I was looking for another version of this video not linked to “End Wokeness,” or “Holy shit!” because what’s good about it has nothing to do with “wokeness.” I couldn’t find one quickly enough, so there it is.
Watch the clip.
Observations:
1. What a pity that Tucker Carlson is an untrustworthy, cynical, demagogue. In this instance (in Australia), he shows his virtues: he’s quick on his feet, he’s articulate, he think clearly, he has guts, and he doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
2. Carlson’s description of unethical journalism today is spot on. Luckily, his foil is not sufficiently skilled to adjust her technique to a target well able to both defend himself and to impale her on her own sloppiness, arrogance, and unethical tactics.
3. Most journalists just aren’t very smart, and I appreciate Carlson’s exclamation on that point. They’re not very smart because you don’t have to be very smart or educated to do what journalists are supposed to do: report facts in a clear, objective way. You do have to be smart and educated to do what they unethically presume they are empowered to do: report the news in such a way that advances an ideological agenda that is valid and reasonable. Most journalists are incapable of knowing or figuring out what positions are valid and reasonable. They are in thrall to group-think.
4. Imagine what either Presidential debater tonight could do to the other if possessed with Carlson’s clarity of thought and rhetorical acuity. Imagine how he could skewer and expose the two biased CNN moderators.
Ethics Alarms 
Yes, that was epic, but I can’t leave out the fact that he’s so wrong on Ukraine. His presumption is that without our support, Russia would just win and the war would be over. The problem with his premise is that this is only the last in a long line of attempted genocides against the Ukrainians by Russia. If we didn’t help, it would be like Vietnam and Afghanistan. It would be nasty, guerilla warfare followed by war crime reprisals by Russia. Russia is so clearly the baddies here.
That’s something I don’t get, how did so many on the right get here? How do they miss that fact? Usually the right likes the underdog, so I’m not getting it. When I do talk to righties I know, they really are tied into logical knots. They have an unease on their position, clearly following the group think but able to grasp there is a problem with their position.
Oh, Tucker is wrong about lots of things, if you can be sure that he really believes what he says he does, which one can’t.
Matthew B wrote, “When I do talk to righties I know, they really are tied into logical knots. They have an unease on their position, clearly following the group think but able to grasp there is a problem with their position.”
Wow, just, wow! With all due respect, that appears to me to be pure psychological projection.
The political left has crafted their narrative regarding what’s happening in Ukraine and you seemed to have swallowed it whole. I’m much more skeptical because the left’s narrative have an observed pattern.
Now apply what you’ve just learned about the left’s narratives to what you’ve been hearing and reading about Ukraine.
About half the Republicans in Congress agree with most Democrats about Ukraine. Both the far left and the far right blame America and NATO for Russia’s aggression. If you’re disputing Michael’s points, you’re actually agreeing with the far left on this issue.
Not a Lawyer wrote, “About half the Republicans in Congress agree with most Democrats about Ukraine.”
That’s a rationalization and it doesn’t make the political left’s propaganda narrative(s) about Ukraine the truth, the whole truth. Remember the propaganda narratives that were presented to We the People prior to the 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq? Didn’t you learn a damn thing from listening to past war propaganda?
Not a Lawyer wrote, “Both the far left and the far right blame America and NATO for Russia’s aggression.”
And they’re all welcome to their opinion just like you. I honestly don’t know the whole truth about the Ukrainian war but it’s really clear that I’m not going to get the whole truth from any of the political extremes in the USA.
Not a Lawyer wrote, “If you’re disputing Michael’s points, you’re actually agreeing with the far left on this issue.”
It should be quite clear that I’m not agreeing with any of the propaganda narratives as it relates to the war in Ukraine.
“That’s a rationalization and it doesn’t make the political left’s propaganda narrative(s) about Ukraine the truth, the whole truth.”
Never said it did. You, however, seemed to be saying that because Matthew’s opinion on the war is shared by many on the left, it must be wrong.
“Remember the propaganda narratives that were presented to We the People prior to the 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq? Didn’t you learn a damn thing from listening to past war propaganda?”
Yes, I learned that it is usually bad to invade other countries, which is why I oppose Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“It should be quite clear that I’m not agreeing with any of the propaganda narratives as it relates to the war in Ukraine.”
That’s not at all clear because you have not expressed an opinion about the war other than suggesting that you’re against whatever the left is for. That you won’t acknowledge there are differences between the moderate and far left on this issue makes that a self-defeating premise.
Jack banned you for good reason.
Good riddance.
Steve,
Actually Not a Lawyer apologized to Jack and the ban has been lifted.
Ryan Harkins wrote, “Steve, Actually Not a Lawyer apologized to Jack and the ban has been lifted.”
I stand corrected, I hadn’t seen that.
Not a Lawyer,
You’re welcome to your opinion but I’m not going down your rabbit hole any longer, I’ve got real life things to do, sock drawers to sort, kitchen junk drawers to clean out, motorcycles to ride, etc.
There is no projection. I’m confused by many on the far right. I honestly am trying to find a cognizant argument out of any of them, and I’m coming up blank.
Many are just nuts. No, Ukraine didn’t have weapons labs trying to release biological agents into Russia, among other crazy stories the nutso ones come up with. No, Russia isn’t going to save us from globohomo TM.
But I’m talking about the others that are rational on most topics. I’m not getting a rational argument out of them in support of Russia. War is an evil thing, and I want to see it end. As I said in my first comment, where Tucker goes wrong is assuming this war will end if we don’t support Ukraine. It won’t, because the Ukrainians don’t want to quite now. This is their third round of being on the receiving end of Russian genocide. I’ll argue the better path is to make the war as hard and painful as possible for Russia so they’ll quit.
As others have commented, MANY on the right are fully in support of Ukraine. It is only the far end of the right that opposes.
It did actually have a bio lab, according to the then Under Secretary of state, Victoria Nuland. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/victoria-nuland-ukraine-has-biological There is no evidence for them “…trying to release biological agents into Russia…” but it’s depressing how few people acknowledge the existence of actual labs.
I’m opposed in general to the US being involved in wars between other foreign powers. The Ukraine is corrupt, and I have no real respect for Zelensky. I don’t want Russia to win since I don’t see any measures where they aren’t even worse, but that doesn’t mean I support massive funding of a foreign nation to oppose it. OTOH, I don’t think I’m far right, so I’m not exactly who you were referring to. On the gripping hand, the far right includes neocons who are all in on opposing Russia, so your label might be just innacurate.
It’s complicated.
The United States historically favors the underdog. We favored the Kuwaitis back in 1990-1991 even though they weren’t entirely innocent lambs.
We also feel sorry for the Ukrainian people, as we feel sorry for anyone who, through little fault of their own, are suffering because of an argument between their government and another country’s government.
That being said: The right is suspicious of Ukraine. The government over there is hardly the epitome of a Western Democracy. Corruption is rampant and, I believe (and please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), Ukrainian oligarchs were involved somehow in the whole Russian Collusion Hoax.
And the right is suspicious about how gung-ho the left is about Ukraine. For over 20 years, the Democrats have criticized almost every military action taken – especially those under Republican administrations – accusing Republicans of using conflicts for ulterior motives (popularity, oil, etc), as well as pointing to the amount wars have added to the national debt and how military actions shift spending from the Democrats’ own pet projects.
For them to now behave as if Russia is Nazi Germany incarnate running through the neutral countries and that funding untold billions of dollars to Ukraine with no accountability as to how it is being spent absolutely must be attached to every piece of legislation put through Congress is a big shift.
Is it because they care so much about Ukraine? Does Zelenskyy have something on them? Are they just that committed to the idea of making Russia the Big Bad so they can continue to link Trump to EEEEE-vil?
Thanks AM. I continue to have a hard time with all the lefties in our neighborhood putting little wooden Ukrainian flags on their gates. Young guys (and some women) are being killed in an honest to God shooting war, and you’re rooting as if it was a Big 10 football game? Aren’t we supposed to make love and not war? And aren’t these the people who, along with Obama, mocked Romney for identifying Russia as our largest geopolitical threat? And Russia is the most prominent proponent of Marxism historically. For God’s sake, it’s where Bernie Sanders went on his honeymoon. They propped up Fidel Castro and Raul Castro and their murderous henchmen for decades. Those wonderful Russians are in fact our enemy?
My neighbor who had the giant Black Lives Matter sign up for three years finally took it down, so I’m taking the win and not focusing on all the Ukranian flags.
I don’t see why you equate showing support for an ally fighting against an occupier with rooting for a football team. Is it because they both involve flags? It’s not about support for war (which Russia started), it’s about supporting resistance to foreign invasion.
Also, the notion that modern Democrats are all “Marxists” in thrall to Russia is silly. I have seen many Democrats admit that Romney was right when he described Russia as our greatest threat and that Obama badly underestimated Russia. Isn’t that what you should want? For people to grow and change? And that’s ignoring all the ways in which present-day Russia is increasingly right-wing and theocratic (though not particularly religious; it promotes white Christianity as an identity movement, not a faith).
Because it has about as much effect as cheering for football.
It is virtue signalling at its least effective. Yes, we all support a country that was invaded by its neighbor.
Some, including me, worry about how much money we send and how much corruption is eroding the effectiveness of that money, but no, you do not get points in heaven or in your neighbor’s eyes for putting a Ukrainian flag in your window.
Thanks, folder.
What about people who hang the American flag? Is that “virtue signaling?” It doesn’t do anything except express support for a nation. Why is that bad?
To a degree, sure. But there are at least two significant differences:
Hanging the US flag does have a degree of virtue signaling. But many probably see it as adding value to the national discourse for essentially the opposite of my two listed reasons above:
But there are plenty of members of Congress who want to cut aid to Ukraine. Donald Trump just last night said in the debate that we’re giving Ukraine too much money. It is absolutely a contested issue. What is wrong with a supporter of continued funding signaling their support? We signal our support for all sorts of things in ways that are unlikely to be effective on the individual level. Commenting about politics here isn’t effectively moving the needle in any direction; is that “virtue signaling?” The term seems to have no meaning other than “a message that annoys me, personally.”
I’m for significantly cutting funding to Ukraine. I’m also for Ukraine repelling the Russians and achieving sovereignty. The two are not mutually exclusive and flying the Ukrainian flag (which says nothing about how much funding we should be doing) is about as useful as all those “bring the girls home” videos about that African warlord a few years back. It’s not actively bad; I just roll my eyes because you’re simply telling everyone that yes, you have double plus good thoughts.
Local campaigning likely has little do to with politics? Maybe so, but then we’re wasting billions of dollars every year. Are you saying that advertising is completely ineffective?
Matthew, what do you expect the US to do if the CCP developed a relationship with our Canadian or Mexican neighbors in which they pledged military support including bases that housed the CCP military and its allies like the DPRK within the geography of either country? Pushing Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO is the equivalent. Russia did not Invade Ukraine until Obama first pushed it and has escalated under Biden. This is exactly the same conditions that prompted the Cuban missile crisis. We put Jupiter nuclear tipped missiles in Turkey and Russia responded in kind.
I will admit that Putin has been reported by our intelligence agencies that he has a desire to rebuild the old Soviet empire. However, given that our intelligence agencies ran a disinformation campaign against our own citizens I cannot take them at their word anymore.
“Matthew, what do you expect the US to do if the CCP developed a relationship with our Canadian or Mexican neighbors in which they pledged military support including bases that housed the CCP military and its allies like the DPRK within the geography of either country? Pushing Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO is the equivalent.”
No it isn’t. NATO is a defensive alliance. The only reason Ukraine wants to join is to defend itself from Russian aggression. Blaming Ukraine wanting to join NATO for Russia’s invasion is like blaming a woman who joins a women’s self-defense class for her boyfriend hitting her.
“Russia did not Invade Ukraine until Obama first pushed it and has escalated under Biden.”
Obama was not the first to offer support for Ukraine joining NATO. George W. Bush and John McCain also said they would support this in 2008. The possibility has escalated under Biden for obvious reasons. Again, support for Ukraine against Russia is fairly bipartisan–it is only the far right and far left, who tend to be more pro-Russia and anti-West/anti-American, who side against Ukraine.
My hypothetical example about communist China negotiating an alliance with our two nearest neighbors was to examine what our response would be if China created such a military alliance for defensive purposes. Are western nations the only nations that always feel threatened?
We have been indoctrinated into hating Russia since the 50’s. They have been the bogeyman since 1917. The rationale for this is that it ( communism) threatens our private market economy. We have been programmed to see the Ruskies as trying to be the global overlord. For some reason we forget that we have a number of scientific partnerships with Russia. There is very little evidence of a desire for global domination.
Russian history is replete with persistent invasions over the centuries. China on the other hand has an explicit plan for global domination called the Belt and Road strategy. Our consumer oriented society is financing their ability to pursue it and our American oligarchs are more than willing to align themselves with those it believes will be the ultimate winners in the quest for maximum political power. So why are we so focused on Russia?
I could have easily used Venezuela, Bolivia, El Savador or even Haiti as nations that would welcome an American antagonist as a defense partner. I chose two friendly nations simply for their proximity. If any adversarial nation try’s to set up shop on our doorstep we will immediately have a battle group take up residence off their coast. And, if the threat becomes great enough we would launch preemptive strikes against the antagonist.
Ukraine is a relatively large buffer region between Russia and our existing NATO Allies that formed after WW2. It was Ukraine’s buffer that supposedly kept Russia at bay after the fall of the Soviet Union. It does not matter if Bush or McCain supported NATO membership, such membership was never advanced by our European allies. It was during the Clinton administration the State Dept. convinced the Ukrainian government to give us their nukes in exchange for protective cover from Russia. Our goal at the time was to prevent their nukes falling into the hands of illicit arms dealers.
We have incorporated some of the Soviet satellite nations which could be seen as an aggressive act. Adding Ukraine is provocative and increases the potential of our troops on the ground in that region.
I have a hard time seeing your comment as anything but moral relativism.
Well if Canada had the world’s third largest nuclear weapons repository and the US and China made a deal where China would guarantee Canada’s safety in exchange for Canada giving us their nuclear weapons, it would be a parallel.
But since Canada didn’t, this isn’t remotely parallel, is it? We did make a promise to Ukraine that we’d protect them, and we’re not doing a good job at it.
We’re creating a dangerous precedent, aren’t we? If Taiwan is to learn anything from the history of Ukraine as an independent nation, the lesson is get and keep a giant nuclear weapon stockpile.
The United States is bankrupt. We print a trillion dollars every 3 months just to fund the government. This causes inflation, and inflation is just a giant tax on working Americans. We spend more money on debt interest than we do on the military. We don’t have the money to blow on a war we can’t win and which we technically are not even a part of. When did congress declare war on Russia, exactly?
The United States is not responsible for the entire world, and shouldn’t provoke wars in places it cannot defend. I’m sorry that a war is happening, I’m sorry for all the people involved, but the US has no business mucking around in Ukraine. It is not a NATO country, we have no defense treaties with Ukraine, and we need to take stock of our actual capacity to complete a war before we start them. Forever wars are nothing but a waste of lives. We spent 20 years fighting a war in Afghanistan so we could change the government from being run by the Taliban to being run by the Taliban. Are we supposed to spend 20 years pretending to stop Russia from taking over Ukraine before we let Russia take over Ukraine?
Underdog status is not sufficient reason to blow trillions of dollars and waste countless lives fighting a war that can’t be won.
I know of no reputable economist who thinks the U.S. is bankrupt, and we’ve consistently had one of the lowest rates of inflation in the industrialized world since Covid. Spending money to help an ally fight Russian aggression is a wise investment, and does not require a declaration of war; we haven’t declared war against Hamas, either. The idea that we should just let one of our largest foreign threats (you were right, Mitt Romney) take over an ally while doing nothing because money printer go brr just isn’t compelling to me.
I don’t know of any reputable economists period. You want to pay for a war in Ukraine, then donate your money to Ukraine. Stop using the power of government to rob me blind.
It isn’t “robbery.” You have representation. You can vote for representatives who will spend taxpayer money the way you want, and I can vote for representatives who will spend taxpayer money the way I want. I want them to spend taxpayer money to defend allies against hostile enemies, and you don’t; we can have that debate in public, and the isolationist wings of both parties are, thankfully IMO, losing. But don’t whine about “robbery” every time the government spends money in a way you don’t agree with, and don’t pretend that private charity is a suitable alternative to the power of US government funding.
Taxation is theft. Money printing to devalue currency is theft. I don’t care about your leftwing talking points. The government is forcibly taking money from people who can’t afford it to pay for things they don’t want to pay for because some other people want to make them pay for it whether they want to or not. It’s theft.
You want to pay for something yourself, knock yourself out. But get your hand out of my pocket. I don’t give a damn about your cause de jour, I don’t care about the method you are using to rob me, I don’t care why you are robbing me or how noble you think your reasons for robbing me are, I only care that you and everyone like you are robbing me. I’m sick of it.
The idea of taxation with representation isn’t a “left-wing talking point,” it’s just how every functioning society in the world works. There are plenty of things I don’t want my taxpayer dollars paying for–for example, I think Netanyahu’s government has crossed enough red lines that we should no longer be providing them weapons. I don’t think my local police department needs tanks. Deporting little old ladies and farm workers costs money too. But I don’t think I’m being “robbed” by having my taxpayer money go to any of these things. I just accept that I’m not always going to get my way when it comes to what my money goes towatd. I can make an argument about why government money shouldn’t be going to these causes, but “taxation shouldn’t exist” isn’t it, because that would also stop the government from spending a lot of money on things I do like and need.
I have to object to the characterization of taxation as theft. (And keep in mind, I’m conservative, so this isn’t a left-wing talking point.)
The government has two express purposes: first, to defend the borders of the nation; second, to adjudicate between internal parties in conflict. Regarding the US Federal government, the parties it is obliged to adjudicate between are states, but the general definition still works.
There is a contract, either written or unwritten, between the government and the governed. The governed place their trust in the government, and the government promises to do its best to protect from outside threats and adjudicate internal conflicts. A government that cannot fulfill those roles is not worthy of trust, and a government that is not funded cannot fulfill those roles. There have been various models of how the government can receive funding, but they all ultimately come down to some manner of contribution from the governed. And the government rightly deserves some compensation from the governed for the role it provides.
We can argue about the means by which the government exacts its due, and we can discuss which methods are more or less effective, but fundamentally taxation is not theft. It is an exchange of goods and services.
Now, I would like something better in our current form of taxation, where I get to pick and choose which federal programs get my dollars, but as long as I’m dreaming, I’d also like some honest, competent, and humble politicians that could actually win elections.
The government does not currently fill either of those two roles. It no longer even pretends to protect our borders. They let anyone who wants in in, including terrorists, child sex traffickers, rapists, murderers, drug cartels and hostile foreign enemies. We have no border. You cannot protect something that doesn’t exist.
As for mediating internal disputes, most of the internal disputes in the country are created by the government in the first place. They have less than no interest in mediating disputes. They are only interested in collecting money and power so they can stomp on peoples faces and take their money.
I’m not even sure the US even is a country anymore. It is more like a loosely defined geographic area ruled over by a criminal cartel.
I am not a conservative, I’m a libertarian, so not all our views are going to line up. If the government spent our money in anything even remotely approximating a useful fashion, you might be able to convince me that some small taxation had merit. It doesn’t. It blows vast quantities of money for the express purpose of fixing elections through bribery and extortion. The federal government in its current form serves almost no purpose whatsoever other than enriching itself and acquiring power to acquire more money.
The Ukraine war is a massive boon to the US economy. It is for several reasons. For one, we have a wartime economy without the American casualties. Another is what it is doing to the energy sector. We have all the reasons to go into a recession, but the reason we’re not is the war.
The US is the world’s armory, and by a large margin. And that margin has only gotten larger. Russia’s weapons are being shown for the shit they are any buyers who can get American arms are doing it. Everyone around the world amped up defense spending, and much of that money is coming here. Only about 15% of the US arms exports are going to Ukraine. The rest are all very high margin sales going all over the world. Defense jobs are very good paying jobs. I’m not a big fan of the US tax money paying for the lot going to Ukraine. We have many Europeans who maintain that if it doesn’t come from the US, it won’t come. I’ll argue their half right and half wrong. Right in that the US is the biggest industrial plant to make this stuff. Wrong in that we don’t have to pay for it. This is were Trump was very right on NATO. We should be twisting them hard, since they’re the ones at far greater risk.
As an aside, people are even opposed to our leftovers going over. Those save us money, as anything shipped to Ukraine doesn’t have to be decommissioned at our expense. To quote Perun “You can’t pay teachers in M119 APC’s”. (Oh how journalism has fallen when an anonymous Australian defense analyst is the best reporter on all matters military.)
As for the energy: the second place Trump was right was on Russian energy. This is one of the times the German’s laughed at him, but he was dead right. Germany’s heavy industry is utterly wrecked by energy prices with a Russian oil and gas cutoff combined with their stupid stance on nuclear. Cue up the US shale revolution just at the right time where we’re the number one producer of both natural gas and oil, and our heavy industry is exploding while theirs is imploding.
So yeah, we’re dumping a ton of money, but in the scale of things it is peanuts.
A billion here a billion there, and soon you’re talking about real money!
that line is supposed to be satire…
I agree with a lot of this, Matthew, though I wouldn’t say that the war in Ukraine is the only or even the major reason why we aren’t in a recession.
But why? Sure, money is changing hands, but war is a counterproductive way to improve anything.
Sure, it can feel like the economy gets a kick in the pants. But it doesn’t change the fact that people’s quality of life isn’t improving–rather, they’re expending significant energy, resources, and even lives simply to prevent a significant decrease to their quality of life.
It’s the equivalent to being happy for the economy because you have a gang of people driving around the city breaking everyone’s windows; sure, money is being spent and GDP is increasing, but it’s due to destruction, not construction.
At a time that my business is struggling to recover and I am dealing with multiple crises financially related to the death of my wife, my monthly bills for necessities are nearly 30% higher than they were in 2020 and my income as an independent contractor his barely increased.
Claims that the economy is improving is purely academic from my perspective.
I am very sorry for your loss.
Oh good. The lives lost are Ukrainian and Russian, which makes them meaningless. So glad to hear life only matters if it is American. What is wrong with you?
The American economy benefits from dead foreigners? Do you hear yourself?! Psychopath.
My issue with the Ukraine/Russia affair is related to the cost to Americans. We’re spending billions of dollars we don’t actually have, on a war we joined. I’m not saying we don’t have any skin in the game, but gain isn’t equal to cost in my mind.
It would be like me paying McDonald’s with a check from an empty bank account to send out a meal to every homeless person in San Francisco. My efforts are helpful, and I’m trying to be nice, but ultimately, the money just isn’t there. In this scenario, McDonald’s is the American taxpayer. They have to cover those free meals, so costs have to go up now.
If we did have 600 billion to just toss around, I sure wish we’d use some of it to patch the potholes. Fiscal responsibility isn’t just a Gen-X buzz phrase. Our country is up to our eyeballs in debt, and some day, those chickens will come home to roost. We can’t run a country successfully on credit card culture.
WE are responsible for Ukraine Matthew. WE violated a neutral treaty but constructed 30 bioweapons labs there to target ethnic Russians (CIA). The neo-Nazi Azov battalion has been persecuting Russians in Eastern Ukraine, and the nation is a money laundering op. We were never supposed to offer NATO to Ukraine but did. Study up. ABB
Now THAT’s what I call propaganda!
Yeah, me too.
Yet I’m the one that’s not rational on the topic?
Tucker may never have directly said that “whites are being replaced,” but he is also being dishonest when he says he is just not talking about “native-born Americans including black Americans.” A couple key quotes that reveal he has in fact been concerned with racial and ethnic replacement:
“An unrelenting stream of immigration, but why? Well, Joe Biden just said it. To change the racial mix of the country. That’s the reason. To reduce the political power of people whose ancestors lived here, and dramatically increase the proportion of Americans newly arrived from the Third World … In political terms, this policy is called ‘the great replacement,’ the replacement of legacy Americans with more obedient people from far-away countries.”
“We are told these changes are entirely good. We must celebrate the fact that a nation that was overwhelmingly European, Christian, and English-speaking fifty years ago has become a place with no ethnic majority, immense religious pluralism, and no universally shared culture or language.”
It is pretty clear he is concerned with the white majority being “replaced” by a non-white majority through immigration (not just illegal immigration). Given the release of his private racist text messages, his condemnation of the left for exposing that one of his head writers was an actual white nationalist, and other racialized rhetoric he has spouted, I cannot join in your celebration of this “brilliant take-down.” She should have come more prepared with quotes such as this, but that doesn’t make Carlson right and her wrong.
It’s…. Hard. Because depending on what I’m responding to, I’d have very different responses on the “Great Replacement Theory”.
For the record: It’s not a conspiracy theory, Democrats outlined their plans very clearly. In the wake of Barack Obama’s first term coalition of the dispossessed (read: women and minorities), Democratic consultants like James Carville (who worked on John Kerry and Both Clinton Campaigns) wrote a book in 2011 called “40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation Paperback”. Back then, they weren’t saying “The Great Replacement”, they were saying things like “Demographics are Destiny”. The plan, in black and white, was based on the assumption that women and minorities would continue to vote disproportionately Democrat, and that because of falling birth rates and current (at 2011) levels of immigration, America was probably going to end up being a majority minority country, and that would be game over for Republicans.
I’m not saying that they were right. In fact I’ll shortly make an argument against it. But they believed it strongly enough to put pen to paper and get up published. I will not be gaslit and written off as a kook for repeating their talking points back at them.
That said… They were wrong. Regardless of birthrates, immigration, or the minoritization of America, there is a difference between recent immigrants, immigrants who have been in America for ten years, and second-generation immigrants. While there is some truth that the newer the immigrant is to America the more likely they are to vote Democrat, the longer they and their family are in America, the better off they, re doing, the more they have to lose and protect, the more likely they are to vote Republican.
If I were being asked to comment on the immigration discussion, I’d point out that Democrats are acting like they still believe The Great Replacement Theory were true, I mean… Explain the complete check-out at the border otherwise. And I’m not convinced that the problem is the makeup of those immigrants so much as it is the number of them, and the needs they’re supposed to fill. There doesn’t seem to be a plan to get people settled anymore, with an obvious (if imperfect) example being the dueling busloads of immigrants being shipped to Democrat strongholds.
“The plan, in black and white, was based on the assumption that women and minorities would continue to vote disproportionately Democrat, and that because of falling birth rates and current (at 2011) levels of immigration, America was probably going to end up being a majority minority country, and that would be game over for Republicans.”
Isn’t “current” a key word there? Predicting that current immigration will lead to demographic change in a way that favors one party is different from arguing that we should change immigration policy for the sole purpose of favoring one party. (I for one do favor looser immigration restrictions, but not to help the Democratic party; it’s because I think current restrictions are harmful to our economy and to general principles of freedom of movement.)
“If I were being asked to comment on the immigration discussion, I’d point out that Democrats are acting like they still believe The Great Replacement Theory were true, I mean… Explain the complete check-out at the border otherwise.”
I can’t explain something I don’t believe is happening. There has been no “complete check-out at the border” under Biden. The border security budget is way up.
“I can’t explain something I don’t believe is happening. There has been no “complete check-out at the border” under Biden. The border security budget is way up.”
Give me a fucking break.
Isn’t “current” a key word there? Predicting that current immigration will lead to demographic change in a way that favors one party is different from arguing that we should change immigration policy for the sole purpose of favoring one party. (I for one do favor looser immigration restrictions, but not to help the Democratic party; it’s because I think current restrictions are harmful to our economy and to general principles of freedom of movement.)
I had said “current” to mean what it was in 2011. You could do yourself a favor and compare 2011 immigration levels to current. One party in particular *did* change immigration policy, and spoiler alert: It wasn’t the Republicans. Again… These were things the Democrats said, out loud, when they weren’t writing them down to sell pulp, for years. Pretending now that we’re just interpreting them uncharitably is… cute.
As you why you think immigration should be looser… Why? What’s the number? What’s the need? Do you actually have reasons for thinking the way you do, or is it just pure vibes?
Up until now, there’s been this idea in progressive economic circles that “more just means more”: More immigrants means more people to work, but they need services to so we’ll need more people to provide those services, so that’ll create more jobs for more people to work in. The problem, particularly over the last decade where we (meaning most Western Nations) started setting immigration records by double digits, is that that hasn’t translated into anything good. Overwhelmingly, the people coming in aren’t skilled labor, they’re not competing with you or me for a job, they’re competing with the general labor force. Which has saturated the market for uneducated labor while driving up the requirements for skilled services in a way that’s depressing middle class wages and driving up professional costs. Look at the jobs numbers and the unemployment rates: We’re creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, but the unemployment rates are going up!
BuT wE nEeD mOrE.
I can’t explain something I don’t believe is happening. There has been no “complete check-out at the border” under Biden. The border security budget is way up.
Spending money on something is…. Kind of different than… Y’know, actually doing a thing. And I know that kind of thing is deeply confusing to progressives, but while you’re right, Biden is spending a scad of money at the border, but really: More people are immigrating legally, more people are immigrating illegally, more border apprehensions are happening now than in any time in history, and most of those apprehensions are being released into the lower 48.
You either didn’t know that and aren’t qualified to have this conversation, or you did know it and are dishonest enough to hide behind Biden’s budget numbers.
“You could do yourself a favor and compare 2011 immigration levels to current. One party in particular *did* change immigration policy, and spoiler alert: It wasn’t the Republicans.”
Republicans haven’t changed immigration policy since 2011? What was the travel ban? The family separation and indefinite detention policy?
Both parties have changed immigration policy–Republicans generally to make it more restrictive, Democrats generally to make it less so.
Biden did propose an immigration compromise recently. that was extremely favorable to the right and generally made immigration laws more restrictive..Trump pressured Republicans to vote against it
“Look at the jobs numbers and the unemployment rates: We’re creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, but the unemployment rates are going up!”
That just isn’t true. The unemployment rate has been falling pretty consistently since 2020, when immigration regulations were at their most restrictive. Immigration has been rising since then as unemployment has been falling. And there is no general correlation between high rates of immigration and high rates of unemployment–quite the opposite. In fact, common sense would indicate that when a country faces high unemployment, immigration to that country is likely to fall, as one of the most common reasons for immigration is job-seeking.
Republicans haven’t changed immigration policy since 2011? What was the travel ban? The family separation and indefinite detention policy?
I mean, if you wanted to get semantic, why pick the worst possible examples?
The travel ban wasn’t policy, it was an executive order, and it banned travel, not immigration.
The family separation and “indefinite detention” policy didn’t exist, but if you’re talking about the law that required that minors be held in separate facilities, that was a continuation of an Obama policy.
What you could have pointed to, had you actually known what you were talking about, is something like Remain In Mexico. And to that I would say, “Yes, you’re a semantic ass, but technically you’re correct and policy shifted during the Trump years, but what I was obviously referring to were the policies that increased immigration to America dramatically. It’s not good enough to say that Republicans were more restrictive, when what their policy looked like was really more in line with returns to historical norms.”
Grapple with the point: Following Obama’s election, Democrat Party Operatives literally wrote books about how they thought that a more diverse America would win them elections, and simultaneously the party started trying to ramp up unqualified immigration. This was new, and a departure from the policies of Clinton, Carter, Johnson and Kennedy.
Biden did propose an immigration compromise recently. that was extremely favorable to the right and generally made immigration laws more restrictive..Trump pressured Republicans to vote against it
Performative-ception. Sure. Trump wanted the issue front and center as an election issue. He’s an asshole. But really… The “compromise” you’re talking about isn’t necessary. Biden could do at least what Trump did via executive order. The problem is that the Democrat Party has been hijacked by lunatics who would mutiny if Biden just did things without the veneer of being forced to by those icky Republicans.
That just isn’t true. The unemployment rate has been falling pretty consistently since 2020, when immigration regulations were at their most restrictive.
I’m sorry for breaking this thought up, but this is such a stupid point that it borders offensive. Do you think, perhaps, that government shutdowns of non-essential workplaces during Covid lockdowns might have had more of an effect on the unemployment rate than a slight reduction in net migration to America? You aren’t even correct on the facts – America still managed to accept 800,000 immigrants in 2020, which was a decrease from the Obama years, sure, but not even close to the most restrictive they’d been. Hell, 2021 was worse, netting something like 350,000 immigrants, but golly gee, unemployment was still going down.
Immigration has been rising since then as unemployment has been falling. And there is no general correlation between high rates of immigration and high rates of unemployment–quite the opposite. In fact, common sense would indicate that when a country faces high unemployment, immigration to that country is likely to fall, as one of the most common reasons for immigration is job-seeking.
I’ll thank you never to try to justify anything to me by leaning on “common sense” ever again. Again… Factually Not True. Unemployment is up from this time last year, from 3.8% to 4.2% during the same period America created about 2 million jobs.
And as for “as one of the most common reasons for immigration is job-seeking.” That’s technically true, the best kind of true, apparently, but it’s also true that the unemployment rate for immigrants has for the last decade tended to be statistically higher than the population at large.
You have to grapple with that: Explain how foreign born citizens are helping America deal with a shitty labor market if the people coming in have a below average employment rate?
“I mean, if you wanted to get semantic, why pick the worst possible examples?”
I picked the most newsworthy examples, because you said Republicans didn’t change immigration policy, and these are obvious examples of when they did.
“The travel ban wasn’t policy, it was an executive order,”
Now who’s being semantic? It was a change made by a Republican.
“and it banned travel, not immigration.”
Wish I knew hw to post images here, because I’d definitely use the one of Chidi from The Good Place saying “Ok, but that’s worse. You see how that’s worse, right?”
People can’t immigrate if they can’t travel. The order banned travel AND immigration from the seven Muslim-majority countries.
“The family separation and “indefinite detention” policy didn’t exist,”
Gaslighting.
“but if you’re talking about the law that required that minors be held in separate facilities, that was a continuation of an Obama policy.”
No, it wasn’t. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-obama-didnt-have-a-family-separation-policy
“What you could have pointed to, had you actually known what you were talking about, is something like Remain In Mexico. And to that I would say, “Yes, you’re a semantic ass, but technically you’re correct and policy shifted during the Trump years, but what I was obviously referring to were the policies that increased immigration to America dramatically. It’s not good enough to say that Republicans were more restrictive, when what their policy looked like was really more in line with returns to historical norms.””
There are no general “historical norms” regarding immigration. There were hardly any immigration regulations for the first century of our country’s existence, and those that did exist were more about naturalization than immigration. Then we entered a period of overt racial restrictions on immigration. That didn’t change until 1965. Neither the laws I brought up nor the Remain in Mexico have much historical precedent in US law.
As far as the semantic argument, I nearly got banned for saying “impeachment” when I meant “impeachment and conviction,” so if you’re saying you meant “Republicans didn’t change immigration policy in a way that favors more immigration” rather than what you said, which isn that Republicans didn’t change immigration policy, I believe you–I just don’t see why such an obvious point needed stating.
“Grapple with the point: Following Obama’s election, Democrat Party Operatives literally wrote books about how they thought that a more diverse America would win them elections, and simultaneously the party started trying to ramp up unqualified immigration. This was new, and a departure from the policies of Clinton, Carter, Johnson and Kennedy.”
This seems like a chicken and egg problem, but unlike that, it isn’t really that hard to solve–Democrats thought that a more diverse America would win them elections because Democrats were already considered more supportive of immigrants and minorities at that time. You can’t suggest this was some sinister plot to buy votes from immigrants when they were already more tolerant of open immigration anyway. And of course, Republicans could have easily countered such a plot by…becoming more tolerant of open immigration themselves. Instead, they did the opposite and became more restrictionist–Republicans are much further from the immigration policies and rhetoric of Ronald Reagan today than Democrats are from the policies and rhetoric of Carter and Clinton.
And none of this addresses the point of my original comment, which was about Carlson’s dishonest denial of having engaged in racial rhetoric in his discussions of “replacement.”
“Do you think, perhaps, that government shutdowns of non-essential workplaces during Covid lockdowns might have had more of an effect on the unemployment rate than a slight reduction in net migration to America?”
Of course. I never suggested that the reduction of immigration in 2020 was a cause of high unemployment. I said that rising rates of immigration have correlated with lower unemployment. Your position is that rising immigration results in higher unemployment. You have yet to support that rather controversial position.
“You aren’t even correct on the facts – America still managed to accept 800,000 immigrants in 2020, which was a decrease from the Obama years, sure, but not even close to the most restrictive they’d been. Hell, 2021 was worse, netting something like 350,000 immigrants, but golly gee, unemployment was still going down.”
Can you cite your source for these numbers?
“I’ll thank you never to try to justify anything to me by leaning on “common sense” ever again. Again… Factually Not True. Unemployment is up from this time last year, from 3.8% to 4.2% during the same period America created about 2 million jobs.”
That’s a fairly minor change. Can you please support your position that it is caused by rising immigration rates?
“And as for “as one of the most common reasons for immigration is job-seeking.” That’s technically true, the best kind of true, apparently, but it’s also true that the unemployment rate for immigrants has for the last decade tended to be statistically higher than the population at large.”
Can you cite your source for this claim? That would be a point against the claim that immigrants are taking jobs from citizens.
“You have to grapple with that: Explain how foreign born citizens are helping America deal with a shitty labor market if the people coming in have a below average employment rate?”
We don’t have a shitty labor market, so I can’t explain that.
“This seems like a chicken and egg problem, but unlike that, it isn’t really that hard to solve–Democrats thought that a more diverse America would win them elections because Democrats were already considered more supportive of immigrants and minorities at that time. You can’t suggest this was some sinister plot to buy votes from immigrants when they were already more tolerant of open immigration anyway.”
Your problem is that it only seems that way because you’re refusing to grapple with what I’m actually asking of you. Your point is that minorities tend to vote for Democrats and list some reasons why. Sure. I don’t think it’s nearly as cut and dry as you do, I tend to think it’s more an economic problem, but sure.
The problem, and tying it back into the racial aspect of The Great Replacement Theory, is that Democrats literally Wrote Books about how they believe this is a thing and then consequently ramped up unqualified immigration to unsustainable levels.
Would it have been smart for Republicans to court those votes? Sure. Could they have? Sure. That doesn’t change the fact pattern:
Democrats have set forward to try to import as many unqualified voters as they can, because they think that will up the ratio of minority immigration, and they think the minorities will vote for them. They said these things out loud as they were doing them. And they’re projecting their race essentialism on to people who point it out.
This isn’t about “changing the color of America” because they have some deep-seated love of immigrants, or even that they think increased immigration is good for America, they’re doing it to secure election success. They said it out loud. They say it with their actions.
And you have no defense to that. You’re pulling away: My point is that this didn’t have to be a racial thing… It’s a racial thing because they made it a racial thing. If the people most likely to vote for Democrats were French immigrants, Democrats would have tried to make French America’s third official language and push for increased French immigration.
The depravity in their willingness to debase themselves for electoral success knows no shame.
Can you cite your source for these numbers?
Could I? Sure. Will I? Probably not.
Partly because WordPress will eat any post with more than one link, partly because these figures are uncontroversial and publicly available, and partly because you don’t actually care and I refuse to let you waste my time like this.
Because let’s be really honest here… If I submitted citations with exactly those figures, would you concede the point?
That’s a fairly minor change. Can you please support your position that it is caused by rising immigration rates?
Your economic illiteracy is showing. A half percent swing in unemployment in the American job market is a million people.
But more importantly, I didn’t say this was caused by rising immigration rates (although an argument could be made), I said that it was stupid to have these levels of immigration without a plan for what these people were going to do, and that committing to these levels of immigration without said plan is further evidence that the point of the exercise is to have more immigration, regardless of the consequences.
Support for that would be that despite job growth, the number of unemployed Americans increased by almost a million people between this year and last, and like I said: The unemployment rate for immigrants is higher than the unemployment rate for non-immigrants.
We don’t have a shitty labor market, so I can’t explain that.
Thoughtless reflexes like this will come back to haunt you. I’ll remember this the next time we’re discussing labor conditions in America.
“Your problem is that it only seems that way because you’re refusing to grapple with what I’m actually asking of you. Your point is that minorities tend to vote for Democrats and list some reasons why. Sure. I don’t think it’s nearly as cut and dry as you do, I tend to think it’s more an economic problem, but sure.”
Why is it a “problem” at all?
“The problem, and tying it back into the racial aspect of The Great Replacement Theory, is that Democrats literally Wrote Books about how they believe this is a thing and then consequently ramped up unqualified immigration to unsustainable levels.”
You have not yet provided evidence that Democrats “ramped up unqualified immigration to unsustainable levels.”
“Democrats have set forward to try to import as many unqualified voters as they can, because they think that will up the ratio of minority immigration, and they think the minorities will vote for them. They said these things out loud as they were doing them. And they’re projecting their race essentialism on to people who point it out.“
You have not yet provided evidence that any Democrat “said these things out loud.” Your original claim was that they said “current” immigration levels would suffice for the demographic trends to work in their electoral favor.
Please provide at least one quote from a Democrat on this subject to support your claim.
“If the people most likely to vote for Democrats were French immigrants, Democrats would have tried to make French America’s third official language and push for increased French immigration.”
The United States does not have any official language.
You have not yet provided evidence that Democrats “ramped up unqualified immigration to unsustainable levels.”
I’ve already told you: I’m not your personal Wikipedia bitch. You’re being unserious, I’m not going to cite things for you because you want to waste my time.
The alternative is this:
Promise that you’ll concede the point if I can demonstrate that:
-Democrats ramped up immigration numbers following Obama’s election.
-They did that in part by removing criteria from immigration standards.
-That Democrat Operatives used terms like “Demographics are Destiny” to say their continued electoral success would be cemented by the changing Demographics of America.
Because I can, but I’m not going to continue this perpetual back and forth where you ignore the inconvenient half of reality to eternally respond with semantics, diversions and spin.
This is NAL’s shtick. I’m hoping he eventually moderates it so I don’t regret letting him back in the comments.
I don’t understand the resentment I get when I ask people here to back up extremely controversial claims. Do you just not know that a lot of what you’re saying is controversial? Are you not used to getting any pushback?
But sure Humble Talent, show me the proof of what you’re saying and I’ll concede that you’re right.
Perfect example of why I view Tucker as a weasel. His real point, I believe, is a valid one: that the US has a successful, rich, unique culture, that the “melting pot” has previously bolstered and strengthened that culture, and the Left, preferring a socialist, government-dictating system that can overcome democracy and install the kind of system the Founders explicitly set out to avoid, believes that flooding the population with those from cultures antithetical to American values will eventually facilitate this transformation.
Multi-culturalism is suicidal, as Europe and Great Britain are learning. It isn’t about race or color, but because most of the wave of “migrants” are “of color,” its hard to make the argument against the Left’s scheme (which isn’t working, incidentally, because we have a very strong and attractive culture that makes converts easily) without sounding like a white supremacist and racist. Pat Buchanan didn’t even try (I think he was a racist). Tucker could do it if he wanted to: he’d rather pander to the worst elements of the far Right.
Ok, so then we agree Tucker was being dishonest when he claimed he wasn’t referring to race in his “replacement” rhetoric. So then how is this video a “brilliant takedown” of an “unethical journalist?” He was lying and she was telling the truth; isn’t he the unethical one in this situation?
And if the alleged “Left’s scheme” isn’t working, what is Carlson so worried about? Doesn’t that mean the rise in immigration isn’t destructive to our culture afterall because, as you said, “we have a very strong and attractive culture that makes converts easily?”
Don’t make me defend Tucker Carlson. He never said that “whites” were being replaced, and that’s an inflammatory characterization: she was lying, and unless she had a quote handy where he used those words, and she didn’t, then she was smearing him. And I did not say that his point was focused on race: the cultural argument would be the same regardless of color. I did say that he was perfectly happy to let racists think he was agreeing with them.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I hate that.
I am genuinely trying to understand–you don’t want to be made to “defend” Tucker Carlson, but your post outright celebrates his response to the journalist. Saying he made a “brilliant takedown” of a journalist goes much further than mere defense.
The quotes I provided *do* essentially say that whites are being replaced, just not in those exact words. Here they are again:
“An unrelenting stream of immigration, but why? Well, Joe Biden just said it. To change the racial mix of the country. That’s the reason. To reduce the political power of people whose ancestors lived here, and dramatically increase the proportion of Americans newly arrived from the Third World … In political terms, this policy is called ‘the great replacement,’ the replacement of legacy Americans with more obedient people from far-away countries.”
“We are told these changes are entirely good. We must celebrate the fact that a nation that was overwhelmingly European, Christian, and English-speaking fifty years ago has become a place with no ethnic majority, immense religious pluralism, and no universally shared culture or language.”
“Legacy Americans” means white people, and we know that because he specifically says his concern is Biden’s alleged desire “to change the racial mix of the country.” We also know it means white people because he explicitly names “the great replacement,” which has always referred to white people–“legacy Americans” are his weasel words. In the second quote, he bemoans that America no longer has an “ethnic majority.” What could he mean other than white majority? He is happy to let racists think he agrees with them because he *does* agree with them; haven’t you seen his racist leaked texts? Again, the journalist should have come more prepared, but she is not lying, she just isn’t pretending that Carlson’s words don’t mean what they clearly do. Carlson is pretending that they don’t. He is the liar.
We are told these changes are entirely good. We must celebrate the fact that a nation that was overwhelmingly European, Christian, and English-speaking fifty years ago has become a place with no ethnic majority, immense religious pluralism, and no universally shared culture or language.”
I was clear. Carlson was talking about culture, not race. And I said he phrased it is such a way that it could be seen as white-supremacy by those so inclined. Replacing colors has no substantive effect, and Carlson knows it. Replacing people immersed and supportive of American culture with those who have antithetical cultural belief and are immune to assimilation—like most Muslims—will have a major effect (though not as great as Carlson thinks). The fact that most of these “replacements” are of-color is incidental. I’m only defending Carlson because he is not a racist. Cultural chauvinist? Yes.
And his take-down of the journalist was brilliant and praiseworthy because he was quick enough not to let her put words in his mouth, exposed her agenda-driven bias, and made her look like the sloppy hack she is. Every such journalist should meet the same fate.
“Carlson was talking about culture, not race.”
Except that in the quotes I showed you he clearly says “racial” and “ethnic,” not “cultural.” And he explicitly names “the great replacement,” which is about race, not culture. So he was in fact talking about race and ethnicity, not just culture.
If you read it carefully, he is accusing the left of using the words “racial” and “ethnic”. While his actual concern is with the cultural shift.
It’s verbal sleight of hand to an extent.
Consider one of your quoted exchanges. I’m going to Bold the parts you focused on, as well as the parts that indicate his concern.
“An unrelenting stream of immigration, but why? Well, Joe Biden just said it. To change the racial mix of the country. That’s the reason. To reduce the political power of people whose ancestors lived here, and dramatically increase the proportion of Americans newly arrived from the Third World … In political terms, this policy is called ‘the great replacement,’ the replacement of legacy Americans with more obedient people from far-away countries.”
Biden is focused on race (according to Carlson) and Carlson’s version of great replacement is concerned about the importation of more obedient people.
Does that help clarify Jack’s point?
Not really. Doesn’t it matter that Tucker is lying about what Biden said? He never said that we should support more immigration because those coming in are non-white, and he certainly never said it was because of how those immigrants would vote. That’s entirely Tucker’s invention. And the “more obedient” line is self-contradictory to Tucker’s other lie that immigrants commit more crimes than native born Americans. It’s all a hodgepodge of racist nonsense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/24/how-tucker-carlson-twisted-2015-clip-biden-into-conspiracy-theory/
Did he claim immigrants commit more crimes, or that illegal immigrants commit more crimes? The latter is a subgroup of the former, and are 100% lawbreakers by definition. But the claims that they commit less crime consistently use the collection of all immigrants, even though we have at best rough guesses as to the number of illegal immigrants.
And no, on Jack’s point, it doesn’t matter if Biden didn’t actually say that. There is a meaningful difference between what Carlson sees as the issue, and what he claims Biden/the left/Democrats/etcetera sees as the reason to celebrate mass immigration. The parts you quoted as proof that it is racist are all a projection Carlson made onto Democrats and Biden rather than his own concerns with what they are doing. Given how frequently the left celebrates Racial diversity and dismiss complaints about ideological uniformity in other contexts, it’s a plausible interpretation of their beliefs.
Jack seems to agree with the stated concerns about cultural shift, which isn’t actually dependent on race at all.
The fact that he is self contradictory is a problem, but irrelevant as to whether his actual beliefs are racists or not.
It could be a specific verion of a straw man argument.
Again—he explicitly cited the “great replacement” by name. That’s racist. His other quotes can be summarized as “Democrats want to change the racial/ethnic makeup of our country, and we need to stop them.” That’s racist, and has the exact same meaning as “whites are being replaced.” When he pivots to “culture,” he’s being careful and using dogwhistles instead of what he really means, which he has made clear is race and ethnicity. I am not going to pretend to be stupid and not understand his clear meaning. Those here committed to minimizing the radicalization within the Republican Party are free to do so.
He swallowed her whole and spit out her shoes. I was actually all for the war in Ukraine initially. I am still for the Ukrainians fighting to keep the Russians out, I am not for the approach we are taking now which seems to be to give them enough to defend themselves but not enough to win. There is no value in keeping this conflict going forever.
Ugh. Much as a stopped clock is right twice a day, I have to cite Douglas “There is no substitute for victory” MacArthur here.
I support us supporting Ukraine. The problem I have is that I think Biden’s policies have ended up prolonging the war and resulting in many more deaths. He has 1) Provided enough military aid for Ukraine not to lose, but not nearly enough for them to win. 2) He has never addressed the American people (or the world) to tell us what our goals are in Ukraine, what is at stake for us and the world, and why we should be helping Ukraine.
If this is not to be an endless war, it can end in one of three ways, as I see it:
1)A Russian victory — Ukraine is subjugated. Likely continued guerrilla warfare.
2)A Ukrainian victory — Russian troops are forced back probably to at least the pre-2022 borders. Future conflict is uncertain.
3)A Korean style truce: In South Korea we fought to keep it from being overrun and subjugated, and then we provided the breathing space for the country to develop and progress. Look at South Korea today — I believe it has to be regarded as one of the United States’ biggest foreign policy successes. Granted it took decades — but that is one of the things a military can do for you — buy time.
I think this is a fair critique.
Oh for an edit button!
That should have read “I hate to cite Douglas MacArthur.”
I give him credit for his initial response to the North Korean invasion and for pushing through the Inchon plan when the Joint Chiefs inexplicably could not see the value in it.
However, he went rapidly downhill after that. His intelligence services massively screwed up detecting the Chinese intervention and, had it not been for Matthew Ridgway I think he would have acquiesced in abandoning Korea altogether. He pretty much sabotaged Truman’s initial truce efforts, which resulted in two more years of fighting and slaughter with no positive results (except, perhaps, getting Eisenhower as president).
You can make a good argument for MacArthur being a great WWII general, but he was the wrong man for Korea.
I didn’t loop back around until several hours later. Thank you for your comments.
I’m in absolute agreement that what we’re doing now is reprehensible. I understand some hesitancy because we do have to weigh the risks of Russia trying nuclear retaliation. At this point we’ve learned that conventional retaliation would be a joke. We believed Russia’s propaganda on their wonder weapons, but we’re seeing they are not anything of the sort. But what we don’t need is any form of nuclear retaliation. Our best bet is making sure Russia knows our side is all ready for MAD with a very lopsided response.
Thank you for also lining it out as far as the three options. I was making my point option #1. That’s what Trump and Carlson have both argued, that if Russia wins, the bloodshed stops. Knowing many Ukrainians personally, I know it is absolutely not true. It becomes guerilla warfare.
When it comes to option #2 or option #3 – the biggest thing the west can do is make it quickly clear that “next time” will be incredibly painful. I think the most likely route is that there are several NATO countries who would be willing to send “peacekeepers” to the border.
Steve-O,
There is tremendous value in keeping the conflict going forever…if you happen to have a defense contract with the US Government to make something that’s useful for blowing up something that’s Russian in Ukraine. At that point, you want the war – like all wars – to go on forever, because it’s super profitable. Build your widgets, sell them to the government at taxpayer expense and make your 150% profit, then have the government give them to Ukraine for free, getting nothing in return but more debt piled on my back.
In my opinion, this is why Null Pointer and others – like me – think this feels like theft. And I finish every email to my Senators and Representative with “Not one more dollar’s worth of military aid to Ukraine.”
If all that stuff exists to destroy Russian stuff, isn’t it being used for its intended purpose? On top of that, it is being done with no risk to American lives.
This is a good example of why I disagree with your point above about Ukraine being a good thing because it stimulates our economy.
If we weren’t building even more weapons because of active fighting, the resources going into the building of those weapons would be better allocated by the market. We’d have a stronger economy because people would be building widgets that other people want because it makes their lives better, not because they have to in order to prevent someone else from killing them.
That was masterful take down of an obvious biased reporter with an agenda, well done Tucker!
Question: If Tucker did the exact same thing to a reporter in the USA could he be sued for defamation?
I don’t see how anything Tucker said in that video could be construed as defamatory in US law. He called her stupid, but I don’t think he made any provably false statements of fact about her.
Oops, you’ve been banned and we’re not supposed to be replying to your trolling.
He’s been reinstated, Steve. Please refer to our host’s previous entry. I think you may have missed the update.
Yes, I was informed about the reinstatement by Ryan Harkins above so I went back to look at what had transpired since my last visit to that thread.
Yeah, he took her down like a stand-up comedian with good improvisational skills can handle a heckler, but…
Am I wrong to not be that impressed by it?
Sure, it feels good to see one of these obnoxious Talking Point readers get a little of what they’ve been dishing out, but that’s not where we want to be if we want civil discourse. I would have been much more impressed had Carlson laid off the sarcastic playing to the audience routine and, instead, leveled a calm, reasonable rebuttal of the facts.
“Are you implying that, because I am opposed to gun control, I am not bothered by mass shootings? All Americans are bothered by mass shootings. The only ones who aren’t are the deranged, evil people who carry them out. I support gun rights because they are enshrined in our Constitution and because I believe that citizens have the right to defend themselves. Supporting gun rights and deploring gun violence are not mutually exclusive.”
Or something like that.
If more politicians, celebrities, public figures, etc., brutalized lazy, agenda driven, “gotcha!” journalists in public forums and on live TV, the journalists would begin being more careful, and outlets would have to start hiring smarter journalists—or journalists would have to start playing it fair. Tucker is a slime, but it doesn’t matter: this was an unprepared, lazy journalist, and he properly strung her up and out for all to see.
Jeeze, forget that pie in the sky stuff. If interviewers would just ask one, single follow up question when a politician says something patently absurd or mindlessly recites a totally non-responsive talking point, that would be one heck of a start. I noticed it back around 2000. All of a sudden, interviewers would let politicians parry any question with a talking point. And the interviewer wouldn’t call them on it! It’s been that way ever since.
Agreed. The lack of follow-up questions at last night’s debate was particularly galling. A simple “What are you talking about?” was necessary for both candidates several times last night, and it never came. Malpractice.