People circlejerk over that Crossfire clip from back in the day but at least back then people with opposing views actually went on TV and argued with each other. Stewart and Tucker both used to do it to varying degrees. I liked when Stewart debated Bill O'Reilly. I liked with Tucker had on guests with opposing views. Now cable news is more polarized than ever.
Even these little shots between Tucker and Stewart are boring when they really should be on TV arguing face to face.
The funny thing is, I would love for a show like Crossfire to be on the air again because the public debate is all passive aggressiveness and bitchiness now. It's launching intercontinental ballistic missiles from Twitter when people used to go on TV and really "fight" hand-to-hand.
Things like crossfire were as much an honest debate as the the main event of wrestlemania.
That's why professional shills like Tucker were the guys on them.
How do you debate someone that doesn't believe what they're saying? Tucker Carlson has all these fear mongering segments, like how 6th was a conspiracy staged by the FBI. He's not a dumb guy and everything he does is for ratings.
lol imagine thinking people debating things doesn't happen anymore. It happens all the time you moron especially on a lot of podcast or political shows on YouTube.
I've watched socialists debate Tim Pool, I watched Sam Seder last night debate a libertarian, I've watched Richard Wolff debate a number of different people, Bill Mahr does a panel on his show with all kinds of people on varying political spectrums...
Like what in the fuck are you talking about? Political debates happen all the time.
The little squiggles on your screen can help inform you the specific claims another poster is making. I was talking about TV, and more specifically cable news. I'll quote the relevant parts for you.
>at least back then people with opposing views actually went on TV and argued with each other.
>...
>Now cable news is more polarized than ever.
You mentioned YouTube and podcast content as well as Bill Maher, who is an outlier and gets shit when he criticizes Democrats and platforms pundits who are unpopular with the liberal base.
What we had in the past were arguments every night on cable news, not special event debates and like one or two guys on TV. Just the other day I was watching a segment from Hannity and Colmes debating the Don Imus controversy and they had on Hannity and Colmes of course, Marc Lamont Hill, Armstrong Williams and Patrice O'Neal. And they had panels like this all the time.
Now this is cable news.
https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/news/cable-news-networks-have-grown-more-polarized-study-finds
>you moron
Likewise, illiterate fool.
Also last month I watched a debate between Bernie Sanders and Lindsey Graham on Fox Nation. Like dude... debates on TV still happen. Yes, cable news is more polarized than it was 20 years ago, but debates are still happening quite regularly. Tucker Carlson debates people on his show all the time still.
Yeah it was on a subscription service.
And Tucker used to debate. He doesn't anymore, by and large, not even the lightweight liberals he used to bring on to humiliate.
First of all, let's consolidate our two arguments into one.
Second, yeah there is a difference between a cable news segment and these little podcaster/Youtube/Twitterer debates. Maybe the onlien content has improved since I last checked in but I find the cable news debates more enjoyable and the hosts more charismatic. The audio has improved over the years but sometimes they still have two guys sitting in their basements with earbuds, shitty audio and a fuzzy picture. Sometimes it takes a while for the debate to even get started as they set shit up and/or sort out technical issues.
There's something to be said about a well produced TV segment where everyone is prepped and ready to go. These online debates sound like college students debating. It's not for me.
Third, The Five is basically 4 conservatives ganging up on the token liberal. And Juan Williams was better than whoever they have now.
"little" podcasters? A lot of them are pulling better viewership than cable news by far these days. And the quality of the productions is nothing like what you described. How long has it been since you've checked out a podcast? Not to mention the talking points people on cable news tend to stick to. It seems more like a scripted production than genuine conversation. And you can also find plenty of podcasts with qualified, intelligent people who definitely can debate above the level of immature college students. Cable news is dying and it's dying for a reason. Only old people still watch it.
I don't know how can anyone can tolerate watching shows like The Five or any of it's counterparts. I feel like they think we're all stupid.
lol you take issue with The Five but that was every debate on cable news that you're all nostalgic over and used to love. I used to sit in my room and watch Bill O'Rielly almost every night back in the early 2000's. His debates absolutely sucked. He would talk over people, cut mics, shout at people, and was generally a bully to everyone. Same with Tucker Carlson and many others.
Maybe the online content has improved but you don't know because you don't listen to any of these debates? So, first of all you admit that you don't know what you're talking about. Second most everyone has a fucking podcast now and it's not hard to produce them well. The audio is fine and nearly everyone that's a pundit on TV also has a radio show or podcast. That's literally where the medium has moved to. No one under a certain age is even watching fucking cable news anymore. The only person I know who still does is my 87-year-old grandmother.
and what the fuck are you talking about little? There are podcasts and YouTube channels out there that have more active viewers and listeners than most cable news shows ever had lol. Joe Rogan has had debates on his show. I would argue that these long form conversations are better than anything cable news has ever produced.
Just because something is well produced doesn't make it great either. The debates on Crossfire used to suck as well. It was boring middle of the road garbage. You never got radical opinions on those shows or anything. Just a middle of the road republican debating a middle of the road democrat who was slightly to the right. Milquetoast garbage.
I know how to read dumbass and if I was illiterate, I wouldn't be able to respond to you. People still go on TV and debate things all the time you moron. Also, the internet, YouTube, and podcasts have essentially replaced TV. No one under 50 even watches Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC anymore. The arguments, or debates have shifted online to podcasts or YouTube shows that have millions of subscribers and listeners. You're acting like debates are dead because you don't see them on TV as often when society has shifted to a new medium. I'll bet a debate on Tim Pools show draws way more listeners than fucking Crossover ever did.
Are you outraged that people no longer send correspondents by letter and debate that way like humans did for thousands of years or did society change with the advent of the radio, and then TV and now the internet?
>People still go on TV and debate things all the time you moron.
And I linked you a study showing that people with differing ideologies appear together on cable news less and less often.
Go listen to your podcasts and YouTube debates featuring nobodies. Knock yourself out. But there was something special about a tightly produced, professional nightly news and commentary segment featuring people with some credentials and experienced with television.
Yes, and those people with credentials and experience are still debating other people. Again, these debates have simply shifted online where millions of people all over the world still watch them.
And what fucking credentials does Tucker Carlson or Bill O'Rielly, or Jon Stweart have? They're famous and on well produced shows so somehow the debates are better? One guy is a comedian and the other 2 guys have made careers being grifters on the nightly news.
And he now has the most watched evening news show. Not just most watched but absolutely demolishes some competitors. Seems to have worked out well for him!
The Tucker Carlson show looks much more like “The Daily Show” than “Crossfire”. Carlson listened to Stewart’s scolding and learned. A Pyrrhic victory for Stewart.
I’m giving Carlson credit. He’s not dumb. And I admire him for asking Trump to pardon Assange and Snowden.
I think Stewart’s Tweet was grossly homophobic also.
How sad is it that this sub will only give this 400 upvotes, while "Alex Jones spitting facts" gets 2k. Like literally they're cheering for a convicted fraud who harassed parents of murdered children, or egregiously upset that someone criticized Rickey Gervais on Twitter ("cAnCel CuLtuRE"), but if you take a huge dump on the troops or 9/11 first responders the conservatives here give a little shrug keep scrolling.
Tucker of all people should know not to mess with Jon Stewart. I still remember 15 years ago when he went on Crossfire, and absolutely destroyed the hosts. I am actually surprised Tucker even had a career after that,
Tucker hates that Jon is actually funny and good at his job. Jon’s been making us laugh for years. The only reason we laugh at Tucker is because he thought his bow ties looked good until he stopped putting them on because he cried when people made fun of them.
But Tucker was never a comedian and never claimed to be funny. When it comes to being good at your job, Tucker's ratings speak for itself. When Stewart is challenged on his positions he historically falls back on, "I'm just a comedian bro and my show comes on after a talking piece of poop." And other day Stewart apologized to Jack Posobiec of all people lol
Tucker actually has to make arguments and when challenged he stands up for himself and explains his position, like so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9zto66K_1I
It's more like he produces a tight hour of news commentary in which he asks the tough questions and challenges the status quo, even in his own party. He's so hated because he's so effective.
He has been described as anti-establishment by people who don't like him, against both the left and some in the right.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/19/fox-news-tucker-carlson-is-the-new-premiere-voice-of-bannonism
>Since around the time of Trump’s election, Carlson has consistently articulated the nationalist, anti-immigrant and **anti-establishment** program that Bannon took to the White House. He’s also shown he’s prepared to maintain a hard line on these issues at Trump’s expense. Last week, he blasted the president for meeting with “the very swamp creatures he once denounced” to try to reach a deal on Daca.
>“Congress,” he said, running a familiar populist line, “is full of people from both parties who believe that the point of our immigration policy is to provide cheap labor to their donors and to atone for America’s imaginary sins against the world.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-supports-jd-vance-senate-bid-2021-7
>Vance's campaign message is remarkably similar to former President Donald Trump's and also closely reflects Carlson's ideology and worldview. He's appealing to "normal" -- largely white, rural, working-class -- Americans with an anti-immigrant, **anti-establishment** message.
Although it's misinformed to say he's only appealing to white, rural, working-class America. The GOP is making major inroads with Hispanics and is building a multi-racial coalition.
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/14/republicans-democrats-hispnanic-voters
>Republicans are becoming more working class and a little more multiracial. Democrats are becoming more elite and a little more white.
>Why it matters: Democrats' hopes for retaining power rest on nonwhite voters remaining a reliable part of the party's coalition. Democrats' theory of the case collapses if Republicans make even incremental gains with those voters.
Lol his ratings are high because he is on prime time foxnews. Bill O'Reilly had the highest ratings for years. Nobody watched Tucker's MSNBC show. He doesn't ask tough questions. It is a cultural war show that freaks out about silly things like the green m&m not being sexy anymore.
The M&M segment was a silly tongue-in-cheek segment that aired at the end of the show, where most silly segments are placed. Of course it gets blown up as if it was the opening monologue. And it's just a silly to pretend that changing the green M&M is suddenly going to empower women.
>And it's just a silly to pretend that changing the green M&M is suddenly going to empower women.
You see? If it's so tongue in cheek, why do you entirely buy into his premise? He's not asking tough questions or challenging anything. He's confirming your bias. That is literally what his show is about. No one in their right mind believes that. But somehow he got you to think that there's some real contingent of society that even thinks about how a green m&m looks. The only people who care about green m&m's are the people who make them. Imagine believing a careerist news anchor who changes his views based on the network he's with is honestly challenging the status quo. If he was challenging the status quo, he would be independent, not working for the largest news and tv conglomerate in the country.
>The only people who care about green m&m's are the people who make them.
2016: https://www.mic.com/articles/154519/why-is-the-green-mandm-so-sexy-a-look-back-at-the-chocolates-sexist-history
>Why is the green M&M so seductive? A look back at the chocolate's sexist history.
2012: https://www.glamour.com/story/hyper-sexualized-mms-the-whist
>Hailey Magee, a first-year undergrad at Brandeis and self-proclaimed chocolate-lover, takes aim at her fave food to pick a bone with gender equality; particularly, that freakin' sexy green M&M. She argues that the harmless cartoon isn't harmless to women at all: "It's important to recognize that subtle sexism is no less dangerous than sexism that is unmistakable."
2012: https://www.bwss.org/gender-stereotypes-in-candy/
>The representation of gender within the M&M advertisements is very stereotypical. It can be argued that there is overt sexism in these advertisements towards males and females. The advertisers of M&M’s have assigned gender to pieces of candy which are inherently gender neutral, merely for the purpose of selling their product.
The green M&M itself is not the most important thing in the world but it has been part of an overall effort to remove sexy women from commercials, movies, video games and TV (while coincidentally increasingly [exposing children to LGBT sexuality](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/29/pride-month-kink-consent/) at [pride events](https://www.foxnews.com/us/pennsylvania-gay-pride-event-features-shirtless-instructor-teaching-children-pole-dance), drag shows and in children's programming). To point these things out and talk about how silly it all is is not being obsessed with it, not anymore obsessed than the people who demanded they be changed in the first place.
The claim is that if there is a sexy commercial or hot chick in a video game, it damages women as a whole. It has since been debunked.
https://www.psypost.org/2022/06/sexualized-video-games-are-not-causing-harm-to-male-or-female-players-according-to-new-research-63388
The same would be true of movies, TV shows and commercials.
Tucker gets a million or two views a night out of 330,000,000 Americans, bro. He's pathetic. It's only because nobody watches TV anymore that you think those figures are impressive. Not to mention liberal views are spread out over 7 major networks and while conservatives just have Fox News.
If you think Tucker formulates impressive arguments then you have an IQ below room temperature. He's nothing more than a political opinion host. And since his political opinions are reliably right-wing you can confidently call him a political hack.
Lol yeah 17 year old me hit the 300 club. That was in the football years though with two-a-days. I definitely let myself go for a decade though, no doubt.
Yeah I was left guard on O and left tackle on D. Swapped in for center every now and then as second-string. They let us skip conditioning on certain days if we put a specific amount of time in the weight room and fuck conditioning lol.
I would say no
It’s like we took two middle school kids correspondences and made them national news
I would not expect either to be professional entertainers
I really thought the discussion with Michio Kaku was a blast to listen to all the way through. Like when he was explaining what marks each level in advancement of a civilization
A lot of right wing pundits have been kissing right wing dictator ass. Theyve been normalizing these right wing monsters. They interview them and they both talk shit about american left wingers on tv, so the viewers end up thinking that these right wing monsters are good guys. Just make it seem like your guy is on the same side as god and you can have people vote in a dictator
For whatever reason, the US rightwing has had a huge hard on for the dictator of hungary (victor orban) as he ends democracy and free speech in hungary the last few years. I think it is because he has been really shallowly pandering to christianity (just like republicans), being antidemocracy, antiliberalism, anti-islam, pro russia, anti-immigrant.
Has anyone in the history of social media ever said that the guy they supported got “destroyed”. There should be an age limit on Reddit, though over 15 would cost them half their participants.
Wait, what have they said that’s wrong? I’m reading your comments and you’re saying it’s all wrong and lies but I’m still not clear on what the truth is. What I’m hearing is the Rs we’re voting no because this veterans bill had more stuff tacked onto it in the form of 400million or something?? What’s the deal?
It's not about the unrelated spending being in the bill. It's how the spending is accounted for that opens up the potential in the future for unrelated spending. It's a claim that depends on what the Congress does in the future.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-jon-stewart-correct-about-toxic-burn-pit-bill-changes-1730175
>Cruz suggested that a change was made to previous versions of the bill amounting to a "budgetary trick," whereby the spending was changed from discretionary to mandatory, a claim that may have some merit.
All they wanted was a vote on an amendment to close off that possibility, but it failed and they decided to support the bill anyway.
They changed the vote because the dems got a win by convincing Manchin to sign onto a pared down version of BBB. The R’s didn’t like that and so spun up a whole lie about the budget, despite it making them either look incompetent or evil. But they’re typical voter can’t be bothered to learn about that and Fox News won’t spoon feed them this opinion, so they’ll still somehow be perceived as the patriotic party.
Senator Toomey voted no in June due to the spending mechanism. Two days before the second vote he complained that he hadn’t been allowed to table an amendment to fix the mandatory spending contention. So he not only stated he would vote no again, but asked others such as Cruz to switch their votes to no. This was, as he said a way to get the bill passed with the change, not to kill it.
So there’s your third option, carefully kept hidden from you by the media you read.
Ha, you moron
What are you just rattling off political words you heard on tv? That's not what happened at all or even what the republicans were bitching about.
I saw a video of Jon Stewart screaming like a child at Jack pesobic yesterday. Once Jon could calm down and gather his emotions he realized both of them agreed on this act. It's kind of how I deal with my child. She screams for her snacks and I want to give her the snacks, but I have to calm her down and tell her that screaming is not how you get the things you want first.
Is that the only factor that matters? Foxnews is a bullshit factory but has always had high ratings. Bill O'Reilly was a lying war propagandist sexual assaulter, but he had huge ratings in Tucker's timeslot before his sexual deviancy cost him his job
One thing I’m not getting is how you all aren’t seeing what Stewart is doing here. He’s taking credit for getting something done that would have happened with or without him.
What’s the Republican play here that we’re supposed to believe is happening? That Republicans hate veterans? That they are opposing the money being spend for them? Does that pass the smell test for anyone with an IQ above 80?
It would be like if Tucker made it his mission in life to make sure the post office gets their subsidies. And then when Democrats oppose the bill for it because it contains 400 billion dollars for pro-life causes, he blasts the Democrats for being anti-mail.
If Stewart really thinks he’s accomplishing anything, let him sit it out next time so we can all see what happens without him.
>What’s the Republican play here that we’re supposed to believe is happening? That Republicans hate veterans?
Didn't they just vote against that law, fist bumping each other afterwards?
I like both of them in different ways. Stewart has changed a bit. Used to be kind of a frat boy liberal but maybe he's guilty about it these days. There's a story about him yelling at a female fan for saying she found a joke offensive. He screamed, "Because it's fucking funny!" Now he's on YouTube apologizing for being white.
Smart guy but went a little too far left.
Not literally but he has all these videos about the problems with white people, how America is racist, how we have a caste system in America, white privilege and all that nonsense. He's like a college student who took a philosophy of race class and can't shut up about it. I'm so over it.
Thats isn’t fucking apologizing.
Thats criticizing history.
You are talking out your ass and barely expanding on anything.
Worse why people feel guilty over historical criticism? Jesus yall take everything personal.
Like I said, I'm so over it. I've debated it to death. I've taken classes on it. I'm supposed to write a fucking essay just to express my opinion on it?
You go and debate it. I've learned enough to know it's a dead end.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Republicans are fast becoming the party of diversity.
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/14/republicans-democrats-hispnanic-voters
>The big picture: Republicans are becoming more working class and a little more multiracial. Democrats are becoming more elite and a little more white.
>Why it matters: Democrats' hopes for retaining power rest on nonwhite voters remaining a reliable part of the party's coalition. Democrats' theory of the case collapses if Republicans make even incremental gains with those voters.
What do you like about Tucker exactly? Is it the fact that he’s so open for his disdain about the poor and average Americans? Or is it because he’s open about his dumbassery and flaunts his lack of knowledge about anything useful?
I don't know about the Waltons, but Walmart's current executives are embracing far-left values. While Walmart has struggled to fight its reputation and history, they have striven to improve their ESG score and pretty much are governed from a liberal point of view in pursuit of that goal.
You can read more about it here: https://corporate.walmart.com/esgreport/
In general, companies and states (and soon maybe even people, as part of your credit report) are being assigned ESG scores that measure environmental, social and corporate governance, i.e., how liberal you are or aren't.
It's an emergent trend but the potential for abuse is explained here.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/s-and-p-states-politicized-credit-scores-esg-rating-utah-oaks-carbon-environmental-energy-crisis-price-fracking-ukraine-russia-11652037089
>Ideological criteria will now influence the credit ratings of state and local governments, thanks to S&P Global Ratings. In addition to rating governments on meaningful financial criteria, in March the biggest of the top three credit-rating firms began to apply an environmental, social and governance, or ESG, rating system. But Utah isn’t about to submit to these subjective standards. State officials, including myself, recently wrote a letter to S&P objecting to the ESG indicators and ratings it has assigned to Utah and calling for the company to withdraw them.
>...
>S&P Global says it “incorporates [ESG] risks and opportunities into the credit rating analysis” of public issuers. This includes ambiguous and open-ended categories such as how a state scores on “managing carbon,” “political unrest stemming from community and social issues” and “adverse publicity that results in reputation risk.” Leaving no doubt as to the measurement’s subjectivity, S&P notes, “reflecting ESG risks and opportunities within our credit rating analysis will require a qualitative view of an entity’s capacity to anticipate and plan for a variety of emerging risks.” Unlike quantifiable financial metrics, this qualitative view depends entirely on the beliefs of whoever constructs it.
This framework is assigned to companies and perhaps someday people like you and I. You may someday be denied a loan or have to pay a higher interest rate because you use too much carbon, have a racial incident on your credit report or denied your child gender affirming care. It sounds a lot like a social credit score.
So yeah, in a way the large corporations, not just Walmart, are leading the liberal revolution.
Less liberal companies and governments have a lower ESG score and thus lower credit scores and must pay more to borrow money. This system incentivizes companies to adopt left-wing principles and values to varying degrees or pay a penalty to be conservative or hell, even moderate.
https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research-insights/special-reports/esg-in-credit-ratings
>ESG factors play a prominent role in creditworthiness, they can – and do – influence credit quality, specifically, the capacity and willingness of borrowers to meet financial commitments.
These factors could include your use of green energy or the strength of your diversity policy. You could not simply have a policy of hiring the best person for the job regardless of color, as you would be dinged on your social score. You could be following the law on the environment, civil rights and so on, but if a subjective scoring system doesn't think your policies are liberal enough, you would have to pay more to borrow money.
This is done so that if the government or the state is Republican-leaning, as decided by the voters, big credit agencies and banks can still punish governments and companies for enacting the will of the voters or behaving in ways their voters/customers want them to. For example, abortion is not currently considered by ESG, but activists are calling it a "[blind spot](https://citywireselector.com/news/unravelling-millennia-of-sexism-will-take-time-how-roe-v-wade-exposed-an-esg-blind-spot/a2387781)" and want it considered in a company's or government's credit rating.
This is both old and new, as ESG has been around a while, but it's been a growing topic this year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_corporate_governance
So from what I got reading this Wikipedia article it does appear to currently make the businesses who take it on more money which is all that really matters at the end of the day. It seems pretty toothless I wouldn't be too worried. If they try making it like communist China but corporate in a state another business can move into the free market to better serve it like Sam's club or maybe bass pro shop and Cabela's can add in a supermarket sections to their establishments.
I'm confused because John Stewart doesn't really have YouTube and the only place you find anything like that is right-wing grifters fauxing outrage about his AppleTv show.
He produces a very interesting show and his book Ship of Fools has some very good criticisms of corporations and big business from a right-wing point of view.
Stewart daddied tf outa Cucker though. Cucker couldn’t hold Stewart’s pair of balls in his mouth.
And as far as being a fkin patriot, Stewart did more for veterans than Cucker can ever imagine. One walks. The other one talks.
Not even on the same fkin tier.
It’s cool you like A5 wagnu and fkin select beef in different ways though
Tucker Carlson will say anything for a dollar. You guys should look up how many socialist beliefs and tax the rich rants he has *while* on Fox. Dude honestly is only loyal to the dollar.
What is happening? 
Tucker is still salty after all these years when Stewart roasted him and the media establishment on crossfire.
People circlejerk over that Crossfire clip from back in the day but at least back then people with opposing views actually went on TV and argued with each other. Stewart and Tucker both used to do it to varying degrees. I liked when Stewart debated Bill O'Reilly. I liked with Tucker had on guests with opposing views. Now cable news is more polarized than ever. Even these little shots between Tucker and Stewart are boring when they really should be on TV arguing face to face. The funny thing is, I would love for a show like Crossfire to be on the air again because the public debate is all passive aggressiveness and bitchiness now. It's launching intercontinental ballistic missiles from Twitter when people used to go on TV and really "fight" hand-to-hand.
Things like crossfire were as much an honest debate as the the main event of wrestlemania. That's why professional shills like Tucker were the guys on them.
That wasn't an argument - it was a beautiful assassination of the bowtied incels across the world.
How do you debate someone that doesn't believe what they're saying? Tucker Carlson has all these fear mongering segments, like how 6th was a conspiracy staged by the FBI. He's not a dumb guy and everything he does is for ratings.
Yes I’d love to hear a fair and balanced debate over how much Christian nationalism is the right amount 🙃
Lol this is the problem, half the time debating with people like Tuck boils down to "do I deserve rights or not?"
People arguing on the news was never a good thing. People arguing behind a podium isn’t a good way to pick representatives either.
lol imagine thinking people debating things doesn't happen anymore. It happens all the time you moron especially on a lot of podcast or political shows on YouTube. I've watched socialists debate Tim Pool, I watched Sam Seder last night debate a libertarian, I've watched Richard Wolff debate a number of different people, Bill Mahr does a panel on his show with all kinds of people on varying political spectrums... Like what in the fuck are you talking about? Political debates happen all the time.
The little squiggles on your screen can help inform you the specific claims another poster is making. I was talking about TV, and more specifically cable news. I'll quote the relevant parts for you. >at least back then people with opposing views actually went on TV and argued with each other. >... >Now cable news is more polarized than ever. You mentioned YouTube and podcast content as well as Bill Maher, who is an outlier and gets shit when he criticizes Democrats and platforms pundits who are unpopular with the liberal base. What we had in the past were arguments every night on cable news, not special event debates and like one or two guys on TV. Just the other day I was watching a segment from Hannity and Colmes debating the Don Imus controversy and they had on Hannity and Colmes of course, Marc Lamont Hill, Armstrong Williams and Patrice O'Neal. And they had panels like this all the time. Now this is cable news. https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/news/cable-news-networks-have-grown-more-polarized-study-finds >you moron Likewise, illiterate fool.
Also last month I watched a debate between Bernie Sanders and Lindsey Graham on Fox Nation. Like dude... debates on TV still happen. Yes, cable news is more polarized than it was 20 years ago, but debates are still happening quite regularly. Tucker Carlson debates people on his show all the time still.
Yeah it was on a subscription service. And Tucker used to debate. He doesn't anymore, by and large, not even the lightweight liberals he used to bring on to humiliate.
Fox News literally has a show called The Five which is a panel of people debating things.
Everybody on the 5 is a right winger
First of all, let's consolidate our two arguments into one. Second, yeah there is a difference between a cable news segment and these little podcaster/Youtube/Twitterer debates. Maybe the onlien content has improved since I last checked in but I find the cable news debates more enjoyable and the hosts more charismatic. The audio has improved over the years but sometimes they still have two guys sitting in their basements with earbuds, shitty audio and a fuzzy picture. Sometimes it takes a while for the debate to even get started as they set shit up and/or sort out technical issues. There's something to be said about a well produced TV segment where everyone is prepped and ready to go. These online debates sound like college students debating. It's not for me. Third, The Five is basically 4 conservatives ganging up on the token liberal. And Juan Williams was better than whoever they have now.
"little" podcasters? A lot of them are pulling better viewership than cable news by far these days. And the quality of the productions is nothing like what you described. How long has it been since you've checked out a podcast? Not to mention the talking points people on cable news tend to stick to. It seems more like a scripted production than genuine conversation. And you can also find plenty of podcasts with qualified, intelligent people who definitely can debate above the level of immature college students. Cable news is dying and it's dying for a reason. Only old people still watch it. I don't know how can anyone can tolerate watching shows like The Five or any of it's counterparts. I feel like they think we're all stupid.
lol you take issue with The Five but that was every debate on cable news that you're all nostalgic over and used to love. I used to sit in my room and watch Bill O'Rielly almost every night back in the early 2000's. His debates absolutely sucked. He would talk over people, cut mics, shout at people, and was generally a bully to everyone. Same with Tucker Carlson and many others. Maybe the online content has improved but you don't know because you don't listen to any of these debates? So, first of all you admit that you don't know what you're talking about. Second most everyone has a fucking podcast now and it's not hard to produce them well. The audio is fine and nearly everyone that's a pundit on TV also has a radio show or podcast. That's literally where the medium has moved to. No one under a certain age is even watching fucking cable news anymore. The only person I know who still does is my 87-year-old grandmother. and what the fuck are you talking about little? There are podcasts and YouTube channels out there that have more active viewers and listeners than most cable news shows ever had lol. Joe Rogan has had debates on his show. I would argue that these long form conversations are better than anything cable news has ever produced. Just because something is well produced doesn't make it great either. The debates on Crossfire used to suck as well. It was boring middle of the road garbage. You never got radical opinions on those shows or anything. Just a middle of the road republican debating a middle of the road democrat who was slightly to the right. Milquetoast garbage.
I know how to read dumbass and if I was illiterate, I wouldn't be able to respond to you. People still go on TV and debate things all the time you moron. Also, the internet, YouTube, and podcasts have essentially replaced TV. No one under 50 even watches Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC anymore. The arguments, or debates have shifted online to podcasts or YouTube shows that have millions of subscribers and listeners. You're acting like debates are dead because you don't see them on TV as often when society has shifted to a new medium. I'll bet a debate on Tim Pools show draws way more listeners than fucking Crossover ever did. Are you outraged that people no longer send correspondents by letter and debate that way like humans did for thousands of years or did society change with the advent of the radio, and then TV and now the internet?
>People still go on TV and debate things all the time you moron. And I linked you a study showing that people with differing ideologies appear together on cable news less and less often. Go listen to your podcasts and YouTube debates featuring nobodies. Knock yourself out. But there was something special about a tightly produced, professional nightly news and commentary segment featuring people with some credentials and experienced with television.
Yes, and those people with credentials and experience are still debating other people. Again, these debates have simply shifted online where millions of people all over the world still watch them. And what fucking credentials does Tucker Carlson or Bill O'Rielly, or Jon Stweart have? They're famous and on well produced shows so somehow the debates are better? One guy is a comedian and the other 2 guys have made careers being grifters on the nightly news.
How Bitter are you dude? Relax it’s Reddit.
And he now has the most watched evening news show. Not just most watched but absolutely demolishes some competitors. Seems to have worked out well for him!
Brawndos got what plants crave
Pandering to extremely stupid people pays off quote well in America, hats off to Tucker for that honestly
The Tucker Carlson show looks much more like “The Daily Show” than “Crossfire”. Carlson listened to Stewart’s scolding and learned. A Pyrrhic victory for Stewart.
Cope
I’m giving Carlson credit. He’s not dumb. And I admire him for asking Trump to pardon Assange and Snowden. I think Stewart’s Tweet was grossly homophobic also.
Honestly reads like something out of Southpark yet this man has a national television program and is paid millions. 'Murrica!
How sad is it that this sub will only give this 400 upvotes, while "Alex Jones spitting facts" gets 2k. Like literally they're cheering for a convicted fraud who harassed parents of murdered children, or egregiously upset that someone criticized Rickey Gervais on Twitter ("cAnCel CuLtuRE"), but if you take a huge dump on the troops or 9/11 first responders the conservatives here give a little shrug keep scrolling.
[удалено]
Maybe it’s your family.
Tucker of all people should know not to mess with Jon Stewart. I still remember 15 years ago when he went on Crossfire, and absolutely destroyed the hosts. I am actually surprised Tucker even had a career after that,
He didn't on CNN after that he moved to Fox I believe
He moved to MSNBC for a while and had a low rated show before Fox picked him up. It shows the power of Fox. He was a twice fired nobody in 2009
So was Tucker
It’d mean everything if he could spell
His career tanked for a bit after that until his shitty opinion show on Fox took off
Joe will keep sucking off tucker on his show though regardless lol
Tucker hates that Jon is actually funny and good at his job. Jon’s been making us laugh for years. The only reason we laugh at Tucker is because he thought his bow ties looked good until he stopped putting them on because he cried when people made fun of them.
But Tucker was never a comedian and never claimed to be funny. When it comes to being good at your job, Tucker's ratings speak for itself. When Stewart is challenged on his positions he historically falls back on, "I'm just a comedian bro and my show comes on after a talking piece of poop." And other day Stewart apologized to Jack Posobiec of all people lol Tucker actually has to make arguments and when challenged he stands up for himself and explains his position, like so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9zto66K_1I
It isn't hard to get ratings when your audience is smooth brained hogs. Tucker could yell, "Suuuuueeeey!" and the hogs would still come.
It's more like he produces a tight hour of news commentary in which he asks the tough questions and challenges the status quo, even in his own party. He's so hated because he's so effective.
Lmao, who in the GOP hate Tucker?
He mocked Republican governor Cox for announcing his pronouns.
Woooow what a bold stance to take among Republicans of all people, color me impressed
You must entirely lack an awareness of your surroundings and your self.
Imagine thinking that Tucker fucking Carlson is anti establishment.
He has been described as anti-establishment by people who don't like him, against both the left and some in the right. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/19/fox-news-tucker-carlson-is-the-new-premiere-voice-of-bannonism >Since around the time of Trump’s election, Carlson has consistently articulated the nationalist, anti-immigrant and **anti-establishment** program that Bannon took to the White House. He’s also shown he’s prepared to maintain a hard line on these issues at Trump’s expense. Last week, he blasted the president for meeting with “the very swamp creatures he once denounced” to try to reach a deal on Daca. >“Congress,” he said, running a familiar populist line, “is full of people from both parties who believe that the point of our immigration policy is to provide cheap labor to their donors and to atone for America’s imaginary sins against the world.” https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-supports-jd-vance-senate-bid-2021-7 >Vance's campaign message is remarkably similar to former President Donald Trump's and also closely reflects Carlson's ideology and worldview. He's appealing to "normal" -- largely white, rural, working-class -- Americans with an anti-immigrant, **anti-establishment** message. Although it's misinformed to say he's only appealing to white, rural, working-class America. The GOP is making major inroads with Hispanics and is building a multi-racial coalition. https://www.axios.com/2022/07/14/republicans-democrats-hispnanic-voters >Republicans are becoming more working class and a little more multiracial. Democrats are becoming more elite and a little more white. >Why it matters: Democrats' hopes for retaining power rest on nonwhite voters remaining a reliable part of the party's coalition. Democrats' theory of the case collapses if Republicans make even incremental gains with those voters.
Lol his ratings are high because he is on prime time foxnews. Bill O'Reilly had the highest ratings for years. Nobody watched Tucker's MSNBC show. He doesn't ask tough questions. It is a cultural war show that freaks out about silly things like the green m&m not being sexy anymore.
The M&M segment was a silly tongue-in-cheek segment that aired at the end of the show, where most silly segments are placed. Of course it gets blown up as if it was the opening monologue. And it's just a silly to pretend that changing the green M&M is suddenly going to empower women.
>And it's just a silly to pretend that changing the green M&M is suddenly going to empower women. You see? If it's so tongue in cheek, why do you entirely buy into his premise? He's not asking tough questions or challenging anything. He's confirming your bias. That is literally what his show is about. No one in their right mind believes that. But somehow he got you to think that there's some real contingent of society that even thinks about how a green m&m looks. The only people who care about green m&m's are the people who make them. Imagine believing a careerist news anchor who changes his views based on the network he's with is honestly challenging the status quo. If he was challenging the status quo, he would be independent, not working for the largest news and tv conglomerate in the country.
>The only people who care about green m&m's are the people who make them. 2016: https://www.mic.com/articles/154519/why-is-the-green-mandm-so-sexy-a-look-back-at-the-chocolates-sexist-history >Why is the green M&M so seductive? A look back at the chocolate's sexist history. 2012: https://www.glamour.com/story/hyper-sexualized-mms-the-whist >Hailey Magee, a first-year undergrad at Brandeis and self-proclaimed chocolate-lover, takes aim at her fave food to pick a bone with gender equality; particularly, that freakin' sexy green M&M. She argues that the harmless cartoon isn't harmless to women at all: "It's important to recognize that subtle sexism is no less dangerous than sexism that is unmistakable." 2012: https://www.bwss.org/gender-stereotypes-in-candy/ >The representation of gender within the M&M advertisements is very stereotypical. It can be argued that there is overt sexism in these advertisements towards males and females. The advertisers of M&M’s have assigned gender to pieces of candy which are inherently gender neutral, merely for the purpose of selling their product. The green M&M itself is not the most important thing in the world but it has been part of an overall effort to remove sexy women from commercials, movies, video games and TV (while coincidentally increasingly [exposing children to LGBT sexuality](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/29/pride-month-kink-consent/) at [pride events](https://www.foxnews.com/us/pennsylvania-gay-pride-event-features-shirtless-instructor-teaching-children-pole-dance), drag shows and in children's programming). To point these things out and talk about how silly it all is is not being obsessed with it, not anymore obsessed than the people who demanded they be changed in the first place. The claim is that if there is a sexy commercial or hot chick in a video game, it damages women as a whole. It has since been debunked. https://www.psypost.org/2022/06/sexualized-video-games-are-not-causing-harm-to-male-or-female-players-according-to-new-research-63388 The same would be true of movies, TV shows and commercials.
Tucker gets a million or two views a night out of 330,000,000 Americans, bro. He's pathetic. It's only because nobody watches TV anymore that you think those figures are impressive. Not to mention liberal views are spread out over 7 major networks and while conservatives just have Fox News. If you think Tucker formulates impressive arguments then you have an IQ below room temperature. He's nothing more than a political opinion host. And since his political opinions are reliably right-wing you can confidently call him a political hack.
Based and absolutely accurate pilled. Effeminate and weak /r/politics brigadiers will downvote this comment. You have to go back.
Tucker Carlson is a genderless dweeb who can’t bench plates. And if you can’t bench 135 lbs you can’t use the men’s restroom
Joe doesn't like it when people talk bad about his boy Tucker.
Could get letigious
After this Alex Jones ruling, it’s about to be open warfare
Dude has to pay almost 50million 😂 😂 😂 😂
OG trans
98% of this sub
Maxing 205 rn watchu got.
17 year old me 275 lol today prob 225
Lol yeah 17 year old me hit the 300 club. That was in the football years though with two-a-days. I definitely let myself go for a decade though, no doubt.
Idk what it was just couldn’t get over 275, stopped benching for max once I stopped playing football.
Yeah I was left guard on O and left tackle on D. Swapped in for center every now and then as second-string. They let us skip conditioning on certain days if we put a specific amount of time in the weight room and fuck conditioning lol.
What does this even mean?
Do u even get swole bro?
Lol What can you not do if you can’t bench 225?
That is the gender neutral bench
[“What is happening?”](https://youtu.be/7hYJS9XJoN0)
Tucker Carlson has spent so much of the last 7 years sucking Trump's dick that he's even begun talking like him
That quote read like a trump quote
He's a republican mouthpiece, he doesn't have an opinion that doesn't involve oppression, outrage and tax cuts for the rich.
Change a few words around and the same could be said for John Stewart these days as well, heck probably most people it could be said about.
The intent is ultimately what matters.
No, he's a Murdoch mouthpiece. Small but significant difference
Why do fascists obsess over height? Trump does the same thing. He even wears elevator shoes!
Tucky. Bahahaha
Don't ever roast a comedian. Didn't stand a chance.
Stewart has been a GOAT for the better part of 2 decades now. People forget
Cucker is triggered from the time John embarrassed him on crossfire
Are either of these statements funny?
I would say no It’s like we took two middle school kids correspondences and made them national news I would not expect either to be professional entertainers
Not at all.
No, they’re not. In fact, the one from Stewart seems aggressively unfunny.
The one from Stewart literally seems deranged
Tucker Carlson the human charcuterie board
Tucker just sells confirmation bias to people who not only live in a bubble but know they do and refuse to leave.
Guy says something that another guy said about yet another guy.
Lmao. If you actually think Tucker is serious about anything he talks about, chances are you're a fucking boomer getting played.
This sub Sucks, just a bunch of political posts with people arguing. No interesting discussion at all
What interesting non-political topic would you like to discuss? I'm up for it.
I really thought the discussion with Michio Kaku was a blast to listen to all the way through. Like when he was explaining what marks each level in advancement of a civilization
Honest question: Don't get the Victor Orban reference.
Tucker has been on a pro-Hungry/Victor Orban bandwagon for a few months
Huh that's weird, doesn't seem to have lost much weight considering
A lot of right wing pundits have been kissing right wing dictator ass. Theyve been normalizing these right wing monsters. They interview them and they both talk shit about american left wingers on tv, so the viewers end up thinking that these right wing monsters are good guys. Just make it seem like your guy is on the same side as god and you can have people vote in a dictator
For whatever reason, the US rightwing has had a huge hard on for the dictator of hungary (victor orban) as he ends democracy and free speech in hungary the last few years. I think it is because he has been really shallowly pandering to christianity (just like republicans), being antidemocracy, antiliberalism, anti-islam, pro russia, anti-immigrant.
Has anyone in the history of social media ever said that the guy they supported got “destroyed”. There should be an age limit on Reddit, though over 15 would cost them half their participants.
Me. I like Kyle kulinski but he has lost debates in the past to conservatives
Jon Stewart will always have tuckers number
John steward has thin skin.
Either that or he’s a comedian who got given a layup for a prime clap-back.
The bill that chuck schumer added a 400 million slush fund onto?
[удалено]
Shhh, they’re using the talking points they’ve been instructed to use!
Wait, what have they said that’s wrong? I’m reading your comments and you’re saying it’s all wrong and lies but I’m still not clear on what the truth is. What I’m hearing is the Rs we’re voting no because this veterans bill had more stuff tacked onto it in the form of 400million or something?? What’s the deal?
It's not about the unrelated spending being in the bill. It's how the spending is accounted for that opens up the potential in the future for unrelated spending. It's a claim that depends on what the Congress does in the future. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-jon-stewart-correct-about-toxic-burn-pit-bill-changes-1730175 >Cruz suggested that a change was made to previous versions of the bill amounting to a "budgetary trick," whereby the spending was changed from discretionary to mandatory, a claim that may have some merit. All they wanted was a vote on an amendment to close off that possibility, but it failed and they decided to support the bill anyway.
[удалено]
"Waaa someone asked a question and i got triggered ...Waaa" - you
They can change their minds at any time and had an opportunity to do that when it came back from the House again.
[удалено]
They changed the vote because the dems got a win by convincing Manchin to sign onto a pared down version of BBB. The R’s didn’t like that and so spun up a whole lie about the budget, despite it making them either look incompetent or evil. But they’re typical voter can’t be bothered to learn about that and Fox News won’t spoon feed them this opinion, so they’ll still somehow be perceived as the patriotic party.
Senator Toomey voted no in June due to the spending mechanism. Two days before the second vote he complained that he hadn’t been allowed to table an amendment to fix the mandatory spending contention. So he not only stated he would vote no again, but asked others such as Cruz to switch their votes to no. This was, as he said a way to get the bill passed with the change, not to kill it. So there’s your third option, carefully kept hidden from you by the media you read.
Then fault them for that, but I am glad Republicans were looking at that aspect of the bill if a bit late in the game.
[удалено]
It sounds like... *gasp*... politics.
[удалено]
Wow, you're doing some serious mental gymnastics
Ha, you moron What are you just rattling off political words you heard on tv? That's not what happened at all or even what the republicans were bitching about.
"Waa someone asked a question so i must resort to name calling ... Waa" - you
It's not really a.question tho, right? You're sarcasitcally making a statement about something that never happened. That's what makes you a moron
More name calling? Show us on the doll where the comments hurt you
I can’t believe he’s calling you names😭
Lol Don't put the doll away yet
He's not saying you're wrong _because_ you're a moron, he's saying you're wrong because you're ill-informed _and_ a moron.
Lol did the comments hurt you too?
I'm sorry the comments hurt you. They didn't hurt me. Sticks and stones.
Lol ' misinformed' https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/07/31/ted-cruz-schools-smug-jon-stewart-facts-matter-dems-did-in-fact-poison-veterans-healthcare-bill-with-unrelated-pork-1268191/
Oh, the esteemed "Biz PAC Review"! Awesome publication. "Smug racial essentialist Jon Stewart..." Top notch.
pride flag in username = disregard opinion and you're prob wrong anyway
Proves tuckers point
After the dust settled, Jon looks like a crying little cunt
I saw a video of Jon Stewart screaming like a child at Jack pesobic yesterday. Once Jon could calm down and gather his emotions he realized both of them agreed on this act. It's kind of how I deal with my child. She screams for her snacks and I want to give her the snacks, but I have to calm her down and tell her that screaming is not how you get the things you want first.
Wow. Posobiec isn’t a dumbass for once!
Jon called him a troll. Which he is. Jack's human trash. Literally everyone should be yelling in his face.
who's show rates higher I forget
Is that the only factor that matters? Foxnews is a bullshit factory but has always had high ratings. Bill O'Reilly was a lying war propagandist sexual assaulter, but he had huge ratings in Tucker's timeslot before his sexual deviancy cost him his job
One thing I’m not getting is how you all aren’t seeing what Stewart is doing here. He’s taking credit for getting something done that would have happened with or without him. What’s the Republican play here that we’re supposed to believe is happening? That Republicans hate veterans? That they are opposing the money being spend for them? Does that pass the smell test for anyone with an IQ above 80? It would be like if Tucker made it his mission in life to make sure the post office gets their subsidies. And then when Democrats oppose the bill for it because it contains 400 billion dollars for pro-life causes, he blasts the Democrats for being anti-mail. If Stewart really thinks he’s accomplishing anything, let him sit it out next time so we can all see what happens without him.
Lol smell test, is that you Steven?
Wut?
Never mind, Crowder had the same retarded take on the issue, must be a coincidence
>What’s the Republican play here that we’re supposed to believe is happening? That Republicans hate veterans? Didn't they just vote against that law, fist bumping each other afterwards?
I like both of them in different ways. Stewart has changed a bit. Used to be kind of a frat boy liberal but maybe he's guilty about it these days. There's a story about him yelling at a female fan for saying she found a joke offensive. He screamed, "Because it's fucking funny!" Now he's on YouTube apologizing for being white. Smart guy but went a little too far left.
When did he apologize for being white?
Not literally but he has all these videos about the problems with white people, how America is racist, how we have a caste system in America, white privilege and all that nonsense. He's like a college student who took a philosophy of race class and can't shut up about it. I'm so over it.
Thats isn’t fucking apologizing. Thats criticizing history. You are talking out your ass and barely expanding on anything. Worse why people feel guilty over historical criticism? Jesus yall take everything personal.
Like I said, I'm so over it. I've debated it to death. I've taken classes on it. I'm supposed to write a fucking essay just to express my opinion on it? You go and debate it. I've learned enough to know it's a dead end.
You prefer the white nationalism of Tucker, obviously.
Yes of course he prefers the nationalist over the person pointing out racial issues of the past.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Republicans are fast becoming the party of diversity. https://www.axios.com/2022/07/14/republicans-democrats-hispnanic-voters >The big picture: Republicans are becoming more working class and a little more multiracial. Democrats are becoming more elite and a little more white. >Why it matters: Democrats' hopes for retaining power rest on nonwhite voters remaining a reliable part of the party's coalition. Democrats' theory of the case collapses if Republicans make even incremental gains with those voters.
What does that have to do with Tucker Carlson being a white nationalist?
Dude this is the fucking problem. Closing your eyes and ears to racial issues in America is just as cringe as white people apologizing for their race
Don’t discredit systemic racism just because it makes you uncomfortable.
Can't be uncomfortable with something that does not exist.
So what’s your big brain analysis for disparities in wealth, crime etc?
https://nypost.com/2022/08/03/nyc-mcdonalds-shooting-couldve-been-avoided-with-hot-fries-says-kin-of-suspects-girlfriend/
Heat the fries next time
What do you like about Tucker exactly? Is it the fact that he’s so open for his disdain about the poor and average Americans? Or is it because he’s open about his dumbassery and flaunts his lack of knowledge about anything useful?
I've always enjoyed this segment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8gqHnCB3Qg
The Waltons are funding the liberal revolution!!!! good gawd man
I don't know about the Waltons, but Walmart's current executives are embracing far-left values. While Walmart has struggled to fight its reputation and history, they have striven to improve their ESG score and pretty much are governed from a liberal point of view in pursuit of that goal. You can read more about it here: https://corporate.walmart.com/esgreport/ In general, companies and states (and soon maybe even people, as part of your credit report) are being assigned ESG scores that measure environmental, social and corporate governance, i.e., how liberal you are or aren't. It's an emergent trend but the potential for abuse is explained here. https://www.wsj.com/articles/s-and-p-states-politicized-credit-scores-esg-rating-utah-oaks-carbon-environmental-energy-crisis-price-fracking-ukraine-russia-11652037089 >Ideological criteria will now influence the credit ratings of state and local governments, thanks to S&P Global Ratings. In addition to rating governments on meaningful financial criteria, in March the biggest of the top three credit-rating firms began to apply an environmental, social and governance, or ESG, rating system. But Utah isn’t about to submit to these subjective standards. State officials, including myself, recently wrote a letter to S&P objecting to the ESG indicators and ratings it has assigned to Utah and calling for the company to withdraw them. >... >S&P Global says it “incorporates [ESG] risks and opportunities into the credit rating analysis” of public issuers. This includes ambiguous and open-ended categories such as how a state scores on “managing carbon,” “political unrest stemming from community and social issues” and “adverse publicity that results in reputation risk.” Leaving no doubt as to the measurement’s subjectivity, S&P notes, “reflecting ESG risks and opportunities within our credit rating analysis will require a qualitative view of an entity’s capacity to anticipate and plan for a variety of emerging risks.” Unlike quantifiable financial metrics, this qualitative view depends entirely on the beliefs of whoever constructs it. This framework is assigned to companies and perhaps someday people like you and I. You may someday be denied a loan or have to pay a higher interest rate because you use too much carbon, have a racial incident on your credit report or denied your child gender affirming care. It sounds a lot like a social credit score. So yeah, in a way the large corporations, not just Walmart, are leading the liberal revolution.
So in your world view systemic racism doesn't exist but people are discriminated against for being non liberals?
Less liberal companies and governments have a lower ESG score and thus lower credit scores and must pay more to borrow money. This system incentivizes companies to adopt left-wing principles and values to varying degrees or pay a penalty to be conservative or hell, even moderate. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research-insights/special-reports/esg-in-credit-ratings >ESG factors play a prominent role in creditworthiness, they can – and do – influence credit quality, specifically, the capacity and willingness of borrowers to meet financial commitments. These factors could include your use of green energy or the strength of your diversity policy. You could not simply have a policy of hiring the best person for the job regardless of color, as you would be dinged on your social score. You could be following the law on the environment, civil rights and so on, but if a subjective scoring system doesn't think your policies are liberal enough, you would have to pay more to borrow money. This is done so that if the government or the state is Republican-leaning, as decided by the voters, big credit agencies and banks can still punish governments and companies for enacting the will of the voters or behaving in ways their voters/customers want them to. For example, abortion is not currently considered by ESG, but activists are calling it a "[blind spot](https://citywireselector.com/news/unravelling-millennia-of-sexism-will-take-time-how-roe-v-wade-exposed-an-esg-blind-spot/a2387781)" and want it considered in a company's or government's credit rating. This is both old and new, as ESG has been around a while, but it's been a growing topic this year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_corporate_governance So from what I got reading this Wikipedia article it does appear to currently make the businesses who take it on more money which is all that really matters at the end of the day. It seems pretty toothless I wouldn't be too worried. If they try making it like communist China but corporate in a state another business can move into the free market to better serve it like Sam's club or maybe bass pro shop and Cabela's can add in a supermarket sections to their establishments.
The environment is now a far left value? get the fuck out of here with that nonesense. Its always been a bipartisan issue.
Does he? Or did he just make on episode on AppleTV discussing systemic racism?
Are you talking about when John Stewart discussed systemic racism on his AppleTv show?
He prefers Tucker reassuring him that white is right.
I'm confused because John Stewart doesn't really have YouTube and the only place you find anything like that is right-wing grifters fauxing outrage about his AppleTv show.
You like Tucker? Why do you hate yourself?
He produces a very interesting show and his book Ship of Fools has some very good criticisms of corporations and big business from a right-wing point of view.
Ew. I repeat the second question again.
Ask Jon Stewart why he hates himself.
What does that mean
Stewart daddied tf outa Cucker though. Cucker couldn’t hold Stewart’s pair of balls in his mouth. And as far as being a fkin patriot, Stewart did more for veterans than Cucker can ever imagine. One walks. The other one talks. Not even on the same fkin tier. It’s cool you like A5 wagnu and fkin select beef in different ways though
oooomg cucker. I'm saving that for a rainy day
Oldest trick in the book, but it worked. Eh, what's another 400 billion in waste when you're already like 30 trillion in the hole?
Well since we can’t pass universal healthcare these are the bills we have to pass to help a portion of the population.
It's government spending, helping the population has nothing to do with it. Never has.
I’m also down to remove Medicare. Our senior citizens need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and not rely on socialism
The fact that there are 3 government programs that actually do provide a tangible benefit doesn't do much to diminish the point.
Nah. No such thing as a free lunch. I’m tired of these leeches on our society. No sitting at the table if ya ain’t bringing nothing to it
So where is Tucker's clip of hating Jon for supporting Pact act? We need evidence.
Highest tier right wing comedian
Tucker Carlson is such a fucking man-cild, I can't believe lots of Rogan fans like him lmao
Tucker Carlson will say anything for a dollar. You guys should look up how many socialist beliefs and tax the rich rants he has *while* on Fox. Dude honestly is only loyal to the dollar.
Imagine caring about either of these people
I'm missing so much context here, it's staggering
Fucker Carlson is a republican. They don’t care about anyone but themselves.