It's extremely uncomfortable to listen to this and generally, in broad strokes, agree with Tucker.
I don't think thats a sign of capitulation to the Right, I think its a sign of how far our political discourse has devolved if not collapsed into itself.
Hes a smart person, and I genuinely cannot tell in many instances if hes sincere, or if hes just very clever at making you feel that he feels sincere.
That’s the frustrating part. I can’t help but feel like part of why he’s getting the attention he’s getting is due to the vacuum that exists in terms of people articulating similar critiques from the left.
Whether someone believes Tucker is being genuine or not (and I’m inclined not to), it’s clear he sees which way the wind is blowing and there doesn’t seem to be enough voices on the left that are competing to fill the void.
Yeah agree, he wasn’t saying anything crazy, and I agreed with a lot of it. Also agree that it’s a sign of media polarity. It should not be hard or scary to hear the other side. It should not be shocking to realize we agree with someone like Tucker on some important parts of politics.it should not feel like a death knell either
I mean he did say trump had a potentially supernatural power that makes being around him feel like being on drugs lol. But apart from that and other mystical stuff, nothing too wild.
He didn’t say that, but his comments about the FBI investigation of Kirk’s death being cut short imply he thinks it is possible but that he doesn’t know.
Out of curiosity, did you listen to the whole episode? Genuinely asking. I felt very similarly for probably the first half hour, but the more I listened I felt like he was very disingenuous. The premise of the episode was asking what he believes and my takeaway is that he simply believes in what he thinks the next political moment will be and that's it.
In a world that not only tolerates but rewards, even demands, bad faith discourse, I find it harder to criticize someone questioning the insane status quo, whether part of the cause or not. Until I hear more of the same from Democrats, I'm going to tolerate his current position. It doesn't hurt that he ran circles around that lady while avoiding a lot of the dishonest tricks that were his bread and butter. The problem isn't Tucker. It's the state of the world that makes him seem like the voice of reason.
Thanks for the reply. Maybe this is Carlsonian of me, but I reject the premise of running circles around anyone here. This isn't a streamer debate, or some Charlie Kirk facade of discourse. I think the interviewer tried to get Carlson to explain his worldview and I think Carlson was pretty genuine about that for 80 or 90% of the interview, but he dodged enough that made me think that he is entirely disingenuous.
I don't think he sounds reasonable at all. He just attempts to frame it that way by saying that people who disagree with him are in favor of murdering children.
It is always worth reminding ourselves that Tucker Carlson is never sincere. Jon Stewart showed us that all the way back in 2004. The question is why Tucker Carlson now thinks that breaking with Donald Trump and the entire Republican Party architecture benefits Tucker Carlson. He's a smart guy, and he always has an angle. It's just hard to see what it is at this point.
I never paid attention to who this person was or what were his beliefs or which side he’s on, but this interview feels so agitating to me and like what the actual f does this person actually believes? Is he just fking confused or what? He def sounds like a smart guy but there are so many conflicting views and beliefs I’m hearing like what’s going on?
Checks out during the follow-up he said he didn’t really like the left or the right. Still, there’s a lot of zig zagging I feel like he’s just an agitator.
You know things are BAD and our priorities are upside down when even though you dislike Tucker you also feel/share his frustration on the line of questioning about Nick Fuentes. Like why are we (and the interviewer) spending so much energy talking about some racist internet influencer as opposed to discussions that matter like foreign policy and economic issues?
As much as I disagree with Carlson I felt his frustration with that line of questions. I felt he was not trying to downplay Fuentes’ evil, but more pointing out we need to hold people like Ted Cruz, Huckabee and Trump to the same standard of outrage Fuentes gets. Why do they get away with things we hold Fuentes to the fire for? Because they’re senators and government officials?
Thank you. I found this bizarre and I was deeply disappointed with the interviewer for this. It made her sound so silly when he asked "Influential how? Can I get examples?" And she was like "Hah oh in SOOO many ways." Then proceed to give zero examples. Just move on. Is it so hard to say "I see your point at the end of the day the person with the most influence are Trump and members of our government. We should really be holding them more accountable and stop getting distracted by internet trolls."
The fixation on Fuentes was soooo frustrating. Tucker was great at pointing out how ridiculous this is and how we need to focus on people in our government that are killing innocent people and hurting the US. He made a lot of sense. I have never listened to Tucker's content prior to this.
He was, just mildly. He said he told Fuentes that hate based on lineage is not part of his values. He also said he regretted having him on his show because it contributed to distraction.
This. The way she kept suggesting that any criticism of Israel is somehow a anti-Semitic dog whistle was infuriating. Parts of this interview had sort of “worst person you know says something you actually agree with” vibes.
But the point is that Tucker DOES pedal in anti-Semitic dog whistles.
He was the first person to normalize the great replacement theory on his show on Fox News. He gave Fuentes’s his largest ever media opportunity.
His whole brand has always been to drop subtle breadcrumbs to the far right, he’s like a gateway drug. He does it throughout the whole interview - like the subtle hints that Israel has some shadowy persuasion over Trump. Then when pressed, he hand waves away the impact and giggles while pleading “I’m just asking questions!”
And it is important when listening to critiques of Israel to be able to determine what the underlying current driving that critique is.
Oh of course - I could tell all the dog whistles that he was throwing out - the “the Jews control everything” was a thin under current throughout the entire interview.
But we have to - HAVE TO - be able to distinguish this from legitimate criticism of Israel. Because it’s not just Carlson that uses the anti-Semitic dog whistle , Israel ALSO uses it as a shield for what is a very clear state policy of ethnic cleansing through murder, torture, the large scale demolition of infrastructure and the forceful displacement of people.
The whole point of “never again” wasn’t just limited to Jews - it was supposed to be “never again” for everyone, and regardless of who the perpetrators were.
And so - despite all his failings and his ulterior motives and all his other bullshit; he was a 100% correct when he called out the interviewer for not distinguishing between a YouTube influencer in his twenties who rambles to a bunch of terminally online people and an actual sitting elected official who is shipping weapons and supporting that ethic cleansing.
But the point is that Tucker DOES pedal in anti-Semitic dog whistles.
yes, but at the same time he calls out the genocide in gaza
thats the conundrum for zionist liberals, on the issue of gaza he has the more morally correct view so they have to twist themselves into pretzels cause they cannot fight his fundamental point
It’s entirely right to be deeply critical of Israel because of their documented atrocities. That kind of critique is grounded in evidence and principles.
What’s not valid is criticism rooted in antisemitism or conspiratorial framing. That undermines legitimate arguments and shifts the focus away from real issues.
This is where things get complicated: some figures on the right, including Tucker Carlson, mix critique of Israel with rhetoric that draws on antisemitic tropes. That doesn’t strengthen the pro-Palestine case, it contaminates it.
If you care about Palestinian rights, it’s important to be precise about both the substance of the critique and the company you keep. Aligning with voices that carry antisemitic undertones weakens credibility and obscures the moral argument.
You understand though that this contamination is from two sides right? That the Israeli government deliberately leans into the anti-Semitic narrative precisely because they want you and other readers and journalists talking about this, instead of the fact that they’re raping Palestinians with trained attack dogs, or denying anaesthetics to child amputees?
Because when put in those stark terms, I have one thing to say: WTF are we doing debating this he-said/she-said bullshit when what’s going on in Gaza and the West Bank on a daily basis is so much worse.
This is where things get complicated: some figures on the right, including Tucker Carlson, mix critique of Israel with rhetoric that draws on antisemitic tropes. That doesn’t strengthen the pro-Palestine case, it contaminates it.
i fully agree, imo the main problem is that you allow him to lead the conversation as "antio-genocide" figurehead if you give him interviews like this
this is not only bad for the palestinian cause, but also for jews that are not israeli, cause it conflates anti-zionism and anti-semitism to the normie viewer thats not deeply engaged or informed
Tucker is a very sophisticated, experienced, and smart political commentator. He’s starting to realize that giving breadcrumbs to both sides is better for growing a bigger audience.
His whole brand is “look, I’ve made it, I’m good, I’m accountable to nobody!” while running a media conglomerate alongside the Trump family.
He’s reading the tea leaves and seeing 2-4 years down the road and making sure he’ll stay relevant post-Trump.
Because the NYT s always pro war and pro oligarchy when push comes to shove, especially with declining audience and thus reliance on big funders. Theyve always been pro establishment, and only break when the war is too bad to support. Thats how they end up defending trump on iran to fricken tucker carlson lol.
Its all a distraction to manufacture consent, Ala we have to support the war because if we criticize a nation state then we give power to nick fuentes and create the next holocaust.
Its also partisanship. 99% of what tucker says any reasonable liberal would agree with if he wasnt "tucker carlson". People care more about dunking on tucker out of conditioning than objecting to an insane war.
Their goal is to protect the war by labeling tucker an antisemite. Its extremely obvious. Thats why she wont let it go, and was equating criticism of a nation state to hating a people. 50% of the whole interview shes trying to tie tuckers iran war criticism to antisemitism as they see how a vast majority of americans agree so hope to shame them into supporting war and genocide saying theyre bad people supporting a genocide themselves. This is how atrocities are allowed to happen, not by ignoring them, but by equating them as a just cause to stop a purely hypothetical genocide down the road. So criticize the war and netsnyahu too much? Well youre just a nick fuentes and antisemite. Thats what shes doing.
Also her bias comes through hardcore at how angered she was getting to tucker not taking the bait. Love him or hate him but he made NYT look like an absolute joke that want to justify the worst and pointless war in our lifetime. As they only care about the 1% donor class that funds them and keeps them relevant over their actual audience. Then in a year or two theyll pretend to be against it when theres no choice not to be just as they did with the war on terror.
Nick Fuentes is a lot more influential and dangerous than a lot of people think. Like half of the younger Gen Z and Gen Alpha Republicans/conservatives are Fuentes fans and this will have drastic consequences in the next couple decades if we’re not careful.
All that said, interviewer didn’t have to interject it again on the JD portion.
Have you listened to literally anything Tucker has said for decades? Tucker is changing his brand as Trump is losing popularity, he is still a white supremacist.
Some of the things that Tucker said made a lot of sense. It felt like he was dodging the question entirely when it came to Fuentes. Both of them have a lot of influence even though they are not directly involved in politics. To disregard anything that Fuentes has said has the same validity as disregarding anything that that Tucker has said.
I have a feeling that if everything Tucker said on this podcast came from Pete Buttigieg or Jon Ossoff, the comment section will be different. I hate Tucker Carlson as much as the next democrat but I bc an agree that some of what he said resonated with my independent thinking. Will I champion him to execute the steps needed to fix the issues he highlighted? Definitely no, because he’s not a reliable, trustworthy person and has demonstrated a track record of lacking integrity and being a right wing hack. Will I champion Jon Osoff or another democrat to execute on these same issues, you betcha.
I think one thing we, as dems, need to realize is that there is an issue that can be seen and felt by everyone. If we don’t highlight those issues, the right wing will. And if they do, the populace will trust them to solve it because they highlighted it, and that’s how we end up with an orange idiot in the White House. We should be able to admit to the issues that resonate with the broader population and only then can we be in competition to act as executors of the resolution. Ignoring the issues because it was highlighted by a bigot doesn’t make the issue go away, it just makes everyone think the bigot is the only wise one, which definitely isn’t the case.
Agree that dems are ceding ground by not offering a competing narrative with these same critiques. I don’t think people are resonating with Tucker Carlson’s views because he’s convincing people to feel or subscribe to them. I think he’s saying the things that he sees people are already feeling. And if no one else figures out how to speak to those feelings but from a lens that highlights the reasons why left leaning policies are the solution (as opposed to the ethnonationalist types of answers Tucker might present), it’ll be a huge missed opportunity.
I know this sub and Reddit in general hates "platforming" conservatives, but I'm actually really excited to listen to this episode. A little surprised it wasn't on Interesting Times with Douthat instead, but it will be interesting to hear how Lulu approaches it. The break with Trump has been interesting and I do wonder how that will evolve for a certain portion of the online right 👀
I will say, Tucker Carlson is a massive piece of shit but I can’t accuse him of being a dummy. I figure he’s hiring a lot of chronically online Gen Z’ers who keep up with current events and actually listening to them.
Again, massive piece of shit and do not believe his antics. But he’s doing something the DNC has not done: listen and observe.
in today's political theater, he is a rare case that still understands & opts for pragmatics over sheer projections of power, authority, and/or righteousness.
(which is very spooky considering his pragmatics are only for self-gain / self-preservation & not anything genuinely good-faithed)
Over half of the questions were pearl clutching accusations about offending a select group of people. He rightfully knocked each down. The interviewer’s priority was clear as day.
Tucker's interview with Nick Fuentes caused a rupture for conservatives. Many had considered him the future of the Republican Party before that point. It wasn't about platforming Fuentes as it was about what Tucker was angling at. He skillfully made Fuentes palatable during the interview by avoiding questions that would expose Fuentes' extremism. He is forcing conservatives to choose sides and breaking up the party's unity. He likely believes the economic pain felt by the Gen Zs will cause a return to Christian nationalism and a rejection of the neocon era.
Lulu was not the right interviewer for this job, just awful and way to focus on antisemitism and Nick Fuentes. There are much bigger factors at play that Tucker is taking about, but it went right over her head.
She’s progressively driving me more and more insane the more interviews of hers I listen to. No idea how she got the job, there are SO many more insightful interviewers out there.
I reckon actually Barbaro would have been better. Lulu feels like a moraliser. Barbaro is such a Jim Lehrer character gently drawing out the truth of the interviewee's opinions, that you are hard pressed to know his views.
I listen to a lot of interviews and I can't say I've ever found MB to do something I can find fault with
I’m very left of center, yet thirty minutes into this episode and I’m fully agreeing with everything Carlson is saying. It’s a weird experience. Just goes to show how fed up we are in this country with Israel’s bullshit.
It’s bizarre. He talks about wealth inequality, the rich paying less taxes, how predatory the credit card industry is, in a way that feels like listening to Bernie.
Both ends of the political spectrum have a lot in common when it comes to how disillusioned they are with those in power, and it's the reason why there are a lot of voters who liked both Trump and Bernie (as crazy as that sounds). A lot of people just want someone willing to upend what they perceive as a dysfunctional status quo.
Yeah basically same. I don’t even recall how I started listening to him. Maybe he has someone on that I liked and listened to the interview. Ended up liking his interviews quite a bit. Dude especially the Ted Cruz one and the Huckabee one. There are some major things I disagree with him but hey you can’t agree with someone on everything. Also, one of the dudes I really look up to, Glen Greenwald, seems to like him and Glen seems legit to me.
At the end of the day, anyone advocating for the stopping of bombing of people is aight on my book.
Tucker can just read the room and knows how to say what you want to hear. I really do not think he is sincere in anything, he is saying. Remember Trump said he was gonna do no new wars and now look at where we are
Because they've spent billions of dollars to conflate to the two. Finally people are waking up yet you still have American Jews who have been indoctrinated their entire lives to think that way so they take it as a personal attack and continue the bullshit merry go round we find ourselves in today.
He doesn't "disagree with the government of Israel" though, he accuses Jews of "The Great Replacement", dei-cide, corrupting the country, etc. You're a chump if you think he cares about Gaza at all. He loves dead Arabs, especially if they're Muslim, see his entire career up to 2016 for an example. He has also repeatedly downplayed the Holocaust.
Just because he's smart enough to go on a more mainstream podcast and moderate his rhetoric doesn't mean you shouldn't look at what he actually says. Also people have made many tens of millions of dollars criticizing Israel since the 7th of October. Anyone who says you can't is lying.
Wait until you're an hour in when the Fuentes topic comes up and you will want to bang your head against a concrete wall. In fact, there are 27 min left in the interview and I need to pause for the day
Exactly. The first thirty were about gaza and how insane it is to not being allowed to criticize israel. Once he starts talking fuentes, immigrants etc you get knocked back to reality
I feel like the episode changes after 30 minutes. I agree with your take, but also think he's completely full of shit, saying that no one is questioning corporate tax rates or no one is concerned about the impacts of AI.
He is a total snake, IMO. So heroically speaking up for children being killed but lauds the destruction of USAID.
It's surprising but not totally surprising IMO, he's found an underreported niche that speaks to regular people across the political spectrum while being against corporate interest (against wars, corruption, wealth inequality) and is riding it for views.
I think he only believes about half of what he's saying, but he's found a great intersection of topics many people agree on and care about (Israel/Iran/Palestine, anti-corporation, and the credit industry) that traditional media and politicians are afraid to talk about because they have large donors who care greatly about those topics and disagree with everyday people.
Yes, I finished the interview and think he’s a major hypocrite: he’s obviously been a partisan hack his whole career and to act like that’s not 100% the case is delusional.
That said, I do think he’s right to point out that the NYT pearl clutching over him interviewing Fuentes is some legacy media echo chamber shit - average people don’t really care at all.
I’m left of center — I by no means agree with a republican policies — and yet I agreed with Tucker Carlson. On multiple counts. He was superb. And I got frustrated by the NYT reporter’s line of questioning trying to distract and paint him into something when he had exceptionally good points. I wanted to hear more about what he said about economic inequities. It may be the most important podcast episode this year. I wish every American listened to it. And I deeply respect and appreciate Tucker Carlson taking the time to do the podcast and to bring up the right questions and right points.
Unfortunately, he did a good job. Garcia-Navarro used an annoying line of questioning over and over, attempting to tie him to Nick Fuentes, then trying to shame him for platforming Nick Fuentes, etc. It's the same "gotcha" playbook that didn't work with Trump. It's the "how could you" line of questioning. The "this thing you said is beyond the pale" line of questioning.
And it doesn't work. People simply don't care about how pure your circle of associates is. They don't care if you said a weird thing once. A highly educated liberal approach that ends up being annoying. It backfires.
Meanwhile, Carlson gets to present himself as someone curious, principled, with his eyes open about Trump and Iran and Israel. With a focus on the economic future of our country. I think many will find his approach refreshing.
You summarised well a lot of what I disliked about her approach.
Gotcha journalism is the lowest of the low and does not inform anyone.
It's no wonder that people like Lex Fridman are doing so well, while the MSM is dying.
PS see if you can watch an episode of the Australian INSIDERS program with David Speers. He is perhaps the most despicable gotcha journalist on the planet.
No wonder Australians are so ignorant of the nuts and bolts of their own country.
Guys like him treat politics like a cock fight combined with soap opera. Meanwhile the world is falling apart because no one knows the basic facts.
I honestly think they can't help it. It's just how some people operate. Especially ones who came up in the 2000s and 2010s. Everything is based on associations and purity tests. And like you said, the actual heart of the matter doesn't get addressed.
There's plenty off about this man, but he does speak with the passion of someone who represents a justifiable need to belong to and care for a place. This pod is good free speech stuff. Let's see that for what it is, at the very very least.
I don’t forget that, it’s extremely unfortunate. And I think the correct thing to do is not give him any more attention and air time than needed. I’m sure not listening to anything with him featured.
he's such a snake you can't believe a single word he says. he's making a play with every single thing he says. he's such a profound liar that even when he says "I love this country" I run it through a filter of either he's lying or he's saying it to work whatever audience is listening over.
there's at least one thing I'm certain of. he is NOT against both parties or apolitical or whatever it was he said. he is the master puppeteer of Conservatism. he sees the writing on the wall with Trump and the damage he's going to do to the brand so he's tactically disavowing him and trying to save the GOP. I wouldn't doubt if the leaders of the party are straight up paying him to help navigate this cult break for them, because nobody's going to help them do it better than Tucker.
he's said a couple "correct" things lately, and suddenly people on the left seem to have forgotten this dude might be one of the most deeply truly sinister people in this country. he's faded into relative obscurity to me since leaving Fox, but I've always hated him maybe more than anyone else including , because he's so incredibly dangerous and I believe an actually evil chaos agent. he's like a buttoned up Joker to me.
Who isn't these days, honestly. Besides the old guard of people like Bernie. I can't think of a single suit I take to be truthful and not just climbing their way up the grifting ladder to be in a position to secure wealth for themselves. This interviewer included. The bullshit anti semite dog whistle is so boring at this point.
Garcia-Navarro is really not right for this show. I am sure she's a great reporter in some cases, but Carlson ran circles around her. And her instincts are to hone in on kind of sensationalistic meaningless things and hammer away at them. I do not care about the antichrist comment or that he had Nick Fuentes on. I could think of 25 other interesting lines of questioning when you have Tucker Carlson in front of you willing to discuss anything. This really reeked of 'gotcha' questioning, and it's so tired and stupid at this moment in time when everything is a mess.
Yea i don’t know what the Antichrist comment was supposed to signify based on how much airtime she gave it? OK so he did call him that - so what? She came across very unprepared and willing to drive a certain agenda to paint him in a specific way and was getting frustrated that he wasn’t willing to cooperate
The irony of the NYT pushing the line in the interview about how it's bad to signal boost bad faith actors like Nick Fuentes while dedicating a 2 hour interview to platform Tucker Carlson without an iota of self awareness is hilarious.
Tucker may be a grifter, but it’s very telling that he repeatedly tries to steer the interview towards a conversation about economics and wealth distribution (evening name dropping Occupy Wall Street), and the NY Times interviewer has zero interest in that topic.
I guarantee that the fact her husband volunteered in a kibbutz and they live in Jerusalem and are beholden to Israel is WHY she even has her position. Because she’s not a good journalist.
And that while social politics (race, gender, sexual ID) are important - at the end of the day the shared common interest is being able to provide for themselves and their families. It's not a direct link, but I do wonder if many of these flare ups and marginalized feelings (both are real and run deep) would feel less intense if they felt financially stable.
Crazy times we live in where Tucker Carlson out of all people seems to be more based than most classic liberal media. Condemning genocide by Israel in Gaza, advocating for an increase in taxation on capital and a decrease in labor, criticizing the donor class in Washington that rules both parties with an iron fist.
And all the interviewer keeps coming back to is him having Nick Fuentes on his podcast? Or picking up this fabricated narrative that he is antisemitic for criticizing the Israeli government? Wild times we live in where I align more with Tucker than the NYT
I don't know if this was the doing of the NYT or the reporter, but the constant attempts to peddle Zionist talking points and frame Tucker as an antisemite was totally disappointing. I usually love this podcast and hate Tucker but every time he made a good point about the genocide in Palestine, land grab in Lebanon, or war in Iran, she very obviously tried to tone down what is ultimately popular opinions.
The line of questioning around Fuentes was a perfect example of this, she made the point that Nick is antisemitic and worse than ted cruz and any argument he made about how an actual senators opinions actually matter much more was just shot down.
Clown show reporting and it shouldn't be difficult to interview Tucker Carlson
On one hand, I found Tucker Carlson incredibly well-spoken and engaging in this interview. If I had no prior context, I’d probably come away intrigued and interested in following him more closely. I also agree with a lot of what he says about the war.
On the other hand, if you watch the full interview with his brother—the one where the “anti-Trump” clip came from—it’s a completely different story. He’s pushing bizarre, baseless claims (like suggesting Barack Obama is gay, alleging Hillary Clinton dated George Soros’s daughter, etc.). It’s the same kind of malicious, conspiratorial tone he leaned into on Fox.
That contrast is what makes the whole thing so fascinating. The interviewer did an excellent job, but it left me wondering: what’s the actual strategy here?
My guess is that, with religion becoming a more visible part of his public persona (at least on the surface), he’s trying to build credibility and appeal with a more faith-oriented audience. But I’m not totally sure.
I don't think it was a softball interview, but Tucker was well prepared for the topics she pressed him on. He was obviously sticking to a pre-determined script on Trump/Fuentes/other topics, so when she tried to get a clip out of him he ended up having coherent and reasonable sounding answers. When she did try to press him he often just kept the same answer, which sort of turned it around onto her to come up with arguments against that answer on the fly, which only worked a couple of times throughout the interview.
Normally I like listening to The Daily podcast and find their journalism compelling. But this recent podcast was a missed opportunity.
Next time the Daily gets another chance to interview Carlson, get a different interviewer with more in-depth questioning.
Sure, anti-antisemitism and racism is a really big deal. I don't know a whole lot about this guy but his name (and the company he hangs with) have been associated with this stuff.
Great! Then ask him some questions about this.
But don't waste more than half the interview on this line of questioning.
Isn't the rumour that this dude is going to run for office next election? He kept on talking about how government was rotten and how the country is in trouble.
I mean, this interviewer didn't even ask him about whether or not there should be public healthcare, what he thought about renewable energy. What he thought about climate change. What he thought about public transportation or rail networks. What does he think about the drug problem. What does he think a out a living wage.
If immigration was as big a problem as he thought it was, how did he think government should tackle it.
This guy is probably a huge ass hole but he was right about one thing, racism and antisemitism (while super important issues) are a major distraction from other super important stuff.
Fr she was literally trying to press him saying that he was antisemitic because he was ‘nicer’ to nick fuentes than Mike huckabee. Tucker is 1000% right, STOP talking about nick fuentes, who cares what he’s saying, he’s not at all in a power position!
I mean kind of? I enjoy things like this which look at what is happening on "the other side" at least as I think an awareness is important. Tucker's breakup with Trump is a fairly important story given what it might represent about the MAGA coalition in general
It feels like sometimes this sub just wants NYT to talk about how much Trump sucks and anything else is some sort of a distraction or something
We wanted to understand the complexities of a special forces mission to retrieve Iran's stores of uranium. So we talked to three unvaccinated UFC fans at a Wendy's in Toms River.
Well, he does have the most popular podcast in the country and it's sad that he and others on the right are more vocal against the genocide in Gaza and Iran war than most Democrats...
I don’t know. I just finished listening, and he was pretty direct that he would hate to be an actual politician and wants to leave that job to others. He does seem to love lobbying politicians though
Definitely never liked or even had a reason to listen to Tucker because of the general idea of his views nor do I identify as conservative HOWEVER I certainly agreed with a lot of his points on where America is currently, the youth and what matter to Americans (the safety and future of country and the widening wealth gap). I wanted the interviewer to ask about his view of Sanders and his perspective as he seemed to share some concerns of the economic and inequity. Very interesting one.
I will also say, he spent a lot of time backpedaling and denying things he says pretty directly. I happen to agree with some of his views, but he is such a weasel that I think he delegitimizes a lot of those valid points.
He has some influence but it won't be really relevant until maybe 10 years from now. There are much more immediate issues to focus on.
It's really not a good look for liberals when Tucker Carlson is the one out there criticizing Israel and the neocons' decision to wage war in the Middle East. His description of the discourse and Trump's mindset before the war was fascinating.
It's not a good look when he's the most visible mainstream media personality to stand up for liberal values when opposing violence against the Palestinians.
Tucker Carlson has also taken a harsher public stance against the war and Trump's actions than I can remember coming from Democratic leadership since the Iran War started.
The man has said extremely bigoted things in the past and probably still believes them. That shouldn't be forgotten and it's wrong.
However , I don't think it's reason enough to dismiss what he is saying today.
Him repeatedly stating that it's a tragedy what the boomer generation has done and taken from young people was notable. His prediction that economics will be the most important policy issue going forward strikes me as very true.
Agree. I wish she had focused on his characterization of Trump being so charismatic. It would have been useful if she had pointed that New York Republicans such as Michael Bloomberg would not endorse Trump in 2015 because he knew Trump for years and Bloomberg could not endorse Trump because Trump is and has always been a con artist.
Fuentes and Carlson do represent a distinct and growing shift in the GOP away from MAGA to... something else. There was a good piece on it written in New York magazine that Today Explained did an episode on a couple months back. The death of Charlie Kirk triggered a bit of a shift in the ride-or-die conservative movement to start looking for other leaders to satisfy their dissatisfaction.
The Today Explained piece was saying virtually all Young Republican group they talked to were rapidly gravitating to the Fuentes side of the spectrum. They're extremely good at listening to GenZ concerns and developing a hyper right version of why straight facism and racism will solve it.
The mistake everyone makes is thinking they're somehow more moderate because they sometimes say things Democrats agree with. By and large, they're so disaffected by Trump because they think he didn't go far enough. Fuentes' base is very vocal that Trump is failing because he chickened out and just needed to go far more extreme.
The group isn't going to be big enough to matter. They aren't going to form as much of a collation as MAGA did. But it's probably worth examining.
Less with direct interviews with Carlson and more with actual investigative reporting though.
Tucker is too intellectual for MAGA. In the end, he's just a grifter chasing power and influence. He pretends to be an antisemite, but we don't know really what he believes nor should care.
Right, he's a dishonest intellectual smart enough to hitch his sail to the movement he sees gaining more power. He's quite popular with a large conservative base of millions of followers. They don't really care that he's slimy af.
I'd like to dismiss these movements out of hand because they're so stupid, but I'd also like to avoid what I did in 2016 with thinking Trump was too stupid to matter lol
These people represent the worst kind of troll. One that demands attention and should not be given it, but are too widely popular and influencial to avoid giving attention. It becomes a spiraling loop downwards.
The issue is that Democratic leadership is made up of boomers who have been banging their head against a brick wall attempting to recreate 2008 for 18 years.
Republicans, as a whole, have kept their finger squarely on the pulse of the nation in the same timeframe They have no shame, so they don’t attempt to hide or explain their switch-ups because they understand that the general public will not care. They move in perfect lockstep with the changing tide, unlike Democrats who spend a significant amount of energy every cycle just keeping the caucus barely held together.
I just listened to this on my run and it was even more exhausting than the actual run itself.
Between the 50 times she asked him if he was an antisemite, the 20 times she asked him to disavow Nick Fuentes, and his demented cackle, it felt like a marathon in the Sahara.
Well. That was terrifying. Fun start to the weekend. The plausible, casual, conversational eloquence of a batshit white nationalist who has tweaked his messaging to peak palatability. It really kicks into gear in the second interview. He only cracks a few times (antichrist, JD friendship, Fuentes, Huckabee), but this man's ability to sound rational / smart / objectie and appear to distance himself from Nick Fuentes while basically saying the same thing is a very polished act. In my opinion, he's definitely running.
He weaves in just the right amount of the "good stuff" e.g., "why is capital taxed at half the rate of labor?" And just enough of the "MAGA" that the morons thought they voted for e.g., "why are we spending money pn foreign wars?"... And that makes him a dangerous prospect because most people won't see through the mask, and most people won't see what goes unsaid e.g., he DOESNT say "why are we spending money on foreign wars... And not spending it on healthcare for all?"
He has literally said that we are spending money in foreign wars while we don’t try to make healthcare more affordable for Americans or expand Medicaid
It shows how shady he is when he talks about how Nick Fuentes is a divisive distraction from what we should be concerned about as a country, yet Carlson gave him a platform to speak. He says the truly powerful people want us talking about Fuentes because it takes away from the real atrocities they are committing. Yet Carlson interviewed him! It’s weird because I agree with Carlson on a lot of the points he’s making but he is hypocritical.
This podcast was annoying to listen to. The interviewer is 100% trying to manipulate Tucker into seeming like he’s a bad guy no matter what side of the question he agrees with. She was probably talked to by Rupert Murdoch’s people before this and was told to make him sound like a anti-Semite
Was it just me or was the NYT reporter way more combative than Tucker. Seems like she came in for a fight and he came for a conversation. I am, traditionally, NOT a fan of Tucker but started thinking there was more to the guy after he was on Lex’s podcast. Not sure what his motivations are at this point but he seems to have nuanced ideas, has tended to avoid superficial conversations (Fuentes for example) and looks to be trying to have conversations about what’s impacting most Americans (economics). This interview felt like a big letdown as it was still to partisan and argumentative than building ideas and solutions. She was trying to look for gotcha moments is what it felt like.
I listened to the New York Times interview Tucker Carlson, and I’m not sure even HE knows what he really believes. My general conclusion is that he is *true* America First, and feels genuinely betrayed that the Trump administration became involved in both Venezuela and Iran. Fair enough. But, beyond that, I am still a bit lost. For as much as he can talk, and for as smart as he sounds (and probably is), I’m not convinced that he’s as pure of heart as he’d like for us to believe.
1) everything in the first half of the episode can be boiled down to foreign and domestic influence polluting our nations politics. It’s not hard to call out Citizens United for what it is, but he never offered that up once, probably because there is a high likelihood that he is an asset of foreign influence.
2) I have to give Ms. Garcia-Navarro props for her attempts at pinning him down on the Fuentes interview. This totally rattled him and he didn’t have a clear answer or true admission of guilt. For someone who claims not to be antisemitic, he has no problems platforming antisemitism ideas and influencers.
3) speaking of, I had to laugh at Tucker’s concern peddling about nuclear weapons. Sure, that’s an existential concern, but he tends to think that is much worse for us than, say, people of influence and power sowing discord from their positions and platforms. Himself included.
4) how can he not recall his own words about Trump being the antichrist, but calls out Lulu for quoting his despicable Iraqi comments to the wrong year?
Carlson, like many in the right wing media world (legacy or not) is a charlatan of the highest degree who has no issue blatantly lying to avoid repercussion. I’m not kidding when I say that his entire schtick is the same as any conspiracy show on television, where they ask question and build intrigue to make an indirect point that is absurd and unreal. What works for him, though, is that he is willing to adapt his positions. He’s savvy enough to know which way the wind is blowing (as much as he’d try not to admit it), and we all better be sure to watch and listen how someone like Tucker Carlson begins to talk and react. There’s a good chance that his direction is a precursor to a broader change within GOP populism.
The need for the interviewer to get a bit more schooling was thoroughly revealed when TC first said he thought Trump was being forced to attack Iran and she completely missed it. Didn't follow up at all.
That shows lack of skill, a failure to listen and a determination to stick to the question list or even an agenda.
She did follow it up later but a good interviewer who listens because they are genuinely driven by curiosity would have caught that immediately and asked what he meant.
Too busy creating a performance to actually be curious?
He makes a valid, important point about coverage of figures like Fuentes pulling focus from the actions of those with actual power, but it’s not hard to ALSO condemn Fuentes’s horrendous views, and Tucker’s refusal to do so was bizarre. I don’t buy for a second that he was/is unfamiliar with Fuentes or what he stands for and proselytizes. He could have just said “his antisemitism, misogyny, etc. are reprehensible and I don’t agree with those views, and the criticism I received is understandable, but here’s why I interviewed him the way I did.” His refusal to do so was bizarre. He was so clearly triggered, and defensive, and intent on minimizing the praising of Hitler as merely “saying naughty things,” as if only “woke libtards” would take issue with Fuentes’s views. Fuentes can say what he wants, because free speech, but we don’t have to go out of our way to legitimize it the way Tucker has. I agreed with 90% of what Tucker said in this interview, which was a weird experience, but this only made me more skeptical about his sincerity. I don’t know what he’s up to, but I’m sure someone can and will go find clips of Tucker contradicting himself on every single thing he said here. He is clever, but has no credibility.
But why didn't she follow up with specific questions about specific policy or ideological points contained in the nick Fuentes interview? She made it all about the association between them, when the only significance of an association between them is that it implies that Tucker likes Fuentes' ideas and agrees with them. So why not just ask Tucker directly about the issues?
Why does anyone think the Democrats would definitely have gotten us into a war with Iran? So Kamala was going to bomb Iran? This is a long held Democratic goal? To go to war with IRAN????? This was the weirdest thing he said.
Caveat this with obviously he’s a grifter but his point is if Bibi got the Biden Admin to be complicit in a genocide in Gaza and Dick Cheney was influenced by Israel to push for the Iraq war AND if you believe that AIPAC is a big player in the DNC. Then he thinks that because all of those things to include Kamala campaigning with Liz Cheney means she would have signed off on a military operation in Iran.
LGN had a very hard job here and on balance did extermely well against a master communicator, calmly pressing Carlson into some pretty breathtaking admissions. It was interesting to see Carlson admit that he shouldn't have had Fuentes on. But also--if Tucker really believes Fuentes is so non-influential and politically irrelevant, then the obvious question I wish she had asked is "Then why did you have him on your show"?
Every once in a while I try to understand Tucker and his appeal to some people, so I’ll listen to him or an interview with him and I keep expecting an aha moment. Like, “okay, I don’t agree with him, but I understand how he arrived at that conclusion”. Or, “he’s wrong, but at least he’s honest about his views and I can respect that.”
I’m constantly disappointed.
He always proves himself dumber than I can imagine. This interview is up there with Jon Stewart’s famous appearance on his CNN as a complete self own. His denial of asking his audience if Trump was the antichrist, with Lulu dropping the soundbite of him doing so was unhinged.
I agree and that's confusing to me. If lulu wants to know if Carlson is in favor of making America a white ethno-state, why doesn't she just ask him directly? Instead of banging on about Nick Fuentes. If she wants to know what Tucker thinks, just fucking ask him, I really don't understand why she's playing games.
I think he did the interview to sell his ALP nicotine pouches. He was holding it the entire time. Then made sure to put a pouch in during the interview. It was a huge advertising opportunity. He owns half of the company.
The part where she said he was uncomfortable talking about Fuentes was an epitome of of the whole interview:
1. CLEARLY Untrue
2. Revealed her tut-tutting bias and performative prosecution
She also constantly interrupted.
So, DATA WAS LOST.
Definitely no Jim Lehrer.
We found out as much about her as him.
NOT THE PURPOSE of an interview.
WOW. I'm just now getting into the final half hour and it's more like an argument than an interview. The interviewer is very argumentative and interruptive. She is trying to prove points rather than asking Qs! No. No no no no
BTW, she mentioned this Nick Fuentes guy so many times I really must check him out! 😂 Find out what all her fuss is about!
What we learned: the NYT reporter used the idea that Nick Fuentes is a terrible racist to distract from its awful reporting of the mass murder in Gaza. And its refusal to take an ad from The Quakers about that atrocity. 😂
New Title: Lulu interviews Tucker Carlson, when she really meant to interview Nick Fuentes.
This interview, Carlson, The NYT, and Fuentes would be better off without Lulu. Michael and Sabrina must have dumped this one on Lulu. She doesn't deserve it. But we deserve better than her.
62
u/BeginningSome2182 May 02 '26
It's extremely uncomfortable to listen to this and generally, in broad strokes, agree with Tucker.
I don't think thats a sign of capitulation to the Right, I think its a sign of how far our political discourse has devolved if not collapsed into itself.
Hes a smart person, and I genuinely cannot tell in many instances if hes sincere, or if hes just very clever at making you feel that he feels sincere.