I bet you Hannity for example would flop hard .
Go Tucker.
What is the truth about this Telegraph hit piece?
“few are able to go independent and survive/thrive”
That’s the key-
He no longer gives a shiite what Talking Heads think.
He was a well-to-do Beltway NEPO baby. He had an Awakening. That’s not the same as Woke.
He saw that people were unashamedly lying right to his face, for years. Made a turn and never looked back.
More voices is betterer.
Rock On Tucker.
Having the MI6 wankers at the Telegraph try to undermine Tucker is the surest way to shore up confidence in his views.
He’s out to make lots of money and acts accordingly.
The media has had dubious participants since Thomas Jefferson’s day, including Pulitzer Prize winning newspapers.
We know Tucker. We have read him and watched him for 30 years. We watched him get fired and go through rehab. We watched him defend the republicans and attack them. We watched him defend democrats and attack them. Tucker like Brett Weinstein and others are after one thing. Who has control of our government? Why do politicians that say the right thing get into office and do the same old thing. Tucker wants to pull back the curtain and expose the great wizard for all to see. With Epstein we are starting to see glimpses. But we are still missing a lot. How did Bongino go to the FBI and turn about face? What caused that? Tucker wants to know. Who are those people in the Epstein files who are still redacted. Who? Who shall not be named?
I view him as in a league with Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian.
Push the limits and rake in the green stuff.
I don’t know what to think of him anymore. The Fatima sign behind him on his right is disturbing to me, among other things.
-SB
And on what planet would I be on to give a crap about what Jessa Crispin thinks?
I count you as a fanboy.
Completely different connotation than fan.
It means immaturely obsessed.
And your thousands of posts have documented your other immature obsession.
Hard right, far right, stopped reading.
He’s a puppet, still obeying his masters. Of course he can say smart stuff - that’s why he’s a very highly-reimbursed puppet.
Since I don’t watch TV and never had cable, my acquaintance with “Fox News” and the whole network is very scanty. My strong feeling is that I haven’t missed out on anything except a whole lot of aggravation.
Don’t always agree with his positions but I hardly agree with anybody else. Always pay attention to his podcasts.
Someone really big with the power to back it up is threatening the families of those who tell the truth. THAT has to be the reason they back off. Or, if they won’t, they kill that person (Charlie Kirk).
hannity is dependent on a staff
I’ve lost respect for Tucker. Just as I look at many pundits on the left as crazed lunatics I regard Tucker and Candice as the opposite sides of the same coin...
My issue with Tucker (and many podcast presenters) is they leave things too open-ended. We see the problems he discusses - but how exactly did they occur? how big are they really? Give us real facts, please.
Yes, the DOJ is corrupted and uncontrollable
certainly, Israel has outsize power over the US Government compared to other governments, whether for good or for ill
Yes, the GOP is rife with aggressive and self-promoting homosexuals
But instead of merely naming the issue and frightening us with all the possible evil effects - can we name names? give clear histories of development of the issue? outline actual structures of organization? Have guests promote policies to fix such problems?
His interviews remind me of the “search for Bigfoot” movies of the 1970s
She’s total dingbat...
“Jessa Crispin (born c. 1978 in Lincoln, Kansas) is a critic, author, feminist, and the editor-in-chief of Bookslut, a litblog and webzine founded in 2002.[1] She has published five books, most recently What is Wrong with Men: Patriarchy, the Crisis of Masculinity, and How (of Course) Michael Douglas Films Explain Everything (2025)”
“In 2018, Crispin married with boyfriend Nicolás Rodríguez Melo, partly in order to sponsor his visa,[13] and interviewed him for her Public Intellectual podcast about the performance of masculinity and femininity.[14] She has criticized married women in the past: “Marriage’s history is about treating women as property, and by being married you’re legitimising that history.”
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nxvBR9nO3qQ
Not one Propaganda Media owner or employee would have called Mark Cuban out for such blatant hypocrisy.
Here's the dilemma, and the sport's writers who hid Tiger's sexual escapades are well aware of this. If you diss the pols they provide you no inside info, leaks, actual breaking news etc. So they kiss ars to get access. The dilemma is that most pols are disgusting people, and not only deserve to be dissed, but should be outed for their gray area profiteering off their offices. So on one hand, I respect Tucker for covering pols and politics w/o befriending them - although apparently that's not entirely true but he doesn't make a habit of it. On the other hand, he does sometimes wonder off to odd places, but that's OK because he and other journalists should not be directed to cover stories the way management wants and certainly should not be told not to cover stories.