The Tucker Carlson thread

Jestx

Robin
I haven't actually checked this thread in months but poasters here are actually saying the BUG eating moment was the final straw for Tucker support? I actually viewed his behavior and commentary in that segment as almost mockumenary-esque, knowing the bug-eater trend that he was now partaking in was worthy of grotesque ridicule on the air. Hence his original comment he didn't know the brownies were bug ridden, but now that they're cicada stuffed I will DIVE IN for sure with the cameras rolling :laughter:
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Like many, I gave up Fox news cold turkey post election. Tucker was my favorite so not watching him I can't really comment here, but I will say that if what 'BarronTheTigerCat' says above regarding Tucker is true, mainly that he does often speak on the Jan. 6 protesters, then you've slandered him (Tucker). If you're going to attack somebody make sure your reasons are accurate....our Lord watches. I can do better in this regard myself.
I think this is quite the accusation and I don't appreciate it.

I've been very clear that I stopped watching Tucker. I'm very careful to state that I no longer watch and that I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I've also stated that he does not wield his power like those on the left. For nearly 3 entire years of "Russia Russia Russia" and "Trump's Tax Returns," there has not been a comparible story from Tucker. That is truth. That is fact. Him "mentioning" Jan 6 protesters and saying Ashli Babbitt's name once or twice, compared to what the (fake) other side does is mind-blowing.

The other side had George Floyd. Tucker has said George Floyd's name on the air more than Ashli Babbitt's name.

If a bunch of Biden/Bernie supporters had been rounded up by the government and put into solitary confinement, it would be the lead story for weeks or months on the MSNBC/CNN programs. Those programs talked more about officer Brian Sicknick (the one who died of a stroke after the supposed 'insurrection') than Tucker Ashli Babbitt.

But Tucker fought the ADL once for 3 days, so I guess that's good enough per the standards of a few here.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
I haven't actually checked this thread in months but poasters here are actually saying the BUG eating moment was the final straw for Tucker support? I actually viewed his behavior and commentary in that segment as almost mockumenary-esque, knowing the bug-eater trend that he was now partaking in was worthy of grotesque ridicule on the air. Hence his original comment he didn't know the brownies were bug ridden, but now that they're cicada stuffed I will DIVE IN for sure with the cameras rolling :laughter:
"Tucker ate a cicada to own the libs!"

This is what cognitive dissonance looks like.
 
The bug thing is bigger than most realize. Very hardcore red pill shows delve into exactly why the media is pushing bug eating so hard. To put it simply, the elites believe by making the masses eat bugs they will lower their levels/a sign that they are subhuman. It is an ancient theory, going back many centuries, of the elites hoping to push this on the masses. It was much easier to do in poor countries where food was already scarce. But in the first world, former first world, it was impossible due to a higher standard of living. But they are now winning the war in the former first world.

I am shocked that Tucker ate bugs on his show. He gives some okay information, and he is the best on the elite owned TV airwaves. But if you want real information and red pill truths, you will have to turn to the internet.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
He ate a cicada - ok, so what?

Yeah there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with this. John the Baptist ate locusts.

I distinctly remember a @rooshv livestream from within the past 6 months or so where he mentioned the elite push to get us to eat bugs and Roosh said, "I will not eat bugs."

I don't distinctly remember anyone informing him that eating bugs was no big deal and that John the Baptist ate locusts.
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Pelican
Orthodox
I distinctly remember a @rooshv livestream from within the past 6 months or so where he mentioned the elite push to get us to eat bugs and Roosh said, "I will not eat bugs."

I don't distinctly remember anyone informing him that eating bugs was no big deal and that John the Baptist ate locusts.

Sure, my personal preference is not to eat bugs either. However, I don't understand what is inherently wrong with doing so.

The elite push to force this on us is wrong, but I've eaten snails (escargot) in the past -- does that make me evil?

"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matthew 15:11)
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Seriously, what am I supposed to say? "Wait, never mind all of his reporting - he did what? Okay, that's it, wrap it up, all the arguments are out the window"
Perhaps an acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, Tucker is not what he presents himself to be on the show, and that this is a big indicator that he shouldn't have your trust.

Or even, "Yeah, it's weird that he would do that. I still like him."

@It_is_my_time said that Tucker is the absolute best political personality on mainstream TV. I agree with that statement.

I also agree that Tucker has covered some great topics and that he deserved his record ratings last summer.

I can admit that, and I can also see that he is part of a system that is really against the people who watch him and admire him the most.

I sincerely wanted to know how you and others who defended Tucker in the past view the cicada segment, and I thank you for telling me.

In doing so, though, you completely minimized eating bugs as no big deal. I'm not sure if you really believe that, but if you do, I got my question answered.

Thanks again.
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Pelican
Orthodox
Perhaps an acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, Tucker is not what he presents himself to be on the show, and that this is a big indicator that he shouldn't have your trust.

Or even, "Yeah, it's weird that he would do that. I still like him."

@It_is_my_time said that Tucker is the absolute best political personality on mainstream TV. I agree with that statement.

I also agree that Tucker has covered some great topics and that he deserved his record ratings last summer.

I can admit that, and I can also see that he is part of a system that is really against the people who watch him and admire him the most.

I sincerely wanted to know how you and others who defended Tucker in the past view the cicada segment, and I thank you for telling me.

In doing so, though, you completely minimized eating bugs as no big deal. I'm not sure if you really believe that, but if you do, I got my question answered.

Thanks again.

I get it, and you've made some valid concerns, but this is nearing the point of obsession. I think you need better evidence of your claim that Tucker is controlled opposition.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Sure, my personal preference is not to eat bugs either. However, I don't understand what is inherently wrong with doing so.

The elite push to force this on us is wrong, but I've eaten snails (escargot) in the past -- does that make me evil?

"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matthew 15:11)
I'm not sure if we're talking past each other or not.

I think @It_is_my_time covered it well: the people who run things love to humiliate the plebes and having us eat bugs willingly is a great way to do it.

One of the things that both you and @SlickyBoy are doing is to take a question I ask and frame your response in such a way as to make me an extremist for asking the question. Asking me if eating snails makes you evil, and asking me if eating cicadas invalidates Tucker's entire reporting career is another.

My main point is that Tucker may very well be a CIA agent who is trying to establish boundaries that you are not permitted to go past, and set trends to what they want you to do. He is allowed to do a political show where he says he can do whatever he wants, but we know there are topics he knows not to broach. He asks questions designed to sound smart but miss the big picture, *and he's very good at it*.

Humans are social beings and television programming actually programs us, which is why they want us consuming and watching porn. If we're contained and distracted with meaningless items, we aren't aware of what's really going on.

It was no coincidence that they chose Tucker to eat the cicadas. The #1 guy on Fox. "These are good! I didn't even know they were bugs." If they can get enough people to be 'open minded,' it's easier for their plan to come to fruition, especially if they can make the price of beef and pork skyrocket.
 

Eusebius Erasmus

Pelican
Orthodox
I'm not sure if we're talking past each other or not.

I think @It_is_my_time covered it well: the people who run things love to humiliate the plebes and having us eat bugs willingly is a great way to do it.

One of the things that both you and @SlickyBoy are doing is to take a question I ask and frame your response in such a way as to make me an extremist for asking the question. Asking me if eating snails makes you evil, and asking me if eating cicadas invalidates Tucker's entire reporting career is another.

My main point is that Tucker may very well be a CIA agent who is trying to establish boundaries that you are not permitted to go past, and set trends to what they want you to do. He is allowed to do a political show where he says he can do whatever he wants, but we know there are topics he knows not to broach. He asks questions designed to sound smart but miss the big picture, *and he's very good at it*.

Humans are social beings and television programming actually programs us, which is why they want us consuming and watching porn. If we're contained and distracted with meaningless items, we aren't aware of what's really going on.

It was no coincidence that they chose Tucker to eat the cicadas. The #1 guy on Fox. "These are good! I didn't even know they were bugs." If they can get enough people to be 'open minded,' it's easier for their plan to come to fruition, especially if they can make the price of beef and pork skyrocket.
Sure, it's possible that Tucker is a CIA agent or controlled opposition. I'm certainly upset about him not covering the election fraud, but Trump wasn't worth carrying water for in the end.

Tucker redeemed himself when he attacked the ADL, and questioned the Covid vaccines.

To dismiss Tucker outright seems unwise: he does reach the normies and steers the narrative in a healthy direction. I watched a lot of Tucker before becoming more aware of certain social/political issues.
 

DanielH

Pelican
Orthodox
My main point is that Tucker may very well be a CIA agent who is trying to establish boundaries that you are not permitted to go past, and set trends to what they want you to do. He is allowed to do a political show where he says he can do whatever he wants, but we know there are topics he knows not to broach. He asks questions designed to sound smart but miss the big picture, *and he's very good at it*.
1623438921572.png
Actually a reasonable suspicion.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
I get it, and you've made some valid concerns, but this is nearing the point of obsession. I think you need better evidence of your claim that Tucker is controlled opposition.
Here's the link again--which I've summarized in previous pages.


There are lots of red flags. Ignore them if you wish.

As far as me being obsessed, I think that's extreme but I also think it's a fair criticism. I was a huge Tucker supporter last year and I feel like I got duped and scammed, and so I'm just trying to let others know in as persuasive a way as possible.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
That level of scrutiny is the equivalent of a PCR test with 40 iterations, the most minute trace of a virus is going to make it come out positive...
I'm assuming you're speaking of the Tucker article I linked above.

If we had a media that applied this level of scrutiny to our elite, we'd be much better off, more free, and not involved in hundreds of billions of dollars worth of wars over the past 50 years.

If we had a populace that applied this level of scrutiny to our news, we would not have had the lockdown last year, and all of the disastrous results that entails (the financial results of which are yet to be realized completely).
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
The reason why you don't have lockdowns and full on covid insanity in half of the US vs most of the Western world is because of people like Tucker Carlson.

"Scrutiny" without common sense is not just useless, but highly counterproductive.

I'm not exactly naive about some of the concerns raised on here, I believe I was the first poster to highlight the most troubling aspect about Tucker, the red string on his wrist and his background, but you have to have some nuance in order to assess the big picture and that seems to be lacking here in the wholesale condemnation of Carlson.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
The reason why you don't have lockdowns and full on covid insanity in half of the US vs most of the Western world is because of people like Tucker Carlson.
You're saying Tucker is a thought leader and is very persuasive and influential.

Yet when I say that's the exact reason they had him eat bugs on TV, you say that my argument lacks nuance.

You can't have it both ways.
 

DeWoken

Robin
In criticism of your statements, @fokm, I guess the word I'm looking for here is, strawman. Also, about your avatar, are you re-claiming the blue wave for our side? Are you a Seiko fan? There are other nice ukioe.

green mountain.jpg

Tucker Carlson is still an excellent way to redpill normies. Tell me, what would you show to your teenage nephew who is being raised by an SJW single mom?
 
I hear a lot of anti Tucker things from conservative (& of course leftists) but I personally enjoy his show. I’m not sure if many of you know but he’s quite an unconventional political talk show host. He completely unplugs from the news cycle except for when he does his show and about an hour of show prep (M-F). He says he does this for mainly two reasons: to keep him from burning out and two, so he doesn’t come off as overly rehearsed and fake. He wants his show to be authentic as possible and this helps with that goal. One would think to be as successful as Tucker, you’d have to prep all day but it’s not the case, apparently. Look up interviews of Tucker on the podcast app...interesting to say the least.
 

fokm

Woodpecker
Gold Member
In criticism of your statements, @fokm, I guess the word I'm looking for here is, strawman. Also, about your avatar, are you re-claiming the blue wave for our side? Are you a Seiko fan? There are other nice ukioe.

View attachment 31453

Tucker Carlson is still an excellent way to redpill normies. Tell me, what would you show to your teenage nephew who is being raised by an SJW single mom?
I'm sure of the many arguments I've made against Tucker there is a strawman, or two, or three.

But I've made many, many arguments.

The eating of cicadas, to me, is really not defensible and is a big deal. That's why I'm pressing it. When you pair it with his dad being head of PBS and Tucker working with the likes of Bill Kristol and John Bolton for most of his career...how many strawmen do you need? Dismissing even that, the fact that Tucker and everyone else on Fox News does not do daily segments about the people in solitary confinement from Jan 6 and Ashli Babbitt, including outing the man who shot her, should be a huge wake up call that Tucker and Fox as a whole are not on your side. The other MSM talking head shows press much harder on issues their viewers care about. That is no strawman, and not one person here who defends Tucker has told me that point is wrong or misguided in any way (because it is not).

The other thing I'd like the point out is that those who disagree with me have resorted to saying my criticism of Tucker is invalid (without explaining why), accused me of libeling/slandering Tucker (without saying what exactly I've stated that constitutes the accusation), dismissed my arguments outright (eh, eating bugs in no big deal), or classified my arguments as strawman arguments (again, without being specific). But no one has stated or pointed out where I've been outright wrong. This isn't necessarily about me being right (I'm happy to be proven wrong), but I do want to point out the types of arguments that have been used against my ideas aren't exactly great either, no matter what any of you think of my arguments.

I would show my White teenage nephew Tucker and oppo media as an example of Finkelthink. I would try to make sure he knows that the current culture despises him and would do everything I could to make sure he does not serve in the military or go to college. Inform him of how power works and why idealism is fantasy.

I do not have teenage nephews but I do have some teen/tween nieces and I do take opportunities to expose them to different ways of thinking when the opportunities arise.

As far as my avatar, I was very fortunate to see the Hokusai exhibit in Tokyo a few years back. It's my understanding that they were planning to move that exhibit out to the country side and that should have happened by now, so it's much harder to view it. Seeing his artwork in person was really amazing, especially how well some of his pencil drawings have been preserved.

You may like this video that puts some context on The Great Wave. Art history, if done poorly, can be extremely boring. This was interesting, to me.

 
Top