Tucker Carlson Putin Interview

[mtpockets]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1755372901942038771



^^^^^^ This guy says what many are thinking...

[ectoBgone]

How many?

[mtpockets]

How many?

I am guessing Boatloads.


The actual number will vary depending on the size of the vessels and its occupants.. Shorties, fatties etc….If I can get an accurate count, I’ll get back to you.

[ectoBgone]

That's the great thing about the internet, we can always find many people to reinforce our thinking.

[Plateauplower]

That's the great thing about the internet, we can always find many people to reinforce our thinking.

Personally, I would rather have more information from both sides of a conflict that we are funding, rather than existing in a self-induced political echo chamber because orange man bad... Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

I don't trust putin one bit, but my trust in our current "leaders" of the US government is about the same.

[Karl_Hungus]

Personally, I would rather have more information from both sides of a conflict that we are funding, rather than existing in a self-induced political echo chamber because orange man bad... Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

I don't trust putin one bit, but my trust in our current "leaders" of the US government is about the same.

^^ Well said.

[7Seconds]

By his own admission, he’s an entertainer not a reliable journalist. He argued this in a court of law.

People may be upset because treating real world issues as bait for views has lots of real world implications.


* Relevant citation from the court case.

"Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes." Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."

[LWW]

By his own admission, he’s an entertainer not a reliable journalist. He argued this in a court of law.

People may be upset because treating real world issues as bait for views has lots of real world implications.


* Relevant citation from the court case.

CDS right here.

Who’s the late night shows that most of Merica watches are entertaining too but they get a pass.

[7Seconds]

CDS right here.

Who’s the late night shows that most of Merica watches are entertaining too but they get a pass.

Ok, it’s CDS now. How could I not love Tucker Carlson? I quite enjoyed his recent interview with Alex Jones as Carlson nodded solemnly as Alex claimed that Biden kicks dogs while wandering around the White House high and nude. Quite the bastion of journalistic integrity.

[Plateauplower]

By his own admission, he’s an entertainer not a reliable journalist. He argued this in a court of law.

People may be upset because treating real world issues as bait for views has lots of real world implications.


* Relevant citation from the court case.

* "Fox persuasively argues"... TBH I don't care if Tucker is juggling bowling pins while on a unicycle during the interview. He is interviewing the leader of a nation we are in a proxy war with, which is more information from that side of the story than we are seeing in ANY mainstream "news" sources. As such, this provides additional information allowing people to generate their own personal opinions, if they are so inclined...Why hasn't racheal maddaw or whoever you determine to be a "real" journalist conducted such an interview? Also, can something be entertaining and also true? Do you think Joe Biden is running the country? A guy that can't run his own gastrointestinal system, tries to shake hands with nonexistent beings, claims to have recent meetings with long deceased politicians, mumbles incoherent things and falls down regularly...Ya, I'm sure he is running the most powerful nation on the planet. The thought that you believe that is both entertaining and scary.

[7Seconds]

* "Fox persuasively argues"... TBH I don't care if Tucker is juggling bowling pins while on a unicycle during the interview. He is interviewing the leader of a nation we are in a proxy war with, which is more information from that side of the story than we are seeing in ANY mainstream "news" sources.

To be fair I don't think anybody would be able to do an interview with Putin and have it not be a propaganda piece.

He's not exactly known for being friendly to dissenters or critics.

Which is why no organization with journalistic integrity would agree to the stipulations (explicit or implicitly understood) Putin has likely required to get it to happen in the first place.

[Plateauplower]

To be fair I don't think anybody would be able to do an interview with Putin and have it not be a propaganda piece.

He's not exactly known for being friendly to dissenters or critics.

Which is why no organization with journalistic integrity would agree to the stipulations (explicit or implicitly understood) Putin has likely required to get it to happen in the first place.

So, what you're saying is that you lack the capacity to formulate your own opinions and conclusions based on hearing what a leader from another country that we are in a proxy war with says during an interview. Is ignorance really bliss, or is that just a saying?

[7Seconds]

So, what you're saying is that you lack the capacity to formulate your own opinions and conclusions based on hearing what a leader from another country that we are in a proxy war with says during an interview. Is ignorance really bliss, or is that just a saying?

It’s not me that I am worried about.

[BlackJack619]

Why wasn’t Russia a problem when MIT Romney said it was a problem?
I remember Biden and Obama laughing at Romney for saying Russia was a problem.

What’s changed that now Biden finally admits Russia is a problem?

I’m starting to think libs are just who conservatives were 10 years ago.

[Karl_Hungus]

By his own admission, he’s an entertainer not a reliable journalist. He argued this in a court of law.

People may be upset because treating real world issues as bait for views has lots of real world implications.


* Relevant citation from the court case.

I think we both know that is meaningless -- people will say whatever they can in court that will push them in a favorable direction. Whether Tucker is an angel or the devil is really irrelevant. The interview will stand on its own merits

It’s not me that I am worried about.

Ah...the old "I'm smart enough to process complexity and nuance, but nobody else is". We've certainly had plenty of propaganda on one side, maybe we should hear what the other side has to say. More information is always better than less

And for the record, I can't stand Putin, but am still interested in his perspective....just as I would be interested in the perspective of Kim Jong Un or Xi Jing Ping.

[Plateauplower]

I think we both know that is meaningless -- people will say whatever they can in court that will push them in a favorable direction. Whether Tucker is an angel or the devil is really irrelevant. The interview will stand on its own merits



Ah...the old "I'm smart enough to process complexity and nuance, but nobody else is". We've certainly had plenty of propaganda on one side, maybe we should hear what the other side has to say. More information is always better than less

And for the record, I can't stand Putin, but am still interested in his perspective....just as I would be interested in the perspective of Kim Jong Un or Xi Jing Ping.

My thoughts as well. Information is good and could help resolve or prevent conflicts and military actions. I think that is the reason it is forbidden by the current administration. Need to spread some freedom bombs to get those pollical donations from the contractors who are profiting from killing people.

[7Seconds]

I think we both know that is meaningless -- people will say whatever they can in court that will push them in a favorable direction. Whether Tucker is an angel or the devil is really irrelevant. The interview will stand on its own merits

I agree his admission could be meaningless but the fact the court agreed with it in the opinion above is not.

Ah...the old "I'm smart enough to process complexity and nuance, but nobody else is". We've certainly had plenty of propaganda on one side, maybe we should hear what the other side has to say. More information is always better than less

Not how I intended it, but 2 of the last American journalists to actively investigate their respective stories inside Russia are currently sitting in Russian prison. So one could wonder why Putin consented to be interviewed by this particular person. It makes you wonder if Putin has the impression that Carlson at his core is sympathetic to his cause. Not mention the audience Putin would want to target are the types who consume Tucker’s brand of conspiracy theories.

And for the record, I can't stand Putin, but am still interested in his perspective....just as I would be interested in the perspective of Kim Jong Un or Xi Jing Ping.

Why? he has already publicly stated his reasons for invading Ukraine. I really don't think Putin is going to have anything interesting to say. His paper on historical unity was borderline a rambling diatribe. I'm going to watch it, but it's just not interesting to me if the interviewer doesn't push back hard and consistently. Tucker almost certainly is not going to push back in any meaningful way. It's going to be a lot like the Oliver Stone Putin interviews which were ok watching just to get some insight into the nuances of his psyche, which words he uses etc..., but beyond that weren't very illuminating.

[paulinkansas]

I would not drink the bottled water during the interview.

[LWW]

As usual, another chit thread for OP to grab some popcorn to.

[ectoBgone]

Personally, I would rather have more information from both sides of a conflict that we are funding, rather than existing in a self-induced political echo chamber because orange man bad... Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

I don't trust putin one bit, but my trust in our current "leaders" of the US government is about the same.

Agree 100%. It's all propaganda from both sides. We should have access to both so we can make our own reasonable judgments.

[Plateauplower]

Agree 100%. It's all propaganda from both sides. We should have access to both so we can make our own reasonable judgments.

To take that a step further, an informed populace is essentially the only way we are able to hold our government accountable. There are war hawks in both parties that we need to get rid of. They will send your kids to die in a foreign land for profit without a second thought about it.

[Cantplankwell]

I dont follow Carlson but he was up here a few weeks ago stirring up things in Alberta.

I fact checked everything he had to say in his 20min, 85% of it was BS or partial facts, and then spin. Is it like this in the US as well?

This is all about him getting clicks and money.

[7Seconds]

A bit nuts we now include Putin in the both sides argument.

[Plateauplower]

A bit nuts we now include Putin in the both sides argument.

Are you suggesting that he is not involved in the Russian Ukraine conflict? Or are you suggesting that foreign policy and decisions to finance a proxy war should be made without dialog to understand the underlying conflict? Maybe instead of an "entertainer" going to interview putin, Biden could go talk some sense into him, tell him a corn pop story to get him in-line.

[7Seconds]

Are you suggesting that he is not involved in the Russian Ukraine conflict?

Putin has already stated very publicly his reasoning for Ukraine. I am not sure what new information you expect Carlson would get out of him. There are entirely valid conservative journalists who behave differently from Tucker Carlson who, if they interviewed him, would not have nearly the same level of suspicion cast upon them. People aren’t suspicious of him because he’s a conservative talking head, it’s because he has already spent a considerable amount of airtime pushing Russian propaganda.


ETA: Putin lays out his reasoning pretty clearly here in the article I mentioned above (as well as in Russian state News interviews).

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181


This paper was intended for domestic audiences and for drumming up nationalistic support.

Tucker’s interview is going to be intended for foreign audiences, it's probably going to downplay the nationalistic themes a bit.

[LWW]

I dont follow Carlson but he was up here a few weeks ago stirring up things in Alberta.

I fact checked everything he had to say in his 20min, 85% of it was BS or partial facts, and then spin. Is it like this in the US as well?

This is all about him getting clicks and money.

I guess if you fact check (what is that anyway, looking on the Internet, which can be manipulated) Brenden everything ends up true?

[Cantplankwell]

I guess if you fact check (what is that anyway, looking on the Internet, which can be manipulated) Brenden everything ends up true?

Published data...here in Canada its "Statcan" (Statistics Canada), for example... homicides per 100,000 population, for particular years. The numbers don't lie, only people

[Karl_Hungus]

I agree his admission could be meaningless but the fact the court agreed with it in the opinion above is not. .

He is a talkshow host who gives his opinions....but you are missing the point. Tucker's journalistic chops or lack thereof are irrelevant as the interview will stand on its own merit.

Not how I intended it, but 2 of the last American journalists to actively investigate their respective stories inside Russia are currently sitting in Russian prison. So one could wonder why Putin consented to be interviewed by this particular person. It makes you wonder if Putin has the impression that Carlson at his core is sympathetic to his cause. Not mention the audience Putin would want to target are the types who consume Tucker’s brand of conspiracy theories.

So it IS how you intended it. No matter, you undermine your own point here if he is doing little more than preaching to the choir. Sympathetic? Or perhaps not overtly hostile? It is no secret that Tucker isn't a fan of US involvement in the Ukraine war. That alone could be the explanatory factor, but again, your argument is an emotional one, not a rational one. It seems that your dislike of Tucker Carlson is one of the primary driving forces of your opposition.

Why? he has already publicly stated his reasons for invading Ukraine. I really don't think Putin is going to have anything interesting to say.

Well, I guess if 7seconds doesn't believe Putin has anything interesting to say then I guess there is no point in conducting the interview! . I am sure that Ukraine will be a major topic, but I would be interested to see what his views are on other topics on the world stage (e.g. China). If you are correct and there is nothing interesting or new to come of it, then nothing has been gained or lost. Not sure why you are so fiercely opposed.

[Mark1T]

A bit nuts we now include Putin in the both sides argument.

60 Minutes would do it and it has made many interviews with our enemies and 60 Minutes is on the opposite side of the political spectrum than Tucker.



https://www.cbsnews.com/video/syrian...on-60-minutes/





So, what makes these people different than Putin? All of the enemies above were given the chance to voice their positions/arguments.

Just because Tucker did the interview, it is wrong?

[NorwichGrad]

Personally, I would rather have more information from both sides of a conflict that we are funding, rather than existing in a self-induced political echo chamber because orange man bad... Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

I don't trust putin one bit, but my trust in our current "leaders" of the US government is about the same.

Boom. Checkmate. This should be tattooed on the penis of every American 🇺🇸 Patriot with at least two functioning brain cells.

Gubmints, any gubmint, should never be trusted. Our gubmint is responsible for millions of deaths around the world. That’s a fact.

Statism is brain disease.

Anybody who thinks American politicians are innocent are just as brainless as JFK after his assassination.

Here’s the bottom line:

WWIII is here. Millions will die. Hyperinflation will crush the middle class.

What can we do to profit? Very few will and can answer this. Because many will fall for the distraction.