The Tucker Carlson thread

FactusIRX

Kingfisher
My dad, who is boomer con incarnate, loves Hannity. He wishes he would run for President. He's watched Tucker with me a few times, but never liked him.

The reason is the boomer con sees politics as a sport. He likes to play fight with the other side, but he doesn't like it if it threatens his actual quality of life. Therefore, the boomer con always sees the system as good, always sees the authority as good, and doesn't want things changed beyond a superficial level. Hannity is the perfect boomer toy. He has these fake fights with the left, but fundamentally is profiting and is OK with the way things are. He will gladly push left if it means his quality of life isn't impacted. Tucker challenges the system. He points out that it is fundamentally bad, that authority is evil, and that the left is a existential threat to life. This frightens the boomer con to the point it makes him angry. I know because I have seen it.

You have to realize who's Tucker's primary audience is. His primary audience is not the disenfranchised, trad con, alt-right, 3rd way Gen X/Millennial/Zoomer. If you see it from that perspective, he's actually radical, and I'm absolutely convinced Fox is waiting for him to slip up, just a bit, so they can replace Tucker with another warm, boomer glass of milk to help people like my dad sleep at night.
 

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
My dad, who is boomer con incarnate, loves Hannity. He wishes he would run for President. He's watched Tucker with me a few times, but never liked him.

The reason is the boomer con sees politics as a sport. He likes to play fight with the other side, but he doesn't like it if it threatens his actual quality of life. Therefore, the boomer con always sees the system as good, always sees the authority as good, and doesn't want things changed beyond a superficial level. Hannity is the perfect boomer toy. He has these fake fights with the left, but fundamentally is profiting and is OK with the way things are. He will gladly push left if it means his quality of life isn't impacted. Tucker challenges the system. He points out that it is fundamentally bad, that authority is evil, and that the left is a existential threat to life. This frightens the boomer con to the point it makes him angry. I know because I have seen it.

You have to realize who's Tucker's primary audience is. His primary audience is not the disenfranchised, trad con, alt-right, 3rd way Gen X/Millennial/Zoomer. If you see it from that perspective, he's actually radical, and I'm absolutely convinced Fox is waiting for him to slip up, just a bit, so they can replace Tucker with another warm, boomer glass of milk to help people like my dad sleep at night.

Good analysis of boomer cons, and I totally agree - to them, politics is little more than a sideline of sports, and many of us are tired of supporting the team who loves to lose. Though I'm not sure Fox would know what to do next if they actually did fire Tucker. Their boomer-con demographic is already way past the target demographic for most advertisers - check who's advertising there the most, and what products. Fox has been skewing a little bit older than the other broadcast news networks.

Fox realizes Tucker, as much of a risk that he is, is the only one they've got who stands a chance of capturing the younger, fed up disenfranchised types you mentioned and making them regular viewers for the next decade. CNN doesn't have it much easier - their core audience is largely captive, in waiting rooms and airports where people have no choice but to put up with their campaigning for fifteen minutes or so. Fewer people actually willingly watch them.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
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
The video has been memory holed. If you find it and try to play it it will never play.

the video originally aired in the 2008-2010 timeframe.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
Tucker coming out very hard against the mask narrative. Making fun of Biden and then telling people to confront covidiots wearing a mask in outdoor spaces. Even went so far as to call out making kids wear a mask as child abuse



Pretty bold considering how singularly important the masks are in keeping the scamdemic alive. Without the masks theres no visible "proof" via reinforcement and it just goes away.

The talking heads are freaking out...of course
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
My dad, who is boomer con incarnate, loves Hannity. He wishes he would run for President. He's watched Tucker with me a few times, but never liked him.

The reason is the boomer con sees politics as a sport. He likes to play fight with the other side, but he doesn't like it if it threatens his actual quality of life. Therefore, the boomer con always sees the system as good, always sees the authority as good, and doesn't want things changed beyond a superficial level. Hannity is the perfect boomer toy. He has these fake fights with the left, but fundamentally is profiting and is OK with the way things are. He will gladly push left if it means his quality of life isn't impacted. Tucker challenges the system. He points out that it is fundamentally bad, that authority is evil, and that the left is a existential threat to life. This frightens the boomer con to the point it makes him angry. I know because I have seen it.

You have to realize who's Tucker's primary audience is. His primary audience is not the disenfranchised, trad con, alt-right, 3rd way Gen X/Millennial/Zoomer. If you see it from that perspective, he's actually radical, and I'm absolutely convinced Fox is waiting for him to slip up, just a bit, so they can replace Tucker with another warm, boomer glass of milk to help people like my dad sleep at night.

Part of the lack of appeal of Tucker to a certain Boomer demographic is his elite X-Gen preppie persona, he looks like a 1980s UVA or Dartmouth fratboy, wears J Press, Brooks Bros etc. That kind of look is usually associated with the rich entitled young WASP villain in a bunch of 80s/90s movies,

1619629605443.png

143441c70cd24969825b2d87f7e458da.jpg

hart+bochner+polo.jpg



Tucker used to sport a bow tie in most of his cable TV appearances back in the 00s, he ditched that about 10 year ago in order to widen his appeal.

wyzv3ciffdj7vjy7.jpg


Guys like Hannity have more of an "average" middle class persona and are more relatable to the average Fox listener. That was also a good part of Owen Benjamin's appeal, he's basically a rural/small town middle class guy who was uncomfortable in Hollywood.

Tucker ditched the bow tie, but he still has the 1980s fratboy hair and some of the mannerisms of a Dartmouth debate team captain. Other than no longer wearing bow ties he's a pretty genuine pundit, WYSIWYG.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Other than no longer wearing bow ties he's a pretty genuine pundit, WYSIWYG.
I'm trying to red pill this board and none of you are having it.

Tucker is filthy rich. He doesn't have to work another day in his life.

Tucker applied to the CIA. It's very likely that Project Mockingbird either never went away or evolved into something else. Thus it's in the realm of likelihood that Tucker is fulfilling a role for them.

That's not provable. What is provable is that he did not fight for his head writer. He did not cover widespread election fraud. He does not do investigative reports on things while they are happening, but instead gives a "we shouldn't have lost" speech after the conservative side loses, time and time again. His dad worked for the Reagan administration. He was a registered democrat until 2017. The "sworn enemy of group think" went to a conference with Jesse Ventura and told them he would leave if Ventura brought up 9/11 conspiracies. As conservatives boycotted Fox last year, Tucker's big announcement was, "We're expanding this show."

WYSINWYG.
 

FactusIRX

Kingfisher
Part of the lack of appeal of Tucker to a certain Boomer demographic is his elite X-Gen preppie persona, he looks like a 1980s UVA or Dartmouth fratboy, wears J Press, Brooks Bros etc. That kind of look is usually associated with the rich entitled young WASP villain in a bunch of 80s/90s movies,

View attachment 30559

143441c70cd24969825b2d87f7e458da.jpg

hart+bochner+polo.jpg



Tucker used to sport a bow tie in most of his cable TV appearances back in the 00s, he ditched that about 10 year ago in order to widen his appeal.

wyzv3ciffdj7vjy7.jpg


Guys like Hannity have more of an "average" middle class persona and are more relatable to the average Fox listener. That was also a good part of Owen Benjamin's appeal, he's basically a rural/small town middle class guy who was uncomfortable in Hollywood.

Tucker ditched the bow tie, but he still has the 1980s fratboy hair and some of the mannerisms of a Dartmouth debate team captain. Other than no longer wearing bow ties he's a pretty genuine pundit, WYSIWYG.
Great post. Hannity is the boomer idol. He looks young for his age. He has his hair. He is successful. He flirts with every woman he comes across. He's mastered the boomer macho, everyman persona, where, to the boomer, he looks like he changes his own flat tire and then hits the bar for beers with his friends (while young women constantly hit on him). However, like the boomer persona, it's totally hollow. He stands for nothing, and therefore, has no courage or masculinity. You also know he wants nothing to do with the everyman. Tucker, while he has a preppy look, is constantly defending the everyman. Check out this video where some mildly retarded New Yorker accosts Tucker while Tucker is fly fishing at a public park. His reaction says everything you need to know about him.

 

FactusIRX

Kingfisher
I'm trying to red pill this board and none of you are having it.

Tucker is filthy rich. He doesn't have to work another day in his life.

Tucker applied to the CIA. It's very likely that Project Mockingbird either never went away or evolved into something else. Thus it's in the realm of likelihood that Tucker is fulfilling a role for them.

That's not provable. What is provable is that he did not fight for his head writer. He did not cover widespread election fraud. He does not do investigative reports on things while they are happening, but instead gives a "we shouldn't have lost" speech after the conservative side loses, time and time again. His dad worked for the Reagan administration. He was a registered democrat until 2017. The "sworn enemy of group think" went to a conference with Jesse Ventura and told them he would leave if Ventura brought up 9/11 conspiracies. As conservatives boycotted Fox last year, Tucker's big announcement was, "We're expanding this show."
We don't need you to red pill us, thank you. Unlike the communists, we don't negatively judge someone because of their wealth or their family. When I was in University, I applied to work at federal agencies (they didn't hire me). Why? Because I needed a job, and at that time, I was still a liberal. By your logic, you should disregard everything I say. Luckily, this is a Christian forum, God forgives all sins, and redemption is always possible.

Firing his head writer is the only valid criticism, and I don't like he did that. He's paying for it, though, because his show dropped in quality significantly to the point I stopped watching it. However, I understand why Tucker did it. If he didn't, Fox would have probably cause to fire him, and the head writer was a ****** idiot for publicly posting identifying information while working for a show that is constantly the target of the left. For someone who was a lawyer, he should have known better.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Firing his head writer is the only valid criticism, and I don't like he did that.
Red pill me, then. Why is nothing I've posted "valid criticism"? I've posted nothing but facts, with only one bit of speculation (CIA/projcect mockingbird)

When someone says "WYSIWYG," and I say he's a political insider, not outsider, and was *born on the inside*, how am I wrong, and how is that not "valid"?

Tucker had the political capital to save that guy's job. He did not.

Firing his head writer is the only valid criticism, and I don't like he did that. He's paying for it, though, because his show dropped in quality significantly to the point I stopped watching it. However, I understand why Tucker did it.

Because talk is cheap, and when it comes down to it, Tucker does not think his staff should be able to talk anonymously on the Internet? Tucker, whose the "sworn enemy of group think," did not stand for his writer's free speech.

Had Tucker stood up for him, Tucker would have won that battle and that would have been that. Instead, Tucker showed his true colors.

Again, WYSINWYG. The people in control "let" Tucker be on TV. No one with an unapproved message gets to be on any MSM outlet, period.

Call me out on anything I've been wrong about.

When I was in University, I applied to work at federal agencies (they didn't hire me). Why? Because I needed a job, and at that time, I was still a liberal. By your logic, you should disregard everything I say. Luckily, this is a Christian forum, God forgives all sins, and redemption is always possible.
Nice strawman.

Anyone who applied to be CIA and has a prominent media position and has been in media for decades ought to be suspect. Being suspicious of someone like that is positive and healthy.

As a Christian, I firmly believe that what Tucker Carlson is currently doing is sinister and evil. Thus I am called by God to let others know.
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
I'm trying to red pill this board and none of you are having it.

Tucker is filthy rich. He doesn't have to work another day in his life.

Tucker applied to the CIA. It's very likely that Project Mockingbird either never went away or evolved into something else. Thus it's in the realm of likelihood that Tucker is fulfilling a role for them.

That's not provable. What is provable is that he did not fight for his head writer. He did not cover widespread election fraud. He does not do investigative reports on things while they are happening, but instead gives a "we shouldn't have lost" speech after the conservative side loses, time and time again. His dad worked for the Reagan administration. He was a registered democrat until 2017. The "sworn enemy of group think" went to a conference with Jesse Ventura and told them he would leave if Ventura brought up 9/11 conspiracies. As conservatives boycotted Fox last year, Tucker's big announcement was, "We're expanding this show."

WYSINWYG.

Tucker definitely benefited from his background in his media career, that is almost alwasy the pool that media pundits get drawn from, that much is understood. But like Factus here, I very much disagree with your read, and when it comes to spotting shills I have a pretty good radar. No one else on cable TV has even come close to breaching sensitive subjects like his recent exposing of the ADL double standards on immigration, and his legendary piece on Paul Singer exposing vulture capitalism, arguably the best piece of reporting on cable TV in the last 10+ years, and easily the best piece on oligarchy to air on the MSM. No other MSM pundit would dare touch these subjects with a 10' pole.


The Rep establishment hates him for this, this is a very pointed personal attack on one of the biggest Wall Street figure pulling their strings. Tucker is not like the other WASP presstitudes like George Will. Tucker's treatment of these subjects reflects a level of political awareness and journalistic courage that puts him in a category of his own, the only other major journalistic figure who is as good or better than him is Pat Buchanan. Carlson's margin of reporting and Overton Window he works with is pretty narrow, he has done a great job making it a bit wider. You're treating him like someone with a youtube channel, not someone who is a prime time cable TV personality. This is a bit unrealistic on your part.
 

PiousJ

Pigeon
Orthodox
I like Tucker. But he's one of these guys that if you brought up Jewish media dominance - something he must be acutely aware of - he would give you the whole "oh yea but it's because they're super hard-working and smart" schtick. He'll get close to the Rubicon but never quite cross it, he knows who butters his bread. Unfortunately at this time, we have no "allies" in the media. Even someone like Jack Posobiec, who we think is super "based" and are always retweeting him , recently endorsed Caitlyn Jenner. That's conservatism for you.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
But like Factus here, I very much disagree with your read
Nothing wrong with that. I just feel like I'm talking into a void -- no one is disagreeing with me outright, but it's like no one is even acknowledging that there's some sketchy stuff with Tucker either.

No one else on cable TV has even come close to breaching sensitive subjects like his recent exposing of the ADL double standards on immigration, and his legendary piece on Paul Singer exposing vulture capitalism, arguably the best piece of reporting on cable TV in the last 10+ years, and easily the best piece on oligarchy to air on the MSM. No other MSM pundit would dare touch these subjects with a 10' pole.
That's the point. That's the entire point. It's pro-wrestling level fake and designed to be this way.

The ADL alone could give Tucker 2 years' worth of shows. Segments like, "Why is the ADL involved in our school systems" or "Why is the ADL funding the training of our police," would go a LONG way. But it stops with the one subject that gets some interest going. It fuels the media machine and lets conservatives vent. "Yay Tucker, you tell them!"

Meanwhile, what actually changes? Tucker does a report on Paul Singer. Great. He doesn't talk about the JQ in that report. And he reported on it after it happened, not when it could have made a difference.

He also reported on Bill Ackman. I was invested in Bill's Pershing Square Holdings, and after Tucker's 2021 follow-up, I sold my shares because I agreed with Tucker on principle. In 2021, Tucker explained better what Ackman did in 2020. Tucker's 2020 segment was a disapproval with no depth.

Tucker points these out so you, the viewer, can say, "I can't believe he's talking about this," and that creates buzz. It doesn't change anything. It's designed not to.

It's political pornography.

"But, but, but how can Tucker alone change things? You can't expect him to do it all."

No. What I can expect is that when the ADL attacks him, he does deep investigations in return. Instead, you got them saying, "Fire Tucker," and people who aren't currently watching Tucker and boycotting Fox might just tune in again. That's what this is for. You're not going to see even weekly reports of what the ADL, his enemy calling for him to be fired, is actually doing. You're not going to see updates on people being held without bail for January 6th.

You're treating him like someone with a youtube channel, not someone who is a prime time cable TV personality. This is a bit unrealistic on your part.
I think I'm holding him to a much higher standard. To his own, actually. He wants to come across as highly trustworthy and credible and says things like, "We'll have Sydney Powell on all week for her to show her case," or, "we'll allow any dissenting opinion on this show from anyone who wants to come on" when that's in no way true.

He'll get close to the Rubicon but never quite cross it, he knows who butters his bread. Unfortunately at this time, we have no "allies" in the media.
For many people, Tucker is their trusted ally. But he's not really. He's just the closest thing and his role is to pacify people so they don't scratch deeper. Instead, they tune in tomorrow to see what Tucker tells them to think.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
^Posobiec is a zionist shill, plain and simple. A bit more subtle than your Shapiros or Hannitys, he's done a good job cultivating an edgy maverick online persona, a bit like mid-2010s Cernovich.

Yeah you would never see Tucker endorsing Bruce Jenner. The guy might not be a devout Christian but he is much more of a real conservative with Christian values than ZOG whores like Pence or Huckabee who try to pass as Christians.
 

Dusty

Peacock
Gold Member
I’m pretty sure Frank Luntz is homosexual. It’s been revealed he lives with the top Republican congressman, Kevin McCarthy.


Frank Luntz is what’s wrong with the GOP. The guy became insanely wealthy from his relationship with the GOP, selling them losing Jeb-like messaging. DR3, embrace LBQWERTY.

 

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
I’m pretty sure Frank Luntz is homosexual. It’s been revealed he lives with the top Republican congressman, Kevin McCarthy.


Frank Luntz is what’s wrong with the GOP. The guy became insanely wealthy from his relationship with the GOP, selling them losing Jeb-like messaging. DR3, embrace LBQWERTY.

I'm pretty sure that crossed my mind when I saw them talking about that fat bastard.

Tonight I saw Tucker talking to Charlie Kirk from Turning Point USA, a Zionist funded "conservative" promo group that tries to be hip for the college kids. He's the one who got booed off the stage by groypers a couple of years ago.

A well deserved scene:


He got tough questions about Israel and had the unmitigated gall to call the Liberty incident a conspiracy theory.

But this is who is on Tucker talking about how people don't have the courage to talk about what nobody is willing to talk about.
Heh......
pot, meet kettle.
 

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
As a Christian, I firmly believe that what Tucker Carlson is currently doing is sinister and evil. Thus I am called by God to let others know.

What is so sinister about what he is doing?

On balance, if it were not for Tucker we'd be stuck with nothing more than corporate whore zionists like Hannity in legacy media. Tucker can't color outside of the lines much, but he can leave the occasional bread crumb - which he often does, very subtly.

In fact he probably picked that writer for his ability to weave just enough controversy into the mix without getting the show canned. Pity the fool couldn't control himself long enough to avoid posting utterly retarded comments on forums. Have you read what he wrote? The guy probably can't hold a conversation without being on meds.

His complete disregard of OPSEC ought to be a fireable offense for anyone working in dissident media. And yes, Tucker is about as dissident as we are going to get. He's not perfect - far from it - but unless you want to be limited to blogs nobody reads, he's a necessary part of messaging.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
What is so sinister about what he is doing?
I believe I've explained it -- but to summarize: He plays a role in keeping the viewer complacent. His liberal counterparts are always moving the needle. Tucker does not move the needle by design. Daily reports of what's new in the Ashli Babbit case, revealing the name of the person who shot her, reports of what's going on with the people waiting trail in jail for Jan 6, etc. The liberal media doesn't let up on this stuff. Tucker will, instead, have a monolog about how "goolags are immoral" after the people get convicted for Jan 6. And the viewer will agree. And those people, who could have had a dissident crusading journalist on their side, will get a 10 minute monolog and then be forgotten.

On balance, if it were not for Tucker we'd be stuck with nothing more than corporate whore zionists like Hannity in legacy media. Tucker can't color outside of the lines much, but he can leave the occasional bread crumb - which he often does, very subtly.
And virtually everyone else in the MSM gets to shout about white supremacy and transgenderism from the rooftops without any subtlety whatsoever and our kids get to witness it.

In fact he probably picked that writer for his ability to weave just enough controversy into the mix without getting the show canned. Pity the fool couldn't control himself long enough to avoid posting utterly retarded comments on forums. Have you read what he wrote? The guy probably can't hold a conversation without being on meds.
I had not read in detail what he wrote. Thank you for the link. I'll summarize the most egregious here.

'Black doods staying inside playing Call of Duty is probably one of the biggest factors keeping crime down,' he reportedly wrote a few weeks ago.In another he stated: 'Honestly given how tired black people always claim to be, maybe the real crisis is their lack of sleep.'
He derided a woman for being an 'Azn megashrew' in posts that were all allegedly posted under a pseudonym.

His abuse led to other users then getting involved and abusing the woman for several years in follow-up posts.

Neff stated how he 'wouldn't get LASIK from an Asian for free' in response to an email thread with the subject line, 'Would u let a JET BLACK congo n***** do lasik eye surgery on u for 50% off?'

'I wouldn't get LASIK from an Asian for free, so no,' Neff is alleged to have responded.

In other parts of the forum, he is said of have joked about 'foodie f*****' and 'Third World sh*******.'
In one example, Neff allegedly wrote on the forum, 'It is your f***ing right as an American to wear whatever T-shirt you want, and hold whatever political views you want. Christ.'

The following night on his show, Carlson mirrored the comments.

'...And they can wear whatever shirts they want. You thought that was true. You thought that was your right as an American,' he allegedly wrote.

So you can wear any t-shirt you want, but you can't comment on a message board. Thanks for defending my rights, Tucker.

I disagree harshly with your sentiment about Neff. He believed he was being anonymous and this is just what people do on the Internet. He didn't harm a soul. And if we cannot say what we want anonymously without fear of losing our jobs, *we are not free people*.

His complete disregard of OPSEC ought to be a fireable offense for anyone working in dissident media.
What good is working in dissident media if you can't, you know, be dissident in your daily life?
And yes, Tucker is about as dissident as we are going to get. He's not perfect - far from it - but unless you want to be limited to blogs nobody reads, he's a necessary part of messaging.
You can go through my posts on this thread last year. I loved Tucker. Watched his show nightly. I watched FOX News on election night and saw what happened. And Tucker, who makes such a big fuss about having integrity, did as little as possible to look into anything.

I'm not watching anymore, but my guess is that he's not covering any of the Arizona election fraud investigation that is appearing to make powerful people very concerned right now. It's only one of the most important stories happening. (I say without researching this knowing I could be wrong, so please, someone, prove me wrong.)
 
Top