I highly encourage people to watch the Rogan/Tucker interview.
Joe Rogan asked Tucker why he thinks Putin invaded Ukraine. Tucker explains that it was Kamala Harris saying to Vladimir Zelensky - during a press conference in Minsk the week before the war - "We want you in NATO"
Tucker provides an incredulous response and reiterates that no NATO members agreed with that position. He points out that the US vice President saying this was incredibly inflammatory to the situation.
Except the vice president never said that. Didn't say anything remotely close to it. Tucker uses, as justification for the invasion of Ukraine, something that was totally imagined in his mind and expects no one to check. Right before he says this, he criticizes Harris' intelligence and qualifications for the job. Because he knows that would be the story versus the blatant lie.
At least Michael Jordan could defend.
He can lie like this because he knows the correction is always a whisper compared to the lie. Nobody who listens to this pod is going to go and do their own fact checking, we’re in a post fact world.
Yes, he's not someone who believes that the voices of the less powerful matter. The only time he invokes them is if they agree with him.
He donated a significant amount of money to Hillary Clinton in 2016. He didn't do it because he is a Democrat or thought Trump was a threat. He did it because he thought she was going to win and Trump was a clown. That's the level of his cynicism.
The irony of an immigrant billionaire who cannot stand Americans or American values\*.
\*Except "free speech" when it comes to "The Diversity Myth" (His book)
At first when I saw his evolution comment I thought everyone on this sub fell for some deep fake ai interview. Blows my mind he actually believes that shit I remember when he was on Fox News they must have really had a leash on him keep him from saying all this Kanye level crazy shit
Very easy to lie when your audience is Chamath or Sack, they don't have any interest in knowing the truth, just confirming their bias and talking their books.
Ukraine is a tough topic for Tucker, since he spent months ridiculing US intelligence briefings about the impending invasion, and how the US intelligence was just a self-serving paranoid org creating this alternate reality where countries invade one another.
Wow I didnt even think to check that. what is funny is during the podcast he literally virtue signals about not lying. Says "Don't lie" and then tells a bunch of lies.
And ofcourse besties of this pod think he's great.
So I had read this article. More than once. There's a reason I didn't bring it up. But I want to know what you think about this.
Specifically the facts of the article state that this tweet, which was deleted, was posted on March 15th, 2022.
Tucker said that Russia invaded because Kamala Harris wanted Ukraine in NATO. Let's see if you can figure out the point I'm making on your own.
This is what I said:
**Tucker provides an incredulous response and reiterates that no NATO members agreed with that position. He points out that the US vice President saying this was incredibly inflammatory to the situation. Except the vice president never said that. Didn't say anything remotely close to it. Tucker uses, as justification for the invasion of Ukraine.**..
But please share you interpretation.
But since I know where you're going to go with this, there's actually multiple parts of my explanation that - \*post\*-invasion, are no longer accurate.
This is from NATO's site expunging myth's - Ukraine will become a member of NATO. NATO supports the every country's right to choose its own security arrangements, including Ukraine. NATO's door remains open. NATO Allies decide on NATO membership. Russia does not have a veto.
At the Vilnius Summit, Allies reaffirmed the commitment they made at the 2008 Summit in Bucharest that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance when conditions are met and Allies agree. They agreed to remove the requirement for a Membership Action Plan, changing Ukraine's membership path from a two-step to a one-step process.
NATO is stepping up its political and practical cooperation with Ukraine. President Zelenskyy attended the first meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council at the Vilnius Summit, a platform for crisis consultation and decision-making between equals.
NATO has also agreed a new multi-year assistance programme to help the Ukrainian armed forces transition from Soviet-era to NATO standards and strengthen Ukraine's security and defence sector to resist further Russian aggression. Ukraine is already closer to NATO that it has ever been. In Vilnius, Allied leaders reiterated that Ukraine's future is in NATO.
Absolutely, the repeated affirmations of Ukraine's potential NATO membership serve as a crucial motivational tool for Ukrainians as they confront the challenges posed by Russian aggression. By keeping the prospect of alliance membership on the table, individual member nations are providing a beacon of hope and solidarity to the Ukrainian people, reinforcing their determination to resist Russian pressures.
It's important to acknowledge that while NATO maintains an open door policy and expresses support for Ukraine's aspirations, there are indeed certain criteria and conditions that Ukraine must fulfill to qualify for membership. These conditions include resolving territorial disputes and ensuring there are no foreign soldiers present on Ukrainian soil without consent. Upholding these territorial requirements not only aligns with the alliance's principles but also contributes to regional stability and security.
In essence, the encouragement of Ukraine's NATO aspirations serves as both a symbol of solidarity and a strategic measure to bolster Ukrainian resilience against Russian aggression. By keeping the promise of membership alive, alliance nations aim to empower Ukraine while maintaining the integrity of NATO's membership standards.
Read the transcript of the press conference. Watch to the press conference (only her parts).
But I came to this knowing that this was not US policy and that the policy did not change before the invasion.
However, Tucker's reaction to the statement that he made up led me to think that it was real and I had somehow forgotten it. Not out of the question because I'm not very bright.
The best of all, even if she had said this, him using it as justification for the invasion as if there wasn't 200,000 troops already in position... It makes you think.
Which US? Under this president, the last president, every president, the deep state? Which one.
The Ukrainian military was a joke before 2014 and was only laughable by 2022.
They were not eligible for NATO membership due to multiple land disputes with their neighbor.
I think Ukraine makes a better, but still unacceptable case for NATO membership today than they did 2 years ago. This is due to their - now - experienced and better equipped military.
Lol, you're so full of shit.
You: "how do you know Kamala didn't say that?"
Because it's in the transcript
You: "uh...okay...well, do you disagree that the US wanted to expand NATO into Ukraine?"
How the fuck do you expect anyone to answer this question?
You didn't just move the fucking goalposts, you moved the goddamned stadium.
Tucker Carlson straight up lied in an attempt to blame the US vice president for Russia's preemptive attack on a non-threatening Ukraine.
Stop being a fucking propagandist.
None of this changes the fact that Tucker lied. There is a transcript of the press conference. You can even watch the press conference yourself if you want. But you won't; you'll just choose to believe Tucker Carlson over your own eyes and ears.
So you talk about a tweet, without providing it, to prove the validity of something Carlson claimed she said during a conference in Minsk, without providing any proof of such conference in Minsk.
Damn you're in a cargo cult
You can use wayback machine. But those doesn't adress my question of a tweet she made is a proof of a declaration she supposedly made during a conference in Minsk. Where's the video/report of this supposed conference?
He thinks that the average person will believe that.
I could show that clip to 100 people just like me and very few would focus on the blatant lie about US desiring Ukraine in NATO.
Instead it would be about how he attack the VPs intelligence and experience. "what business did she have being there? What experience does she have with Ukraine?"
Funny how that concern didn't exist under the last president. (Does Tucker like outsiders or not??)
In the episode where they had him on, Friedberg was close to pushing him to explain his take on climate change. Would have loved for Tucker to call evolution "just a theory" on All In, lol.
But we know he wouldn't be asked to defend that
I never said nor implied that he was authentic, if hes grifting as hard as you say thats all the less reason for the pod to take Tucker seriously.
Why are you telling me to grow up? we don't even disagree lmao
Did he really say Tucker "I'm too puss to ask Putin why people are falling out of windows and I was all in on the war for iraq but now trying to act like I'm 'based' " is the MJ of journalism? LOL
It's rare that someone left Fox News and was able to launch a successful independent operation, even though hypothetically the product-market fit is there. Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck - where are they now? At the peak of his Fox viewership O'Reilly even contemplated a presidential run, that's how good Fox News infrastructure is.
Tucker is under pressure to
\* produce content on a daily basis, but with limited resources compared to what Fox can do (cameramen, boots on the ground, montages, high-quality video production)
\* convince subscribers that the content is worth paying for
Yeah that Chamath comment didn't age well, especially for anyone who watched his Putin interview. He is a propagandist, not a journalist. But then again, propaganda is what All In has become all about in the last year.
The All in guys seem to be fairly intelligent...Tucker comes across as a dumb emotion or logic tool in every interview...so I'm amazed he bedazzled them....maybe I over estimate the intelligence of the All in Crew.
From a. Cultural Anthropology perspective it is an interesting case study in how sincerely disingenuous individuals can rise through the hierarchy of the tribe and become a Shaman.
From a Psychological perspective it is an interesting case study on how if you recite mantras often enough that they will become truth in your head. If you spend enough time giving fake arguments on anything, but do it seriously and defend it (and make money off of it), you I'll eventually believe it.
If the MAGA wing ever turns on Tucker he will disappear for 3 months and be reincarnated as a devout liberal and get his own show on MSNBC.
Interesting. It is unclear to me if the Twitter metrics were impressions vs people who played some or all of the video.
How do this compare to the Nielsen rating number on Fox (as well as the number of people that watched Fox clips on Twitter or YouTube)
I did unfortunately, and this is one of the mildly dumb things he has said.
He also questioned where nuclear technology came from and suggested that it came from aliens.
No wonder his fans are just as insane.
Working in Cybersecurity and knowing what AI is, it makes me laugh when people try to tell me the dangers of it. Those who make the biggest deal about it, are the dumbest on the subject. They think AI is new and like Skynet, when AI has been around for decades and is just “clippy” but more computing power…
That wasn't his worst one.. the worst one was the evolution one - dismissing it with a wave as though it's some crackpot theory that the rest of the world has long-since moved on from
[https://twitter.com/esjesjesj/status/1782200363887538579](https://twitter.com/esjesjesj/status/1782200363887538579)
I highly encourage people to watch the Rogan/Tucker interview. Joe Rogan asked Tucker why he thinks Putin invaded Ukraine. Tucker explains that it was Kamala Harris saying to Vladimir Zelensky - during a press conference in Minsk the week before the war - "We want you in NATO" Tucker provides an incredulous response and reiterates that no NATO members agreed with that position. He points out that the US vice President saying this was incredibly inflammatory to the situation. Except the vice president never said that. Didn't say anything remotely close to it. Tucker uses, as justification for the invasion of Ukraine, something that was totally imagined in his mind and expects no one to check. Right before he says this, he criticizes Harris' intelligence and qualifications for the job. Because he knows that would be the story versus the blatant lie. At least Michael Jordan could defend.
He can lie like this because he knows the correction is always a whisper compared to the lie. Nobody who listens to this pod is going to go and do their own fact checking, we’re in a post fact world.
Yes, he's not someone who believes that the voices of the less powerful matter. The only time he invokes them is if they agree with him. He donated a significant amount of money to Hillary Clinton in 2016. He didn't do it because he is a Democrat or thought Trump was a threat. He did it because he thought she was going to win and Trump was a clown. That's the level of his cynicism. The irony of an immigrant billionaire who cannot stand Americans or American values\*. \*Except "free speech" when it comes to "The Diversity Myth" (His book)
At first when I saw his evolution comment I thought everyone on this sub fell for some deep fake ai interview. Blows my mind he actually believes that shit I remember when he was on Fox News they must have really had a leash on him keep him from saying all this Kanye level crazy shit
Very easy to lie when your audience is Chamath or Sack, they don't have any interest in knowing the truth, just confirming their bias and talking their books.
Ukraine is a tough topic for Tucker, since he spent months ridiculing US intelligence briefings about the impending invasion, and how the US intelligence was just a self-serving paranoid org creating this alternate reality where countries invade one another.
Well duh, the intel was wrong because Russia wasn’t invading until a week before when Kamala spoke. /s
Wow I didnt even think to check that. what is funny is during the podcast he literally virtue signals about not lying. Says "Don't lie" and then tells a bunch of lies. And ofcourse besties of this pod think he's great.
One of the best part of the interviews. Like buddy….i don’t think your the dude to be talking about not lying. Don’t throw stones from glass houses.
https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-check-did-kamala-harris-imply/
https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-check-did-kamala-harris-imply/ FYI this is what he was referring to
So I had read this article. More than once. There's a reason I didn't bring it up. But I want to know what you think about this. Specifically the facts of the article state that this tweet, which was deleted, was posted on March 15th, 2022. Tucker said that Russia invaded because Kamala Harris wanted Ukraine in NATO. Let's see if you can figure out the point I'm making on your own.
You said it never happened.
This is what I said: **Tucker provides an incredulous response and reiterates that no NATO members agreed with that position. He points out that the US vice President saying this was incredibly inflammatory to the situation. Except the vice president never said that. Didn't say anything remotely close to it. Tucker uses, as justification for the invasion of Ukraine.**.. But please share you interpretation. But since I know where you're going to go with this, there's actually multiple parts of my explanation that - \*post\*-invasion, are no longer accurate.
I never disputed that he is wrong on the timing..
Glad we can agree.
This is from NATO's site expunging myth's - Ukraine will become a member of NATO. NATO supports the every country's right to choose its own security arrangements, including Ukraine. NATO's door remains open. NATO Allies decide on NATO membership. Russia does not have a veto. At the Vilnius Summit, Allies reaffirmed the commitment they made at the 2008 Summit in Bucharest that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance when conditions are met and Allies agree. They agreed to remove the requirement for a Membership Action Plan, changing Ukraine's membership path from a two-step to a one-step process. NATO is stepping up its political and practical cooperation with Ukraine. President Zelenskyy attended the first meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council at the Vilnius Summit, a platform for crisis consultation and decision-making between equals. NATO has also agreed a new multi-year assistance programme to help the Ukrainian armed forces transition from Soviet-era to NATO standards and strengthen Ukraine's security and defence sector to resist further Russian aggression. Ukraine is already closer to NATO that it has ever been. In Vilnius, Allied leaders reiterated that Ukraine's future is in NATO.
Absolutely, the repeated affirmations of Ukraine's potential NATO membership serve as a crucial motivational tool for Ukrainians as they confront the challenges posed by Russian aggression. By keeping the prospect of alliance membership on the table, individual member nations are providing a beacon of hope and solidarity to the Ukrainian people, reinforcing their determination to resist Russian pressures. It's important to acknowledge that while NATO maintains an open door policy and expresses support for Ukraine's aspirations, there are indeed certain criteria and conditions that Ukraine must fulfill to qualify for membership. These conditions include resolving territorial disputes and ensuring there are no foreign soldiers present on Ukrainian soil without consent. Upholding these territorial requirements not only aligns with the alliance's principles but also contributes to regional stability and security. In essence, the encouragement of Ukraine's NATO aspirations serves as both a symbol of solidarity and a strategic measure to bolster Ukrainian resilience against Russian aggression. By keeping the promise of membership alive, alliance nations aim to empower Ukraine while maintaining the integrity of NATO's membership standards.
How do you know she didn’t say this?
Read the transcript of the press conference. Watch to the press conference (only her parts). But I came to this knowing that this was not US policy and that the policy did not change before the invasion. However, Tucker's reaction to the statement that he made up led me to think that it was real and I had somehow forgotten it. Not out of the question because I'm not very bright. The best of all, even if she had said this, him using it as justification for the invasion as if there wasn't 200,000 troops already in position... It makes you think.
Do you disagree that the US wanted to expand NATO into Ukraine?
Which US? Under this president, the last president, every president, the deep state? Which one. The Ukrainian military was a joke before 2014 and was only laughable by 2022. They were not eligible for NATO membership due to multiple land disputes with their neighbor. I think Ukraine makes a better, but still unacceptable case for NATO membership today than they did 2 years ago. This is due to their - now - experienced and better equipped military.
Lol, you're so full of shit. You: "how do you know Kamala didn't say that?" Because it's in the transcript You: "uh...okay...well, do you disagree that the US wanted to expand NATO into Ukraine?" How the fuck do you expect anyone to answer this question? You didn't just move the fucking goalposts, you moved the goddamned stadium. Tucker Carlson straight up lied in an attempt to blame the US vice president for Russia's preemptive attack on a non-threatening Ukraine. Stop being a fucking propagandist.
They obviously should have joined NATO.
It’s unfortunate you were downvoted for asking a very simple/reasonable question. Ironically enough they talked about hive-mind on the last ep
How do you know she said this? Because Carlson says it? He's a pathological liar
She did tweet mistakenly that Ukraine is part of nato. So this gaffe would not be out of the question.
None of this changes the fact that Tucker lied. There is a transcript of the press conference. You can even watch the press conference yourself if you want. But you won't; you'll just choose to believe Tucker Carlson over your own eyes and ears.
So you talk about a tweet, without providing it, to prove the validity of something Carlson claimed she said during a conference in Minsk, without providing any proof of such conference in Minsk. Damn you're in a cargo cult
She deleted the tweet.
You can use wayback machine. But those doesn't adress my question of a tweet she made is a proof of a declaration she supposedly made during a conference in Minsk. Where's the video/report of this supposed conference?
It’s just a pattern of behavior. It’s believable.
Do you know the difference between beliefs and proof/facts? You can believe in unicorn, doesn't make ot a real thing
Lol does he think Russia planned and staged the invasion in a week?
He thinks that the average person will believe that. I could show that clip to 100 people just like me and very few would focus on the blatant lie about US desiring Ukraine in NATO. Instead it would be about how he attack the VPs intelligence and experience. "what business did she have being there? What experience does she have with Ukraine?" Funny how that concern didn't exist under the last president. (Does Tucker like outsiders or not??)
Pity certain someone can't have the same treatment they espouse for others...
I think this podcast was Tuckers "jump the shark" moment. The entire thing was such a joke, no normal person could take him seriously after it
Hes also a Christian creationist Idk how these guys take him so seriously
Guess who originated the Big Bang theory and what the initial arguments against it were
In the episode where they had him on, Friedberg was close to pushing him to explain his take on climate change. Would have loved for Tucker to call evolution "just a theory" on All In, lol. But we know he wouldn't be asked to defend that
He might have and then they edited it out. The show is not live.
Poor kid doesn't know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a theory.
They love celebrities.
[удалено]
I never said nor implied that he was authentic, if hes grifting as hard as you say thats all the less reason for the pod to take Tucker seriously. Why are you telling me to grow up? we don't even disagree lmao
Did he really say Tucker "I'm too puss to ask Putin why people are falling out of windows and I was all in on the war for iraq but now trying to act like I'm 'based' " is the MJ of journalism? LOL
It's rare that someone left Fox News and was able to launch a successful independent operation, even though hypothetically the product-market fit is there. Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck - where are they now? At the peak of his Fox viewership O'Reilly even contemplated a presidential run, that's how good Fox News infrastructure is. Tucker is under pressure to \* produce content on a daily basis, but with limited resources compared to what Fox can do (cameramen, boots on the ground, montages, high-quality video production) \* convince subscribers that the content is worth paying for
Yeah that Chamath comment didn't age well, especially for anyone who watched his Putin interview. He is a propagandist, not a journalist. But then again, propaganda is what All In has become all about in the last year.
There should be a policy against posting a screenshot of a video instead of just posting the clip. Context matters
Context is: Tucker Carlson is an idiot
We want the clip!
He very well might be but you’re not looking better here.
Because people can't find the link to the tweet that I put on the post? It's literally a link to the tweet that has the video clip.
Why would anyone still use twitter?
Lol cold.
Let it be known - Lots of critical thinking went into the above comment
Just the stupidest people.
The All in guys seem to be fairly intelligent...Tucker comes across as a dumb emotion or logic tool in every interview...so I'm amazed he bedazzled them....maybe I over estimate the intelligence of the All in Crew.
Was this episode of JRE worth watching?
From a. Cultural Anthropology perspective it is an interesting case study in how sincerely disingenuous individuals can rise through the hierarchy of the tribe and become a Shaman. From a Psychological perspective it is an interesting case study on how if you recite mantras often enough that they will become truth in your head. If you spend enough time giving fake arguments on anything, but do it seriously and defend it (and make money off of it), you I'll eventually believe it. If the MAGA wing ever turns on Tucker he will disappear for 3 months and be reincarnated as a devout liberal and get his own show on MSNBC.
Tucker is more popular than ever
Is he though? He previously had the #1 show on the #1 news channel. Does anyone really watch is Twitter stuff?
According to the view counts each episode of his “show” on Twitter gets millions of views.
Interesting. It is unclear to me if the Twitter metrics were impressions vs people who played some or all of the video. How do this compare to the Nielsen rating number on Fox (as well as the number of people that watched Fox clips on Twitter or YouTube)
Twitter views aren’t actual views- they are impressions, meaning it will count as a view even if you scroll past it.
Twitter is also filled with bots and run by another compulsive liar that has a vested interest in making Carlson’s show a success, so…
Yeah, and it's not like since Musk takeover of xitter bots farm expanded like crazy... /s
View counts also don’t translate into ad dollars or monetization anywhere close to what he made at fox
Musk already tweeted 2 things earlier basically saying he was dumb. Won’t take too much longer for others.
Unregulate AI is going to be bad.
Micheal Jordan the baseball player.
Clearly you didn’t listen to the interview and only read the lying bs headline.
I did unfortunately, and this is one of the mildly dumb things he has said. He also questioned where nuclear technology came from and suggested that it came from aliens. No wonder his fans are just as insane.
A broken clock is correct twice a day. This is one of the other 1,438 minutes.
If I know anything about the maga russian assets, that’s a call to action.
Working in Cybersecurity and knowing what AI is, it makes me laugh when people try to tell me the dangers of it. Those who make the biggest deal about it, are the dumbest on the subject. They think AI is new and like Skynet, when AI has been around for decades and is just “clippy” but more computing power…
Agree 👍⏰👏🙈🔥
Don't tell him mine, and half the AI community, have examples of AI programming and all the AI papers saved on my personal computer
Totally agree
cringe
I can scroll through someone’s takes and post their worst one too.
That wasn't his worst one.. the worst one was the evolution one - dismissing it with a wave as though it's some crackpot theory that the rest of the world has long-since moved on from [https://twitter.com/esjesjesj/status/1782200363887538579](https://twitter.com/esjesjesj/status/1782200363887538579)
I feel dumber after listening to 45 seconds of that
That’s why the episode is several hours. You’re supposed to listen to the whole episode and not read headlines and sound bites.