https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XMGxxRRtmHc

pretty good segment on that racist pos tucker..

Tucker Carlson keeps attacking a New York Times reporter after the paper calls his tactics ‘calculated and cruel’

Tucker gunna Tucker.

Great segment it's just a shame that the people that really need to see it will either won't, will ignore it or most likely just put it down as leftist propaganda.

Also find "rants" a strange word to use for this title it should be John Oliver accurately dismantles tucker carlson

This one is good too.

I don't get the point of Tucker Carlson. The dude is a trust fund baby who doesn't need to work a day in his life. Instead he goes on TV five days a week and attacks minorities and elitists like himself. He could be living on a yacht in the Caribbean instead of fomenting racism and hatred.

In another video, Oliver referred to Carlson as "80s ski bully who just lost the race Tucker Carlson" which had me pmsl

Tucker is simply a more successful Candice Owen. A completely empty ethos seeking a grift.

What i say does not matter at all, as long as i get more attention and make more money.

And while Tucker does not need more money it is still a way rich people measure 'winning'.

Tucker clearly templated Bill O'Reilly and embodies every complaint he exposed, accurately about O'Reilly.

Tucker is just trolling for the sake of it. He doesn't need the money, at all.

Both Carlson and Oliver are in general biased and inaccurate and tend to seriously reach with their conclusions. So that's something they have in common.

Oliver is biased certainly, and the humorous and often biting format is probably not for everyone. That said, he and his team often deliver truly excellent journalism, and many times on issues that tend to go overlooked. Some really good ones I remember is the pieces on death investigations, sheriffs, meatpacking, FIFA, and his interview with Monica Lewinsky.

But segments like the one in the OP is not my cup of tea. It becomes "inbred punditry", stories made by pundits about other pundits.

I personally don't mind Oliver's style to clarify and his piece on the Uighurs in China was pretty on point and I find him reasonably funny so overall I've no major beef with him even if I recognise he's biased.

He correctly calls Carlson on misreading what Ilhan Omar said and what her actual point was. However he's seriously reaching by comparing Carlson's heritage/culture comment with the 14 words in neo-Nazism/white supremacy. Carlson could be just as easily arguing for a standard capitalist free society or a society on Judeo/Christian principles, which isn't that far removed from mainstream Conservatism anyway.

He also misrepresents what Carlson says re immigration. Carlson bemoans "mass unregulated immigration" and there's quite the distinction between this and simple immigration in general. I'm not American so have no idea if "mass unregulated immigration" is even really a pertinent issue in the US, but point being, Carlson wasn't going on about immigration in general even if he is ultimately fear mongering/doomsaying and regardless on how (in)valid his objection may be.

Previously in other videos, Oliver has also trotted out the falsehood that Trump meant neo Nazis with his "fine people on both sides" comments when this was thoroughly debunked in the media and in this forum. Also his point re racists liking Carlson is neither here nor there. I'm sure plenty of Communists, extreme leftists and Antifa members like Trevor Noah and Oliver, for example doesn't mean either of them are extremists.

I feel kind of bad for Americans if this is their actual info sources though as neither are great choices whether you're Progressive or Conservative, left or right.

The Charlottesville rally was a white supremacist / neo-nazi rally, that is not even disputed by the people who organized it - so I have no idea what you mean by «fine people on both sides» being debunked. He even managed to make his comment after a terrorist attack made by one of those white nationalists killed a person.

At best you can argue that he was completely clueless and believed it to be some conservative rally that happened to attract white supremacists and Nazis, and just ignorantly handed them one of their greatest political victories in modern US history.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...sides-remarks/
He was not referring to white supremacists or neo Nazis with his fine people both sides comments.The entire press conference has been linked and again this falsehood has been thoroughly debunked both in the media and in this forum.

Now I already covered this issue before and with respect I'm not rehashing it again. But Oliver's claim that Trump meant neo Nazis/white supremacists is demonstrably false and Trump wasn't referring to white supremacists.

And again, Carlson isn't any better either when it comes to bias, inaccuracy and misrepresentation. As I said they're both pretty bad sources, even if one is funnier than the other.

If one side is a white supremacist rally, and you call people on both sides very fine people, then you have obviously called white supremacists very fine people.

No, that's just your subjective interpretation due to your politics and dislike of Trump. Again his condemnation of neo Nazis has been linked along with the entire PC and his verbatim words, regardless of how you personally perceive them. If you're going to ignore his condemnation and insist he meant supremacists, then sorry but you're simply being dishonest. And I've no interest in dishonest discussion, sorry.

My objection to Oliver re this issue stands along with other issues, and my objections to Carlson stand also. Oliver was false with his claim re Trump, as are you with yours and he's neither an accurate or objective source of info due to this.

Nonsense, this is deduction.

One side is a white supremacist rally, Trump claims there are very fine people on both sides. This necessarily implies that Trump is stating there are very fine people in a white supremacist rally.

I'm even less interested in your repetition than I am in your false claim. And I wasn't interested in your false claim at all.
That's condemning hatred bigotry and violence.

That's condemning white supremacy and neo Nazism. As in totally. Regardless of you willfully ignoring this because Orange Man Bad

We're not going to make any headway here due to your flat out willful refusal to acknowledge clear quoted condemnation.

Again both Oliver and Carlson are crappy sources of info and I'm comfortably dismissing your false claim, due to my quoting Trump's condemnation which you've ignored because Trump bad.

You continue ignoring his condemnation and going by what you fervently believe Trump meant and I'll continue to go by what he actually said.

We'll leave it at that, cheers.

Deduction is obviously not false. If you call say there are very fine people on both sides, and one side is a white supremacist rally, then you have said there are very fine people in a white supremacist rally. Which is what he did. After one of them killed someone in a terrorist attack.

This is not subjective, this is not opinion and this is not the result of reading biased news. It's just simple logic taken to its necessary conclusion.

You are convinced this doesn't matter, because of other things he said when someone threw him a softball a few minutes later or the White House tried to do damage control the day after. Presumably you think the "very fine people" statement is just poorly worded. That's nothing but your choice, and certainly doesn't make anyone else "dishonest".

CV your need to throw shade for Trump is blinding you. You look for 'any' out to then say 'there is another option' as if that other option means everyone needs to then deny reality. Dog whistles, by their very nature, build in that other option.

The white supremacists understood Trump clearly and speak to that but I know, 'ignore them right', the only thing that should matter is that Trump the left door open for other interpretations just as he did with the insurrection. Thus why we must pretend Trump was not trying to incite the people to action. Because as long as the door is open to another option then the person is never guilty.

Yes, this is really the main problem. White Supremacists are very used to arguing surreptitiously. A lot of extremists and extremist groups took the "very fine people" part to heart as an invite into mainstream politics, and went "oh, he had to say that" about the excuses.

Which has been a central theme of his presidency, and is probably a big reason that on the 6th of January self-professed "constitutional conservatives" stood side by side with people wearing swastikas and neo-Nazi apparel in a rally where Trump spoke, and later many of those same people would storm the Capitol.

I already stated several times in several threads why I specifically dislike Trump. Not my problem if you haven't read my posts in this regard or refuse to take them on board.

Oliver is flat out asserting Trump referred to neo Nazis as fine people as if it's empirical fact.
He ignores that Trump specifically condemned the supremacists several times in that very PC.
He ignores that Trump specifically stated that he wasn't referring to supremacists with his fine people comment. Ergo he isn't a valid source of info, just as Carlson isn't with his willful misinterpretation of Ilham Omar's comments.

Both you and TD ignore this because again Orange Man Bad, I get you. TD claims deduction when this is untrue as to deduce that, one has to ignore Trump's condemnation. So it's him selectively interpreting what Trump meant instead of what he said.

Just as you are with your dog whistle comment and yet again this topic was already covered in another thread anyway so I'm not rehashing.

At no point did Oliver attach the disclaimer that he reckoned Trump meant neo Nazis with his fine people comments, he states he said this. He's dishonest and biased just like Carlson and again the American people have my sympathies if that's their sources of info.

It wasn't poorly worded as he was referring to Historians and I already provided the verbatim quote.

You aren't deducing. You're subjectively interpreting.
I can deduce that he wasn't referring to neo Nazis as fine people by the fact that he specifically stated this and specifically condemned the neo Nazis and supremacists and stated violence hatred and bigotry have no place in America.

You have to ignore all this to make your "deduction" so yeah, it does indeed make you dishonest or anyone else willing to engage in such things. And I say dishonest because I happen to know from reading your posts that you're far from stupid, so that doesn't cut it and I expect better from you. We're not talking about interpretations we're talking about what was said and Oliver is incorrect in his assertion what Trump said. That's it.

I’m sorry, but basic logic doesn’t change because you want it to.

If one side is a white supremacist rally, you say there are very fine people on both sides, then you have said there are very fine people at a white supremacist rally.

There is nothing subjective, dishonest or wrong about this.

And those people when interviewed and charged would speak very specifically about Trump inciting them to be there.

But you Tucker and others doing what CV is doing here. Ignore the totality and clear messaging while excerpting out an odd throw away phrase as 'proof' that Trump could have meant something else.

They feel identifying that it is within the realm of possibility that another option exists equals that option being just as valid as all others.


it is what some of the most obvious and dangerous racists throughout history have relied upon. This cover, this shade others are always willing to give them. Most of society have seen the game for too long and rightfully reject that type of BS.

Just as within Trumps speech to the insurrectionist mob he made a throwaway statement to 'no violence' all the while exhorting them to violence, and steering and directing that violence right at the capital.

Yes, yes, we know the game you are playing.

Imagine me whipping up a crowd on lies, 'that guy is a pedophile', 'lets not let the pedophile get away with it', 'lets go get the pedophile', 'i am going to be there and lead you lets go get him', 'but don't harm him'.


And thinking the last statement was my bullet proof armor against any blame if the crowd attacked and harmed the person that was not a pedophile.

But yes, Trump said no violence so go with that part.

Problem is we know what you are doing and why when you ignore the totality and try to zero in on throwaway statements.

Your logic fails the 'reasonable man test' as the crowds Trump is talking directly to ALWAYS will tell you exactly what they heard and they thought he meant and that is who Trump cares about and is messaging to. The outsiders saying they can find something else to believe in it, are just throwing shade.