full disclosure: I have not watched any of Tucker's Chauvin trail coverage)
  • One more reiteration of the point -- Tucker has done absolutely nothing on the people being held without bail for Jan 6. After they announced no charges against the man who shot Ashli Babbitt, Tucker did a segment decrying that decision, but he literally did *no investigation* or any other segments regarding who killed Ashli Babbitt. If Ashli had been black, you would have heard about it every single day by every other MSM outlet. So when the Jan 6th 'insurrectionists' get railroaded or get let go, he'll do a monolog about it and that will be that, instead of daily or even weekly updates on their cases--which may actually lead to some information and scrutiny. I cannot reiterate this point enough.
I think Tucker is so good at what he does that this makes him particularly evil. He never really went after Fox for calling Arizona so early, and merely chided another Fox news anchor from cutting away from a press conference from the president that they didn't like. He does just enough to appear to be /ourguy/ that he slides in under the radar and makes good enough logical arguments to make you feel that your worldview is correct. It's sinister.


It's good to have the extra background and research on Tucker and other public figures, I knew his family background was a bit shaky, but you have to keep some perspective here, I mean do you really expect him to go after Fox?

Sure, he gets a B on the purity test, you have to weigh in the highly positive, insightful reports along with the omissions and blind spots. When you consider this, it puts him squarely as the best pundit on the MSM by a very wide margin. Hannity would be a D in my book. I don't rely that much on Tucker to keep me inform, he's mostly there to try to steer BoomerCons into the right direction, while the Hannitys and Shapiros are doing their best to keep them in that neocon plantation. And that is a huge contribution, we're just not going to get anywhere as long as the Boomer and establishment Republican base is so brainwashed, Tucker helps them get purple pilled.
 
Top