Tucker Carlson

[Tommy Callahan]

On 6/9/2023 at 5:38 PM, The Frankish Reich said:

I don't object in principle to Tucker's latest monologue (if this part accurately summarizes it).

But Senator Moynihan said it better 30 years ago:

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41212064

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/12/28/defining-deviancy-down/03bd5544-2b4a-4271-8450-51ef99f27418/

 

But this is a sticky business. When I was a kid (think 1960s/70s), being divorced and remarried was just emerging from the "scandalous" age. Reagan was our first such President. 

 

Being caught in an affair was deadly to most professions. And then Bill Clinton ...

 

Paying a hooker (or shall we say "having sex with an adult film performer in which money or favors were exchanged") was criminal, and no one would want to be seen with you. And being divorced and remarried multiple times was also a career killer for a budding politician. And then Donald Trump ...

 

Being photographed nude (tastefully! they say) pretty much negated your chances of being America's First Lady. And then Melania ...

 

All of these behaviors were just not acceptable in polite society. Many moral scolds are fine with many (most? all??) of them now.

 

I tend to follow a couple different old maxims:

 

"Conservatism is the theory that every vice should be a crime; Liberalism is the theory that every virtue should be a requirement."

"Puritism [read: modern moral conservatism]: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy."

JFK and Monroe

LBJ?

 

https://www.thetoptens.com/leaders/presidents-who-had-affairs/

 

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, Chris farley said:

JFK and Monroe

LBJ?

 

https://www.thetoptens.com/leaders/presidents-who-had-affairs/

 

True. But that was in the days when the media left a politician's private life alone, unless it was the classic "caught with a dead girl or a live boy."

More recently: We've seen things that are public, are clear and obvious, that violated long-established behavioral norms that would have traditionally destroyed a politician, now seemingly irrelevant to voters.

[Tommy Callahan]

Just now, The Frankish Reich said:

True. But that was in the days when the media left a politician's private life alone, unless it was the classic "caught with a dead girl or a live boy."

More recently: We've seen things that are public, are clear and obvious, that violated long-established behavioral norms that would have traditionally destroyed a politician, now seemingly irrelevant to voters.

Tabloids have always been chasing the Nonstories vs the news. the change is today's media are just tabloids.

 

 

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

52 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

True. But that was in the days when the media left a politician's private life alone, unless it was the classic "caught with a dead girl or a live boy."

More recently: We've seen things that are public, are clear and obvious, that violated long-established behavioral norms that would have traditionally destroyed a politician, now seemingly irrelevant to voters.

 

48 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Tabloids have always been chasing the Nonstories vs the news. the change is today's media are just tabloids.

 

 

 

 

I think "the" major difference in the media is a concentration of power into just a few people and the "type" of people employed by media outlets.  Historically, these were individuals that had an interest in reporting and investigating the events of the day.  Digging into stories, asking the tough questions, investigating to dig into the details to uncover the truth.  People that likely went to journalism school, got a degree in it or in communications.  Started in the newsroom and worked their way up.

 

Today, you have networks and newspapers across the political spectrum committed to communicating and interpreting events from a specific ideological viewpoint.  And the people they employ are more political operatives from various government agencies and think tanks representing specific and sometime undisclosed interest eager to tell a story or interpret an event to communicate the "story" from a point of view of their personal or professional self-interest.  These are not the Woodward and Bernstein journalist of the Watergate days of uncovering corruption.   

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, All_Pro_Bills said:

These are not the Woodward and Bernstein journalist of the Watergate days of uncovering corruption.   

You'll see that here, or anywhere on the internet. Everything is meta - people don't post "news," they repost someone's politically charged hot take on the news.

There are still some very good deeply reported stories out there, but the number of news outlets that have the capacity to do really good, long investigation journalism is minimal now. 

[SCBills]

13 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Another gem.

 

 

 

 

.

His best episode of the 3, so far. 
 

Very glad we have his voice during times like this. 

[BillsFanNC]

51 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 

I think "the" major difference in the media is a concentration of power into just a few people and the "type" of people employed by media outlets.  Historically, these were individuals that had an interest in reporting and investigating the events of the day.  Digging into stories, asking the tough questions, investigating to dig into the details to uncover the truth.  People that likely went to journalism school, got a degree in it or in communications.  Started in the newsroom and worked their way up.

 

Today, you have networks and newspapers across the political spectrum committed to communicating and interpreting events from a specific ideological viewpoint.  And the people they employ are more political operatives from various government agencies and think tanks representing specific and sometime undisclosed interest eager to tell a story or interpret an event to communicate the "story" from a point of view of their personal or professional self-interest.  These are not the Woodward and Bernstein journalist of the Watergate days of uncovering corruption.   

 

It's about A story, not THE story.

 

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

49 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

It's about A story, not THE story.

 

 

 

Thats a damn shame, cause at one time Christiane Amanpour was a great journalist. 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

OK, I watched this one. Season 1, Episode 3 I guess we'll call it.

And we can see what Tucker does here. It's his formula.

- Begins with some valid points: we over-classify documents in the federal government. Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President, and are expected to advance the President's agenda (unspoken assumption: provided that agenda is lawful/constitutional)

- Moves into a specific villain. Here, Mike Pompeo. Criticizes him for being all obsequious and fawning in person to Trump, but being something of a deep state manipulator behind the scenes. Suggests Pompeo didn't deliver on the Loyalty test. (Doesn't mention that he too privately harbored the same contempt for Trump as he suggests Pompeo did)

- Then makes a completely unwarranted leap: because we classify too much, most classified violations involve stuff that really isn't that important and probably shouldn't have been classified at all since there really is no risk to national security. Suggests--without evidence of what the particular classified involved in Trump's case--that this is the kind of "could embarrass someone but doesn't really impact national security" stuff. 

- Then comes the conspiracy theory. In fact, the reason too much government information is classified isn't because people are overly cautious or panic-prone ("OMG, I can't be the Intel officer responsible for letting out a report that went viral and damaged relationships with our allies or even outed a confidential informant!"), but rather because it is a mechanism to hide ordinary workings of the government from "the people," who, if they knew what was really going on, would openly rebel against their government.

 

So there it is. A good point or two (we overclassify! some of our high government appointees seem more interested in pumping up their own resumes than in serving their president!!), an unwarranted assumption flowing from those points (the stuff Trump kept therefore is statistically likely to be a nothingburger, as if Trump selectively said "take the hundred most innocuous classified documents to Mar-a-Lago, and while you're at it get me a Diet Coke"), and then a big conspiracy theory to Explain What It Really Means and Why Our Country Has Gone to Hell in a Handbasket.

Edited June 14, 2023 by The Frankish Reich

[BillsFanNC]

Be sure to tune in commies!

 

 

[Unforgiven]

4 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

Be sure to tune in commies!

 

 

Good i hope fox news ***** their pants again.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[L Ron Burgundy]

On 6/14/2023 at 12:46 PM, The Frankish Reich said:

OK, I watched this one. Season 1, Episode 3 I guess we'll call it.

And we can see what Tucker does here. It's his formula.

- Begins with some valid points: we over-classify documents in the federal government. Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President, and are expected to advance the President's agenda (unspoken assumption: provided that agenda is lawful/constitutional)

- Moves into a specific villain. Here, Mike Pompeo. Criticizes him for being all obsequious and fawning in person to Trump, but being something of a deep state manipulator behind the scenes. Suggests Pompeo didn't deliver on the Loyalty test. (Doesn't mention that he too privately harbored the same contempt for Trump as he suggests Pompeo did)

- Then makes a completely unwarranted leap: because we classify too much, most classified violations involve stuff that really isn't that important and probably shouldn't have been classified at all since there really is no risk to national security. Suggests--without evidence of what the particular classified involved in Trump's case--that this is the kind of "could embarrass someone but doesn't really impact national security" stuff. 

- Then comes the conspiracy theory. In fact, the reason too much government information is classified isn't because people are overly cautious or panic-prone ("OMG, I can't be the Intel officer responsible for letting out a report that went viral and damaged relationships with our allies or even outed a confidential informant!"), but rather because it is a mechanism to hide ordinary workings of the government from "the people," who, if they knew what was really going on, would openly rebel against their government.

 

So there it is. A good point or two (we overclassify! some of our high government appointees seem more interested in pumping up their own resumes than in serving their president!!), an unwarranted assumption flowing from those points (the stuff Trump kept therefore is statistically likely to be a nothingburger, as if Trump selectively said "take the hundred most innocuous classified documents to Mar-a-Lago, and while you're at it get me a Diet Coke"), and then a big conspiracy theory to Explain What It Really Means and Why Our Country Has Gone to Hell in a Handbasket.

Seriously.   I think this is the best summary of his shtick I've seen.  Well put.  

[SCBills]

1 hour ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Seriously.   I think this is the best summary of his shtick I've seen.  Well put.  

This is all that comes to mind for me while you two fret over Tucker’s attacks aimed at those in power..

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

12 hours ago, SCBills said:

while you two fret over Tucker’s attacks aimed at those in power

Fret? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I am not "worried or anxious" about Tucker's shtick. I am pointing out that it follows a formula that appeals to people who aren't interested in (or lack the capacity to) analyzing the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it.

And citing a comedian saying "c'mon, surely some conspiracy theories are true!" isn't the most compelling rebuttal ...

[SCBills]

5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Fret? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I am not "worried or anxious" about Tucker's shtick. I am pointing out that it follows a formula that appeals to people who aren't interested in (or lack the capacity to) analyzing the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it.

And citing a comedian saying "c'mon, surely some conspiracy theories are true!" isn't the most compelling rebuttal ...

So what is your pushback on what Tucker said re: Permanent Washington & Trump? 
 

You can dislike Trump and see that the continuous actions taken against him by entrenched bureaucrats and those in power are unlike anything we have ever seen.  
 

I don’t trust the government.  Tucker has every right to question their methods.  These are people who likely assassinated JFK after he threatened to tear down a federal agency because they wanted to attack our own people in order to start a war with Cuba. 
 

Now, Trump comes along, and for all his faults is the first President to push back in any meaningful way on those same federal agencies.   
 

And unlike war criminals like Bush and Obama, or those blatantly obstructing justice like the Clintons, it’s Trump facing a federal indictment and prison time. 

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, SCBills said:

These are people who likely assassinated JFK

Well, o.k. then, Oliver Stone.

[SCBills]

9 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Well, o.k. then, Oliver Stone.

It’s not just Oliver Stone, and I’m sure you won’t believe RFK Jr either, but it’s far more compelling than any other explanations we have for how/why JFK was killed..

 

This follows a discussion on Operation Northwoods and a bungled attack on Cuba in which JFK reportedly vowed to burn down and scatter the ashes of the CIA. 

 

 

[John from Riverside]

19 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

Be sure to tune in commies!

 

 

Can’t wait I am so looking forward to it

18 minutes ago, SCBills said:

So what is your pushback on what Tucker said re: Permanent Washington & Trump? 
 

You can dislike Trump and see that the continuous actions taken against him by entrenched bureaucrats and those in power are unlike anything we have ever seen.  
 

I don’t trust the government.  Tucker has every right to question their methods.  These are people who likely assassinated JFK after he threatened to tear down a federal agency because they wanted to attack our own people in order to start a war with Cuba. 
 

Now, Trump comes along, and for all his faults is the first President to push back in any meaningful way on those same federal agencies.   
 

And unlike war criminals like Bush and Obama, or those blatantly obstructing justice like the Clintons, it’s Trump facing a federal indictment and prison time. 

If he just would’ve given the documents back…….

32 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Fret? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I am not "worried or anxious" about Tucker's shtick. I am pointing out that it follows a formula that appeals to people who aren't interested in (or lack the capacity to) analyzing the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it.

And citing a comedian saying "c'mon, surely some conspiracy theories are true!" isn't the most compelling rebuttal ...

Tucker came out the gate with his very first Twitter episode, trying to side with the Russians against Ukraine
 

Tucker is literally one of the few shows from America that Russia will allow on TVs that should tell you something