Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Breezy H2O

Tucker Carlson Has Highest-Rated Program In Cable News History

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Happens to all of us. It is a movement that picks up steam even though it is decentralized. There seems to be a commonality among chapters in terms of behavior, what they are organized to do, etc.

BLM is totally different than simply black lives mattering. I've been saying it ad nauseum for weeks.

The messaging of it is bad because defund the police sounds very absolute as in take away all their money. The short video doesn’t seem to say that, she says in many cities shifting 5% of the police budget to health services would actually result in a doubling of their health budget. So I think even when people are talking about defund the police, different people take different things from it. I know I see a lot of extremists on twitter who want the police flat out gone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mile High said:

What's also there is after defund the police "and  #InvestInCommunities"

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Not giving you a hard time, but it isn't clear what the "also there" is that you're referring to. The hashtag about communities? The video and explanation? I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, satch said:

So are most of the people supporting BLM. Most people have no idea what they stand for. Supporting the black community and supporting BLM are two very different things. 

I actually mostly support the video RA posted. I think investing in education, mental health, etc at a higher rate is a better ROI. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

The messaging of it is bad because defund the police sounds very absolute as in take away all their money. The short video doesn’t seem to say that, she says in many cities shifting 5% of the police budget to health services would actually result in a doubling of their health budget. So I think even when people are talking about defund the police, different people take different things from it. I know I see a lot of extremists on twitter who want the police flat out gone.

Sounds like defunding is entirely accurate. The police flat out gone is "abolish the police," which I've seen around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Not giving you a hard time, but it isn't clear what the "also there" is that you're referring to. The hashtag about communities? The video and explanation? I'm not sure.

They don't just say defund the police but give something they want to do with the funds.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

Sounds like defunding is entirely accurate. The police flat out gone is "abolish the police," which I've seen around. 

Maybe that’s my own ignorance. I guess I always took defund in a more absolute terms as in cutoff all the money, not reducer the budget by 5%. I guess I’m surprised that it’s so controversial then. We are just talking basic shifting of public resources. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

We are just talking basic shifting of public resources.

Indeed the slogan is confusing as it implies a significant amount being cut from police activities. I actually agree with shifting resources over to other public programs and services and away from the police. I don't find it that controversial, but I've been long in favor of police reform (I had to toot my own horn), or at the very least, demilitarizing the police force.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I have just been way wrong this whole time or the marketing/propaganda around it has been bad. If you polled people I know and asked if they supported "defunding the police", it would receive a giant "HELL NO." If you polled them and asked, "Would you support shifting 5% of the police budget towards education and mental health?" I would guess ~60% of the people would support that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

Maybe I have just been way wrong this whole time or the marketing/propaganda around it has been bad.

That's what sho nuff and others have lamented often. It's a bad slogan.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Indeed the slogan is confusing as it implies a significant amount being cut from police activities. I actually agree with shifting resources over to other public programs and services and away from the police. I don't find it that controversial, but I've been long in favor of police reform (I had to toot my own horn), or at the very least, demilitarizing the police force.

Same here and I think even among many on the right, it's been acknowledged that our military budget could probably be trimmed quite a bit and spent on more domestic infrastructure. These are actually probably fairly popular. Though it often seems that neither party wants to do anything that could possibly be well received by the other side and the more universally well received something is, the less likely the Dems or GOP will work to make it happen. Pretty incredible to think that America is basically just yelling over each other right now while probably being in agreement on the core issues. Sounds like a bad marriage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

That's what sho nuff and others have lamented often. It's a bad slogan.

Bad on their end though I suspect the wording may be used to cast a wider net. It can appeal to those who want minor changes and still excite radicals who want to eliminate police entirely. Though of course their political opponents are going to use it as a weapon against them and turn it into fear mongering. What a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

Pretty incredible to think that America is basically just yelling over each other right now while probably being in agreement on the core issues. Sounds like a bad marriage. 

The support shown to where leagues are shutting down and people are saying "good" about it lets you know how big of a problem that even the average citizen considers it to be. It's amazing we can't find common ground, but as I've said in other threads, the right wants law and order for law and order's sake without thinking about the effects of it, and the left wants its unions left alone. Both are such crazy things. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

The support shown to where leagues are shutting down and people are saying "good" about it lets you know how big of a problem that even the average citizen considers it to be. It's amazing we can't find common ground, but as I've said in other threads, the right wants law and order for law and order's sake without thinking about the effects of it, and the left wants its unions left alone. Both are such crazy things. 

Really is an interesting issue when you look at the union perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, satch said:

Why does it have to be similar? If you get to selectively decide what should and shouldn’t be allowed on tv, shouldn’t I and everyone else get to do the same? Or did I miss the vote that elected you as arbiter in this matter?

I’m just not following the points you’re trying to make. Let’s just leave things here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"defunding the Police" was a term created out of anger.  Police reform is what is sorely needed.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tool said:

I’m just not following the points you’re trying to make. Let’s just leave things here.

Works for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Defund the police” means more to some than simply reducing their budget by a few percent. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of Joe Biden’s campaign advisors is unsatisfied with NY police $484 million budget cut.

New York passes budget with police cuts but AOC says it doesn’t go far enough.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has condemned budget cuts to New YorkCity’s Police Department (NYPD) saying it does not meet protesters’ demands over defunding.

The Democrat’s comments on Tuesday came as New York City’s Council voted to pass the 2021 police department budget, which included an almost $484 million cut.

Critics complain that more than $350 million from those savings will be relocated to other city departments, including New York’s Department for Education. That will see continued payments to police stationed outside schools, when activists have advocated for their removal.

Two hundred community groups said on Tuesday that their demands were still not being met after they called on Mr de Blasio to slash $1 billion from the NYPD budget.

Ms Ocasio-Cortex added on Tuesday that “the fight to defund policing continues” because communities had demanded less police on the streets – not reallocated police budgets.

Authorities across the US have also been under pressure to defund or abolish police departments after Minneapolis police killed George Floyd, an unarmed black man, on 25 May.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nypd-budget-cuts-aoc-defund-protests-black-lives-matter-new-york-city-vote-a9595146.html%3famp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That’s what many Americans fear. Joe Biden gets elected, and is nothing more than a puppet with extremist lunatics like AOC and The Squad pulling the strings. Massive defunding, taking cops off the streets, potentially abolishing police altogether in some instances, leading to more violence, looting, and just general chaos in our cities.

Edited by satch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, satch said:

That’s what many Americans fear. Joe Biden gets elected, and is nothing more than a puppet with extremist lunatics like AOC and The Squad pulling the strings. Massive defunding, taking cops off the streets, potentially abolishing police altogether in some instances, leading to more violence, looting, and just general chaos in our cities.

But we're also constantly reminded how Biden is supposed to be anathema to Dems/libs/progressives because he's been so stridently pro-LE in the past. Same with Harris.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Whoof that’s awful. I’m pro-liberty. I’m also in favor of responsibility in public broadcasting. There’s lots of stuff not on network, basic or even PPV cable for a reason.

I am shocked by your stance on this. You’re usually the most reasonable, level-headed poster in P/R, not one to overreact to an 11-second clip. 

For the record, I think Carlson is vile and that clip was him being his usually snarky self, but was it so awful to where calls for him to removed are needed? Nah. Just give it time. He’ll eventually say something truly vile that will make it impossible to keep him on the air. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just to clarify - anyone here commenting live in a high crime city? Anyone? Seems like a bad example at first blush but I think it holds - Iraq fell apart post invasion because of a lack of security, from the US and traditional Iraqi police and security. Security is important to democracy and belief and trust in it as well. 

So it's a fair point to say, hey a secure urban environment is necessary, for citizens, protesters, the cops themselves. There are policies to do this responsibly. And it's a fair point to say that a lack of security can lead to greater chaos and political violence if not managed. What isn't ok is to suggest - and Carlson is always backhanding, slyly, passively suggesting things cynically rather than just actively and coherently calling for what he means - that someone is justified in stepping into that void to act as a vigilante because that void exists. Backing and justifying with sophistry such behavior is in practice acting as an agitator. This is where Carlson failed, at best, and that's why he's acting heinously here.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

Ok I read the page of what they stood for. I am mistaken.

someone in this forum admits a mistake?  good on you.  wish more had your sense.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

I am shocked by your stance on this. You’re usually the most reasonable, level-headed poster in P/R, not one to overreact to an 11-second clip. 

For the record, I think Carlson is vile and that clip was him being his usually snarky self, but was it so awful to where calls for him to removed are needed? Nah. Just give it time. He’ll eventually say something truly vile that will make it impossible to keep him on the air. 

Thanks for the comment. I think I explain myself more fully above. If my impression is wrong I'll own it, but that's how I see his statements. I will always be stridently pro free speech.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To boffsidez this, yes there are definitely agitators on the left, marxists, communists, horseshoe anarchists, take your pick, but something those on the far far left and the far far right both want is excuse making and justification of the violence that allows - really forces - those in the middle to pick one side or the other. Because hey if you don't you're allowing the [choose one: marxists|fascists] to take over.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

To boffsidez this, yes there are definitely agitators on the left, marxists, communists, horseshoe anarchists, take your pick, but something those on the far far left and the far far right both want is excuse making and justification of the violence that allows - really forces - those in the middle to pick one side or the other. Because hey if you don't you're allowing the [choose one: marxists|fascists] to take over.

Exactly. I don't know if you read the post in my thread (The Du Jour one) but I was lamenting exactly this last night. I choose neither of these groups. Neither of them speak for me. I actually said that I was afraid I'd be on the wrong side of the wrong side of history, and I meant it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamny said:

Seems like a legit question. :shrug: 

Did people really not expect this kind of violent reaction to seeing what is going on around the country. Violence breeds violence.

Tucker didn't say "violence breeds violence". He said (paraphrasing) "violence breeds a feeling that order has to be maintained".

He's not describing this murder as an act of violence. He's describing it as an act of maintaining order.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boston said:

Ok...I will remove that post because it is not pertinent...but it is false Carlson is advocating...he is stating it is a result of a lack of leadership which is correct.

The problem is is he is apart of that leadership, as a talking head with a massive following.  He must choose his words extremely carefully right now in this time of division, and he clearly didn’t here.  If he was saying what you contend it was a very nuanced point that obviously got missed by large swaths of people, and in fact a dangerous interpretation took its place, which was also picked up on by a large swath of people.   It’s a irresistible and dangerous game he’s playing imo.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, satch said:

That’s what many Americans fear. Joe Biden gets elected, and is nothing more than a puppet with extremist lunatics like AOC and The Squad pulling the strings. Massive defunding, taking cops off the streets, potentially abolishing police altogether in some instances, leading to more violence, looting, and just general chaos in our cities.

That doesn’t make it true.  Certainly no more so then it did/does when someone says the same thing about Trump being a puppet of extremist lunatics like Putin.  We MUST stop this fear mongering, it’s extremely toxic.  The hypocrisy of this both ways is the problem, how people can’t see this within themselves is baffling to me. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Tucker didn't say "violence breeds violence". He said (paraphrasing) "violence breeds a feeling that order has to be maintained".

He's not describing this murder as an act of violence. He's describing it as an act of maintaining order.

We don't agree on what he meant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, satch said:

That’s what many Americans fear. Joe Biden gets elected, and is nothing more than a puppet with extremist lunatics like AOC and The Squad pulling the strings.

If you think Joe Biden, Pelosi, HRC or any of the Democratic establishment takes orders from AOC, The Squad or Bernie you clearly haven't been paying attention

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Maybe that’s my own ignorance. I guess I always took defund in a more absolute terms as in cutoff all the money, not reducer the budget by 5%. I guess I’m surprised that it’s so controversial then. We are just talking basic shifting of public resources. 

There are reasons why this is a common misconception.  See: thread title.

57 minutes ago, satch said:

That’s what many Americans fear. Joe Biden gets elected, and is nothing more than a puppet with extremist lunatics like AOC and The Squad pulling the strings. Massive defunding, taking cops off the streets, potentially abolishing police altogether in some instances, leading to more violence, looting, and just general chaos in our cities.

Not really.  It's a talking point for Trump and Pence though.  Same with Nixon in 68' and others through political history.  It's non-sense.

...if we don't learn from history and all that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamny said:
24 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Tucker didn't say "violence breeds violence". He said (paraphrasing) "violence breeds a feeling that order has to be maintained".

He's not describing this murder as an act of violence. He's describing it as an act of maintaining order.

We don't agree on what he meant.

Using the phrase "maintain order" when he means "violence" is not a good look, don't you think?

You don't think his viewers, especially the impressionable younger types, say, for example, a 17-year-old with an obsession with police and access to guns, might take him literally when he describes murder as "had to maintain order"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't like Tucker, and it's possible he's offering this as a wink-nudge excuse for vigilante violence, but like I said upthread, this is poli phi 151 or so. There will be order. It's just how will that order come about? In a vacuum, all sorts of people rise up and defy laws, traditions, norms, procedures, etc. to provide at least mob justice of some sort.

I'm surprised this is a controversial point.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

The problem is is he is apart of that leadership, as a talking head with a massive following.  He must choose his words extremely carefully right now in this time of division, and he clearly didn’t here.  If he was saying what you contend it was a very nuanced point that obviously got missed by large swaths of people, and in fact a dangerous interpretation took its place, which was also picked up on by a large swath of people.   It’s a irresistible and dangerous game he’s playing imo.   

He is absolutely not part of the leadership...please stop with that...he has a TV show that a good amount of Amercan’s watch and is calling out our leaders for allowing violence, standing down to violence or using terms like “mostly peaceful”...what is going on is an embarrassment and has been for months....yet here we are going over the nuances of what Tucker Carlson should be allowed to say...it is literally Rome with Nero these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, rockaction said:

I don't like Tucker, and it's possible he's offering this as a wink-nudge excuse for vigilante violence, but like I said upthread, this is poli phi 151 or so. There will be order. It's just how will that order come about? In a vacuum, all sorts of people rise up and defy laws, traditions, norms, procedures, etc. to provide at least mob justice of some sort.

I'm surprised this is a controversial point.

What makes it controversial is that Carlson waited until a white-perpetrated murder to unveil his "justice has been provided" moment.

Edited by [scooter]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

What makes it controversial is that Carlson waited until a white-on-black murder to unveil his "justice has been provided" moment.

Yeah, I guess it's circumspect. I don't watch, so I don't know if he's fanning racial flames. The point itself, on its own, without Carlson, is certainly an empirically correct one that we know from experience. Whether or not he's using dog whistles and how overt they are is not really what I'm discussing. Ceteris paribus, if a Democrat were discussing it, I'd nod my head, too. 

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, trader jake said:

Not really.  It's a talking point for Trump and Pence though.  

The state of violence and disorder on our city streets should be a talking point for both parties, though only one actually cared enough to condemn and address it during the convention. 

After months of rioting, looting, and violence on our city streets, with some cities literally being taken over by violent extremists, business being destroyed, etc you don’t think many Americans are concerned that we may soon have a president that is being advised by people who support massive police defunding and cops taken off the streets? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, satch said:

The state of violence and disorder on our city streets should be a talking point for both parties, though only one actually cared enough to condemn and address it during the convention. 

After months of rioting, looting, and violence on our city streets, with some cities literally being taken over by violent extremists, business being destroyed, etc you don’t think many Americans are concerned that we may soon have a president that is being advised by people who support massive police defunding and cops taken off the streets? 

I mean who doesn’t like being verbally assaulted by a gang when you are out to dinner with your best gal?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, satch said:

The state of violence and disorder on our city streets should be a talking point for both parties, though only one actually cared enough to condemn and address it during the convention. 

After months of rioting, looting, and violence on our city streets, with some cities literally being taken over by violent extremists, business being destroyed, etc you don’t think many Americans are concerned that we may soon have a president that is being advised by people who support massive police defunding and cops taken off the streets? 

In fairness to Biden, he's been condemning the riots since at least May 31. https://twitter.com/walterolson/status/1298813503302705154

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, satch said:

The state of violence and disorder on our city streets should be a talking point for both parties, though only one actually cared enough to condemn and address it during the convention. 

After months of rioting, looting, and violence on our city streets, with some cities literally being taken over by violent extremists, business being destroyed, etc you don’t think many Americans are concerned that we may soon have a president that is being advised by people who support massive police defunding and cops taken off the streets? 

I believe you are overstating the items above or we disagree.  Either way, no worries.  Overall, we've consistently seen a reduction in crimes rates for decades now.   

Also, I prefer politicians that concentrate their efforts on causes, not effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I don't like Tucker, and it's possible he's offering this as a wink-nudge excuse for vigilante violence, but like I said upthread, this is poli phi 151 or so. There will be order. It's just how will that order come about? In a vacuum, all sorts of people rise up and defy laws, traditions, norms, procedures, etc. to provide at least mob justice of some sort.

I'm surprised this is a controversial point.

Isn't mob justice the exact opposite of order?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Isn't mob justice the exact opposite of order?

I get what you're saying, but I don't think so. It's order, just not the order we'd like it to be. It's compulsion and power in the assertion of unwritten and unspoken law, possibly spontaneous, but order nonetheless.

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

I get what you're saying, but I don't think so. It's order, just not the order we'd like it to be. It's compulsion and power in assertation of unwritten and unspoken law, possibly spontaneous, but order nonetheless.

"Might makes right" seems like a more apt description of anarchy than order, but perhaps that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rich Conway said:

"Might makes right" seems like a more apt description of anarchy than order, but perhaps that's just me.

No, I get what you're saying in the philosophical sense. But in practical terms, into the vacuum steps an order, a hierarchy, and it comes at the point of a gun and the whim of a man (or woman) in some instances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

Yeah, I guess it's circumspect. I don't watch, so I don't know if he's fanning racial flames. The point itself, on its own, without Carlson, is certainly an empirically correct one that we know from experience. Whether or not he's using dog whistles and how overt they are is not really what I'm discussing. Ceteris paribus, if a Democrat were discussing it, I'd nod my head, too. 

I think allegations of dog whistles are dumb. It's dumb when QAnon people think "cheese pizza" means "child pornography" and it's just as dumb on the other side when everything is secret hidden code for overt racism.

But there's no need to read between the lines in this case. Carlson was explicit about the murderer trying to maintain order. That's extremely stupid on its own terms, nothing to do with race.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rockaction said:

No, I get what you're saying in the philosophical sense. But in practical terms, into the vacuum steps an order, a hierarchy, and it comes at the point of a gun and the whim of a man (or woman) in some instances.

I'd say into the vacuum steps a "power", but it is literally the definition of anarchy rather than order as we've traditionally defined such terms.

Anyone advocating for this is advocating for anarchy.  If Carlson or others are stating that this is "maintaining order", they are dead wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think allegations of dog whistles are dumb. It's dumb when people think "cheese pizza" means "child pornography" and it's just as dumb on the other side when everything means racism.

But there's no need to read between the lines in this case. Carlson was explicit about the murderer trying to maintain order. That's extremely stupid on its own terms, nothing to do with race.

Sure thing. If that's what he said, then it's stupid and counterproductive and odious, which are all reasons I don't watch Tucker Carlson. I'm not defending the man. At all. I'm not even trying to have it both ways. Don't watch, won't watch, not surprised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't I just watch a video last night of the killer talking to the cops beforehand, even getting some water and a "thank you" from the police as well?

There were people there to keep order. They just declined to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I'd say into the vacuum steps a "power", but it is literally the definition of anarchy rather than order as we've traditionally defined such terms.

Anyone advocating for this is advocating for anarchy.  If Carlson or others are stating that this is "maintaining order", they are dead wrong.

Depends at what point power becomes a form of organization or governance, something anarchy, by its very etymology, is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.