Tucker Interviews Putin

[paxmao]

[...]
America has a thousand ways that the government protects the rights of the people. Trump doesn't want to lose this, for his own personal gain. But this means that he has to uphold it for all Americans.
[...]

But what about Trump saying he'll let China take Taiwan if they want to? Maybe this is "America first" in some narrow way, but that seems like it would be pretty bad for us in the long run.

That is pretty much what part of the ideology of America first is about, first taking care of the issues of the people of the United States and then (perhaps) take care of the issues and life of those who are abroad. In the mind of many Republicans it does not make sense for them to spend billions of dollars in the defense of Ukraine or Taiwan while there is a homelessness crisis and veterans in the streets on their own country. Though, you must be aware that, even if the Republican party was handed all that money back for them to build houses for the homeless, they would never do that, if it sounds like socialism they won't do it. They would instead give that money to some contractor for it to build the houses and them sell them at the full market price.
Those are the views of the whole capitalist system in the United States, and MAGA will only defend Israel because to them it makes sense to do so, but Ukraine and Taiwan do not.

I think we are so forgetting the basics here and not getting well some elemental facts - the economy of the US is built on their ability to get things their way at a global scale. America (US) never stopped putting America first. The difference is how Trump understands (or rather does not understand) what it means to put US first.

1) It is a fallacy to say that people "live in the streets" in the US because the money is spent elsewhere. People are living in the streets because the US has a system that does not provide social safety nets, it is do or die.

2) Loosing face and trustworthiness at international level will cause the US economy to worsen. The US is a global power - to a point THE global power. The level of progress, autonomy, democracy (for now) and lifestyle in the US is not because of their  internal markets and resources (not only), it is because of the ability to defend their interests at a global scale and have multinational companies that are accepted elsewhere by charm or threat equally.

3) The weapons sent to Ukraine are produced mostly in the US. The weapon goes to Ukraine, the jobs stay at home.

4) The US does have enemies, competitors, and allies. You want less enemies, the right allies and keep competitors weak.

Thus, there are states that are hostile to US and there are states who can eat a chunk of the living standards of the US citizens and there are some others, usually democracies, that are willing to collaborate towards common goals. If you get that wrong, the hostiles will keep on attacking your ships in the Red Sea, China will eat up your share of the global market for high-value services and Europe will decide that they no longer need to have US bases, nor give any preferential treatment to US companies..

- For example, Taiwan as of now is critical for the semiconductor industry. Let it be in Chinese hands and you have lost a critical supply in hand of a competitor (who is building a huge army reaaally fast BTW). It is 101.

- For example, you break NATO and Europe will no longer be collaborative  (e.g. getting rid of all the FAANG +Tesla and create their own - "Europe First" style) - so you change an ally to a competitor - what a brilliant idea!

- Putin needs democracies to fail. He would look like shit if Ukraine joined the EU and start becoming a well developed country. Make no mistake - Putin hates the US and the EU systems as much as the USSR did. He will undermine it, and has done it, at every occasion.

e.g. US decides not to support Ukraine (while dismantling NATO) and Ruzzia will be thinking Letonia, Findland, Poland... OOhhh unless you really believe that Putin would not try to go for the next one (LOL x 10). Is that a problem to US? Yes, Ruzzia is a competitor to the US in several markets and in world influence. Let Ruzzia grown and again, they will eat a chunk of your living standards.

So now, what are the benefits of letting Ruzzia take Ukraine, China take Taiwan and break the NATO alliance? Plus breaking the Asia-Paicific trade zone and many other "brilliant moves"? A short term protectionist boost perhaps? Who thinks that the US will be better of long term changing allies into competitors?

If I were Xi Jingpin or Putin trying to put an agent into the presidency of the US I would choose, in essence, Trump. My guess is that they actually have.

BTW, Republicans defend Israel because it makes sense? May I get you view on why it makes sense? In fact, I am interested to understand what is the Republican global picture of where the US should be in 5 to 10 years, because what I see for now is not "US first".

[blckhawk]

The part about what he thinks about the Biden administration, I think it speaks volumes at how the people that are at the dusk of their life are the ones that are still running the country, that's actually a scary thought because that would mean that they'd be taking all the retirement that they can get and then they'll be replaced by geriatric politicians that would benefit from those very same geriatric policies which ends up with a continuous cycle of US government not caring too much about their younger population because the people that's running the government are near death if not already at the death's door, I celebrate every time a bad old political figure dies like with what happened with Kissinger, treated myself with some good steak.

[Synchronice]

I think Tucker Carlson is a useful idiot. I don't mean it's bad to interview Putin but I think, the purpose of this interview was to make Putin appear like a Russian leader who aims for piece and those bad dicktators in the USA don't want piece, poor Putin is fighting so hard to achieve the piece. This interview will really make some Americans believe that Putin is a nice, sweet old guy who wants to create a harmony in the world.

That is pretty much what part of the ideology of America first is about, first taking care of the issues of the people of the United States and then (perhaps) take care of the issues and life of those who are abroad.

Are you serious? America taking care of the issues of the people of the USA? I think, if you have a medical problem in the USA, you are in a huge trouble and also there is not good unemployment insurance. If there are countries that take care of their own issues at first, it's probably Scandinavian countries.

[legiteum]

[...]

BTW, Republicans defend Israel because it makes sense? May I get you view on why it makes sense? In fact, I am interested to understand what is the Republican global picture of where the US should be in 5 to 10 years, because what I see for now is not "US first".

Ramaswamy is against supporting Israel, which is consistent with what seems to be the Republican viewpoint now. I suspect if Trump were elected he'd leave Israel to Iran and Saudi's mercy.

Republicans are following the exact same game plan that lead us to WWII in the 1930s: surrender to the aggressive tyrannies of the world, let them gain a foothold, and don't fight them until they are very powerful.

[yazher]

I'm not a fan of this guy but the way he talked is obviously why he is the leader of a powerful nation today, he is just real and expresses his opinion without any boundaries and he also talks neutrally without anything too worried if you are a potential enemy because he doesn't want any war to happen and because the other nations won't stop to widen their territories, Russia was just defending what theirs and they will just continue to do this while they also improving their military capability to be able to counter any potential threat. I wish we had the same capability as well so that our resources would be secured and we wouldn't be bullied by the other nations.

[Hispo]

I'm not a fan of this guy but the way he talked is obviously why he is the leader of a powerful nation today, he is just real and expresses his opinion without any boundaries and he also talks neutrally without anything too worried if you are a potential enemy because he doesn't want any war to happen and because the other nations won't stop to widen their territories, Russia was just defending what theirs and they will just continue to do this while they also improving their military capability to be able to counter any potential threat. I wish we had the same capability as well so that our resources would be secured and we wouldn't be bullied by the other nations.

He is a de facto Dictator, so he does not have any problem with saying anything he wants, because there would be no problem if he said something unpopular or polemic in the ears of the people of Russia. In a healthy republic, politicians are supposed to feel they need to be careful on the thing they say and how it affects the public opinion about them. Since the public is mostly brain-wasted by his propaganda media, then it is way easier for him to win his 5th presidency soon.
This week there was a small protest of the wives of the Russian soldiers who got sent to Ukraine, to invade a country. Those women were holding roses and chanting they wanted to see their husbands again, what was the response of the goverment ? They got pushed away and many of them got arrested for demostrating in public. That is the current state of Russia, if the Kremlin is that harsh against the women who are the wives of those who are risking their lives in Ukraine, then imagine who Putin is treating political rivals, members of the LGBTQ community, American-Russian citizens, among other groups which are uncomfortable to the regime of Putin. It is simply atrocious.

If the leader of the country can say anything he wants and the press and the citizens cannot, then it is a dictatorship.

[LTU_btc]

During his announcement of the interview Tucker Carlson said that the western media is/was ignoring the Russian side of the story on purpose. Which I believe it is a lie.
It is more likely hundreds of journalists asked the Kremlin to have a chance to interview Vladimir Putin and he was simply not willing to accept. The difference between Tucker Carlson and any other person who works in the media is how important he has been for the spread of Russian propaganda inside and outside of Russia.
Were you aware much of Tuckers content which is critic about the United States is dubbed in Russian and broadcast in national television there? No wonder Tucker is the only media worker from the west being allowed to ask questions to the president of the Russian Federation.

A true journalist would have thrown more uncomfortable questions, but I guess Tucker does not want to risk to be poisoned before leaving Russia.

Yeah, I'm more than sure that in almost 2 years of war there was more than enough requests from Western journalists, but obviously it was all rejected. While Carlson, knowing his views and stance towards Russia, he was good choice. As you say, his was getting lot of popularity, I think it says a lot. Difficult to expect that he will ask inconvenient questions.
That 28 minutes history lesson from Putin. It was interesting interpretation of things from Putin, but Tucker don't had much to respond because he obviously don't know history of this region in detail. Same can be said about target audience of interview. It's not secret that average American redneck don't know much what's happening outside US, not even talking about history. They don't believe in mainstream media, but have lot of trust in Tucker. In US sending military support to Ukraine is getting more opposition than it was in first year of war. And interview like this can increase this public opinion even more, it's important before upcoming elections.

I'm not a fan of this guy but the way he talked is obviously why he is the leader of a powerful nation today, he is just real and expresses his opinion without any boundaries and he also talks neutrally without anything too worried if you are a potential enemy because he doesn't want any war to happen and because the other nations won't stop to widen their territories, Russia was just defending what theirs and they will just continue to do this while they also improving their military capability to be able to counter any potential threat. I wish we had the same capability as well so that our resources would be secured and we wouldn't be bullied by the other nations.

Looks that we found someone who was bought by this interview. Yeah, Putin doesn't wants war, he is peaceful guy who started "special military operation" that killed probably at least half of million people from both sides. "Other nations to stop widden their territories" - could you be more specific which countries? Because only country that mananaged to widden their territory is Russia by taking about 25% of Ukraine.  And yeah, they're just defending. I'm just wondering who prepared to invade them, Ukraine?

[Hispo]

-

Yeah, I'm more than sure that in almost 2 years of war there was more than enough requests from Western journalists, but obviously it was all rejected. While Carlson, knowing his views and stance towards Russia, he was good choice. As you say, his was getting lot of popularity, I think it says a lot. Difficult to expect that he will ask inconvenient questions.
That 28 minutes history lesson from Putin. It was interesting interpretation of things from Putin, but Tucker don't had much to respond because he obviously don't know history of this region in detail. Same can be said about target audience of interview. It's not secret that average American redneck don't know much what's happening outside US, not even talking about history. They don't believe in mainstream media, but have lot of trust in Tucker. In US sending military support to Ukraine is getting more opposition than it was in first year of war. And interview like this can increase this public opinion even more, it's important before upcoming elections.

To be honest, I dont understand where the Russian interests align with the interest of the Republican party and the interests of the American people who identify themselves as Republican voters. Perhaps someone here should explain it to me, because I dont get it.
The Republican party I recall from the 2010's and before, it was a party about freedom, conservatism, lower taxes and protection to the second amendment. Where does the freedom values of the Republican party align with Russia and the ideas of Putin? Putin is a proto dictator, who wants to stay in the presidency for the rest of his life and oppress his own people, those who do not go along with his own ideology.

Some republicans will say it is not about supporting a dictatorship, but rather about saving money and not sending the tax payer's money abroad when there are so many things to care about there in the United States, though that also does not make sense, because the Republican party is not against sending money and military equipment to Israel in their war against Hamas. So it is not about money, there is some ideological factor behind all of it. The Republican party in general seem to be more rough on China than they are against Russia, so I am not sure how they would react on the situation possibly going on in Taiwan and the political and military pressure there.

[OgNasty]

-

Yeah, I'm more than sure that in almost 2 years of war there was more than enough requests from Western journalists, but obviously it was all rejected. While Carlson, knowing his views and stance towards Russia, he was good choice. As you say, his was getting lot of popularity, I think it says a lot. Difficult to expect that he will ask inconvenient questions.
That 28 minutes history lesson from Putin. It was interesting interpretation of things from Putin, but Tucker don't had much to respond because he obviously don't know history of this region in detail. Same can be said about target audience of interview. It's not secret that average American redneck don't know much what's happening outside US, not even talking about history. They don't believe in mainstream media, but have lot of trust in Tucker. In US sending military support to Ukraine is getting more opposition than it was in first year of war. And interview like this can increase this public opinion even more, it's important before upcoming elections.

To be honest, I dont understand where the Russian interests align with the interest of the Republican party and the interests of the American people who identify themselves as Republican voters. Perhaps someone here should explain it to me, because I dont get it.
The Republican party I recall from the 2010's and before, it was a party about freedom, conservatism, lower taxes and protection to the second amendment. Where does the freedom values of the Republican party align with Russia and the ideas of Putin? Putin is a proto dictator, who wants to stay in the presidency for the rest of his life and oppress his own people, those who do not go along with his own ideology.

Some republicans will say it is not about supporting a dictatorship, but rather about saving money and not sending the tax payer's money abroad when there are so many things to care about there in the United States, though that also does not make sense, because the Republican party is not against sending money and military equipment to Israel in their war against Hamas. So it is not about money, there is some ideological factor behind all of it. The Republican party in general seem to be more rough on China than they are against Russia, so I am not sure how they would react on the situation possibly going on in Taiwan and the political and military pressure there.

The oversimplified version goes like this. Republicans don’t want to support the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Republicans think America is giving NATO & other world organizations (WEF) too much money and influence. Democrats think the opposite in both cases. This aside from the differences in social issues. In all cases, Russia would align more with a Republican run USA. This doesn’t mean they are in cahoots though. It mostly means they don’t want to spend money they don’t have or live under a one world government.

[paxmao]

-

Yeah, I'm more than sure that in almost 2 years of war there was more than enough requests from Western journalists, but obviously it was all rejected. While Carlson, knowing his views and stance towards Russia, he was good choice. As you say, his was getting lot of popularity, I think it says a lot. Difficult to expect that he will ask inconvenient questions.
That 28 minutes history lesson from Putin. It was interesting interpretation of things from Putin, but Tucker don't had much to respond because he obviously don't know history of this region in detail. Same can be said about target audience of interview. It's not secret that average American redneck don't know much what's happening outside US, not even talking about history. They don't believe in mainstream media, but have lot of trust in Tucker. In US sending military support to Ukraine is getting more opposition than it was in first year of war. And interview like this can increase this public opinion even more, it's important before upcoming elections.

To be honest, I dont understand where the Russian interests align with the interest of the Republican party and the interests of the American people who identify themselves as Republican voters. Perhaps someone here should explain it to me, because I dont get it.
The Republican party I recall from the 2010's and before, it was a party about freedom, conservatism, lower taxes and protection to the second amendment. Where does the freedom values of the Republican party align with Russia and the ideas of Putin? Putin is a proto dictator, who wants to stay in the presidency for the rest of his life and oppress his own people, those who do not go along with his own ideology.

Some republicans will say it is not about supporting a dictatorship, but rather about saving money and not sending the tax payer's money abroad when there are so many things to care about there in the United States, though that also does not make sense, because the Republican party is not against sending money and military equipment to Israel in their war against Hamas. So it is not about money, there is some ideological factor behind all of it. The Republican party in general seem to be more rough on China than they are against Russia, so I am not sure how they would react on the situation possibly going on in Taiwan and the political and military pressure there.

The oversimplified version goes like this. Republicans don’t want to support the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Republicans think America is giving NATO & other world organizations (WEF) too much money and influence. Democrats think the opposite in both cases. This aside from the differences in social issues. In all cases, Russia would align more with a Republican run USA. This doesn’t mean they are in cahoots though. It mostly means they don’t want to spend money they don’t have or live under a one world government.

I would need the not-oversimplified version of this, because saying that keeping the US influence and alliances is too expensive if not really a argument and it is not necessarily true. The US needs that influence to keep their home economy running and to be honest, the home security standing a chance against all short of threats.

Not in cahoots... I do not have proof, but it is white, comes in a bottle and smells of milk.

[BADecker]

~

The oversimplified version goes like this. Republicans don’t want to support the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Republicans think America is giving NATO & other world organizations (WEF) too much money and influence. Democrats think the opposite in both cases. This aside from the differences in social issues. In all cases, Russia would align more with a Republican run USA. This doesn’t mean they are in cahoots though. It mostly means they don’t want to spend money they don’t have or live under a one world government.

I would need the not-oversimplified version of this, because saying that keeping the US influence and alliances is too expensive if not really a argument and it is not necessarily true. The US needs that influence to keep their home economy running and to be honest, the home security standing a chance against all short of threats.

Not in cahoots... I do not have proof, but it is white, comes in a bottle and smells of milk.

Let's oversimplify OgNasty's oversimplified version. Here it is, lol.


Tucker Slayed the Mainstream Media Dragon


https://ronpaulinstitute.org/tucker-slayed-the-mainstream-media-dragon/
There has been much written and said about Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week. As of this writing the video on Twitter alone has been viewed nearly 200 million times, making it likely the most-viewed news event in history.

Many millions of viewers who may not have had access to the other side of the story were informed that the Russia/Ukraine military conflict did not begin in 2022, as the mainstream media continuously reports, but in fact began eight years earlier with a US-backed coup in Ukraine. The US media does not report this because they don't want Americans to begin questioning our interventionist foreign policy. They don't want Americans to see that our government meddling in the affairs of other countries – whether by "color revolution," sanctions, or bombs – has real and deadly consequences to those on the receiving end of our foreign policy.

To me, however, perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Tucker Carlson interview with Putin was the US mainstream media reaction. As Putin himself said during the interview, "in the world of propaganda, it's very difficult to defeat the United States." Even a casual look at the US mainstream media's reporting before and after the interview would show how correct he is about that. In the days and weeks before the interview, the US media was filled with stories about how horrible it was that Tucker Carlson was interviewing the Russian president. There was the danger, they all said, that Putin might spread "disinformation."

That Putin might say something to put his country in a better light was, they were saying, reason enough to not interview him. With that logic, why have journalism at all? Everyone interviewed by journalists – certainly every world leader – will attempt to paint a rosy picture. The job of a journalist in a free society should be to do the reporting and let the people decide. But somehow that has been lost. These days the mainstream media tells you what to think and you better not dispute it or you will be cancelled!

What the US mainstream media was really worried about was that the "other side of the story" might start to ring true with the public. So they attacked the messenger.
...