I see that the thread in P&E was closed for being too cryptic.
I believe the OP was referring to the recent Tucker Carlson interview with Ted Cruz.
As much as it burns me to say anything good about Tucker Carlson, he comes off looking almost journalistic in this interview.
I put this in the pit because I hope that any replies will be nasty to both Carlson and Cruz.
I guess when he needs to protect a Russian ally he can pretend to be a journalist.
Carlson doesn’t give a rats about how many people are in Iran and only knows because his researcher googled it. What he doesn’t want is any Americans in Iran. Whether that is represents an epiphany or what his sponsors told him … could go either way.
“The Rift That Could Sink Trump”
The theory I’ve heard is this:
Tucker Carlson is pro-Russia and works for Russia. Iran’s regime being toppled and its military industrial complex being crippled harms Russia since Iran provides military support to Russia in their war against Ukraine. So Carlson is trying to stop the US from getting involved in a war in Iran, because that would harm Russia.
To me, that theory makes far more sense than the theory that Carlson magically became credible.
I don’t think anyone here think he’s credible. His general schtick has been to be almost comically afraid of war. To the point of arguing for unilateral disarmament with respect to Russia.
Being against war is usually a good thing. Unilateral disarmament isn’t.
With respect to the current Iran bru ha ha, he is right. On Ukraine he isn’t.
Sorry, but I can’t help it. It’s brouhaha. One word, no spaces.
Ah yes, the internet - where people correct you just to be polite.
It’s a great interview. Cruz is exposed as a shill and religious zealot, then they have a bust up over Cruz trying to play the antisemite card, and finally Cruz gets frustrated and (correctly) points out how much of a Russia shill Tucker is. Everybody loses and we eat all the popcorn.
I recommend watching it on Vaush. He basically shows the whole interview, and it’s nice to have him point out why some of the Israel questions are particularly uncomfortable.
Would a noisy, funny drunk be a brew ha ha?
Scottish soft drinks are funny. Irn-Bru-ha-ha
You learned something today. Show some gratitude.
It’s interesting to see a vid where I get to be pissed off at 3 people simultaneously. To be fair, I’ll add some apologetics for Vaush from wiki:
Noted for his confrontational style, use of memes, and mimicry from right-wing YouTubers, he is regarded as part of the BreadTube community. …
Kochinski felt that other members of the online left at the time were too academic to reach the demographic of insecure white men that he thought was most susceptible to online radicalization and he opted to instead create loud, angry content that he thought would be more likely to appeal to them.[7] While appealing to what he calls “masculine tendencies”, Kochinski has aimed to create an inclusive community and has comparatively high proportions of female, gay and trans people in his audience.[7]
Kochinski mimics the style of right-wing YouTubers and utilizes similar video titles so that his videos are suggested by recommendation algorithms to those at risk of radicalization,[9] a common strategy employed by the left-wing BreadTube community on YouTube.[10][11] He also uses memes and internet slang in his videos to appeal to the audience of primarily young people online.
Assert - assert - assert.
Vaush is fine, if you’re looking for someone with an unhealthy obsession with horses who you can rely on to always tell you that America Bad and that socialism is the answer.
Out of interest, what made you angry? Just the style of the video?
Yep, he’s shown that he can ask the correct questions, and hold a politician to account. Which means that most of the time, he just chooses not to.
So, Still Fucker Carlson.
I was working in Moldova during part of the first Trump term and an article came out in the local press (I read it in Russian) that compared a local journalist to other known Putin puppets and they all made the same points, including using the same examples. The listed “journalists” from Moldova, Ukraine, the Baltics and Tucker Carson in their examples of parroting Kremlin talking points.
Vaush provided commentary, not analysis. He made a series of dubious declarations, unsubstantiated. Watching that sort of thing is a garbage method of informing yourself.
From wiki, I see that his goal is to pitch left-wing views to a right-wing audience. Conservatives don’t watch such shows to be informed; they watch them for the stroke. The left-of-center has a disturbing hack gap with the conservative side of the aisle. So I don’t disagree with Vaush’s goals and I can’t disagree with his methods. Sometimes (often) you need to fight bullshit with bullshit. Doesn’t mean I have to like the process.
I watched approximately 4 minutes of the video. If you want substantiation, I’ll probably peel this off to another thread. Do you think the first few minutes of the video were representative of Vaush’s commentary? What would be the best minute to view? You don’t have to answer those questions, but if I’m going to dive deeper, I’d want to steelman my argument.
Full disclosure: I’m a liberal, not far left. Vaush is far left (but probably not far-far left). Such positioning doesn’t bend me out of shape, but sequences of unsubstantiated assertions are near worthless for those wanting to understand the world.
It was mostly just playing the tucker interview, so it completely informed me of the key thing here: the content of the tucker interview.
His little quips are indeed mostly commentary, so what?
You haven’t given an example of anything specific that was false or egregious, yet you were made angry by it? (In fact angry such that you put Vaush in the same bracket as Tucker and Cruz which anyone that watched the interview will know is a pretty strong thing to say)
I find Vaush irritating also. He takes a (IMHO) very left position on many things. I don’t always disagree, but I find he has a tendency to state his opinions as incontrovertible fact.
I can deal with this and can usually pick out the facts from the opinions with reasonable facility. But I can also get the facts from other sources that are a little more editorially neutral. I find I prefer to draw my own conclusions and not have them fed to me. This is among the reasons I am not a republican.