more important imo, who is: Sean Curran, the Director of the U.S. Secret Service, was in charge of the security detail during the assassination attempt on Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024.
Curran was the Special Agent in Charge of Trump's Protective Detail at the time of the incident and oversaw the 85-personnel team responsible for his security.
----------
how did a twerp like Crooks get on that roof in plain sight, stay on that roof in plain sight, was spotted with rangefinder before getting on that roof. AAAANNND get off 8 shots before being neutralized. 8 shots he fired.
I am having a dispute with a friend based on the same evidence. He is an accomplished long range hunter with friends in the military sniper community and some experience in admistration. He saw a fatally slow response by the countersnipers due to incompetence or poor training. I am a retired C-suite guy with some rifle experience. I saw an administrative cluster-f where the SS leadership failed to coordinate with local LE, cover all the angles and deconflict the venue. This forced the countersnipers to deconflict on the fly and slowed them down. Possible we are both right like the blind men with the elephant.
Well obviously he is a Tool of the Globalist/Jewish Cabal!
I was an AF Security Policeman. The Security there Sucked. THAT does not mean there was A PLOT. It means the Secret Service Screwed The Pooch there. It Happens!
Whatever asshole. Some people don't get to make mistakes. I had many tasks in more than one arena where 100% was the least amount permissible. I have zero tolerance for fuckups. The whole bunch in command there should be rotting in jail. At least.
Not to mention that even people on the ground (rally attendees) saw him with his gun on the roof, and ALERTED authorities. There is a bluetooth ID that has been (before the shooting) at both Crooks's house in PA and the FBI headquarters in DC...
As long as you properly "frame" Tucker (in this case, reminding everyone of his anti-Israel and suddenly pro-Iran stances), I have no problem with you reposting his content.
Friendly reminder: Tucker loves the people of Israel and has vacationed there with his family. However, he is not supportive of the Israel government and their over-involvement, in his opinion, of our country's foreign policy.
Exactly. Political Israel today is not the Biblical Jerusalem of tomorrow. Tucker is a protestant, so it makes sense he was 'groomed' with Replacement Theology. He's smart enough to know when he's been played, so keep praying for his completion in Christ.
I don't mind reading articles or posts by people with whom I don't agree on every or even most issues. But I have to trust their fundamental good judgment and interest in pursuing the truth. I can no longer trust Carlson's judgment or even his sanity after he gave a platform to someone who argued that Churchill, not Hitler, was the "bad guy" in World War 2 and never even challenged his guest's assertions. His latest remarks about Dietrich Bonhoeffer were also mind-bogglingly stupid.
I fully agree. I STILL get messages from TC (my annual subscription expires in ~2 weeks) and I just delete them.
HOWEVER I trust Sasha. I'll let her be the filter for his stuff going forward if she decides to continue reposts of his stuff. After all, that's why I pay her the big bucks! LOL
Interesting that someone of your opinions continues to read / listen to him. Hell... I was an early subscriber and I still haven't listened to most of the stuff people like you find offensive. You can turn it off, fool.
I am crazy thoroughly studied in the history of war going back a thousand years plus... Uh... Churchill was a prick and in fact he did turn down opportunities to compromise. Furthermore he / they would have lost except for the utter madness of Barbarossa.
That said in war there are no good guys, and a prick is the best part of a man. You cannot be a nice guy / femboy "gentleman" in that arena and win.
Look at Trump. He's no femboy but Trump 1.0 tried to be nice. Look what it got him. Now he's Trump II "I'm a prick."
You need context. The closest thing in WWII to a sensible person was Ike, who was a unique individual. He was not a warfighter general, but still managed to keep the warfighters corralled.
And that is a good thing. Great warfighters are insane. BATSHIT CRAZY. Patton, Montgomery, Guderian, Rommel, Von Rundstedt, Zhukov... ALL of the IJN admirals... You have to study to realize just how batshit. But they were winners.
Based on your comment, I'm very much doubting that you are "crazy thoroughly studied in the history of war going back a thousand years plus"...
Ok buddy. With or without Barbarossa (which, by the way, Churchill, quite uniquely among world leaders, was not surprised about because he actually knew that Hitler had talked about how much he hated communism in Mein Kampf), Germany had no way to defeat Britain after they lost the Battle of Britain. I'm really curious on what grounds you think "Churchill was a prick".
1) Nobody paying attention was surprised. Quite a few were in denial. They did not want another WWI.
2) Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin... They are all pricks. If you don't get that you are the one that needs to study. You might begin by looking into Churchill's record as First Lord of the Admiralty for starters. He was as ruthless as they came.
The most likely outcome sans barbarossa was that the war in western Europe would have stalemated.
The krauts deployed 3 million men for Barbarossa. In 1944, they had only around 350,000 in France. They would have also NOT squandered the bulk of the Luftwaffe on the eastern front.
Had the manpower been left in the west Rommel would have had the men to man and build festung europa. As to the materials that is up for speculation.
Rommel (put in charge in 1943) claimed if he had ten times the men and materials available he couldn't have met the demand in a hundred years. But he was a very pessimistic realist. Remember, he was in on the last assassination plot. Sans barbarossa, he would have at least had the men.
Then there is the question of the diversion of effort that could have gone into more U boats, among other things. They almost broke the supply lines twice, in 1942 and then (lesser) in 1943.
There is also the question of fuel but they did have a good large scale coal gassification system and it is open to speculation sans invasion whether or not the russkies would have willingly supplied the krauts with petroleum. My guess is yes. Money talks...
Hitler Hitler Hitler...
We're still singing that dirge. The fact is he was a terrible fuckup with a few sharp instincts who managed to call a couple of close hands, as much as by luck and the spinelessness of the opposition (appeasement, anyone) as anything. Stalin BTW was far more ruthless, effective, and savage than Hitler. He was more like a modern day Genghis Khan.
The limeys and the frogs could have stopped Hitler in 1936 (Rhineland) or 1939 (Poland) but they didn't have the guts for it and hadn't prepared. Yes they had the people but their deployments were a mess, The BEF was especially unprepared, and the frogs thought their magic line was all they needed.
France was invaded 5/10/40, and the same day Churchill became Prime Minister... By then it was too late.
So the reality is, the limey / frog coalition totally dropped the ball and let Hitler (more accurately the wermancht and its very talented generals) take France.
Had it stopped there it would have been Hitler's war to lose, which it in fact was, and he lost it in the east.
Domestically Hitler rose to power on the backs of a disaffected coalition who were willing to ignore the ugly rhetoric believing they could restrain him. There were in fact a lot of "moderate" NAZIs and they were the ones that put him over the top politically. The most important of them were murdered 6/30/34. After that the rest fell into line. Later after the wins in Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, he had built enough "charisma" those who were worried about his leadership shut up for the most part.
All that winnin'...
It isn't really articulated, but I think (study, you see) most of the upper echelon simply didn't understand what a crazy bastard Hitler was. Some people speculate he was a heavy drug user, and others think he was riddled with disease, with many diagnoses advanced.
And it is fascinating. The krauts, the russkies, and America were all led by cripples. Odd, that. A lot of ruthless military leaders throughout history were crippled. Strange.
As for pushback, I will just say that an interviewer's job is different than that of a debater. Interviews can disclose and display, while a debater is an active participant with a point of view to defend or support.
Cruz is an elected official who's views are meant to be investigated and potentially challenged as he shapes / makes government policy. Funtes is more like a Gen-Z David Duke.
So? So Tucker should not push back on any non-govt official, no matter how far outside the Overton Window their views may be? Most people would disagree.
I listened to both interviews start to finish. Had no issue with Carlson’s handling of either. Cruz needs to be pressed hard on his positions, held to account. Fuentes didn’t reference his admiration for Stalin until very late in the already long interview (2+ hrs), catching Carlson by surprise, leading him to say it’s a topic he’d like to explore further with Nick at a future date.
I say cut him some slack … Absent Carlson, many of the difficult/controversial conversations being had would not be happening. They’re important.
Cruz was responsible for his own hole he dug. He said he entered politics specifically to represent Israeli interests. He also believes US support of Israel necessary the bible demands it. Is that the remand of a US Senator? He refused say if God’s admonishment meant the government, the nation-state of Israel or the people?
He clearly has an elementary understanding if the theology behind those biblical beliefs especially if these form his attitude toward the purpose of our foreign aid.
(Clue: it isn’t.)
That was a huge fail for Cruz and you can’t blame TC for that.
To be clear, I don't fault Tucker for the way he handled Cruz. It's the way he handled Fuentes compared to the way he handled Cruz that I take issue with.
By the same token, I would not have a problem with the way the media treated Trump IF they treated all the other politicians the same way. But they don't, therefore they suck.
Cruz is an extremely powerful politician whose story is well known. Fuentes is not. TC got him to give the history of why he is the way he is today. He also gave him enough proverbial rope to do himself in . Had TC gone adversarial, he never would’ve gotten out of him what he did. He did challenge him repeatedly. They never returned to the Stalin stuff. If people have a problem with the way he conducted the interview, that’s fine. But we shouldn’t destroy him for interviewing a controversial figure and call him vile slurs. That’s not ok.
Plus you can line a birdcage with it . The birds in the bird cage originated and will not accept Huff Post as bird cage liner. Backed up by a federal judge in New York.
After the multiple hit jobs on a Megyn Kelly this weekend, I am no longer offended by anti-Israel content. They’ve taken everything too far here, in the American media, and with the hate speech crackdown. I wasn’t in this place until I noticed a lot of ppl’s statements being deliberately out of context.
Ashby Tucker is for America he is not anti Israel. He thinks we should not be sending money and arms to Israel just like he says we should not be sending money and arms to Ukraine.
That doesn’t mean he has anything against the people of Israel or Ukraine. We need to focus on our own country and our own people. Once we stabilize our own structures then we can consider helping other countries.
If I make sure I’m feeding my own children first does that mean I hate other children? On the contrary, most people would think I was a monster if I feed my neighbors kid down the block while I let my own children go hungry.
Israel is an ally but so is UAE, or Saudi Arabia. We shouldn’t be sending those countries money or arms either. America first, means just that.
Assuming I understand your question, the answer is "yes of course". But it's a weird question as I understand it because I don't put content-producers like Tucker in the same category as elected politicians. We "repost" politicians (and what I really mean is "report on") because they are news-makers and they need to be talked about. For example, if we are reposting a speech by Mamdani when he talks about bringing people together, it's important to remind people that this guy is a proponent of "globalizing the intifada". However, for Sasha's audience it might be less important to say this because I assume the vast majority of the audience does not support Mamdani and already know all of his negative attributes. Tucker, on the other hand, is more controversial WITHIN Sasha's audience, and so it is probably more important to state facts about him that are not readily available from the content in question.
Keep in mind also that I was responding to Sasha's statement that she might lose subscribers simply for posting this. I didn't make this statement in a vacuum.
Tucker produces content to make money. Just as the WSJ and NYT do.
Politicians — even those elected who hate Jews, those who run on platforms of open borders, supporting the chemical and surgical alteration of minor children, promises of more free stuff and those elected who in writing call for the killing of the children of opponents — produce our laws.
I was once a Tucker fan. Not anymore. Turns out he had an antisemite living in his brain. That he now defends Iran is beyond the pale. Worse, he has thousands of followers who he is infecting and will be associated with us. However, that does not mean he is always wrong.
Jews don't run the world. But they do have more influence considering their size than any other ethnicity. And that is at least in part due to the fact that as a group they are very sharp, and more importantly shrewd. The old cliches about Jewish doctors and bankers (among others) are based in reality.
Denying that is stupid.
But they don't run the world. Nobody does. start there and more things will make sense.
Tucker helper expose the attempted railroading of Kyle Rittenhouse (Kenosha riots), and brought on Tony Bobulinski to prove corruption by the Biden family.
Jews may not run the world, but when you look at key positions of power in government, finance, media, and Hollywood who do you mainly see in disproportionate numbers to their population? Asking for a friend.
Ok, not a good choice of word. Not blame exactly, but criticism instead of receiving recognition of their attributes and exoneration from continued discrimination.
Yes, people in positions of power also disproportionately come from top universities (whether these universities are any good anymore is another question entirely). Jews are over-represented in the student bodies of these top universities. How did they get there? My guess is by being smart and making good grades. So maybe there is a conspiracy to assign high IQs and good grades to The Jews.
Thank you for your response that does not involve an insult. What is Israel supposed to do when they have a death cult on two borders wanting to erase them from the face of the earth? Hamas executes their own. They use civilians as shields. It is called self-preservation. It is the opposite of civilizational suicide happening in western Europe and now in NYC.
I’m afraid you’ve lost the plot because you don’t like who wrote the forward?
Sasha post is about the kid who tried to Charlie Kirk the President. What motivated him to do it? We’ve had a very (very) uninterested media asking any hard questions.
You, sir, and others immediately attack the person who is now trying to peel back the onion (Tucker).
In Tucker’s piece, he actually reveals Crooks’ own YouTube comments that show Crooks using antisemitic language.
Like you there were many things about Tucker I used to enjoy. He was a great interviewer. However, whenever he started in on military stuff, I felt he was ill informed, inexperienced, and had some ideological bias I couldn't pin down. Rather obvious what it is now. To support the tyranny in Iran which focuses on destroying the U.S. and Israel and making the whole world Islamic is beyond reason. Won't listen to him anymore but it's always fair to discuss his reporting.
Tucker lost me when he stated he “hated Christian Zionists more than any other group”. He later apologized for that comment when he was on the Dave Smith podcast. Or I should say sort of apologized - anyway I was really shocked at the vitriol it showed that he had for Christians that support Israel’s right to exist. And I’ve been a long time fan of his. I haven’t completely cut him out but am much more cynical & picky about what I watch. This one was worthwhile and the recent one on chemtrails with Dane Wigington is on my list this weekend.
Not at all a good interviewer. On Fox, if he agreed with the guest's (generally conservative) views, he facilitated their expression. If he disagreed, he showed his incredulity, ridiculed the guest, and the segment was quickly terminated. Clearly he wasn't going to allow guests he disagreed with to use his airspace. In his later period on Fox, he didn't seem to have any guests he disagreed with, perhaps because they knew it wasn't worth their time.
Being against our tax dollars funding a collective punishment war against mothers and children is not anti-semetic. Many jews have also protested the barbarity of the IDF - you just don't read about it much in the captured legacy media. To conflate an anti-war position with anti-semitism shows a very shallow mind.
What is Israel supposed to do when they have a death cult on two borders wanting to erase them from the face of the earth? Hamas executes their own. They use civilians as shields. It is called self-preservation. It is the opposite of civilizational suicide happening in western Europe and now in NYC.
Yes, what are they supposed to do? I don’t know and I think nobody else does either. There would be no discussion of this if Israel had not been attacked.
Iran got a bad shake. I remember it firsthand. But as of now it is a lost cause. Only its destruction can remedy the situation. But the hell of it is a lot of Iranians are certainly decent, just as was the case when the Shah was in power.
BTW Iran is collapsing. It is a very good thing Trump flattened their nukes. They are going to get desperate. And they would have collapsed no matter what. Their water supply is gone. Their reservoirs are empty and their aquifers depleted to the point that all that is left is saline. Their climate has reverted to a historical norm and the geographical area we call "Iran" can no longer support a modern life. In another year or so they won't even be able to grow crops.
They have one chance now. Peace. The Israelis have offered them the world's best water handling / desalinization tech on the planet if they will just swap the 21st century for the 10th.
If they don't I sure don't know what will happen. But I do know it will be a disaster.
Iran's leaders feel a religious duty to destroy Israel. Clearly, that comes before the Iranian people's welfare. And they still havethe means to act on it. China is supplying Iran with components of ballistic missile fuel, so they can saturation bomb Israel's civilian centers again. Remember that Trump forced Israel into a premature ceasefire before they could finish taking out Iran's ballistic missile production sites and launchers.
So much for your ‘spread honey instead of vinegar’ attitude. You were rude in your post and Manuel is allowed to post his view, which is based on truth.
Well Ruth, I’ll give you the opportunity to back up your ‘truth’.
First, let’s begin with Webster’s definition of ‘antisemitism’ :
“hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. This includes prejudice, hatred, and negative stereotyping of Jewish people”
Now an ask/question:
What precisely has Tucker said (himself) that fits above definition?
I’m willing to have my thinking updated if you can share evidence.
I’m not going to pull clips for your purview knowing you won’t watch or will deny authenticity. I know what the truth is and don’t need to convince you especially when you just want to argue.
I don’t necessarily want to argue. I just don’t agree with people cancelling a journalist with the antisemitism label because those he or she interviews have made antisemitic statements. The antisemitic label should be applied to the person expressing statements that fit the definition provided.
The only ‘antisemitism’ I can detect in Tucker is his many (many) attacks on George Soros influence on American politics, who is a Hungarian Jew.
As of now it looks like Robinson acted alone. Crooks, however, is very suspicious. He was taken out by snipers immediately suggesting they not only knew where he was, but perhaps WHO he was. No interviews with childhood friends or classmates, no interviews with his parents or grandparents. He could have been groomed, like Ryan Routh in Fla., and even LH Oswald.
Totally agree. Unfortunately it's pretty easy to get a shot off against any random public figure, so it is totally believable that Robinson acted alone. A President is a whole other thing entirely.
Yeah, I like the way he so expertly broke down exactly where I was wrong and then proceeded to give me his alternative viewpoint. And he was able to do it in only 4 words. A real wordsmith, this one!
We don’t need less speech - we need more. It’s about time people on the right quit cancelling one another because we disagree on issues. There is great benefit in debating and discussing these issues. We may ultimately agree to disagree, but silencing them is never the right answer. We are no better than people on the left attempting to cancel or silence us and become them!
It is one thing to silence someone and another to call their opinions and judgement into question. Some few folks may be generally reliable except for certain topics, but when a public person gets important things so very wrong, a reasonable listener will not rely on that person's word on any topic without extensive verification.
Yes it is. It is trying to discredit him with false accusations so that fewer listen to him. The effect is the same - you are "silencing" him to the part of his audience who are gullible enough to believe the false accusations. This strategy is part of the "Split-MAGA & Neutralize Trump" agenda...
Tucker openly admits those areas of policy, science, foreign cultures, etc. with which he is unfamiliar during many of his interviews. He listens to his guests and often stops them to clarify what they are saying when he believes an important point was spoken but run by too quickly or that he did not understand. In many of those instances, he does NOT push back because he does not have the specific facts in mind (at that moment) that might contradict the guest's assertion.
Tucker is unique in that he is unafraid to interview controversial people, sometimes those whom have unpopular views but Tucker has concluded they are somehow important in the context of national discussions. Most of the controversial guests are those who have been quoted in media, made speeches, spoken in other interviews etc. wherein some quote generated a lot of controversy in social media. Tucker tries to give the guest an opportunity to clarify, deny, or confirm the intended meaning behind the guest's controversial statement(s) and views.
I give Tucker credit for being bold, selecting a variety of guests who speak to a plethora of important topics critical to both our nation with many important to the world. I also credit him with trying to not be confrontational towards his guests, as many anti-Tucker complainers appear to think he should be, besides not inviting them on his show to begin with. I think we learn much more from the guests when they feel comfortable speaking openly without being challenged harshly. After all, Tucker does NOT host "debates"; he is only seeking information, so there is NO winner or loser in his interviews
My single complaint about Tucker is that while I agree with his pro-MAGA, anti-war stance which naturally includes putting the current Israeli Netanyahu government in the "bad & corrupt" category, he also appears to not fully understand President Trump's "5D chess" (for lack of a better analogy) method of negotiating strategies when dealing with belligerent nations who he would like to become responsible world citizens and participate in fair trade for the betterment of Americans and for their own people. Sometimes the threat of violence / war is part of PDJT's negotiating, and surgically taking out Iran's nuclear weapon labs was not a secret to Iran but they stupidly called his bluff- FAFO.
Indeed. As Susan G says this is a very good explanation that I will quote if you don't mind.
They are trying to fracture MAGA. Period. When his first Darryl Cooper interview came out we knew the actual history, but I wanted to hear another view. We didn't have to agree... The point was to re-examine history and between Tucker and Mike Benz... Man, after the Covid Scamdemic even I am studying Building 7.
As Joe Rogan recently said - "We just don't know."
Glenn Beck review Tucker's show about Crooks and said basically the CIA is in total control and I cannot disagree.
Thanks. Feel free to copy and use anything I post, with my gratitude that you find it informative. I have been following Susan & Barbara at Promethean Action for a few months now. They are definitely over the target and have identified the real culprits behind America’s economic & monetary problems….
We’ll agree to disagree. Tucker is not above criticism. And criticism doesn’t have to meet your standards of propriety (or mine). If it’s unfair criticism people like you will comment on it.
I never said he's above criticism. In fact I openly criticized him right in my last paragraph.
Misconstruing what I or anyone wrote is exactly why people get "wound around their axles" and start arguing on so many topics. It is a national disease - lack of comprehending others' statement or assigning their own inaccurate inferences to others' statements.
And yes I will sometimes respond to what I believe is misplaced criticism when the raw facts are considered before any personal bias.
I sense a distinct movement since even before Tucker left Fox News to try to undermine and discredit him - who IMHO is in the top most tier of independent interviewers out there - because his research and guests often expose facts and history that otherwise had been successfully kept hidden or in the shadows behind claims of "conspiracy theory", political bias, or by smearing his guest personalities because they revealed embarrassing and/or incriminating information about governments and people within and working closely with those governments.
We can definitely agree to disagree. I value Tucker since there are so few really excellent interviewers who dont talk over and interrupt their guests but let them speak openly.
Since hearing of Nick Fuentes, I’m unlikely to give Tucker another shot. I do agree about misconstruing what others have said, and apologize for the misleading comment you mentioned.
So you don't think Tucker should have given Nick Fuentes any airtime to openly express himself and clear up any misinterpretations of his values? I think it was exceedingly valuable. It "puts to bed" most arguments about what Mr. Fuentes believes versus what he doesn't believe. Fuentes made several rather poorly thought-out statements and assertions during the interview, IMHO. That means Tucker did us all a favor by letting the guy reveal himself to the world, "warts and all" in an open and fairly unrestricted interview. Tucker didn't agree with Nick on those outlandish statements; he simply didn't opine when he disagreed with Nick. That takes some skill and patience.
One must be careful to recognize that the whole FBI was not corrupted. Someone (or someones) saved the burn bags from the flames so that the truth could be eventually found. If you find your superiors doing wrong, you can leave and give them an even freer reign to do whatever, or you can stay, and blow the whistle when conditions are right and the whistle will be heard. And yes, you get to keep your job, in the mean time. IMHO, the DOJ was much more completely corrupted by the lefty mindset that considered Trump and MAGA not fit to run the country despite the vote of the people.
Tucker, like Candace, has become Isreal-centric: All things must revolve around the tiny island in the middle east anchored to western values. Candace has gone over a cliff, Thelma and Louis style, but there is still hope for Tucker. He interviewed Walter Kern not long ago and Isreal was never mentioned. His beef with Ben Shapiro could be resolved with a good faith debate, but he won't do it. Tucker helped me find my way out of the leftwing malaise I was stuck in with his logical breakdowns of their virulent hypocrisy. But he has lost me with his middle east crazy takes. The Fuentes interview was bad because Charlie Kirk wouldn't have wanted it. Though he did push back on Fuentes blatant antisemitism, Tucker and Charlie were friends, so I see it as a betrayal. We'll see what happens.
The keystone of democracy is free speech. Whether its Tucker, Charlie, Trump, AOC, or Mandami, you can disagree and express counter arguments. If you don't listen, you live in a bubble where violent thoughts and [rarely thank God] actions breed.
Perhaps I am wrong but my memory tells me the first Islamist terrorist act against American was the year long hostage takeover of American embassy workers. That it was a devastating year under Carter who seemed a feckless president during an unprecedented slump in American economy since the Great Depression. We had so little hope.
Guess that whole episode was Israel/ Americas fault.
Carter dems didn’t have anything to do with it. As I recall it was also the beginnings of the great climate awakening. The ads of the American Indians slow rolling tear, turns out the actor was Mexican, but yes it worked- I never littered again- if I had done I don’t recall.
By that time the Marxist hippies had begun their slow March through the institutions. And the great guilt trip was in full swing. My sister in graduate school in philosophy retells being surrounded by such students and asst professors.
By the way don’t ever worry about news about Tucker from me. It has been painful to watch his spiral but better to know than not.
And, I am glad to hear anything about Butler. That in my eye was a conspiracy unlike the Israel- TPUSA blah blah blah. Or even the Epstein obsession.
We all recognize that our government is not what we see in the movies.
As far as the embassy takeover by Iranian militants, the cause was that the US had supported the Shah who tried to modernize Iran. The Islamists hated him and his cooperation with the West. When he contracted Cancer, the US allowed him asylum for health care reasons and would not send him back to Iran after the Islamists took over. Carter did the admirable, humanitarian thing and incurred the wrath of the Mullahs. Ironically, Iran is the one reasonably modern country in the Middle East ( except for its leaders and government) and derives its strength and power from that modernization.
The Shah was planted in Iran by the CIA, specifically by Kermit Roosevelt. The CIA orchestrated and paid for the overthrow of Mosaddegh who was duly elected by the people of Iran. The Shah was modernizing Iran via very inhumane treatment of civilians.
Lots of European countries were putting dibs on various countries in the Middle East starting before WWII. Not an excuse, but not a sole US exploitation. The Shah was an iron hand, but in hindsight, perhaps that was needed against the Islamists. Forget about US interests in oil; were the Iranian people better served under the Shah's modernizing government or under the Mullahs? Yeah, it is not our call, but on a theoretical basis, at least the women probably would prefer the Shah's reign.
Man, the comments were all over the landscape and I can't possibly respond so I will just focus on one point-the Fuentes, Carlson, Heritage dust up. There are serious MAGA oriented people like The Federalist and Roger Kimball that maintain that the whole issue was about none of those people but was battlefield prep for 2028 and aimed at JD Vance. The Neocons want to restore their control of the Republican Party and must therefore destroy JD. They don't care about Isreal, Jews, Palestinians or even Russians. They want control and create issues about antisemitism to that end.
While fragments of Tucker Carlson's investigation have entered mainstream awareness, no other organization has attempted to synthesize the evidence as comprehensively as he has.
I believe Tucker offers valid perspectives that may not appeal to everyone, but it's crucial to consider multiple viewpoints on matters where discovering the truth is essential—not just accepting what we prefer to believe. Tucker also maintains significant contacts within the government. We cannot assess their potential biases or conflicts of interest since their identities remain undisclosed.
Therefore, it's reasonable that many Americans would want clarity regarding motives and the possibility of additional involvement in the failed assassination attempt.
The FBI's lack of transparency could stem from holdovers from previous administrations who remain loyal to opposing ideologies or who are primarily concerned with self-preservation. While disclosing certain details might fuel speculation or make the bureau appear incompetent, it may be time for the government to release findings and address the questions raised by Tucker and other journalists.
Notably, the FBI’s hazardous response team handled clean-up at the scene. Typically, a crime scene where a life is taken is preserved extensively to satisfy legal scrutiny, let alone public inquiry. It’s also noteworthy that a similar rapid clean-up occurred after Charlie Kirk’s public assassination—within approximately 48 hours, workers were observed power-washing, dismantling walkways, and pouring new concrete, effectively sterilizing the area shortly after the investigation began.
These observations about the unusual cleanup procedures align with legitimate public concerns about investigative transparency and should be taken into consideration.
"I would say they, along with Tyler Robinson, had some “help” getting from Point A to Point B."
While I'm sure it can and does happen, it's still very possible that these kids flipped on their own. I recall as a teenager (back when dinosaurs walked the earth) being pretty enamored of liberal to socialist ideas because of the way they were presented but eventually shifting to a more conservative outlook such that my first Presidential vote was for Ronald Reagan. I don't recall anybody sitting down and attempting to explain why I should change, it sort of happened just by being surrounded by family and other adults with more conservative views. Crooks might have been influenced by somebody who didn't even know they redirected him to be violently anti-Trump. I do think it's more likely Tyler Robinson got radicalized by his lover and his friends.
Tangentially, the biggest takeaway I got from the JFK files release is that Oswald was definitely on the radar of the FBI and CIA, making it likely the information got buried mostly out of embarrassment more than it would reveal any specific plot.
One issue with Oswald which has be buried in most documentation (hat tip to Stephen Hunter for highlighting) is that the FBI when testing Oswald's "rifle" they had to shim the scope mount for it to properly hold zero.
Tucker is not opposed to Israel. Tucker is opposed to regime change in Iran using American boots on the ground, which he believes would be an exponential catastrophe compared to the Iraq debacle. Tucker believes that the current Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to pull America into an Iranian regime change war, which Tucker believes is against American interests. No more American involvement in new Middle East wars was a key promise of President Trump's 2024 campaign. To continue support for him, MAGA voters intend to hold President Trump to this promise.
Iran is a huge country, 2/3 the size of India with a population of 90 million, 30% larger than the UK. It would take a huge armed force, trillions of dollars, to even consider conquering and subduing Iran. Tucker and others label those who want to invade Iran (like Sen Cruz who when interviewed by Tucker did not even know the population of Iran) 'Israel First', as opposed to 'America First'.
Exactly. Too much anti-Tucker vitriol going on. He’s just asking questions, as we all should be, about everything. If you don’t agree with him, fine, but that doesn’t mean he’s gone crazy.
Rogan's interview of Elon covered the Butler incident as well (along with a lot of other fascinating stuff), but they reached no conclusions except to say that the official Butler narrative makes no sense.
And btw, you won't lose me over this, Sasha. I'm anything but a groyper, and I parted ways with Tucker long ago.
more important imo, who is: Sean Curran, the Director of the U.S. Secret Service, was in charge of the security detail during the assassination attempt on Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024.
Curran was the Special Agent in Charge of Trump's Protective Detail at the time of the incident and oversaw the 85-personnel team responsible for his security.
----------
how did a twerp like Crooks get on that roof in plain sight, stay on that roof in plain sight, was spotted with rangefinder before getting on that roof. AAAANNND get off 8 shots before being neutralized. 8 shots he fired.
.
WHO IS SEAN CURRAN?????
.
Also there were lots of ppl who videotaped Crooks on the roof, and who were calling for the police; saying “there’s a man on the roof with a gun!”
Regular people with their cell phones, yet no police or secret service saw him?
I am having a dispute with a friend based on the same evidence. He is an accomplished long range hunter with friends in the military sniper community and some experience in admistration. He saw a fatally slow response by the countersnipers due to incompetence or poor training. I am a retired C-suite guy with some rifle experience. I saw an administrative cluster-f where the SS leadership failed to coordinate with local LE, cover all the angles and deconflict the venue. This forced the countersnipers to deconflict on the fly and slowed them down. Possible we are both right like the blind men with the elephant.
"WHO IS SEAN CURRAN?????"
Well obviously he is a Tool of the Globalist/Jewish Cabal!
I was an AF Security Policeman. The Security there Sucked. THAT does not mean there was A PLOT. It means the Secret Service Screwed The Pooch there. It Happens!
Whatever asshole. Some people don't get to make mistakes. I had many tasks in more than one arena where 100% was the least amount permissible. I have zero tolerance for fuckups. The whole bunch in command there should be rotting in jail. At least.
Watch Tucker’s entire video, Steve? If you still have the same reply afterwards then ask around where the nearest padded room is?
Pretty sure he is the guy now heading up Trump's Secret Service, no...?
Not to mention that even people on the ground (rally attendees) saw him with his gun on the roof, and ALERTED authorities. There is a bluetooth ID that has been (before the shooting) at both Crooks's house in PA and the FBI headquarters in DC...
As long as you properly "frame" Tucker (in this case, reminding everyone of his anti-Israel and suddenly pro-Iran stances), I have no problem with you reposting his content.
Friendly reminder: Tucker loves the people of Israel and has vacationed there with his family. However, he is not supportive of the Israel government and their over-involvement, in his opinion, of our country's foreign policy.
He just likes to platform (with kid gloves) Anti-Israel/Anti-Semite people.
A significant # of the Israelis don't like the Israeli government...
Exactly. Political Israel today is not the Biblical Jerusalem of tomorrow. Tucker is a protestant, so it makes sense he was 'groomed' with Replacement Theology. He's smart enough to know when he's been played, so keep praying for his completion in Christ.
I don't mind reading articles or posts by people with whom I don't agree on every or even most issues. But I have to trust their fundamental good judgment and interest in pursuing the truth. I can no longer trust Carlson's judgment or even his sanity after he gave a platform to someone who argued that Churchill, not Hitler, was the "bad guy" in World War 2 and never even challenged his guest's assertions. His latest remarks about Dietrich Bonhoeffer were also mind-bogglingly stupid.
I fully agree. I STILL get messages from TC (my annual subscription expires in ~2 weeks) and I just delete them.
HOWEVER I trust Sasha. I'll let her be the filter for his stuff going forward if she decides to continue reposts of his stuff. After all, that's why I pay her the big bucks! LOL
would not delete them. I would keep them in a special folder. Might come in handy.
Interesting that someone of your opinions continues to read / listen to him. Hell... I was an early subscriber and I still haven't listened to most of the stuff people like you find offensive. You can turn it off, fool.
I am crazy thoroughly studied in the history of war going back a thousand years plus... Uh... Churchill was a prick and in fact he did turn down opportunities to compromise. Furthermore he / they would have lost except for the utter madness of Barbarossa.
That said in war there are no good guys, and a prick is the best part of a man. You cannot be a nice guy / femboy "gentleman" in that arena and win.
Look at Trump. He's no femboy but Trump 1.0 tried to be nice. Look what it got him. Now he's Trump II "I'm a prick."
You need context. The closest thing in WWII to a sensible person was Ike, who was a unique individual. He was not a warfighter general, but still managed to keep the warfighters corralled.
And that is a good thing. Great warfighters are insane. BATSHIT CRAZY. Patton, Montgomery, Guderian, Rommel, Von Rundstedt, Zhukov... ALL of the IJN admirals... You have to study to realize just how batshit. But they were winners.
Based on your comment, I'm very much doubting that you are "crazy thoroughly studied in the history of war going back a thousand years plus"...
Ok buddy. With or without Barbarossa (which, by the way, Churchill, quite uniquely among world leaders, was not surprised about because he actually knew that Hitler had talked about how much he hated communism in Mein Kampf), Germany had no way to defeat Britain after they lost the Battle of Britain. I'm really curious on what grounds you think "Churchill was a prick".
Hey there monkey...
1) Nobody paying attention was surprised. Quite a few were in denial. They did not want another WWI.
2) Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin... They are all pricks. If you don't get that you are the one that needs to study. You might begin by looking into Churchill's record as First Lord of the Admiralty for starters. He was as ruthless as they came.
The most likely outcome sans barbarossa was that the war in western Europe would have stalemated.
The krauts deployed 3 million men for Barbarossa. In 1944, they had only around 350,000 in France. They would have also NOT squandered the bulk of the Luftwaffe on the eastern front.
Had the manpower been left in the west Rommel would have had the men to man and build festung europa. As to the materials that is up for speculation.
Rommel (put in charge in 1943) claimed if he had ten times the men and materials available he couldn't have met the demand in a hundred years. But he was a very pessimistic realist. Remember, he was in on the last assassination plot. Sans barbarossa, he would have at least had the men.
Then there is the question of the diversion of effort that could have gone into more U boats, among other things. They almost broke the supply lines twice, in 1942 and then (lesser) in 1943.
There is also the question of fuel but they did have a good large scale coal gassification system and it is open to speculation sans invasion whether or not the russkies would have willingly supplied the krauts with petroleum. My guess is yes. Money talks...
Hitler Hitler Hitler...
We're still singing that dirge. The fact is he was a terrible fuckup with a few sharp instincts who managed to call a couple of close hands, as much as by luck and the spinelessness of the opposition (appeasement, anyone) as anything. Stalin BTW was far more ruthless, effective, and savage than Hitler. He was more like a modern day Genghis Khan.
The limeys and the frogs could have stopped Hitler in 1936 (Rhineland) or 1939 (Poland) but they didn't have the guts for it and hadn't prepared. Yes they had the people but their deployments were a mess, The BEF was especially unprepared, and the frogs thought their magic line was all they needed.
France was invaded 5/10/40, and the same day Churchill became Prime Minister... By then it was too late.
So the reality is, the limey / frog coalition totally dropped the ball and let Hitler (more accurately the wermancht and its very talented generals) take France.
Had it stopped there it would have been Hitler's war to lose, which it in fact was, and he lost it in the east.
Domestically Hitler rose to power on the backs of a disaffected coalition who were willing to ignore the ugly rhetoric believing they could restrain him. There were in fact a lot of "moderate" NAZIs and they were the ones that put him over the top politically. The most important of them were murdered 6/30/34. After that the rest fell into line. Later after the wins in Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, he had built enough "charisma" those who were worried about his leadership shut up for the most part.
All that winnin'...
It isn't really articulated, but I think (study, you see) most of the upper echelon simply didn't understand what a crazy bastard Hitler was. Some people speculate he was a heavy drug user, and others think he was riddled with disease, with many diagnoses advanced.
And it is fascinating. The krauts, the russkies, and America were all led by cripples. Odd, that. A lot of ruthless military leaders throughout history were crippled. Strange.
As for pushback, I will just say that an interviewer's job is different than that of a debater. Interviews can disclose and display, while a debater is an active participant with a point of view to defend or support.
Tucker is a good interviewer.
Yeah, I respectfully disagree. He was famously hard on Ted Cruz, and he did not push back at all on Fuentes' ridiculous comments about Stalin.
Sometimes the best way to expose how crazy / terrible a person's views are is to just let them speak and not push back on them.
That's one way to do it, sure. But the inconsistency is glaring.
Cruz is an elected official who's views are meant to be investigated and potentially challenged as he shapes / makes government policy. Funtes is more like a Gen-Z David Duke.
So? So Tucker should not push back on any non-govt official, no matter how far outside the Overton Window their views may be? Most people would disagree.
Only to minds incapable of competently handling complexity.
I thought the framing was unnecessary and petty.
I listened to both interviews start to finish. Had no issue with Carlson’s handling of either. Cruz needs to be pressed hard on his positions, held to account. Fuentes didn’t reference his admiration for Stalin until very late in the already long interview (2+ hrs), catching Carlson by surprise, leading him to say it’s a topic he’d like to explore further with Nick at a future date.
I say cut him some slack … Absent Carlson, many of the difficult/controversial conversations being had would not be happening. They’re important.
Without question -- I love the fact that he is interviewing these controversial people. I just want him to do it better, that's all.
Right. I learned a lot but I’m no Fuentes supporter. The guy has a lot of growing up to do.
He's not just a race baiting attention seeking asshole?
(My third hand impressions of him ...)
I had absolutely no clue other than what others had said about him. He confirmed what others said, and I learned how he became that, honestly.
Cruz was responsible for his own hole he dug. He said he entered politics specifically to represent Israeli interests. He also believes US support of Israel necessary the bible demands it. Is that the remand of a US Senator? He refused say if God’s admonishment meant the government, the nation-state of Israel or the people?
He clearly has an elementary understanding if the theology behind those biblical beliefs especially if these form his attitude toward the purpose of our foreign aid.
(Clue: it isn’t.)
That was a huge fail for Cruz and you can’t blame TC for that.
To be clear, I don't fault Tucker for the way he handled Cruz. It's the way he handled Fuentes compared to the way he handled Cruz that I take issue with.
By the same token, I would not have a problem with the way the media treated Trump IF they treated all the other politicians the same way. But they don't, therefore they suck.
Cruz is an extremely powerful politician whose story is well known. Fuentes is not. TC got him to give the history of why he is the way he is today. He also gave him enough proverbial rope to do himself in . Had TC gone adversarial, he never would’ve gotten out of him what he did. He did challenge him repeatedly. They never returned to the Stalin stuff. If people have a problem with the way he conducted the interview, that’s fine. But we shouldn’t destroy him for interviewing a controversial figure and call him vile slurs. That’s not ok.
I sneak and read The Huff Post when I am alone in the restroom.
Hopefully with the vent on, right?
Hopefully KG is being sarcastic. Otherwise dump the punch. There is a turd in the bowl.
Yes. Huff post stinks.
That's a good idea, because that publication, in paper form, can also be used once you've done your business in said restroom!
They printed it on paper?
I wouldn't use newsprint that way. It has to scratch...
Plus you can line a birdcage with it . The birds in the bird cage originated and will not accept Huff Post as bird cage liner. Backed up by a federal judge in New York.
Seriously???
Then you must be a faggot... Not a queer, a faggot. No man reads HuffPo.
I’m being facetious bitch!
Sarcasm. I guess it's not for everyone.
Do you apply the same standard to the anti-Semite’s the D’s elect to the House and as Mayors?
After the multiple hit jobs on a Megyn Kelly this weekend, I am no longer offended by anti-Israel content. They’ve taken everything too far here, in the American media, and with the hate speech crackdown. I wasn’t in this place until I noticed a lot of ppl’s statements being deliberately out of context.
Ashby Tucker is for America he is not anti Israel. He thinks we should not be sending money and arms to Israel just like he says we should not be sending money and arms to Ukraine.
That doesn’t mean he has anything against the people of Israel or Ukraine. We need to focus on our own country and our own people. Once we stabilize our own structures then we can consider helping other countries.
If I make sure I’m feeding my own children first does that mean I hate other children? On the contrary, most people would think I was a monster if I feed my neighbors kid down the block while I let my own children go hungry.
Israel is an ally but so is UAE, or Saudi Arabia. We shouldn’t be sending those countries money or arms either. America first, means just that.
Ashby - Does your standard also apply to the openly anti-Semites the D’s elect to the House and as Mayors?
Assuming I understand your question, the answer is "yes of course". But it's a weird question as I understand it because I don't put content-producers like Tucker in the same category as elected politicians. We "repost" politicians (and what I really mean is "report on") because they are news-makers and they need to be talked about. For example, if we are reposting a speech by Mamdani when he talks about bringing people together, it's important to remind people that this guy is a proponent of "globalizing the intifada". However, for Sasha's audience it might be less important to say this because I assume the vast majority of the audience does not support Mamdani and already know all of his negative attributes. Tucker, on the other hand, is more controversial WITHIN Sasha's audience, and so it is probably more important to state facts about him that are not readily available from the content in question.
Keep in mind also that I was responding to Sasha's statement that she might lose subscribers simply for posting this. I didn't make this statement in a vacuum.
Tucker produces content to make money. Just as the WSJ and NYT do.
Politicians — even those elected who hate Jews, those who run on platforms of open borders, supporting the chemical and surgical alteration of minor children, promises of more free stuff and those elected who in writing call for the killing of the children of opponents — produce our laws.
I’m looking forward to his recent discussion of chemtrails with Dane Wigington.
I was once a Tucker fan. Not anymore. Turns out he had an antisemite living in his brain. That he now defends Iran is beyond the pale. Worse, he has thousands of followers who he is infecting and will be associated with us. However, that does not mean he is always wrong.
There's a huge difference between being an antisemite and being against support for Israel, my friend.
Not when your criticism involves Jews running the world. There is a lot more going on than criticism of Israel.
Jews don't run the world. But they do have more influence considering their size than any other ethnicity. And that is at least in part due to the fact that as a group they are very sharp, and more importantly shrewd. The old cliches about Jewish doctors and bankers (among others) are based in reality.
Denying that is stupid.
But they don't run the world. Nobody does. start there and more things will make sense.
Tucker helper expose the attempted railroading of Kyle Rittenhouse (Kenosha riots), and brought on Tony Bobulinski to prove corruption by the Biden family.
What happened to Tucker?
Nothing. He is still the same guy. A good interviewer who tells the stories from people that not everyone wants to hear from.
Correct. And there are a ton of Tucker interviews. Pick the ones you like.
Jews may not run the world, but when you look at key positions of power in government, finance, media, and Hollywood who do you mainly see in disproportionate numbers to their population? Asking for a friend.
Jews are 0.2% of the population. Not 2%, but 0.2. I think blaming the Jews is a reach too far.
That's not what he said.
I just pointed out a disparate population percentage, to which this small percentage gets a huge amount of blame.
That proves the point of how unlikely so many Jews occupy important positions in politics,
Hollywood, and finance.
Blame? That is emotional nonsense...
Ok, not a good choice of word. Not blame exactly, but criticism instead of receiving recognition of their attributes and exoneration from continued discrimination.
Right, but to RH’s point, what % of those in power (govt., finance, media, etc.) are Jewish? I bet it’s WAY more than .2%…
Yes, people in positions of power also disproportionately come from top universities (whether these universities are any good anymore is another question entirely). Jews are over-represented in the student bodies of these top universities. How did they get there? My guess is by being smart and making good grades. So maybe there is a conspiracy to assign high IQs and good grades to The Jews.
Thank you for your response that does not involve an insult. What is Israel supposed to do when they have a death cult on two borders wanting to erase them from the face of the earth? Hamas executes their own. They use civilians as shields. It is called self-preservation. It is the opposite of civilizational suicide happening in western Europe and now in NYC.
I’m afraid you’ve lost the plot because you don’t like who wrote the forward?
Sasha post is about the kid who tried to Charlie Kirk the President. What motivated him to do it? We’ve had a very (very) uninterested media asking any hard questions.
You, sir, and others immediately attack the person who is now trying to peel back the onion (Tucker).
In Tucker’s piece, he actually reveals Crooks’ own YouTube comments that show Crooks using antisemitic language.
Nevermind the bullocks?
I am not against supporting Israel, I am simply pointing out the fact that you can be against supporting them and not hating them.
Turns out not so huge. It’s like hiding behind a tumbleweed.
Like you there were many things about Tucker I used to enjoy. He was a great interviewer. However, whenever he started in on military stuff, I felt he was ill informed, inexperienced, and had some ideological bias I couldn't pin down. Rather obvious what it is now. To support the tyranny in Iran which focuses on destroying the U.S. and Israel and making the whole world Islamic is beyond reason. Won't listen to him anymore but it's always fair to discuss his reporting.
Tucker lost me when he stated he “hated Christian Zionists more than any other group”. He later apologized for that comment when he was on the Dave Smith podcast. Or I should say sort of apologized - anyway I was really shocked at the vitriol it showed that he had for Christians that support Israel’s right to exist. And I’ve been a long time fan of his. I haven’t completely cut him out but am much more cynical & picky about what I watch. This one was worthwhile and the recent one on chemtrails with Dane Wigington is on my list this weekend.
Not at all a good interviewer. On Fox, if he agreed with the guest's (generally conservative) views, he facilitated their expression. If he disagreed, he showed his incredulity, ridiculed the guest, and the segment was quickly terminated. Clearly he wasn't going to allow guests he disagreed with to use his airspace. In his later period on Fox, he didn't seem to have any guests he disagreed with, perhaps because they knew it wasn't worth their time.
Being against our tax dollars funding a collective punishment war against mothers and children is not anti-semetic. Many jews have also protested the barbarity of the IDF - you just don't read about it much in the captured legacy media. To conflate an anti-war position with anti-semitism shows a very shallow mind.
What is Israel supposed to do when they have a death cult on two borders wanting to erase them from the face of the earth? Hamas executes their own. They use civilians as shields. It is called self-preservation. It is the opposite of civilizational suicide happening in western Europe and now in NYC.
Yes, what are they supposed to do? I don’t know and I think nobody else does either. There would be no discussion of this if Israel had not been attacked.
Yeah, but most of his “followers” will be able to deduce, as you did, that something now is “off” with him. He’s losing the credible viewers.
Iran got a bad shake. I remember it firsthand. But as of now it is a lost cause. Only its destruction can remedy the situation. But the hell of it is a lot of Iranians are certainly decent, just as was the case when the Shah was in power.
BTW Iran is collapsing. It is a very good thing Trump flattened their nukes. They are going to get desperate. And they would have collapsed no matter what. Their water supply is gone. Their reservoirs are empty and their aquifers depleted to the point that all that is left is saline. Their climate has reverted to a historical norm and the geographical area we call "Iran" can no longer support a modern life. In another year or so they won't even be able to grow crops.
They have one chance now. Peace. The Israelis have offered them the world's best water handling / desalinization tech on the planet if they will just swap the 21st century for the 10th.
If they don't I sure don't know what will happen. But I do know it will be a disaster.
Iran's leaders feel a religious duty to destroy Israel. Clearly, that comes before the Iranian people's welfare. And they still havethe means to act on it. China is supplying Iran with components of ballistic missile fuel, so they can saturation bomb Israel's civilian centers again. Remember that Trump forced Israel into a premature ceasefire before they could finish taking out Iran's ballistic missile production sites and launchers.
Manuel, The Free Press has a jug of your kool-aid on ice. Go over there with your namecalling?
So much for your ‘spread honey instead of vinegar’ attitude. You were rude in your post and Manuel is allowed to post his view, which is based on truth.
Well Ruth, I’ll give you the opportunity to back up your ‘truth’.
First, let’s begin with Webster’s definition of ‘antisemitism’ :
“hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. This includes prejudice, hatred, and negative stereotyping of Jewish people”
Now an ask/question:
What precisely has Tucker said (himself) that fits above definition?
I’m willing to have my thinking updated if you can share evidence.
I’m not going to pull clips for your purview knowing you won’t watch or will deny authenticity. I know what the truth is and don’t need to convince you especially when you just want to argue.
I don’t necessarily want to argue. I just don’t agree with people cancelling a journalist with the antisemitism label because those he or she interviews have made antisemitic statements. The antisemitic label should be applied to the person expressing statements that fit the definition provided.
The only ‘antisemitism’ I can detect in Tucker is his many (many) attacks on George Soros influence on American politics, who is a Hungarian Jew.
I can agree with the unnecessary labels pinned on people too lackadaisically.
As of now it looks like Robinson acted alone. Crooks, however, is very suspicious. He was taken out by snipers immediately suggesting they not only knew where he was, but perhaps WHO he was. No interviews with childhood friends or classmates, no interviews with his parents or grandparents. He could have been groomed, like Ryan Routh in Fla., and even LH Oswald.
The silence surrounding these acts is deafening.
Well it was Biden’s horrible FBI, SS, DOJ in charge. Nothing they did surprised me in their corruption and incompetence.
Totally agree. Unfortunately it's pretty easy to get a shot off against any random public figure, so it is totally believable that Robinson acted alone. A President is a whole other thing entirely.
Boy are you dumb.
A man of few words. I like it!
Few words, and less sense.
Yeah, I like the way he so expertly broke down exactly where I was wrong and then proceeded to give me his alternative viewpoint. And he was able to do it in only 4 words. A real wordsmith, this one!
We don’t need less speech - we need more. It’s about time people on the right quit cancelling one another because we disagree on issues. There is great benefit in debating and discussing these issues. We may ultimately agree to disagree, but silencing them is never the right answer. We are no better than people on the left attempting to cancel or silence us and become them!
Best comment on this post. Well said.
Listening to it now. Glenn Beck covered this as well.
Remember, Tucka has the same 1A rights as we do, and frankly, he has a much better record than almost everyone else.
"If one idea or person needs to silenced in order for another to flourish, you are in a psy-op."
- Chase Hughes(former CIA expert)
It is one thing to silence someone and another to call their opinions and judgement into question. Some few folks may be generally reliable except for certain topics, but when a public person gets important things so very wrong, a reasonable listener will not rely on that person's word on any topic without extensive verification.
Saying he’s off the rails is not the same as trying to silence him.
Yes it is. It is trying to discredit him with false accusations so that fewer listen to him. The effect is the same - you are "silencing" him to the part of his audience who are gullible enough to believe the false accusations. This strategy is part of the "Split-MAGA & Neutralize Trump" agenda...
Tucker openly admits those areas of policy, science, foreign cultures, etc. with which he is unfamiliar during many of his interviews. He listens to his guests and often stops them to clarify what they are saying when he believes an important point was spoken but run by too quickly or that he did not understand. In many of those instances, he does NOT push back because he does not have the specific facts in mind (at that moment) that might contradict the guest's assertion.
Tucker is unique in that he is unafraid to interview controversial people, sometimes those whom have unpopular views but Tucker has concluded they are somehow important in the context of national discussions. Most of the controversial guests are those who have been quoted in media, made speeches, spoken in other interviews etc. wherein some quote generated a lot of controversy in social media. Tucker tries to give the guest an opportunity to clarify, deny, or confirm the intended meaning behind the guest's controversial statement(s) and views.
I give Tucker credit for being bold, selecting a variety of guests who speak to a plethora of important topics critical to both our nation with many important to the world. I also credit him with trying to not be confrontational towards his guests, as many anti-Tucker complainers appear to think he should be, besides not inviting them on his show to begin with. I think we learn much more from the guests when they feel comfortable speaking openly without being challenged harshly. After all, Tucker does NOT host "debates"; he is only seeking information, so there is NO winner or loser in his interviews
My single complaint about Tucker is that while I agree with his pro-MAGA, anti-war stance which naturally includes putting the current Israeli Netanyahu government in the "bad & corrupt" category, he also appears to not fully understand President Trump's "5D chess" (for lack of a better analogy) method of negotiating strategies when dealing with belligerent nations who he would like to become responsible world citizens and participate in fair trade for the betterment of Americans and for their own people. Sometimes the threat of violence / war is part of PDJT's negotiating, and surgically taking out Iran's nuclear weapon labs was not a secret to Iran but they stupidly called his bluff- FAFO.
You have brilliantly explained Tucker. Thank you.
Thanks. Been watching him for many years and really learn a lot from his interviews. Especially since he left Fox and became less restrained…
Indeed. As Susan G says this is a very good explanation that I will quote if you don't mind.
They are trying to fracture MAGA. Period. When his first Darryl Cooper interview came out we knew the actual history, but I wanted to hear another view. We didn't have to agree... The point was to re-examine history and between Tucker and Mike Benz... Man, after the Covid Scamdemic even I am studying Building 7.
As Joe Rogan recently said - "We just don't know."
Glenn Beck review Tucker's show about Crooks and said basically the CIA is in total control and I cannot disagree.
You want another source to blow your mind? Got to the wonderful ladies at https://www.prometheanaction.com/.
Thanks. Feel free to copy and use anything I post, with my gratitude that you find it informative. I have been following Susan & Barbara at Promethean Action for a few months now. They are definitely over the target and have identified the real culprits behind America’s economic & monetary problems….
We’ll agree to disagree. Tucker is not above criticism. And criticism doesn’t have to meet your standards of propriety (or mine). If it’s unfair criticism people like you will comment on it.
I never said he's above criticism. In fact I openly criticized him right in my last paragraph.
Misconstruing what I or anyone wrote is exactly why people get "wound around their axles" and start arguing on so many topics. It is a national disease - lack of comprehending others' statement or assigning their own inaccurate inferences to others' statements.
And yes I will sometimes respond to what I believe is misplaced criticism when the raw facts are considered before any personal bias.
I sense a distinct movement since even before Tucker left Fox News to try to undermine and discredit him - who IMHO is in the top most tier of independent interviewers out there - because his research and guests often expose facts and history that otherwise had been successfully kept hidden or in the shadows behind claims of "conspiracy theory", political bias, or by smearing his guest personalities because they revealed embarrassing and/or incriminating information about governments and people within and working closely with those governments.
We can definitely agree to disagree. I value Tucker since there are so few really excellent interviewers who dont talk over and interrupt their guests but let them speak openly.
Since hearing of Nick Fuentes, I’m unlikely to give Tucker another shot. I do agree about misconstruing what others have said, and apologize for the misleading comment you mentioned.
So you don't think Tucker should have given Nick Fuentes any airtime to openly express himself and clear up any misinterpretations of his values? I think it was exceedingly valuable. It "puts to bed" most arguments about what Mr. Fuentes believes versus what he doesn't believe. Fuentes made several rather poorly thought-out statements and assertions during the interview, IMHO. That means Tucker did us all a favor by letting the guy reveal himself to the world, "warts and all" in an open and fairly unrestricted interview. Tucker didn't agree with Nick on those outlandish statements; he simply didn't opine when he disagreed with Nick. That takes some skill and patience.
getting beyond Tucker controversy..... way too many FBI coverup activities to dismiss and memory hole this attempt.
One must be careful to recognize that the whole FBI was not corrupted. Someone (or someones) saved the burn bags from the flames so that the truth could be eventually found. If you find your superiors doing wrong, you can leave and give them an even freer reign to do whatever, or you can stay, and blow the whistle when conditions are right and the whistle will be heard. And yes, you get to keep your job, in the mean time. IMHO, the DOJ was much more completely corrupted by the lefty mindset that considered Trump and MAGA not fit to run the country despite the vote of the people.
Tucker, like Candace, has become Isreal-centric: All things must revolve around the tiny island in the middle east anchored to western values. Candace has gone over a cliff, Thelma and Louis style, but there is still hope for Tucker. He interviewed Walter Kern not long ago and Isreal was never mentioned. His beef with Ben Shapiro could be resolved with a good faith debate, but he won't do it. Tucker helped me find my way out of the leftwing malaise I was stuck in with his logical breakdowns of their virulent hypocrisy. But he has lost me with his middle east crazy takes. The Fuentes interview was bad because Charlie Kirk wouldn't have wanted it. Though he did push back on Fuentes blatant antisemitism, Tucker and Charlie were friends, so I see it as a betrayal. We'll see what happens.
The keystone of democracy is free speech. Whether its Tucker, Charlie, Trump, AOC, or Mandami, you can disagree and express counter arguments. If you don't listen, you live in a bubble where violent thoughts and [rarely thank God] actions breed.
Perhaps Tucker has been radicalized for Iran?
Perhaps I am wrong but my memory tells me the first Islamist terrorist act against American was the year long hostage takeover of American embassy workers. That it was a devastating year under Carter who seemed a feckless president during an unprecedented slump in American economy since the Great Depression. We had so little hope.
Guess that whole episode was Israel/ Americas fault.
Carter dems didn’t have anything to do with it. As I recall it was also the beginnings of the great climate awakening. The ads of the American Indians slow rolling tear, turns out the actor was Mexican, but yes it worked- I never littered again- if I had done I don’t recall.
By that time the Marxist hippies had begun their slow March through the institutions. And the great guilt trip was in full swing. My sister in graduate school in philosophy retells being surrounded by such students and asst professors.
By the way don’t ever worry about news about Tucker from me. It has been painful to watch his spiral but better to know than not.
And, I am glad to hear anything about Butler. That in my eye was a conspiracy unlike the Israel- TPUSA blah blah blah. Or even the Epstein obsession.
We all recognize that our government is not what we see in the movies.
As far as the embassy takeover by Iranian militants, the cause was that the US had supported the Shah who tried to modernize Iran. The Islamists hated him and his cooperation with the West. When he contracted Cancer, the US allowed him asylum for health care reasons and would not send him back to Iran after the Islamists took over. Carter did the admirable, humanitarian thing and incurred the wrath of the Mullahs. Ironically, Iran is the one reasonably modern country in the Middle East ( except for its leaders and government) and derives its strength and power from that modernization.
Modernization, yes. But the Shah was not a human rights model. Maybe the culture is not amenable to any government except authoritarian.
The Shah was planted in Iran by the CIA, specifically by Kermit Roosevelt. The CIA orchestrated and paid for the overthrow of Mosaddegh who was duly elected by the people of Iran. The Shah was modernizing Iran via very inhumane treatment of civilians.
Lots of European countries were putting dibs on various countries in the Middle East starting before WWII. Not an excuse, but not a sole US exploitation. The Shah was an iron hand, but in hindsight, perhaps that was needed against the Islamists. Forget about US interests in oil; were the Iranian people better served under the Shah's modernizing government or under the Mullahs? Yeah, it is not our call, but on a theoretical basis, at least the women probably would prefer the Shah's reign.
Man, the comments were all over the landscape and I can't possibly respond so I will just focus on one point-the Fuentes, Carlson, Heritage dust up. There are serious MAGA oriented people like The Federalist and Roger Kimball that maintain that the whole issue was about none of those people but was battlefield prep for 2028 and aimed at JD Vance. The Neocons want to restore their control of the Republican Party and must therefore destroy JD. They don't care about Isreal, Jews, Palestinians or even Russians. They want control and create issues about antisemitism to that end.
While fragments of Tucker Carlson's investigation have entered mainstream awareness, no other organization has attempted to synthesize the evidence as comprehensively as he has.
I believe Tucker offers valid perspectives that may not appeal to everyone, but it's crucial to consider multiple viewpoints on matters where discovering the truth is essential—not just accepting what we prefer to believe. Tucker also maintains significant contacts within the government. We cannot assess their potential biases or conflicts of interest since their identities remain undisclosed.
Therefore, it's reasonable that many Americans would want clarity regarding motives and the possibility of additional involvement in the failed assassination attempt.
The FBI's lack of transparency could stem from holdovers from previous administrations who remain loyal to opposing ideologies or who are primarily concerned with self-preservation. While disclosing certain details might fuel speculation or make the bureau appear incompetent, it may be time for the government to release findings and address the questions raised by Tucker and other journalists.
Notably, the FBI’s hazardous response team handled clean-up at the scene. Typically, a crime scene where a life is taken is preserved extensively to satisfy legal scrutiny, let alone public inquiry. It’s also noteworthy that a similar rapid clean-up occurred after Charlie Kirk’s public assassination—within approximately 48 hours, workers were observed power-washing, dismantling walkways, and pouring new concrete, effectively sterilizing the area shortly after the investigation began.
These observations about the unusual cleanup procedures align with legitimate public concerns about investigative transparency and should be taken into consideration.
Yes and that applies to other mass-shooting events such as Sandy Hook. They bulldozed that place immediately, and I still have questions…
"I would say they, along with Tyler Robinson, had some “help” getting from Point A to Point B."
While I'm sure it can and does happen, it's still very possible that these kids flipped on their own. I recall as a teenager (back when dinosaurs walked the earth) being pretty enamored of liberal to socialist ideas because of the way they were presented but eventually shifting to a more conservative outlook such that my first Presidential vote was for Ronald Reagan. I don't recall anybody sitting down and attempting to explain why I should change, it sort of happened just by being surrounded by family and other adults with more conservative views. Crooks might have been influenced by somebody who didn't even know they redirected him to be violently anti-Trump. I do think it's more likely Tyler Robinson got radicalized by his lover and his friends.
Tangentially, the biggest takeaway I got from the JFK files release is that Oswald was definitely on the radar of the FBI and CIA, making it likely the information got buried mostly out of embarrassment more than it would reveal any specific plot.
One issue with Oswald which has be buried in most documentation (hat tip to Stephen Hunter for highlighting) is that the FBI when testing Oswald's "rifle" they had to shim the scope mount for it to properly hold zero.
Watched this morning, still don't understand what trial are they referring to.
Thank you Sasha, as always you are the best!
Bannon on now claiming some people are trying to stir MAGA pot
that's my take also. All these figures are desperate for clicks. So if they have to take a spin down Anti-Semite alley they'll do it, for the clicks.
I agree, what trial? Can someone please enlighten me. Is there a trial going or getting ready to start?
Tucker is not opposed to Israel. Tucker is opposed to regime change in Iran using American boots on the ground, which he believes would be an exponential catastrophe compared to the Iraq debacle. Tucker believes that the current Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to pull America into an Iranian regime change war, which Tucker believes is against American interests. No more American involvement in new Middle East wars was a key promise of President Trump's 2024 campaign. To continue support for him, MAGA voters intend to hold President Trump to this promise.
Iran is a huge country, 2/3 the size of India with a population of 90 million, 30% larger than the UK. It would take a huge armed force, trillions of dollars, to even consider conquering and subduing Iran. Tucker and others label those who want to invade Iran (like Sen Cruz who when interviewed by Tucker did not even know the population of Iran) 'Israel First', as opposed to 'America First'.
Exactly. Too much anti-Tucker vitriol going on. He’s just asking questions, as we all should be, about everything. If you don’t agree with him, fine, but that doesn’t mean he’s gone crazy.
Rogan's interview of Elon covered the Butler incident as well (along with a lot of other fascinating stuff), but they reached no conclusions except to say that the official Butler narrative makes no sense.
And btw, you won't lose me over this, Sasha. I'm anything but a groyper, and I parted ways with Tucker long ago.
Am Yisrael Chai!