Jetflag
Elite Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 2,782 Posts
- 2,214 Thanked
“Wrijving geeft glans” / opposites attract m8am about as Liberal as you can get and my girlfriend is Conservative. Go figure
Conservative or liberal (politics)
- Thread starter dmgtz96
- Start date
I'm not even angry at Tucker Carlson. He's well known to be a piece of shit, lol.this is purely your anger talking m8, not your logos.
Regardless of how you personally hate the man and his stances, tucker is a registered journalist under his own company. Legacy media like fox *does not* decide who or what is a journalist in the professional sense.
no, he is categorically, demonstrably >not< a propagandist, see: explainer to @Uplifted above
yes, what he did in the interview was proper journalism/ he is a journalist.
you mistake “real activism” for “real journalism” which given the political ecosystem you’re in might be understandable..
no, they are not. Journalist are expected to ask questions to try to get to the bottom of things. They are not expected to be debaters trying to “pwn” the opponent by “calling them out”
a journalist *can* do it, but is not *expected* too
Only by legacy media outlets and entities toeing the line.
this interview is pretty much the biggest bombshell in its archetype in ages.. and EVERY one of his “critics” is using his material to give their own take.
ill leave you to calculate the revenue of the (copyrighted) image material used left right & center
We, yeah, Tucker Carlson is technically a journalist because he says so: because he is a journalist under the company he himself founded. Do you realize how that sounds? Journalists are expected to be true, accurate, and objective. Tucker Carlson failed at those three things throughout his career, and the interview with Putin was no different.
Ok, I'll grant that maybe he wasn't supposed to call out Putin and debate him on the spot, but surely you would have expected Tucker to ask questions in a way to subtly show Putin is talking bullshit?
Again, I don't think the interview is a gotcha moment or even *that* important.
I didn't even say anything bad about Trump, though. Just that he's buddies with Putin.Figures
Seriously dude? You really had to pull this, an interview with the enemy of a hellish war on the other side of the planet to your own USA Orange Man Bad woes didn’t you?
come on..
A supports B, B likes C, therefore A probably also likes C.
Jetflag
Elite Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 2,782 Posts
- 2,214 Thanked
No, He’s not,
in the same way that Macron and Putin are not,( and the latter has been way more cordial then trump ever was.)
they have (had) polite diplomatic back & forths, which is what they should do as statesmen.
You don’t get to peddle virtues like “truth” and “objectivity” and then go around shamelessly touting propaganda/ half-truths/ lies from your own camp 2 seconds after @dmgtz96
Last edited:
Jetflag
Elite Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 2,782 Posts
- 2,214 Thanked
First..How do you know? You haven’t even watched it m8?
Second: the goal was to >interview< Putin. Get to know how he sees it. Not to debunk him on the spot.
Putin’s lies can be perfectly dissected afterwards.
Trump has been praising Putin for years, which is a little odd and definitely goes beyond ordinary statesmen interactionsNo, He’s not,
in the same way that Macron and Putin are not,( and the latter has been way more cordial then trump ever was.)
they have (had) polite diplomatic back & forths, which is what they should do as statesmen.
You don’t get to peddle virtues like “truth” and “objectivity” and then go around shamelessly touting propaganda/ half-truths/ lies from your own camp 2 seconds after @dmgtz96
What do you think about giving a platform for a liar? Because that's what is happening here.
We've known for a couple years that Putin uses "denazification" to justify invading Ukraine, so did humanity learn something new from this interview? Again, I haven't watched it, so I can't comment too much about it, but did we *really* learn anything new? Or was it just Tucker Carlson stroking Putin's ego?
Jetflag
Elite Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 2,782 Posts
- 2,214 Thanked
Yeah That doesn’t make them each others “buddies” who go and exchange hugs and presents at birthday parties m8.
You can respect and even praise an enemy for his competence, and him still being your enemy/political adversary.
Jetflag
Elite Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 2,782 Posts
- 2,214 Thanked
Yes we did, and had you bothered watching it you would have learned that “denazification” is but a minor secundair motif as to why Russia (eventually) chose to invade.
as uplifted put it, these aren’t lies pur sang, but picked “truths” he deams important. And its important for us to know, which those are and why.
also granting him a platform? Seriously?
Msnbc did an interview with him not too long ago
where was the outrage then?
Look..the man is the global head of a nuclear superpower. The whole world except for the west (and even they do it) grant him a platform.
Last edited:
TJY001
Member
- Jul 13, 2020
- 239 Posts
- 162 Thanked
“Wrijving geeft glans” / opposites attract m8
haha - we're actually very similar in pretty much every other way!!
Anyway - my thoughts on the subject are Rupert Murdoch is the most evil man to have ever lived and is (indirectly) responsible for more death than Hitler ever was.
Jetflag
Elite Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 2,782 Posts
- 2,214 Thanked
Ah.. legacy media magnates.
Yes him, the Bloombergs et al, Speaking of propaganda..probably have yeah
Watched the whole Putin interview. I am in complete support of this type of discourse, it is very refreshing to leave the partisan and media soap opera bullshit at the door, and instead see a conversation held on respectful grounds, with the interviewer not looking for gotcha moments or projecting some sense of deluded moral superiority. I was very interested to hear what he had to say, directly from the horses mouth and for 2 hours. I have never heard Putin talk for more than 5 mins before actually, only clips, through the filtering of western mainstream media. We should talk to everyone, no matter their beliefs and actions.
My take - He clearly wanted us to understand that Ukraine is a young nation. So what? I don't see the relevance to the invasion. As @Uplifted said most of the world has gone through many formations and reformations, do we all start having rights to make territorial claims based on the past? Although interesting to listen to it has no relevance to the war.
He also mentioned de-nazification - this one is too complicated for me to have any idea of the truth and extent of this problem. People in the US can't even agree on the levels of facism with Trump, not to mention within the populace, so how are meant to evaluate Ukraine on the same issue. Some believe it's extensive, others completely over blown. I imagine it's the same sentiment in Ukraine. Either way, so what? What does invading a country do to quell it's supposed nazification? Almost certainly this will only push people further into a nationalistic mindset. Carlson made the same point, and he never addressed it. So we don't have any good answer at how invading Eastern Ukraine solves the issue of facism across the whole country (it doesnt).
Then finally there was a lot of ground covered on the US and Nato expansion and their general antagonistic attitude over the last 20 years. I completely agree with him. The west agreed not to expand further East after WWII and we did so aggressively. We did indeed try to install a government in Ukraine in 2014 and we do indeed fund groups (including right-wing extremists) that antagozie Russia. Asking Ukraine to join Nato and attempting to influence their democracy is extreme provocation. If Russia built bases and installed politicians in Mexico, Cuba, or Puerto Rica what would the US do? The US is absolutely taken a role to manufacture this conflict (I'd say like Iraq/Afghanistan, willfully so). - This is still no justification for the invasion btw, but does make it far more nuanced and less one sided.
Unfortunately because Putin (like many politicians) is a exceptional liar and showman, and not to mention his history of brutal suppression of opposing views, it's hard to really know if other comments and statements about his desire for co-operating with the west, desire to deescalate (even repair) global conflict and even past friendly actions are true/sincere (for example inquiring about joining Nato) but I do believe US intelligence are determined to keep relationships hostile. For what its worth I thought Putin came across quite well, reasonable and dare I say had a honest cander to him. Very glad I watched.
My take - He clearly wanted us to understand that Ukraine is a young nation. So what? I don't see the relevance to the invasion. As @Uplifted said most of the world has gone through many formations and reformations, do we all start having rights to make territorial claims based on the past? Although interesting to listen to it has no relevance to the war.
He also mentioned de-nazification - this one is too complicated for me to have any idea of the truth and extent of this problem. People in the US can't even agree on the levels of facism with Trump, not to mention within the populace, so how are meant to evaluate Ukraine on the same issue. Some believe it's extensive, others completely over blown. I imagine it's the same sentiment in Ukraine. Either way, so what? What does invading a country do to quell it's supposed nazification? Almost certainly this will only push people further into a nationalistic mindset. Carlson made the same point, and he never addressed it. So we don't have any good answer at how invading Eastern Ukraine solves the issue of facism across the whole country (it doesnt).
Then finally there was a lot of ground covered on the US and Nato expansion and their general antagonistic attitude over the last 20 years. I completely agree with him. The west agreed not to expand further East after WWII and we did so aggressively. We did indeed try to install a government in Ukraine in 2014 and we do indeed fund groups (including right-wing extremists) that antagozie Russia. Asking Ukraine to join Nato and attempting to influence their democracy is extreme provocation. If Russia built bases and installed politicians in Mexico, Cuba, or Puerto Rica what would the US do? The US is absolutely taken a role to manufacture this conflict (I'd say like Iraq/Afghanistan, willfully so). - This is still no justification for the invasion btw, but does make it far more nuanced and less one sided.
Unfortunately because Putin (like many politicians) is a exceptional liar and showman, and not to mention his history of brutal suppression of opposing views, it's hard to really know if other comments and statements about his desire for co-operating with the west, desire to deescalate (even repair) global conflict and even past friendly actions are true/sincere (for example inquiring about joining Nato) but I do believe US intelligence are determined to keep relationships hostile. For what its worth I thought Putin came across quite well, reasonable and dare I say had a honest cander to him. Very glad I watched.
Last edited:
Jetflag
Elite Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 2,782 Posts
- 2,214 Thanked
I think multible things can also be true at the same time
- tucker can be an opportunistic piece of shit whilst still being a capable interviewer
- Putin can be sincere in his grievences whilst still being an autocratic murderous dictator cherry picking facts/history to justify illegally invading a sovereign neighbour.
- the west/NATO powerstructure can offer higher quality of living standards for its average citizens (for now) whilst still being a scheming, lying, hypocritical, imperialist power construct who simply needle poked the bear one too many times.
Concerning negative things about the interview itself. I did find the whole Russian Silmarillion Rant one the one hand interesting, and on the other hand more then a little pompous/ irrelevant
- tucker can be an opportunistic piece of shit whilst still being a capable interviewer
- Putin can be sincere in his grievences whilst still being an autocratic murderous dictator cherry picking facts/history to justify illegally invading a sovereign neighbour.
- the west/NATO powerstructure can offer higher quality of living standards for its average citizens (for now) whilst still being a scheming, lying, hypocritical, imperialist power construct who simply needle poked the bear one too many times.
Concerning negative things about the interview itself. I did find the whole Russian Silmarillion Rant one the one hand interesting, and on the other hand more then a little pompous/ irrelevant
Last edited:
Perpetuous dreamer
Member
- May 4, 2022
- 135 Posts
- 87 Thanked
Gorbachev made agreements with the US that the west not add one single inch of expansion towards Russia. The most respected and succesful diplomats at the time from the US noted that it would be an absolute disaster and provocation to do so. Well that's what they've done over the decades since. Not just an inch but thousands of miles, going as far as to installing governments, military bases and even bio labs on Russia's doorstep.
Put yourself in their shoes. Russia has been invaded 3 times through Ukraine, and millions upon millions died. Their lands were brutalized in unimaginable ways. The US and UK has never been invaded. We will never grasp the mindset. The threw past agreements in their face and aggressively militarizes the Ukraine. These basic historical facts fly over the head of 90% of people when they form perspectives about this war.
The invasion from Russia is still illegal and unnecessary. Ukraine is nothing but a proxy between two super powers who are led by egotistical tyrants and military influence. There are only two reasons for this war. Weaken Russia and fill the pockets of military contractors, who are about to receive 13 billion from US tax payers.
Put yourself in their shoes. Russia has been invaded 3 times through Ukraine, and millions upon millions died. Their lands were brutalized in unimaginable ways. The US and UK has never been invaded. We will never grasp the mindset. The threw past agreements in their face and aggressively militarizes the Ukraine. These basic historical facts fly over the head of 90% of people when they form perspectives about this war.
The invasion from Russia is still illegal and unnecessary. Ukraine is nothing but a proxy between two super powers who are led by egotistical tyrants and military influence. There are only two reasons for this war. Weaken Russia and fill the pockets of military contractors, who are about to receive 13 billion from US tax payers.
Wow, so much to unpack here.
Have you considered that maybe the Ukrainian people have agency and decided that they don't want to be with Russia? That they would prefer to get closer to the West and leave Russia behind?
Jetflag
Elite Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 2,782 Posts
- 2,214 Thanked
He is still not his buddy
funding NATO’s expansion/ the war in Ukraine is demonstrably not in the USA’s best interest.
threathing óther NATO countries to holdup their own trousers is.
Trump is using him, he’s not being “his buddy”
Jetflag
Elite Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 2,782 Posts
- 2,214 Thanked
One half, Uplifted being among them, does/did.
the other half voted in a pro Russian president pre maidan. And had it been the case that “all of the Ukrainian people ” wanted that. there would not have been (the ground for) a 10 year long armed insurrection in the donbass region post-maidan.
like it or not but Ukraine is and was a torn country on this issue, which resonates till this day. My wife and I work with Ukrainian asylum seekersand the sentiment is very much split on who’s the bigger bad-guy. Vlad or Verhofstad.
Last edited: