Tucker Carlson’s defense of his ‘replacement’ rant gives away the game
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Tucker Carlson’s defense of his ‘replacement’ rant gives away the game
Greg Sargent 6-7 minutes 4/13/2021
Tucker Carlson is under fire for declaring that Democrats want to “replace” the current voting citizenry with “more obedient voters from the Third World,” to “dilute” the power of U.S. voters. Critics have denounced this as an exercise in “ great replacement ” theory, which holds that the white race is being erased by deliberate demographic schemes to replace them.
On Monday night, the Fox News personality doubled down , insisting that his comments were entirely race neutral and that they were only about defending the “voting rights” of U.S. citizens.
But if anything, Carlson’s defense reveals his worldview as the one that’s truly hostile to democracy. And that in turn unmasks the ideological underbelly of the broader right wing populist nationalist movement that he and his defenders champion.
On Fox, Carlson unapologetically reiterated his claim about nefarious Democratic intentions.
“Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party’s political ambitions,” Carlson declared . “To win and maintain power, Democrats plan to change the population of the country.”
I’m somewhat agnostic on whether these segments constitute a dog-whistling reproduction of “great replacement” theory. I’d argue the comments are revealing for what they say explicitly .
Distortions of national sovereignty
Carlson is trading on a profound but frequent distortion of the concept of national sovereignty. He simply treats it as self-evident that more immigration, even more legal immigration, undermines the character and political integrity of our nation.
“Our leaders have no right to encourage foreigners to move to this country in order to change election results,” Carlson declared, adding that this is an “attack” on democracy: “If you believed in democracy, you’d work to protect the potency of every citizen’s vote.”
There are two big deceptions here. The first is that Democrats want to increase immigration only for cynical electoral purposes.
What’s more, Carlson’s basic premise — that there’s something untoward about wanting to bring more immigrants into one’s political coalition — is unwittingly revealing. Why can’t Democrats both see more immigration as good for the above reasons while also wanting to win them over as voters?
Throughout our history, the polity has expanded and contracted to include more and fewer citizens — immigrants included — in part because political parties saw this as both good for the country and as being in their own interests. That has at times helped our democracy expand.
It’s strange that Carlson presumes the GOP has no chance at winning these particular immigrants. Doesn’t that cut against the interpretation of the 2020 election (in which Latinos shifted Republican ) holding that right wing populism can effect a multi-racial, conservative realignment of the working class?
But the deepest deception of all concerns the notion that bringing in immigrants — or legalizing undocumented ones already here — is by definition a threat to the power of the existing citizenry’s voting rights.
Let’s be clear: If our elected representatives, ones chosen by U.S. voters in legitimate elections, decide to allow more immigrants into the country legally, or decide to confer legal status on undocumented ones here, that is an exercise of democracy.
In 2020, Joe Biden and Democratic congressional candidates campaigned on granting citizenship to the undocumented and expanding various forms of legal immigration. Majorities chose this vision of our future, delivering the White House and Congress to Democrats.
If they do deliver on this promise, it won’t represent a threat to our “sovereignty." Instead, the people will have exercised their will through their elected representatives.
Carlson would claim that immigrants getting in illegally and then becoming voters breaches our sovereignty. This raises complex questions. But the bottom line is that the decision to grant all those voters citizenship, out of a view of what’s in the national interest (since mass deportation and leaving them in the shadows are impractical) would nonetheless be a legitimately democratic one.
The reactionary two-step
As Zack Beauchamp writes in a good essay , today’s nationalist right worldview employs a kind of two-step. It speaks in a pro-democracy “idiom” while simultaneously vowing to restore a mythologized democratic past that must be defended against its “enemies,” i.e. all the legitimate U.S. voters who have a different conception of what our democracy should look like.
Wherever you come down on Carlson and the “great replacement” theory, there’s no question that this worldview is radically reactionary. Carlson says in all kinds of ways that local culture across the country is succumbing under a tide of migration, and even that states transformed by immigration have become “unrecognizable.”
But this worldview is also fundamentally anti-democratic to its core. What’s most revealing is Carlson’s underlying presumption that if representatives chosen by U.S. voters allow more outsiders admission to an expanded polity, this cannot be a democratic outcome by definition . The polity must remain restricted to what he and those who agree with him say it must, regardless of what the people actually chose.
This is plainly what Carlson really believes. And so do his populist nationalist fellow travelers: J.D. Vance hailed Carlson’s original claim for challenging “elite dogma,” erasing the reality that in 2020 more U.S. voters chose the conception of the nation and “the people” that they both reject.
What is the basis for the democratic legitimacy of their desire to impose their conception of the nation and “the people” on the rest of us? They simply don’t say.
In his monologue, Carlson declares that on immigration’s impact on democracy, “America badly deserves a national conversation.” Too bad he and his pals are so cagey about what they really believe.
Tags
Who is online
461 visitors
We have been told for decades that Israel cannot accept an Arab majority in Israel because then it would no longer be a Jewish state. In other words, Israel has it's policies restricting Palestinian immigration to Israel in order to protect the interests of a religious/ethnic majority.
Maybe something similar could be said about Korea and Japan.
What religious or ethnic majority does Tucker Carlson want to protect in the United States ?
It might be a mistake to assume this is a white supremacist thing. It could simply be a culture or government thing. We have always wanted newcomers to the country - the ones who plan on staying - to respect our traditions of democracy, our Constitution, and perhaps ironically, tolerance of other peoples. The US has always been diverse in its own way and that diversity must be both tolerated and protected.
So for example, states in the 18th century had their social and religious traditions. They tolerated the differences in other states, but wanted to be able to protect their own traditions. Still, they feared losing their cultural identity with the influx of Germans, Italians, and Irish. Where those people were Catholic, it was even worse. Today, the differences are more obvious to the eye, but a lot of the concerns are the same.
There is also a new double standard. If a white neighborhood objects to new people coming in, it’s racism. But if a black or Hispanic neighborhood objects to newcomers, it’s “gentrification” and they are “victims.” Their unique culture is being diluted by the white newcomers.
It seems to be human nature that people want to preserve their culture from outside influence. We see that around the world and around the US, too. And depending on who we’re talking about, it can be seen as either a good thing or a bad thing.
Twist and spin and spin and twist. It's so tiresome.
Actually it’s childish comments like yours that are tiresome. Pathetic.
Yeah, the constant twisting and spinning is pathetic.
Carlson specifically compares the US to the situation in Israel where immigration is controlled to the extent that the Jewish ethnic and religious percentage of the population will remain a majority. That indicates to me that Carlson is interested in having the US maintain some sort of religious or ethnic majority.
I was all set to respond, but then I realized you gave the previous "comment" a thumbs up, so it seems like childishness is more valued than an opinion on the topic.
Gentrification is more of an economic double standard than the person or family moving into a neighborhood, and is driven by real estate developers moving into a community and buying whole swaths of land, (sometimes using eminent domain) to displace the current residents. Then, they build new or recondition existing homes into much more costly homes where there were affordable rentals. This prices the people who had been living in the neighborhood out.
Also, something I see around the rural areas especially after all this covid stuff, is the people from elsewhere (euphemistically known as "Up-froms" around here), usually a city area where the rate of pay is significantly more, don't really want to live in a house, they just buy it because they can afford to outbid the locals, then they have some agency handle the house as a weekly rental. That house has now been removed from the local economy, it sends money to somewhere else, it cannot be rented to a local and it cannot be bought by a local.
What I am saying is that the two situations you describe, a family moving into a neighborhood and gentrification, are not the same at all and deserve to be treated not as a double-standard, but as two different situations with different causes.
I totally understand the typical economic definition of gentrification you are referring to, and I understand that is the generally accepted characterization of it.
However, I have also seen the kind of thing I was describing. I'll never find a link to it now, but I remember just a few years watching a local news piece about white people moving into a black neighborhood in this area. (Ironically, 50 or 60 years ago, it was a white neighborhood).
Anyway, when the local residents were interviewed they didn't talk about economics or property values. They talked about losing their way of life because white people or hispanics were moving in.
I think neighborhoods of people have felt that way about strangers since the dawn of civilization.
Nope. Gentrification is about income, not race.
See 1.1.8
Your opinion does not make it a fact.
Here is an example of what I have seen. Sorry if it’s behind a pay wall for you.
Op-Ed: Whites are moving back to Inglewood. There goes our neighborhood.
So, as you can see, it’s about more than just economics.
It’s not about my opinion. It’s about what other people are saying. See 1.1.12 for one example.
Why pretend that the author of your seed redefined gentrification? She used it that same way I did.
Her posit is:
That is a cogent posit and I see nothing resembling victimhood OR the idea that whites would 'dilute' anything. IMHO, an unbias reading would recognize her posit as a worry that whites won't acknowledge history, how the neighborhood has thrived and become PART of the neighborhood rather than demanding that it alter to their liking.
No she didn’t. You claimed gentrification was about income, not race. But everything you just quoted from her is about race, not economics.
You just quoted her saying exactly that:
And I gave you similar quotes, like this:
So, unless you’re prepared to argue against all reason that everything both of us have quoted is entirely about economics, I don’t see your problem.
So, I’ll say it again. Gentrification is about more than just economics. For some people it is about neighborhood culture and identity, and often that identity is based on race. I’m not even trying to condemn it. I’m trying to highlight it for greater understanding of a complex issue.
Dulay is correct, as usual.
But she does NOT claim THAT is gentrification.
She does:
Losing your space and your place is not about economics. That is plain from the context of her writing. She is expanding the meaning of gentrification. Why are you fighting that so hard? It’s not my idea. It’s hers. She is the one living it. Why do you want to oppose her personal perspective on the issue?
Calls for Fox to fire Tucker Carlson are still growing.
John Oliver had a show recently dedicated to demonstrating that Tucker Carlson is a white nationalist. As usual Oliver made a compelling case.
Where do I sign?
I am sure Fox doesn't care what left wing shills think.
If he starts to lose viewers, and sponsors start to leave and cannot be replaced; then Fox will make the business decision to fire them.
Until then rant away.
Really? They why is it that Carlson takes a tweet or blog post from a liberal, almost ALWAYS a woman, and opens his show using them as a punching bag. Almost invariably, Carlson's targets are harassed and threatened by his minions to the point were LEOs have to get involved. Carlson cries about critiques of HIS comments and targets others for just that...
"why would any democratic nation make its own citizens less powerful? Isn't that the deepest betrayal of all?"
Tucker is right
The USA cannot continue to be the dumping ground for the disadvantaged people of other countries.
Certainly not during times like the present. The current crisis at the border is driven by the political motives of the Biden administration
The United States is not a country based on maintaining a particular ethnic or religious composition.
That is why we have a population representing every ethnic and religious affiliation on earth. Here in Chicago there are people from 27 different ethnic designations and those are only the major ones.
Ethnic groups in Chicago - Wikipedia
Broken down country by country there are many more.
And New York is even more so.
There is no overwhelming flood of immigrants from Mexico or further south. But even if there were , if the representatives of the American voter want to let more in then that is the will of the people. Nothing is written in stone that the US must remain a "white" country. Which is what Tucker Carlson wants.
We're the Great American Melting Pot!
Ya the giant lady in the harbor holding a torch means nothing.
As far as immigration policy, you are 100% correct, she has NOTHING to do with it.
Some here forget that some of their own ancestors were "disadvantaged people from other countries" also.
Tucker may be 'right' but he is incorrect.
Where would you be if they turned YOUR ancestors away?
THEY CAME LEGALLY !!!!!!
What year?
He will copy your homework. I hope you know that
What year did Greg's ancestors come to America? You'll have to ask him. I'm only sure that they came LEGALLY.
[Deleted]
Don't get nasty.
Easy to tell when you're dodging, ducking, diving, and drooling
[Deleted]
Just a diversion. When people came here years ago isn't even close to the topic, we know it, and they know it, but can't help themselves.
MANY years ago when it was so hard to get here, that nobody worried about it.
Many of these folks will deny it, but what they really want is open borders.
They aren't fooling anyone with their denials, either.
You know when we will hear the left admit it? When most of the country turns blue and Republicans can't win a national election. Then we will see them brag about how they left the border wide open, just like how they bragged about what they did in the 2020 election:
That makes for real good reading!
Removed for context - sandy
"Easy to tell when you're dodging, ducking, diving, and drooling"
The 'likes of you'! Well hush yo mouth! You best go wash your mouth out with soap my dear!
and supporters
You don't know that, but I DO agree with LEGAL immigration, and understand that illegal immigration is a problem.
yeah. And he calls me nasty
So I, Buzz. But you'll never see me getting credit for wanting legal immigration and a crackdown on illegal immigration because I'm a goddamned liberal
Not, apparently, any problem at all to the political left here.
Open borders is the dream they can't wake up from.
It is one reason that any left plans on immigration almost always includes yet another round of amnesty.
300 hundred years ago that's exactly what the USA was...a dumping ground. And it continued for another 100 or so until the White Nationalists got skeert
And the colonies didn't have an immigration policy. I don't think there was much of a policy until some time after the Civil War
1924 to be exact and by 1954 Ellis Island closed.
Thank-you. I didn't know the date
Post WWI, 1921, to keep less desirable Poles and Slav's from Eastern Europe from coming here.
The 1924 Act established a quota system which gave the appearance of being more fair than the Act of 1921, but wasn't really...
Prior to that the only thing that prevented immigration was the cost of the ticket for a steamer ride across the Atlantic or Pacific and the only immigration laws were solely against the Chinese.
From 1904 to 1920 there were 79 Texas Rangers who patrolled from El Paso to the Pacific, specifically looking for
Chinese migrants trying to pass themselves as Mexicans ( who could pass back and forth across the borders freely
until head taxes started in the teens. Then like now, these efforts were highly ineffective. A head tax increase in 1917
triggered more illegal entrys.
By 1920 Prohibition started and the Border Patrol was expanded, reaching official recognition by the government.
By 1925 they reached 450 officers, the big brains in Wash D.C. added both seacoasts to the the BP duties.
Then the Canadian border because of liquor smuggling.
Another spectacular failure.
Fascinating stuff
Thanks for the info
Most importantly it was the national-origins quota system, which our immigration system was based on and btw it was mostly geared against southern Europeans, such as Greeks, Poles, Portuguese and in particular Italians, who came in a great wave. Then of course, we abandoned all of that in 1965 when LBJ passed the Immigration Bill of 1965.
From the Senate Chamber, Sen Ted Kennedy promised "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants,” lead supporter Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-Mass.) told the Senate during debate: “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society." And the rest is history.
How did we get into legal immigration?
I know, that's what I said...#3.6.4
Ok.
You implied that you know for certain that Greg or his family was legal. How so?
Prior to 1921 every one was "legal" unless they couldn't pass the medical exam at Ellis.
it's a misnomer...
The same way I know your ancestors were legal. Up until the migration on the southern border morphed into a political issue, we operated like other countries via an immigration system.
Prior to 1921 every one was "legal" unless they couldn't pass the medical exam at Ellis.
There were times in this nation's history when we needed immigrants and we therefore encouraged it.
it's a misnomer...
Is that the beginning of an argument for open borders?
What did I tell you about that? Putting words in peoples' mouths?
So you don't have a clue, got it.
Nonsense, it's been an issue of one sort or another from the 1800's, peaking in 1848 until
1912 when the final "southern border" was established by the statehood of NM,
and still Mexicans and Americans passed back and forth unimpeded until the 1921 Act
and due to lack of cohesive border patrol policy many, many decades later
Arguably wrong. It took us 106 years to pass the first immigration law prohibiting Chinese in 1882
then another 39 years later to target Poles, Slavs et al before coming up with a flawed quota system.
Regardless of 1965 policy/law, the Southern Border has never been a settled issue.
In 1942 we invited Mexican seasonal workers to stay year round to help with the war effort.
They not only stayed year round, they started families, with American babies.
Pretty hard to un-ring a bell.....
Although we have tried and tried.
Instead of wringing hands and whining about the nonsense that
Dems are allowing illegal migration for a future voting advantage,
the GOP should raise enough $$ to build a string of Ellis Islands across the Southern Border and
RECRUIT immigrants who,
as long as they know who their political sponsors are, eventually may actually vote GOP.
That should be a decent argument for a controlled border.
Look at the big brain on Split!
Well done, Sir
and there was plenty of space back then
But there isn't now?
Too many feral cats?
yes
I have told more than one man...Unless you have I LOVE YOU tattooed on your dick and I'm giving you a BJ, do not put words in my mouth.
Hahaha
It would depend on what it is.
No, he isn't.
In the first place, it is still (well, theoretically) one person, one vote. All of this replacement bullshit comes down to a racist and xenophobic conclusion (before the fact) that other people whom you do not know will do something to you that you won't like. That is it. Whomever your bogey man is, he's coming' to getcha. That is what all of this boils down to.
The other is coming and you won't like it.
Possum feathers.
Not when using the California system for setting up voting districts. The same system that Democrats want used everywhere for setting districts in the US. It doesn't take into account registered voters just total amount of people within a district. So a district with a large amount of illegal immigrants and a small amount of registered voters has just as much power as a district with a large amount of registered voters.
Same thing with the electoral college and deciding the amount of congressional representatives from each state. Remove illegal immigrants from the count and sanctuary havens like CA, NY, IL, and other Democratic strongholds lose power.
So it would seem that you need to work on voter registration, not histrionic displays of racism and xenophobia.
The USofA has always been built on the backs of immigrants.
My grandparents were Irish and German.
Critics have denounced this as an exercise in “ great replacement ” theory, which holds that the white race is being erased by deliberate demographic schemes to replace them.
Carlson said nothing about the white race. He spoke of the native population of American citizens being replaced by migrants from the third world who feel duty bound to vote for democrats. It's obvious for all to see.
California used to be a reliably Republican state, now it is solidly blue. Why? - immigration
New Mexico was once a red state and it's now blue. Why? - immigration
Arizona & Nevada are purple. Why? - immigration
Joe Biden has done everything to hold the door open and flood the country with migrants. Why? He wants more immigration
Maybe we should let a flood of Russians in so they can balance the vote out in favor of the Republicans. Or maybe , as Trump wished, try to induce blond blue eyed scandanavians to immigrate here. Not sure they would be reliably Republican though.
It is somewhat understandable in Israel's case, or Japan or Korea, because those countries were not based on immigration. The U.S. is. If republicans wants more votes they should propose policies that the people like.
Maybe we should have secured our borders decades ago.
Why don't you admit it John, democrats have found a secret formula for one party rule.
I am just glad you all admit it. What really chaps your ass about immigration.
They might...gasp...vote left...
Never mind that they can't vote....
I'm against illegal immigration and non-citizens voting. Why are you in favor of it?
Who said I was?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Your comments indicate you are in favor of it. If I'm wrong you can state it right now.
The straw is sticking out of your sleeves.
Illegal immigration is exactly what we are talking about.
So making shit up. Proves you don't have a clue.
deleted
Actually...the Balfour Declaration and the Palestinian Mandate made it possible for European Jews to migrate to Israel. Before the European Jews migrated there, Palestine was more Arab than anything else.
Proof of that claim?
He keeps making that statement but never backs it up
Have met immigrants who know more about America than I do.
If they came here legally and are trying to become or have become US citizens; then they usually do more than the vast majority of US Citizens that were born here. We had to take the citizenship test in college for a class. Only 3 people scored above the 90th percentile out of a class of 100. Of those 3 two were US history majors; and one was earning their degree to become a legal clerk for their father's law office.
Now ask the illegals flooding across our border what they know about our country? Think they could pass a US citizenship test? Think they will even bother to try and put forth the effort to become US citizens? The Democrats are pushing for amnesty for the illegals within the country already. The current and future crop of illegals heading to the US know this. Of course one amnesty will never be enough.
There are a lot of Americans who could not pass the written test to become a citizen.
All those places are turning blue because more people identify now as Democrat than I believe at any time in the past.
That really chaps your ass doesn't it?
Oh the humanity !!!
Please.
Please do. Have all those migrants vote for the ideology of the left. If they only knew what they were voting for? The very stuff they are fleeing!
Non citizens can't vote. Enough with the melodrama, your pearls are going to end up all over the floor.
Prove that they aren't in places like California.
PROVE THAT THEY ARE!
And illegal aliens can't live here.
Do you believe that neither thing ever happens just because there is a law against it?
Gullible.
Don't you have to have a SSN to register to vote? Pretty sure you do.. So, tell me, how many ILLEGAL immigrants have a SSN?
ZERO.
Don't you have to have a SSN to work?
Pretty sure you do.
But it is funny as heck that you think NO ILLEGAL ALIENS have SSNs.
That is at the height of gullibility.
Oh sorry, I was talking about voting. You know, like Vic was talking about?
Sorry for the confusion.
You brought up SSN, and seemed convinced that illegal aliens don't have them, so I pointed out how ridiculous that argument is, because of course many illegal aliens have SSNs that they use illegally. Using them to vote would just be one one more illegal act.
Most immigrants are fleeing far right wing death-squad fascism. Not hippy utopia.
Legal immigrants can get SS#'s.
California does supply SS#'s to illegals.
Then there are those illegal immigrants using stolen SS#'s.
It was required along with ID to register when I was a registrar in 1972. I even made my own father show me both when I registered him.
How fortunate for Florida that they have zero immigration ... ?
You do know the difference between legal and illegal immigration?
I wonder how many of them work at white trash hillbilly heaven Mar-A-Lago?
That's a terrible thing to say about Marjorie Merriweather Post.
Yes, if they swim from Cuba you give them a slap on the back, and if they walk from Guatemala you give them a boot to their backside ... and by 'you', I mean you Vic.
You know who I was referring to!
I've noticed that most conservatives have no problem with the Cuban refugees....
Actually. some of us believe that ALL immigrants should come here and stay here legally.
And we don't care where they come from.
"Some" is an indefinable amount, it can range from fewer than few to more than more ... 'some' has an even worse reputation than 'several'.
Well, SOME of us are smart enough to know that just letting everyone in because they want to come is no policy at all, really.
And SOME of us know that amnesty will only beget yet more amnesty and yet another influx of illegal aliens.
SOME of us are interested in following existing laws.
SOME are clearly not interested in law.
I don't think they really care about illegal or legal.
Their actions prove it.
Well knock me off my feet, some of you is smarter than most of you.
And SOME of us aren't interested in open borders.
Or rewarding illegal aliens with amnesty.
And some, I'm sure, are good people..
Quite possible.
And?
and what?
But, but, but,.... Some Say!!!
Are we just blurting out nonsensical words now?
No attempt to make a point?
Or just going to parse the word "some" a little bit more?
How about "Woof" ????
I would wag my tail if I had one, but not for you.
"and what" is not nonsensical words, it is an interrogative phrase.
"Woof"?
Well, there's a good boy, yes he is!
So basically you are saying the GOP hasn’t changed with the times and is starting to suffer at the ballot box. Sounds like a then problem to me. Maybe they should alter their party to better reflect what the majority of people actually want.
If your ideas suck so badly that they keep declining in popularity, the get different ideas.
When it comes to ideas the GOP does fine. It's the left that needs identity politics and non-citizen thank you votes.
Maybe they could actually GET SOME WORK DONE! You know those republicans who are always whining and bitching and pissing and moaning about something? Maybe they could actually work?????????????????
What ideas from the gqp? More tax breaks for the already wealthy?
No, they're not doing fine. They're dead and they can't even smell their own bloated stinking corpse because their heads are still firmly planted up the ass of the former occupant of the White House.
You know, those little things like following the Constitution, the rule of law and individuality.
"You know, those little things like following the Constitution, the rule of law and individuality."
That's not today's gqp.
When did that happen in the four years before (THANK GOD) President Biden got elected?
Nope. They will continue to wallow in the mud until the mud hardens and the world passes them by
I just wish those dried up old dinosaurs would just get the hell out of the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol the GOP has ideas? “Whatever Donald trump says” is not an idea. They did t even have a party platform in the last election, and their positions on everything from healthcare, to gun control, to taxes and on and on are in the minority. The GOP really doesn’t have much, hence why when the had power of both the legislative and executive branch they cut taxes for no reason... and that’s it.
And both sides engage in the identity politics nonsense, stop trying to paint it as being one sided. Like constantly using the word “radical” pretending like it is a one sided issue makes it impossible to take you seriously.
The only thing that the majority of the GOP works is their mouth, not their brain. And all that comes out of their mouths is nothing but lies and useless brain dead poop. But, they are far too ignorant to know just how negatively they appear.
You do know that Trump was a republican, right?
You do know that the Capitol insurrectionists were Trump heads, therefore republicans, right?
You do know that a known pedophile was running for the senate as a republican, and republicans supported him, right?
The question was "What ideas from the gqp?" Donald Trump was a Republican, but not a true Conservative.
You do know that the Capitol insurrectionists were Trump heads, therefore republicans, right?
From what I read many were members of extremist organizations, not unlike BLM or antifa.
You do know that a known pedophile was running for the senate as a republican, and republicans supported him, right?
And you know that you had boat loads of segregationists and Klansmen holding office in the US congress? Does that mean they represent liberal or democrat values?
BTW, it's difficult to have a conversation with somebody jumping in between the comments, much as we all might like posters..
In support of the former occupant of the White House - who he called to arms when he spewed 'Stand Back and Stand By' and then held their 'rally' on 1/6/21 when the former occupant of the White House and his mob - who he incited for two months - said he would walk with them to the Capitol (HE DIDN'T) and then unleashed that vermin scum on the Capitol - 'Storm the Capitol' 'It's a Revolution' - and turned tail and waddled his big fat ass back to the White House and watched it all unfold.
Also, BLM isn't an extremist organization.
Anti-Fa isn't an organization at all
That already happened. We have moved on...
Who wants to go back to the bad olde days of Jim Crow and Joe McCarthy? Um hum...
See above
What a load of crap. And, that isn't a question!
The Republican party platform is "Rabble, rabble, rabble, immigrants!, rabble, rabble, liberals!, rabble, rabble, Obamacare!, rabble, rabble, socialists!, rabble, rabble, abortion!, rabble, rabble, guns!, rabble, rabble, wall!, rabble, rabble, war on Christmas!, rabble, rabble, war on Christians!, rabble, rabble, too PC!, rabble, rabble, cancel culture!, rabble rabble, free speech!, rabble, rabble...".
Ahhh, the " no true Scotsman " fallacy.
Not according to the FBI.
Translation: You DO know about the pedophile and so are choosing to try and deflect away from that fact.
Then you should comment privately to that person, not in the open forum.
This isn't your seed, Vic so if you don't like how the conversation is working, go some where else
Who wants to go back to the bad olde days of Jim Crow and Joe McCarthy
The GOP.
False, why would Republicans want a return of the Democratic Party glory days?
That clearly doesn't make sense.
We don't know, but the GOP is going in that direction.
You really shouldn't believe everything CNN and MSNBC tells you.
You really shouldn't deny everything that everyone other than FoxNews, InfoWars, and OAN tells you.
besides your ludicrous statement, what did I deny?
It was not a D POTUS colluding with the R PMG Trump toadie who tried to dismantle the USPS in an attempt to slow down mail in ballots. It is an GA R gov who is endorsing disfranchising voters of color by passing bs voting laws not a D gov.
can you actually name ONE thing in the new law that disenfranchised ANYONE?
And that is a racist and xenophobic ideology. The others are coming! The others are coming! The others are coming!
Why don't you try to give them something to vote for? To novell a concept?
That would involve the gqp actually WORKING and doing something for the PEOPLE instead of only for THEMSELVES
Carlson like some on NT wants the US to stay in the 1800/1960 time period when any minority was less than human and knew their place.
It's really upsetting to Tucker that people of color actually have rights and many actually defended those rights with our lives (military) and in protests for our rights something that the whimp Tucker never did.
There is a reason white supremacists call the Tucker Carlson Show - Stormfront TV. Carlson normalizes what they think and spins it to the populists who nod and drool.
I am thinking we are the third world country when we have a bunch of morons that think like carlson.
He is a pimple on the ass of society.
More like an anal wart, just like the former occupant of the White House.
He's an abscess
Heard someone on Twitter call him a, "wart on the cock of American politics".
Pretty accurate.
Democrats: Demographic changes will lead to perpetual Democratic power!
Tucker: Demographic changes will lead to perpetual Democratic power!
Democrats: Tucker is a racist!
Aren't you all the ones that constantly say that the republican party is far from dead...That they are gaining demographics...
So what is the problem? Either you all are correct with one stance or not..
'Demographic changes'....code word for a different colour than you...
They're just pissed all the time now that they're the minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Way to miss the point..
So what is the problem?
You tell me. Tucker is simply saying what Democrats have been saying for the last 15 years. [deleted]
'Demographic changes'....code word for a different colour than you..
SO that's what democrats have meant when they've been making this argument. Thanks.
Bullshit. Just admit it. You believe carlson and his xenophobic bullshit.
Bullshit is claiming that Democrats haven't been bragging about an emerging demographic advantage for their party this entire century and then attacking Carlson for agreeing with them. It's hilarious to watch it play out.
Shake it up baby now...twist and shout....
Thanks for admitting the truth, FOR ONCE!
Here is an idea, stop demonizing immigrants and start listening to their concerns and make your pitch as to why they should support your party. Crazy I know, that the onus is on the people running for office to appeal to voters.
When your argument is that the voters are the problem then you know you have absolutely nothing, which is exactly where the GOP is. They have no ideas, no plans, no goals aside from staying in office, hence the only argument they can make is Democrats are bad (just because) and that they and immigrants are the cause of all society’s ills. If those two things would go away then by magic all the country’s problems would be solved.
Immigrants aren’t the problem, the rights complete lack of a coherent governing strategy is.
What coherent governing strategy do the Dems have?
And there is an immigration problem at the border right now that the left is in denial about.
And morons still watch this prick.
And believe him....
And other morons are extremely upset about it.
If he's getting this much flak, he must be right on target
Do you really want to go there? How about if "he's" is replaced with 'Biden' ... dance away.
Apples and oranges.
Basically, Tucker is saying that the people who are allowed to become citizens of the USA will have to vote for the Democratic party.... Why? No one is quite sure, they just will do that because (insert reason that you want to hear). And, further implied if not actually said, is the concept that to vote for any democrat would be bad and that any person who immigrates to this country and votes is harming the country.
He is vague enough that all of his dog whistling sounds plausible to someone casually listening who tends toward xenophobic or racist nationalism. I have drilled down before on his so called work, and it is mostly easily disproven. It is just that so much utter bullshit comes out of his mouth that it becomes tiring to beat it all down like it should be.
What he says is racist and xenophobic: Keep the others out of the country and off of the voting roles, or else you will lose your country to the others. What a warped and twisted piece of rat scat.
Whether he believes what he is saying or not, if there is a hell, it surely has a space reserved for him.
But....that's exactly what the left wants to do by encouraging illegal immigration under the guise of some sort of twisted "compassion". The masses aren't buying the Dems devious schemes
More bullshit from the Washington Examiner Greg?