Are you like, actually intellectually disabled?

Because I’ll be nicer if you are. At least then your idiocy would make sense.

I’m not making any claims about Tuckers relationship with anyone shit for brains. Use your fucking eye balls and rub them on the screen. Use them to take the lights emitted by the screen and convert them to letters and then words in your mind.

Stop arguing with your imagination of what I’m saying.

I’ve not offered an iota of conjecture about Tuckers role with Russia you oblivious illterate. Develop some reading comprehension.

You don’t have the mental faculties to comprehend that understanding someone, their motivations, the strategy doesn’t mean you agree with them.

That makes you illiterate to understanding what it takes to oppose people like Tucker. You are so baby brained you can’t understand words or what they mean. Its something we excuse children for but not full grown adults.

You have obligation to understand those you disagree with, because you can’t offer a resistance to them if you don’t understand them or how they operate. And this pervasive baby brained thinking on the part of liberals is half of why were in this mess. Your all so used to just being consumers, to having everything chewed up and spit into your brain by Rachel Maddow or Ezra Klein, your actual critical thinking skills are anemic.

you’re implying

I’m implying that you are a toddler brained Liberal who’s analysis is narrowly focused in a kind of maladaptive reactionary analysis that can’t seem to get further than “Trump bad. Trump Russia. Peepee tape.”

I mean do you think you are actually convincing any one with these absurd accusations (other than maybe yourself, by shrinking and shrinking the circular nature of your own thinking).

You basically have a toddler level analysis of 2016, and are accusing anyone who has a mature thought as being an “obvious russian bot”. That only works on people who also are decrepit, toddler level thinkers.

So if you’ve gotten down this far into this thread, dear reader, I ask you to consider who you think @[email protected] 's rhetoric to operate on. Like, who is it that we think this user is trying to convince with their words? Its obviously not us. And if they aren’t arguing to convince us, who is it they are trying to operate on?

One could say that they are looking to split off “liberals” from the rest of the left with this kind of rhetoric. In this sense, they act as a “wrecker” to any kind of populist, leftist movement. Scratch a “russian bad” liberal, and how deep will we have to go to find a zionist apologist, a blue MAGA’t, someone promoting the least viable, most reprehensible instincts of the Democratic party?

It does beg the question doesn’t it?

Only fake lefties and the supremely politically uneducated are wringing their hands over this.

Yes yes yes. Every one who doesn’t agree with with you is a Russian op.

We shouldn’t try to understand our opponents or why their messages seem to resonate with audiences. No, we instead require “Trump bad” as the first test to ensure loyalty to the brand, then ensure the counter party is pure enough in their support for Israel and blue no matter who.

Surely simply demanding loyalty to a brand which has been objectively disloyal to its voters won’t, yet again blow up in Democrats faces.

enough of the right is hungry enough for an opinion that still validates their identity and positionality, I wouldn’t expect Tucker to go away any time soon. there is too much appetite for grift on the right. if Tucker went away, another would slip into that void to fill that gap. the real problem here is that Tucker is actually pretty good at what they do, and in-spite of several institutional attempts to cancel them, they’ve managed to survive.

They, unlike Trump in 2016, aren’t dependent on national media to bring them oxygen. A 2016 Trump could have been stopped if media would have just ignored them. Since that time, media has changed. This generation have their own media enterprise in a media landscape largely not beholden to any kind of outside interests. A self fullfilling windbag. Owens, Fuentes, Carlson, they don’t rely on outside financing and have a pretty fair degree of capture of their audiences.

AI sloppo.

And also “Democrats can never be failures, they can only be failed”.

This logic is how Trump (the previous Kremlin choice) was elected.

I agree. By refusing to, and failing to understand Trump, and why what Trump was doing was working (or to even acknowledge it was working), Liberals, and Democrats more broadly, set us up for this era of fascism we’re in. Its the fault of those who refused to understand their opponents that these easily beatable buffoons have become pillars of the modern political landscape.

If you read the comment as promoting Tucker Carlson, you lack the ability to read. Choosing to not understand your opponent leaves you vulnerable to them. You represent a vulnerability to our collective ability to stop fascism.

☝️ this.

He’s going to pull a “no true Scotsman” America First thing. Whatever this administration did, that wasn’t America First™. Whatever it is Tucker is offering is real America First™, and mark it, as Ive instructed many a hater to do: Candice Owens will be his running mate.

JD Vance is a political wet fart and everyone has known it for all of time. Fucking Jeb Bush has more motion than JD Vance does. Establishment Republicans see this as an opportunity to reassert control of the party, but that too will fail.

If you’ve been following rightwing media watch for a minute, this should be obvious to you.

And to the three comments yeeting the baby, just stfu.

This move from Tucker is about Tucker. You may, and rightfully should, despise Tucker Carlson. But you should not underestimate Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson has always, and I do mean always (for practical purposes) has one of the best reads of the direction of travel in national politics. He was one of the first to get on the America First wagon, and saw the potential Trump represented in national politics in 2015. They understood this because they had the ability to read the room with regard to the latent frustration people had with both Republicans and Democrats in that time period.

Tucker sees where the motion is and anyone who isn’t a totally ley read of politics has known that Mike Rodgers is an extremely poor opponent to be going up against El Sayed. Tucker doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of a losing election. Simple as.

This gives Tucker access and to be on the side of motion. America First and MAGA are shifting. Myself and others have been making this point for a while. Hogs don’t lead. Pay attention to the first movers. Trump’s base will move on to where the first movers go. Owens, Carlson, Fuentes, pay attention to where these actors go and you’ll know where things are heading.

This is Tucker setting up for a 2028 run. It has almost nothing to do with El Sayed other than not being tethered to a floundering brand. They’re setting themselves up to be the savior of MAGA in 2028.

Jesus fuck the delisonality of Democrats is astounding.

The contents of this article for the primary critique levied against Democrats over the previous 11 years. If you need to click the article to understand its premise: You are probably the problem.

Ok. “Mainstream Democrats” then. Third way. Blue dogs. Blue MAGA. Take your pick.

I mean the R’s aren’t going to have him. Why would you put someone onto your bench when their first and immediate next step will be to catch an L?

Fetterman loses his next election, regardless of the team he’s on. He can’t wont win as a republican, he can’t wont win as a democrat. Republicans are just using the ogres club for all its really good for right now. He’ll be cast aside in a moment.

Shouldn’t you be in a thread some where apologizing on behalf of Ken Martin?

Not being a passive agent?

To an EXTRAORDINARY degree.

Jon Stewart