I should be a bit more specific about FOX. While most of the FOX presenters are airing this stuff from Matt Taibbi simply to tarnish their traditional opponents, ONE of them stands out as legitimate in my mind-- Tucker Carlson
Frankly I can’t believe he is still allowed to have any access to media given his consistently anti-corporate po…
I should be a bit more specific about FOX. While most of the FOX presenters are airing this stuff from Matt Taibbi simply to tarnish their traditional opponents, ONE of them stands out as legitimate in my mind-- Tucker Carlson
Frankly I can’t believe he is still allowed to have any access to media given his consistently anti-corporate populist views
I wonder how long it will be before he too loses his platform and gets “cancelled”
It's interesting to me that you didn't respond similarly to the post I responded to, which was similarly devoid of a coherent point, but just happened to be right-leaning in nature.
But I guess you were never pretending to be something other than a partisan hack.
"...the post I responded to, which was similarly devoid of a coherent point..."
1. Thank you for admitting your post was "devoid of a coherent point". I do appreciate the sincere humility, given how rare this can be these days. So, I'm not just picking on you! In fact, you're maybe a little too hard on youself... You've made oh-so-clear what you think of Tucker Carlson -- that is, a point made, and very coherently!
2. Now, as to the OP being equally "devoid of a coherent point":
Hmmm... He's differentiating between Tucker and the rest of FOX; the former admirable, the latter not so much. Why, there's a point! Coherent too! Do you disagree? That is, with its coherence, not its lack of presented evidence, which IMO is a completely separate matter. Maybe we could even, you know, discuss it a little?
So is the above really partisan hackery? Remember, you're talking to someone who's to the Left of Marx.
Carlson will lose his platform if he ever skirts the Murdoch bottom line. If his ersatz "anti-corporate populist views" is making money for Rupert, then that's good enough for Rupert.
He's a shill just like the rest. If he wasn't he wouldn't be on corporate broadcasts. Nobody gets a show on corporate news without being a spineless toady to corporate power. It's all kabuki theatre. The sooner we acknowledge this uncomfortable truth the sooner we can focus on real issues.
It's likely Carlson is being let out to run for now because he is either
(a) being set up as a new candidate for prime scapegoat (a la Trump) and will, at some point once they have sufficient goods on him or he makes a serious mistake, go down very hard a la Alex Jones; or
(b) controlled opposition. But on this latter possibility I don't see any clear signals, other than the usual Overton windows on MSM talent.
I seriously doubt the deep state has lost control at this point; they are nothing if not masterful over the last several decades.
I should be a bit more specific about FOX. While most of the FOX presenters are airing this stuff from Matt Taibbi simply to tarnish their traditional opponents, ONE of them stands out as legitimate in my mind-- Tucker Carlson
Frankly I can’t believe he is still allowed to have any access to media given his consistently anti-corporate populist views
I wonder how long it will be before he too loses his platform and gets “cancelled”
Tucker Carlson is an unwashed anus. The man is a chameleon with no principles whatsoever.
You honestly view him as reliable? I hope you get the help you need.
You're here to shill for his TV show like all the other Tucker ad posters? Get fucked, nerd.
That tells us a lot about Tucker Carlson, Dwhy. Thanks for playing!
It's interesting to me that you didn't respond similarly to the post I responded to, which was similarly devoid of a coherent point, but just happened to be right-leaning in nature.
But I guess you were never pretending to be something other than a partisan hack.
Seriously? OK, sure.
"...the post I responded to, which was similarly devoid of a coherent point..."
1. Thank you for admitting your post was "devoid of a coherent point". I do appreciate the sincere humility, given how rare this can be these days. So, I'm not just picking on you! In fact, you're maybe a little too hard on youself... You've made oh-so-clear what you think of Tucker Carlson -- that is, a point made, and very coherently!
2. Now, as to the OP being equally "devoid of a coherent point":
Hmmm... He's differentiating between Tucker and the rest of FOX; the former admirable, the latter not so much. Why, there's a point! Coherent too! Do you disagree? That is, with its coherence, not its lack of presented evidence, which IMO is a completely separate matter. Maybe we could even, you know, discuss it a little?
So is the above really partisan hackery? Remember, you're talking to someone who's to the Left of Marx.
Carlson will lose his platform if he ever skirts the Murdoch bottom line. If his ersatz "anti-corporate populist views" is making money for Rupert, then that's good enough for Rupert.
He's a shill just like the rest. If he wasn't he wouldn't be on corporate broadcasts. Nobody gets a show on corporate news without being a spineless toady to corporate power. It's all kabuki theatre. The sooner we acknowledge this uncomfortable truth the sooner we can focus on real issues.
It's likely Carlson is being let out to run for now because he is either
(a) being set up as a new candidate for prime scapegoat (a la Trump) and will, at some point once they have sufficient goods on him or he makes a serious mistake, go down very hard a la Alex Jones; or
(b) controlled opposition. But on this latter possibility I don't see any clear signals, other than the usual Overton windows on MSM talent.
I seriously doubt the deep state has lost control at this point; they are nothing if not masterful over the last several decades.