Trump switches from Hannity to Tucker
Election fever! It's got a hold on me. You know like something's got a hold on me. That something is revitalization, which may prove fleeting. Tulsi's candidacy convinces that all is not hopeless. Her effect on Trump is and will be immense. The coming power of opposition is not from Nervous Nancy or Spineless Bernie or Crazy like a fox AOC (phony that she is). It is Tulsi and her growing cadre. But Tulsi may soon exit the D Party once Killary pushes her way back onto the stage. This is coming soon--before December, dear friends.
I, for one, have bet my son-in-law $100 that HRC will plop-waddle back onto the Presidential candidacy soon--before December. Be still my heart. Please, Holy Pastafarian Father of us all, grant my humble plea that you allow the Evil Queen to lose yet another election. And please, let your mighty Meatballs of Karma grant my wish. I will say seven Hail Marinaras every morning, my Noodly Lord.
Long ago (actually 2017) I wrote that another run by Clinton would have two direct effects:
1. The long-sought destruction of the Demonratic Party
2. A stronger than ever El Trumpo who will dispense Justice and Mercy throughout the land.
Whoa, did I detect snickers at that last remark? Oh, you disbelievers, see you not the inevitability of her Heinous yet attempting to ascend the Throne of Empire, golden orb in one hand, nuclear button in the other?
Some of our essayists and others fail to see the forest for the trees. Here is what is going on. A few weeks ago, I advised you readers that Bolt-on's time in Power is limited. The Orange Man banished Bolt-on to Mongolia, where hopefully he could be part of a Mongolian Barbecue.
So who accompanied El Trumpo to Pyongyang and the DMZ? Not Pompous Mike. No, not Gina Dead Ducks Haspell. It was none other than Tucker Carlson.
An earlier essay by me revealed an intense dislike on the part of some for the former bow-tie wearer. But that viewpoint is too narrowly triggered by a whiff of anything Conservative. I like Tucker--and so does Trump. Tucker calls the shots as sees them--much like Tulsi. Tucker has the guts to stand up to and then smack down the psychopathic Neocons he often baits to come onto his show. Those Neocons match in stupidity what they posses in psychopathy.
Yes, Tucker is conservative. He is also fervently anti-war, which some c99ers cannot seem to believe. It was Tucker who advised Trump not to strike Iran after the recent bombings (torpedoing?) of two Japanese oil tankers in the Hormuz Straights. Though criticized by R and D chickenhawks, Trump actually performed some real diplomacy--and not for the first time.
Who does Trump usually talk to on Fox? Sean Hannity. Hannity has a jingoistic love of American exceptionalism and NeoCon hunger for vengeance--vengeance on anybody perceived to be a threat to our Glorious but Fading Empire. Trump uses Hannity as a foil for explaining the failed Coup and its ramifications. Trump also uses Hannity when talking tough, e.g., during the previous round of Chinese trade negotiations followed by a brief tariff imposition. That imposition is now post-poned--probably for the foreseeable future. Both Xi and the Chito realize that the Tariff is double-plus ungood (to quote Orwell).
So Tucker not only had an extensive interview with Trump while Trump was in North Korea, but Tucker was in North Korea with Trump. Pompous Mike was notably unpresent (as well as unpleasant). Tucker, you scoffers, is a level-headed fellow. He is willing to discuss things rationally. His recent Tulsi interview proves his openness to contrary ideas. But there is definitely one item upon which both he and Tulsi agree: end the wars.
If Tulsi could accomplish only one thing by her candidacy, it would to be immensely mobilize and strengthen the anti-war movement. Trump knows this. His peace offensive began months ago in North Korea and continues. Things are just getting started on the peninsula--all for the good. Trump blustered, playing brinksmanship with Iran, most recently. But the correct response to the drone downing was correct. Call it an Iranian mistake and let it go at that. Trump made his point. The Iranians got the message. The guns are "cocked and loaded" but bellicosity now takes a back seat. Trump is talking to Tucker and we are able to listen into that conversation. This new conversation is peace-focused. Trump has shelved Bolt-on and this is a huge humiliation for Bolt-on. Perhaps a few more symbolic slaps in the face will convince the Fiery Mustache to depart DC for his bat cave.
Now, some troubling issues remain with Pompeo. The major issue that he is still Secretary of State. Maybe missions to Mali, Tasmania, and Nepal could be arranged for Mike so to keep him out of mischief--go play in the corner, Mikey and don't start any wars.
Expect to see Tucker's role grow in prominence. Bolt-on and Pompous Mike have too much Neocon baggage for people to believe Trump is serious about Peace.
Probably that's why, we aren't hearing too much about random guy named Guaido and the Murderous Monster Maduro. Is Elliot Abrams falling down on the job or has he likewise been muzzled? I think the muzzle is on. Abrams is NeoCon window dressing. He will be dispensed with before Bolt-on. The RINOs are going to roar but peace is coming--unless the effing Demonrats muck this up too. And if HRC has any say, they will.
Like it or not, the Hildebeast is running again. Remember, you heard it here--from a swamp dweller who knows other swampers. I have a picture of me eating one of the snakes growing from Hillary's cranium.
Comments
Here's the Trump-Tucker interview
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRQW675j6dM]
14 minutes--and worth every minute to watch.
I can't
I can not stand to see him talk. 14 minutes is too much of my life to waste on looking at that thing. There's just something about the way he looks when he talks that disgusts me. He's not the only one though, I also can't stand to watch that guy that runs ToP talk. Bolt-on just looks so much like a cartoon that I can't watch him either. Where are his lips? I have never actually heard any of them speak and that makes me grateful to be deaf. There are some things and people that are not worth hearing.
Is it great yet?
Nobody talks like Trump.
What is his problem besides stupid, narcissistic with the vocabulary of an 8-year-old? No, I'm not watching that either. new
On the positive side, good news everywhere for Bernie. Biden tanking, Bernie leaving Warren and Harris behind while closing the gap on Biden, huge crowds in Iowa, and he raised 18 million in Q2 from 1 million donors, most monthly pledges, and 42% of whom were new. That's 18 million at $18 dollars a pop. A poll of Independent voters only has Trump, Bernie, and then Tulsi solidly in place as 1, 2 and 3. Warren, Biden, and Harris are barely a blip on their radar.
Hey JtC. The uploader is definitely better. Thanks for kicking its tires.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I wish I could accept polling numbers--any poll
Most polls are expressly commissioned by artisan organizations. That automatically introduces an irremovable bias.
I would love to believe it but "once bitten, twice shy". The "great" Nathan Silver of 538 blew his entire reputation in 2016 predicting a Hillarian landslide. Maybe if I read the poll results enough times, I might start to believe it.,
But you believe Hillary is lurking
In the wings and Tulsi can win?
Polls can be skewed, but we all know that. Actually I had the order wrong. Bernie, Tulsi and then Trump.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I believe Tulsi can win
but I am doubtful that this time around she will win as a Democrat. HRC will shove Tulsi rudely away from any semblance of popularity or policy impact. Tulsi might bolt, as I've already written, if the rigging is too overt to deny. In the meantime, expect Tulsi to build up a considerable repertoire of bills aimed at putting "people before profit". Her time is 2024. America by then will have had enough of Trump, who will be a hard act for any Republican to follow.
Why are you disrespecting bats?
Unlike Bolt-on, bats serve a useful purpose. They help with insect control. Instead of the bat cave, let's banish Bolt-on to the rat cave, where his whiskers blend in and his personality fits in.
Sorry to depreciate bats when it should have been rats
I do have a picture of Bolt-on after Trumpy told him not to start any more wars.
Aligator, here is
a link to an article which is a very cynical take on what the Dims might be up to: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/06/14/democrats-sinister-str...
My feeling after the two debates was what is it going to take to start a third party?
Mary Bennett
Interesting insights from the article.
Interesting point about social media and internet censorship gives a false view of what is really going in the populace. But yes, FB has announced that they will be monitoring information on the platform during the election, and basically censoring out stuff the democratic establishment does not want--like websites advocating that people do not vote. One problem democrats had was lack of turn out among key parts of the base.
I think people have risen beyond social media's power.
No matter how loud and long the establishment smears outsider candidates in print, on the internet, or on the TV, people aren't having it anymore.
Trump was a revolt. Bernie was a revolt in 2016. If they hadn't of stolen the win, Bernie would have beat Hillary and I believe Trump. Bernie is a revolt in 2018. There is a moment in history. Obama blew his. Bernie had a shot in 2016, and I'm cautiously optimistic he's got another opportunity in 2020.
If the current poll of Independent voters and Dem leaners is right, Bernie and Tulsi have the opportunity to destroy Trump, the Democratic Party as Bubba remade it in his image, and change the future for the better for a whole lot of people.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
About that article being 'insightful', laughable yes.
"...O’Rourke has charisma, and has some of the appeal of a Kennedy meets Jimmy Stewart."
Well, author nailed it about Dems attempting to shut down
and/or censor much of our social media.
Furnished a link a while back, about Mark Warner's slew of bills and White Paper on this topic. Guess he's 'the leader,' because he founded and/or heavily invested in Nextel at one time.
For sure, he's frequently on Cable Teevee talking about the need to 'censor' information--because of 'democracy.' Aside from being downright scary, that Dude's a piece of work. (Not that it's not a funny topic.)
Honestly, don't agree that most people are knowledgeable enough to see through what Dems, with the help of their libertarian high tech buds, are doing (with social media).
Just look at how many Dems--according to polls--believe the "Russia Ruse." Phew!
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
The answer to your third party question
" What is it going to take to start a third party?" Read carefully because the message is subtle.
TULSI
lol, you'be been feasting on too many Kossacks
I hear they make people hallucinate and turn them into fanboys.
Tulsi is riding a wave. Yes, she is contributing to its locomotion. Without Bernie, however, she's nowhere that matters. In 2016, Bernie was outside of the mainstream, radical, nuts. In 2020, everyone and everything is all Bernie. His platform was a pipe dream and now it is an expectation. Bernie did this. Not Tulsi, not Warren, no one but Bernie.
And while I'm at it, let me share this. Disclaimer first. I do not hate Tulsi. If she is his VP, I'll be delighted. If by some miracle she actually survives and beats Bernie, I will remain openminded and cheer her on. Having said that, this pissed me off.
Yeah cause I’d rather have a female corporate Dem in the WH than save the planet, bail out student debt, and give people healthcare. The vagina running the CIA is a torturer. Tulsi agreeing to participate in this pile of pink, exploitive fluff is an embarrassment to women and everything she stands for. First, they disrespect her, and now she high-fives with "the girls" and poses for a Warren photo op.
Nobody is perfect.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Opps! [Edit] I hope you're right, AE. 'If' TG runs third
party, she'd be the Dem that we (Mr M and I) can consider voting for. (high likelihood, IOW)
Now, won't hold my breath that she'll do it; but, all things considered--she's not as entrenched, nor a part of the Dem Party Leadership--so, she's the most likely candidate to do so. (IMO)
Hope it happens.
My 'prediction' from what I've seen, thus far (assuming the PtB will make certain that Bernie and/or Tulsi are blocked from the nomination) -
[Edited: 'Warren' not 'Warner' - second edit - added space]
Obviously, don't have a crystal ball. But, that's how it's looking from the most recent Iowa polls; and, from my impression of the Debates.
(BTW, not based on what 'I' think--just how they performed, and, how the corporatist MSM and Dem Party has spun everything. Polls seem to reflect their propaganda, especially, following the debate.)
I have a 'gut feeling' that Harris will not be 'allowed' to top the DP ticket.
Think Biden is toast--no longer a player, at all.
Apparently, Warren has a formidable ground game In Iowa. What so many people 'see in her'--dunno. (I still have to leave the room when she speaks--or, turn off the radio, altogether.
)
But, she's doing well two primary groups of Dem Party activists (including AA women), so, unless she totally scr*ws up, she has, at the very least, a shot at winning the Caucus. Heard that she has the highest number of paid staffers in Iowa. (Of course, Bernie's volunteer network could give her a run for the money. Just heard (on Cable) that he's beefing up his paid staffers, there, as of this week. Which is smart, since volunteers aren't always as dependable.)
Just hope the 'candidate elimination process' progresses fairly rapidly--although, I expect that it'll drag out for quite a while, yet, since it's basically designed to be a GOTV gimmick, more than anything. (IMO)
Have a nice Fourth, Everyone!
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Nice picks--not bearing any resemblance to reality
Here are the three leading Deomonratic Presidential tickets;
Whoah! I 'hope' you're joking. I don't see the C's
having anywhere near the influence that they once had.
Remember--WJC is 'toxic' because of his 'women' problem. From what I hear on the Boob Tube, Dems are 'hoping' to use the recent claims by a writer (sorry, don't know/remember her name) to go after DT in 2020.
Back when Bill Cosby was on trial, I posted a link to a piece about WJC's alleged incidents (Cosby had almost twice as many, at close to 60)--ranging from inappropriate behavior, sexual assault, to rape.
My point being, IMO, there's no way that the Dem Party would allow FSC to run in the #MeToo Era. Is there? (I don't think so.)
But, what do I know--compared to a 'Gator?
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Do you mean the writer who has accused Trump
of rape? If so Nancy has already said that she has nothing to say about that. She said that it should be up to the republicans to address it.
I have no opinion on whether he did that or not, but I do on why she has come forward now? He can't be prosecuted for it because of the time limits.
Democrats have so much ammunition to go after Trump just like they did Bush, but once again they are keeping their powder dry.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Hi, SD - that's who I mean. The writer who
says she was attacked (raped) in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman Department Store. I guess it was this store.
Well, she's written about it in a just-released book. Which is 'why' it's come to public notice, now.
She told Anderson Cooper in an interview that she didn't come forward during the 2016 Presidential cycle, because she didn't think anyone cared.
(if I understood her correctly. she has an odd affect to her speaking style--hard to explain. she also stated that she been celibate since she was attacked)
At any rate, as you've pointed out, New York law (now) allows for prosecution of rape that happened many years ago, but, that's after a certain date--meaning, it is not grandfathered into law, or, retroactive (so, wouldn't benefit her). Could she have her day in Civil Court? Dunno. Probably.
My point was that FSC would be too 'tainted' to run in this #MeToo Environment. Or, I would 'think' that WJC's past would be ammunition for Repubs, just as allegations against DT are for Dems. Especially, after his angry and defensive posture during an interview about Lewinsky about a year ago, or so.
Didn't know that Pelosi said that--heard some Dem Congressman say on CNN that he was going to investigate the charge. Didn't catch his name, and, didn't recognize his voice. Guess we'll know, soon enough.
Hey, have a nice weekend!
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
This is not "keeping the powder dry"
The Dims are shooting at Trump but they're aiming at Russians.
And hitting neither Trump nor the Russians
but instead, shooting themselves in the foot, as usual.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Your linked article is both true and scary
The Clintons still run the party. Theparty has nothing but a shell inflated by hot gas exhalations of pandering Klowns with paper programs which have no chance of being born: i.e., result in meaningful legislation. It's all talk.
Censorship is what the Social Democrats in Germany count on, too
It’s not by happenstance that Heiko Maas, the minister who pushed the NetzDG, a German law mandating 24-hour removal of Internet content following a complaint, is a Social Democrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz
Using the article’s terminology, voters for the right-wing populist AfD party in eastern Germany could be termed “paradigmatic” voters as well.
Funny how the word "Democrat" gets turned on its head
The Social Dems in Germany are repressing what they don't want to be known just like the domestic "Democrats" do. Both are censorious, possibly because they believe that "Democrats" know what's best for everybody and not reluctant to tell us--nor reluctant to opposed any disagreement with their unbounded wisdom.
I think that Trump respects Tulsi
I believe that she was considered for a role in the Trump administration by his transition team. Trump is a funny guy in his relationships with others. He disrespects most people in power, and respects a few, like Kim, Putin, Xi, Netanyahu, and a few others that I could name. What is it? Gravitas, I think. They are all serious, experienced leaders that know their minds. The rest of the world's leaders are featherweights, with the possible exception of Merkel, but she is ineffective. The clown train of Republicans that Trump ran against were easily defeated by verbally marginalizing them. Think about it, he was verbally outrageous but did make his point that they were featherweights. The current crop of Democrats are all featherweights except for one- Tulsi. Trump knows this.
Hillary has gravitas, but she is impossibly corrupt, flawed and hated by middle America. Trump would make mincemeat of her. Now he is the incumbent and knows where her corpses are buried. Obama would campaign for her, and Trump would make mincemeat of him, with total glee.
I think that Trump would take Tulsi as a serious contender and it would be an interesting race. I really want our country to have to deal with the issue of war and peace. We need some perspective. Post WWII the world decided with the UN charter that all wars were outlawed excepting in defense of an immediate military threat or a resolution of the UN Security Council. We are signatories to that, and our constitution provides that any executed treaty is the law of the land. We are war criminals, over and over again. We use the test of self-interest and falsified evidence to make war. If our congress votes authorization, then it is legal, according to multiple administrations ... no it's not legal. In fact, our Congressional Critters are war criminals. There is no way around this. Who will indict them? Not the Western world as they are all vicarious imperialists through US military and economic power. It's time to revisit the issues of war and peace.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
You're comment is a perfect supplement to the essay. Thank you
You expressed my feelings about Trump/Tulsi mutual respect. She does respect him. You don't hear her calling for impeachment. Such a procedure will lead to certain Dem doom and definitely land a few more congress critters in jail once Operation Boomerang reaches its zenith. That means after Trump's 2020 re-election victory
About Xi, Putin, and others
Leaders like Xi and Putin understand the world of international relationships and diplomacy. They don't go around personally insulting other leaders--something which is constantly demanded by American media, pundits, reporters, etc. of Trump. I watched interviews of Oliver Stone after his documentary of Putin came out. His reason for the documentary was not to support Putin, but to educate Americans Putin and what he is about. The fundamental reaction by the media was HOWDAREYOUTALKTOPUTINANDNOTCALLHIMAMOTHERFUCKERPIECEOFSHIT. Putin gets the same shit when he agrees to interviews by Western press--although the last FT interview of him from the clips I saw was a calm interview about serious issues.
So yah, unlike local media, these leaders use actual adult diplomacy. In the case of Kim, not sure what happened but the NK learned not to insult Trump in the very personal ways the Western media does.
Oh, just a note. Turkey shot down a Russian bomber in Syria. Fast forward something like 2 years and Turkey is now in pissing match with the US over buying Russian S400s. This shows the level of maturation and how the leaders don't let situations get personal.
Interpersonal relationships matter strongly in all transactions
Barry is an effete, egotistical, "my shit don't smell" individual whose persona is as warm as an arctic fish landed on a fishing boat. He could not relate on a personal level with anyone--certainly not Hillary.--He let her get away with anything Hillary wanted.
Why has he not endorsed China Joe? Because it is his obligation to richly endorse "the most qualified candidate since Thomas Jefferson". This means H. Rotten Clinton.
Obama is the first existential president
Imagine in Camus's The Stranger if Meursaul became president. That is who Obama reminds me of.
As for Hillary. I would not be surprised if she re-emerges and even becomes the nominee. H.H. Humphrey was the dem candidate in 1968 even though he did not run in any primary. So there is precedent. Donna Brazile claimed she was ready to install Biden as the dem candidate if Hillary became too sick to run even though Biden was not in one primary leaving out Bernie.
If Trump likes and supports her,
I need to rethink my opinion of her. The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Did you ever hear the old saying
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer? Revisit the master Sun Tzu who emphasized repeatedly that the general must know (understand) his enemy. To not do so is folly. An honest general also respects worthy opponents.
I don’t bunk with alligators or snakes.
You have a self-diagnosed case of wishful thinking and severe fandom resulting in fever, muddled thinking and delusions. Take two aspirin and check back in the morning. Lay off snacking on those Kossacks. Exercise and improve your diet.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Tulsi will do exactly what Bernie did come convention time.
"It was (Insert target of Capitalist imperial action here) that hacked our primaries."
"We have to support (Insert Moderate Republican Chosen by DNC Here) because Trump."
"Vote (Insert Moderate Republican Here) or Trump will take what's left."
I don't know why you have such enthusiasm for this shit when you already know the outcome as well as anyone else does. If the Gentricrap fascist enablers must die, so too must Dipshit, Tucker and all other Nazi Sympathizer war criminal pieces of shit. No exceptions.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Here is the kernel of your comment
I agree with that, but your other nihilistic opinions do not foster any possible meaningful political discussion with parties for whom you bear no ideological sympathy.
If anyone is nihilistic here, it would be those
who will vote for Dipshit once Tulsi concedes. That's nihilism at its worst. Refusing to buy into the obvious sheepdogging and calling for the death of both capitalist isn't nihilistic. Supporting members of the capitalist politboro like Dipshit and Fox News' Trust Fund Propagandist is.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
On this, Aspie, we agree
Are we back to the lesser of two evils? Or, if I read your comment correctly, you regard El Trumpo and the Evil Queen as equally bad? They are not. Trump will not start a war. Who knows how many Killary would have us involved in had she won?
El Trumpo is Killary's accomplice in this entire charade.
And Dipshit won't start a war? Yeah, right. Considering how easily he's provoked, he'd start a war with any leader who called out his horseshit on Twitter.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Nihilism at its worst . . .
is criticizing every proposed strategy while offering none of your own.
How is the existing duopoly going to fall apart? If it does, isn't the most likely outcome monopoly fascism?
Please, give us a detailed plan of action.
We already have monopoly fascism.
It just likes to masquerade as a duopoly to give the electorate the illusion of choice while the capitalist pigs are the only ones who actually have a say in policy.
So, whether you vote Billary's Accomplice (Trump), or the next right-wing Gentricrap they decide to shove up our asses, it doesn't matter.
You want to keep trying to work within a broke ass system that will never be fixed because it works exactly as the capitalists intended? Be my guest, but when Tulsi concedes as planned, "I told you so" ain't gonna cut it.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
And if I don't vote at all a miracle happens? nt
So, Aspie, I ask again,
what is it going to take to get an anti-war third party going?
Mary Bennett
Tucker and Trump sympathico on some major issues.
Tucker has many of the same beliefs on illegal immigration as Trump. Same on foreign wars. I think Tucker understands that if Trump got into a war with Iran, Trump would definitely lose 2020 as by the time of the election, it would be more than apparent that the war and the resulting consequences would be out of control (like gas prices, body counts, etc.). Pompeo and Bolton just want a war(s) and could give a shit if Trump was elected or not if they can just start the wars before the election.
I saw the clip of Hannity with Geraldo and he just lost control and was ranting. Some pundits noted that Hannity invoked Israel over and over in the rant. I hope Hannity lost all credbility with Trump.
Right you are, MrWebster
Hannity seemed as unhinged as Maxine Waters with a bee up her behind. His warmongering tirade did him a huge hurt. Hannity needs a time out. Go to the corner, Sean, and sit with your face to the wall for 30 minutes. Then, when you have calmed down, you might get some of your credibility back.
Completely OT. Can you explain the support for Yang to me?
AFAIK he is proposing a $3T per year free-money handout, financed by a very regressive VAT. I'd have to give up my monthly social security check to get it. Meanwhile everything I buy would increase in cost to pay for it! It seems like complete lunacy to me. Am I missing something?
(Or is it that young folks support UBI because they don't think social security will be around for them-so grab it while you can?)
chuck utzman
TULSI 2020
Are we to think
the propaganda is only as good as who the rulers should choose as exemplars?
How far down the rabbit hole has truth fallen?
Maybe works in your world view.
Let's invite David Letterman to express the wishes of the elite in the next war!
That's the ticket.
David Letterman
What did David Letterman ever do to you?
(He's better by far than Colbert in the "keep ordinary life comedy in the show" department. Recently, Colbert's gone so far into TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMP that he sounds like a failing tire.)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I agree that I like Tucker . . . .
Don't probably agree with him on everything, but definitely like his anti-war views and his sermon on inequality.
[video:https://youtu.be/mgvpxE_WKxw]
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
IMO, Carlson is basically a libertarian
Lately, Carlson has been espousing some economic populism, but so did Ron Paul in his past presidential campaigns. Ron Paul is a libertarian and I believe Tucker Carlson is too. Here is a recent article that addresses Tucker Carlson and Ron Paul's libertarianism. I found the article worth reading, even though it was published in the Washington Examiner, which leans right. My antenna comes up when I hear the word "libertarianism" (especially in the economic sense) and I remain guarded.
Choose allies when sharing common ground
Libertarians, regardless of other policies, with which I personally disagree, are anti-war. On this commonality, we should fight together. If we don't get this country off a permanent war footing, no progress in civil affairs will be possible.
My comment
I have a problem with the economic side of Libertarianism and that is why I included the parentheses. There is some intersection between progressives and civil libertarians, but the solutions are likely different. I am not an expert on political philosophy, so I'll leave it at that. Since Carlson is cheerleading for Trump, I question his real motives when he engages in anti-war and economic equality rhetoric (2 issues very important to me). Is his job to corral some non-Republican Fox News viewers into the Trump pen? I know one thing: the Trump pen is full of economic libertarians and $$, not civil liberties, come first to these people.
I share your concerns
but anybody who is anti-war is fine by me--on that issue. We need anti-war allies anywhere we can get them.