Thoughts on FOX's Tucker Carlson

Well, for starters, I really enjoyed this segment:



I don't think children (non-taxpayers) should be deciding on amending the US Constitution.

Control wrote:

I don't think children (non-taxpayers) should be deciding on amending the US Constitution.

Can't say I'm familiar with Carlson, but that's an interesting line you're arguing. Logically, if one believes in "no taxation without representation" then the reverse should apply as well.

Of course, the whole basis of taxation is open to question. Paying 40% income tax plus 20% sales tax to subsides the activities of people who question my very right to exist - Islamists, feminists and other supremacist groups -  is not something any sensible man would choose to do, but pacifists make the very same argument against any military spending.

I'm with those who say that if you are old enough to get shot, you are also old enough to have an opinion on gun violence.
Doesn't mean that anyone else has to agree with that opinion.

I find the issue impossibly complex though people keep telling me it’s very simple.

It’s not just a question of number of guns as is generally suggested. Switzerland has very high gun ownership but very low incidence of gun deaths. There seems to be a cultural and mental illness element in this as well.

And should we take a similarly restrictive attitude to overeating and cars, surely the biggest killers in the West?  

And if you’re a woman wouldn’t you feel safer carrying a gun – it wasn’t called the equaliser for nothing.

And historically it’s the State that’s coming for you not your next door neighbour.

Erica Ambler wrote:

I find the issue impossibly complex though people keep telling me it’s very simple.

It’s not just a question of number of guns as is generally suggested. Switzerland has very high gun ownership but very low incidence of gun deaths. There seems to be a cultural and mental illness element in this as well.

And should we take a similarly restrictive attitude to overeating and cars, surely the biggest killers in the West?  

And if you’re a woman wouldn’t you feel safer carrying a gun – it wasn’t called the equaliser for nothing.

And historically it’s the State that’s coming for you not your next door neighbour.

All of these are valid points, but in terms of your last one, how much will owning a gun really protect you from the state in 2018?
An arsenal of assault rifles won't really help much in the age of drone strikes.

I don't think stricter gun legislation will solve all of the U.S. problems, but as it exists today, it is ludicrously unregulated.
They cannot even stop a former spree shooter from buying a gun after his release.
I think it's not unreasonable to keep a firearm out of the hands of an individual who at one point used one to kill multiple people.

Also valid points but I don't know what the solution is. London is riven by knife crime - close down Ikea?

BTW, Amazon is now selling crude delivery systems for its toy drones. They can only become more sophisticated and capable of carriyng bigger payloads at which point we may all be in trouble.

I like both Tucker and Hannity, and generally prefer FOX News.

bitchcraft wrote:

I like both Tucker and Hannity, and generally prefer FOX News.

#1 I didn't view the clip in the original post because I think David Hogg is in over his head and I don't want to add to his infamy(?). I suspected he was an angry, frustrated kid prior to this shooting and now that his Reddit posts have been dug up, my suspicions have been confirmed. I don't intend that in a bad way. I just mean most kids aren't ready for fame, and certainly not after having been thrown into a situation like this. He needs to try and go back to a pre-shooting life, but that may not be possible, and he didn't seem like he liked his life prior to the shooting. This can't be good for him.

#2 As for Tucker and Hannity...yeah, no. When O'Reilly left I was hoping they'd offer the slot to Harris Faulkner; maybe Shep Smith. I really like Mark Steyn. Put in *some* variety. But giving it to Tucker, and then another spot to Shannon Bream and Laura Ingraham was just so predictable it's not even funny. Tucker is smart, but I do find him apparently taking positions he criticized Obama for, which means he's lost some of his objectivity. Hannity has become completely unhinged. He was better when it was Hannity and Colmes; without someone to provide balance and contrast he's imploded. I also don't care for people in news media to be "advisors" to politicians. I used to like Hannity, but now he's the Ed Shultz of Fox News.

At this point I find myself watching Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Brian Williams....a lot. I can't believe I'm saying this CNN is just a joke.

All I watch Fox for anymore is Bret Bair and Chris Wallace, and sometimes Outnumbered. But even as I type this I find myself checking out Andrea Mitchell more than Outnumbered. People on FOX I used to like watching (Greg Gutfeld) have completely drank the Trump Kool-Aid.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

...have completely drank the Trump Kool-Aid.

It's probably my brew

The look on Rachel Maddow Madcow's face the moment she realised Trump won was priceless.

She also made a huge arse of herself when she claimed she had the score on his tax returns...and they were completely legit.

bitchcraft wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

...have completely drank the Trump Kool-Aid.

It's probably my brew

The look on Rachel Maddow Madcow's face the moment she realised Trump won was priceless.

She also made a huge arse of herself when she claimed she had the score on his tax returns...and they were completely legit.

It's not a policy issue with me, or a Republican vs Democrat issue. I'd prefer Pence over both Trump and Hillary; I'm tired of the endless freak-show that is Donald Trump. It's literally like the movie IDIOCRACY has come to life. Trump just seems ignorant, stupid, vain, petty, vindictive, shallow, boorish and immoral. Lacks situational awareness; will spare no opportunity, no matter how inappropriate, to plug a product or talk about how great he is. I think he really enjoys trolling the media and his enemies and while that may make for occasional fun, it's beneath the dignity of a mature man who is the most powerful person on the planet, to do that day in and day out. He seems to have no core values other than love of self, which is why I think he's far more likely to cut deals with Democrats post-2018 election than most people assume he will. He's a deal maker because he has no core, ideological beliefs on which to stand up for. He won't fight for anything because he doesn't believe in much (other than himself); he's lazy, which is why he didn't fight for a better budget for the people who voted him into office. He wants others to do all the hardwork and let him take the credit (one reason why John Kasich never considered becoming Trump's VP).

I'm reminded of a quote from THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK in that really sums up Trump to me, where Cher tells Jack Nicholson exactly what she thinks of him: "I think... no, I am positive... that you are the most unattractive man I have ever met in my entire life. You know, in the short time we've been together, you have demonstrated EVERY loathsome characteristic of the male personality and even discovered a few new ones. You are physically repulsive, intellectually retarded, you're morally reprehensible, vulgar, insensitive, selfish, stupid, you have no taste, a lousy sense of humor and you smell. You're not even interesting enough to make me sick." Shoot, Cher, I couldn't have said it better myself.

This is why it was irresponsible for Hillary to be pleased that Donald J. Trump was to be her opponent.

In such a situation, you always hope your opponent is competent, unless you are totally indifferent to the well-being of your country. Or you are apparently so self-deluded you truly believe you can't lose.

A Kasich presidency (to name just one example) would certainly not have harmed the U.S. standing in the world the way Trump has in just a little over a year.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

bitchcraft wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

...have completely drank the Trump Kool-Aid.

It's probably my brew

The look on Rachel Maddow Madcow's face the moment she realised Trump won was priceless.

She also made a huge arse of herself when she claimed she had the score on his tax returns...and they were completely legit.

It's not a policy issue with me, or a Republican vs Democrat issue. I'd prefer Pence over both Trump and Hillary; I'm tired of the endless freak-show that is Donald Trump. It's literally like the movie IDIOCRACY has come to life. Trump just seems ignorant, stupid, vain, petty, vindictive, shallow, boorish and immoral. Lacks situational awareness; will spare no opportunity, no matter how inappropriate, to plug a product or talk about how great he is. I think he really enjoys trolling the media and his enemies and while that may make for occasional fun, it's beneath the dignity of a mature man who is the most powerful person on the planet, to do that day in and day out. He seems to have no core values other than love of self, which is why I think he's far more likely to cut deals with Democrats post-2018 election than most people assume he will. He's a deal maker because he has no core, ideological beliefs on which to stand up for. He won't fight for anything because he doesn't believe in much (other than himself); he's lazy, which is why he didn't fight for a better budget for the people who voted him into office. He wants others to do all the hardwork and let him take the credit (one reason why John Kasich never considered becoming Trump's VP).

I'm reminded of a quote from THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK in that really sums up Trump to me, where Cher tells Jack Nicholson exactly what she thinks of him: "I think... no, I am positive... that you are the most unattractive man I have ever met in my entire life. You know, in the short time we've been together, you have demonstrated EVERY loathsome characteristic of the male personality and even discovered a few new ones. You are physically repulsive, intellectually retarded, you're morally reprehensible, vulgar, insensitive, selfish, stupid, you have no taste, a lousy sense of humor and you smell. You're not even interesting enough to make me sick." Shoot, Cher, I couldn't have said it better myself.

This is so well-put, GS. The lack of dignity might just be the thing that disheartens me the most.

Whatever else one might have thought of Obama, it's nigh-on impossible to imagine him embroiled in legal action with a porn star.

Salomé wrote:

This is why it was irresponsible for Hillary to be pleased that Donald J. Trump was to be her opponent.

In such a situation, you always hope your opponent is competent, unless you are totally indifferent to the well-being of your country. Or you are apparently so self-deluded you truly believe you can't lose.

A Kasich presidency (to name just one example) would certainly not have harmed the U.S. standing in the world the way Trump has in just a little over a year.

Hillary was almost the best candidate someone like Trump could have hoped for because her unfavorable ratings were just as bad as his. When Trump's infamous audio/video was released, it should have been a complete campaign killer for almost anyone else but Trump. However Hillary literally could not say a credible word against him and for his accusers without people remembering that she stood behind her husband repeatedly when his own behavior towards women (albeit slightly different) was exposed. If not for the Democrats and Bill Clinton, Donald Trump wouldn't and couldn't be President today. The Clintons both so lowered the bar when it came to the dignity and prestige of the office that it made it possible for a man like Trump to get elected. The Democrats, in their protect-Clinton-at-all-costs mode (when they should have told him to resign and then move on to Al Gore), gave birth to Donald Trump. They are partly to blame for the grotesque monstrosity that is the current President. Hillary would be almost as bad as Trump, just in different ways. She'd give her own criminal behavior a slightly different air of respectability, but when its all said and done, Trump and Hillary Clinton are both abominable, disgraceful individuals. She absolutely should be in prison and he may very well need to be also.

I guess I always assumed that a person whose name had once become synonymous with the finer things in life would work hard to protect the brand and reputation, but he's seemed all too willing to tarnish his own empire's name and reputation by acting like a complete ass.

He's intellectually lazy. He doesn't study and may even have comprehension issues. I believe news reports that state he gets bored during intelligence and security briefings. I think Trump never expected to win. I think he was a rich but bored billionaire who wanted a new diversion in life. He's like the student in high school or college who didn't study for the test but somehow managed to bullshit the teacher into giving him a passing grade, and now that he's got the job he doesn't know what to do with it. Or put another way, he's like an obese person who lost a lot of weight due to gastro-bypass surgery but then puts it back on later because, not having done anything to earn the weight loss, doesn't value the hard work and sacrifice it takes to get into shape. Trump didn't do much to win the Presidency other than just fly around the country and promote himself. He didn't study. He doesn't know anything. Anyone who pronounces "Two Corinthians" instead of "2nd Corinthians" has never picked up a Bible, yet "Christian Conservatives" have repeatedly and hypocritically given him a pass they wouldn't have given Democrats.

Stormy Daniels is not the equivalent of Monica Lewinksy, but I do think even Trump thought that if the public found out he banged a porn star #1 while married and #2 while his wife was recovering from having his baby, that even THAT might be a bridge too far for some to reconcile, so he paid her off.

I don't even need into get to the Mueller investigation. There's enough outside the scope of that investigation that would qualify Trump for removal based on the 25th Amendment.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

He's intellectually lazy. He doesn't study and may even have comprehension issues.

Yet he's a billionaire, and now the POTUS... not bad for the simpleton some make him out to be.  

Politicians and wannabe politicians on both sides are intellectually lazy.

Control wrote:

Politicians and wannabe politicians on both sides are intellectually lazy.

They have advisors, who are even more retarded. Whoever advised Obama on North Korea during his 8 years should be tarred and feathered.