On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson | Cynthia Chung

[Scott]

Excerpt from another response: The regurgitation of Mother Russia's original territory and who belonged to it is old hat. And guess what? THINGS CHANGE! SHIT HAPPENS!

A country that went from monarchy to fascist dictatorship to communist to a brief spat of democracy to whatever-the-hell you want to call it now (oh, don't forget revolution, Japan-Russo War, WWII, the Cold War, the Yalta meeting) doesn't get to claim historical rights when masses of people threw that concept out the window. It's like this: the Maltese don't consider themselves mainland Italians, the Okinawans don't consider themselves main island Japanese. Same goes for a good portion of the Ukrainians.

Now we can debate the Ukranian machinations dealing with neo-nazi types going after pro-Russian folk while officials looked the other way, but as I said before NOTHING EARTH SHATTERING CAME OUT OF THE CARLSON INTERVIEW.

Bottom line: Carlson is nothing more than a bigoted, fascist leaning trust fund kid who craves praise, attention and some sense of power. Hell, even Putin called him an idiot after the interview.

And for someone claiming NOT to be of the MAGA mindset, you sure do emulate it in your responses here.

U R such a liar....I might ask how U manage to live with yourself but me being educated I know what a waste of time that would be.

I generally only considered someone to be a liar if I've seen evidence that they don't believe what they're saying. I've never seen any evidence that Tai doesn't believe what he's saying. I think his main problem is he can be averse to really looking at information that conflicts with his worldview, which can make it difficult for him to see the untruths in it.

 

[Scott]

Where did you get that statistic? Here's some numbers I've found:

**
Feb 9, 2024

In less than 24 hours, Tucker Carlson's controversial interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin has gotten millions of views. But how many people actually watched the 2 hour-long video on X, where Carlson has a partnership for his program, is actually not public information.

That's because in May of 2023, the platform removed video views from public view. Instead, all posts on the platform contain "views" which are actually just impressions, meaning how many times the post itself was seen by a user. It is not indicative of whether the user clicked on the post or watched the video associated with it. It also provides no indication as to how much of the two-hour video users engaged with.

As of this writing, the post on X with the video has over 125 million impressions on the platform.

While Carlson has a partnership with Elon Musk's social media platform, he also posts his videos on YouTube. His exclusive interview had more than 6 million views in the first 24 hours after it was posted. Views on YouTube are counted if viewers watch at minimum of 30 seconds of the video.
**

Full article:
Is Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin the most watched video of all-time on Elon Musk's X? | Austin American Statesman

As of right now, views of the interview on Youtube have gone up to 17 million, and impressions/views of the post containing the interview on X has come up to a bit over 200 million, but even if we were to add both the impressions and the youtube views , that still doesn't even get to a quarter of a billion. I'm not saying they're low numbers, far from it, just not as high as you're saying.

X certainly seems to have done well because of it:

X, formerly Twitter, becomes No. 1 app on US App Store after news of Tucker Carlson-Putin interview emerges | techcrunch.com

I posted the number seconds after I heard it because not many videos get over 1 billion views. It was a 90 minute or 2-hour video so I didn't post it. There are a few dozen different video viewers worldwide other than X and Youtube. China, India, Africa, and South America all know about the US being the world bully, so I'm sure they wanted to hear what Putin had to say. I wouldn't post it if it wasn't from a reliable source.

Alright, I'll take your word on it for now, but could you link to this reliable source?

 

[Scott]

No, that's just the answer to your implied question. What I'm trying to get you to realize is that just because Carlson didn't get Putin to reveal any "earth shattering information" as far as I could see doesn't mean that the interview wasn't highly illuminating in regards to Russia's history and things like the Russian government's decision to start a military operation in Ukraine.

I personally wasn't familiar with the fact that Kyev used to be part of Russia. Were you?

Certainly. However, knowing how things were can frequently go a long way to explaining why things are the way they are today. I think it's worth noting that Putin didn't stop talking about Russia's history 1000 years ago, but continued right up until the Russian government's decision to start its military operation in Ukraine. One part I found to be particularly interesting is where the word Ukraine came from. Putin actually elaborated on this as Celia Farber points out:

**
The next empire the Galicia-Volhynia region would be subjected to (now split off from Russia) was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Again, in President Putin’s interview with Carlson, he is referring to the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia as part of Russia, “the southern part of the Russian lands, including Kiev” and he views this lost of sovereignty as a loss of sovereignty of a section of Russia that was taken over by the Mongol Empire, followed by the Lithuanian Empire which would later become the Polish-Lithuanian Empire. In other words, these Russian people were cut off from the rest of Russia due to the Mongol Empire and later the Polish-Lithuanian Empire.

It was during this rule by the Polish in particular and their attempt at “Polonization” of these subjected Russian people that many cruel abuses and injustices occurred. This is also why there was so much hatred towards the Polish people by Ukrainians who had decided to side with the Nazis during WWII and to which pogroms were conducted by the Ukrainian population against the Jewish and non-Jewish Polish population (for more on this refer here).

President Putin states: “During decades, the Poles were engaged in the ‘Polonization’ of this part of the population: they introduced their language there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was not exactly Russians, that because they lived on the fringe (u kraya) they were ‘Ukrainians.’ Originally, the word ‘Ukrainian’ meant that a person was living on the outskirts of the state, near the fringe, or was engaged in border service. It didn't mean any particular ethnic group.

So, the Poles were trying in every possible way to polonize this part of the Russian lands and actually treated it rather harshly, not to say cruelly. All that led to the fact that this part of the Russian lands began to struggle for their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw [in Poland] demanding that their rights be observed and that people be commissioned here, including to Kiev…”​

It is very interesting what President Putin does next. He hands Tucker Carlson the documents from the archives, copies of letters from Bogdan Khmelnytsky to Warsaw, Poland demanding their rights be upheld.

Bogdan Khmelnytsky (1595-1657) was the military commander of the Cossacks and founder of the Cossack Hetmanate, also known as the Zaporozhian Host or the Army of Zaporozhia, the region that is now largely called Ukraine.

President Putin states: “Here are letters from Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the man who then controlled the power in this part of the Russian lands that is now called Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld, and after being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow asking to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow Tsar. There are copies of these documents. I will leave them for your good memory. There is a translation into Russian, you can translate it into English later.

Russia would not agree to admit them straight away, assuming this would trigger a war with Poland. Nevertheless, in 1654, the Zemsky Sobor, which was a representative body of power of the Old Russian state, made the decision: those Old Russian lands became part of the Tsardom of Muscovy.

As expected, the war with Poland began. It lasted 13 years, and then a truce was concluded. In all, after that act of 1654, 32 years later, I think, a peace treaty with Poland was concluded, “the eternal peace,” as it is said. And those lands, the whole left bank of the Dnieper, including Kiev, reverted to Russia, while the entire right bank of the Dnieper remained in possession of Poland.”​

**

Source:
On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson... | Celia Farber

Notice anything similar in what happened in 1654? Part of what is now Ukraine asking for more rights from its central government, not getting them and turning to Russia to get them? Just in case you don't, I'm referring to the Donbass Republics doing the same with its central government in Kyev after the Euromaidan coup, not getting them and then turning to Russia, which, just as in 1654, took several years to finally grant them their request and starting its war with Poland.



I'm not sure what you mean by "historical rights". Perhaps you are suggesting that Putin is trying to say that since Ukraine used to be part of Russia, it should all be part of Russia again? If so, I was never making that claim. I believe that Putin was simply trying to point out that the Ukrainian nation is a relatively recent invention and that its roots are strongly Russian. Putin also elaborates on when Ukraine became a Republic for the first time- it was a creation of the U.S.S.R.:

**
In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before.

…For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR. And, again for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine; and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever.”
**

Source:
On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson... | Celia Farber

Putin is referring to Crimea with that last bit there, though it would seem that he got mixed up as to who actually transferred Crimea to Ukraine. He mentions Lenin, but from what I have read, it was actually Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev who did the transfer. An NPR article called "Crimea: A Gift To Ukraine Becomes A Political Flash Point" gets into the details. While one can search and find a summary of the article on NPR, when one clicks on the link, it says that the page isn't working. Fortunately, the article has been mirrored well on another site. Quoting from it:
**
In 1954, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave Ukraine a gift: Crimea. At the time, it seemed like a routine move, but six decades later, that gift is having consequences for both countries.

The transfer merited only a paragraph in Pravda, the official Soviet newspaper, on Feb. 27, 1954. The story was one long sentence and dense with detail. Here's what it said:

"Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic, taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic ties between Crimea Province and the Ukraine Republic, and approving the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian Republic Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukraine Republic Supreme Soviet on the transfer of Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic."​

And with that, a region that had been part of Russia for centuries was "gifted" to Ukraine.

"Gifted" because Khrushchev's transfer was ostensibly to mark the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's merger with the Russian empire. And he probably didn't think the Soviet Union would be gone less than 40 years later.
**

Source:
Crimea: A Gift To Ukraine Becomes A Political Flash Point | North Country Public Radio

I completely agree. However, I'm sure you're also aware that a civil war started in Ukraine soon after the Euromaidan coup. Why do you think that happened?



I'm rather mystified as to why you're so interested in whether or not Putin said anything "earth shattering" in his interview with Carlson. A lot of very important information can be exchanged even said information isn't "earth shattering".



As an aside, I'm actually a pretty big fan of Marvel comics, as well as Wolverine, though the Marvel movies/tv series have been failing my expectations recently (I still really liked the second season of Loki though). I even have a year long subscription to Marvel's online comics.

Oh Lord! Whenever you go into "gas bag" mode, it's just a wasted effort by you to avoid being wrong on even the most minute point. To start with, I didn't "imply" a question. Anyone who follows the chronology of the posts knows EXACTLY what I stated and asked for in no uncertain terms.

Sigh. There was no question mark, thus I felt the question was implied.

You already conceded that Carlson's interview DID NOT REVEAL ANYTHING KNEW OR EARTH SHATTERING FROM PUTIN.

No, I stated that I -personally- didn't find any "earth shattering information" coming from Putin. Someone else might. It may well depend on the person's degree of familiarity with what Putin has said in the past. Having studied past speeches he's made in regards to the war on Ukraine, I personally didn't find that what he said this time deviated that much from said speeches, although I did find his history of the ties between Russia and Ukraine to be quite illuminating.

I also stated that I didn't see why this should be so important to begin with. I certainly believe that Putin said a lot of very -important- information, information that if properly applied could perhaps end the war in Ukraine. Isn't that worth carefully examining what he said in his interview?

 

[goat]

Alright, I'll take your word on it for now, but could you link to this reliable source?

The population of China, India, Africa, and South America is my reliable source. More than a billion views on the Putin/Carlson interview makes perfect sense. I was a little surprised on how quickly it happened.

 

[Scott]

I posted the number seconds after I heard it because not many videos get over 1 billion views. It was a 90 minute or 2-hour video so I didn't post it. There are a few dozen different video viewers worldwide other than X and Youtube. China, India, Africa, and South America all know about the US being the world bully, so I'm sure they wanted to hear what Putin had to say. I wouldn't post it if it wasn't from a reliable source.

Alright, I'll take your word on it for now, but could you link to this reliable source?

The population of China, India, Africa, and South America is my reliable source. More than a billion views on the Putin/Carlson interview makes perfect sense. I was a little surprised on how quickly it happened.

I'm sorry goat, but that's not a source for your claim, those are population numbers. Now, if you'd said that you -think- that Tucker's interview of Putin had a billion views worldwide, that would have been one thing, but you stated it as a fact. You may have noticed that I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to evidence. This reminds me of a story- I was once a bird watcher, and I read a book talking about bird watchers once- there was a story of one bird watcher (let's call her Jane) that was a stickler for evidence when someone claimed that x or y rare bird was seen. A lot of people considered the person to be a spoilsport, but there was -1- case where it became an asset. One bird watcher (let's call him Joe) hadn't come to an event where this stickler -did- come to the conclusion that a rare bird citing was legitimate. When Joe came to the next one and everyone told him they'd seen a rare bird, he said that perhaps it wasn't true. Whereupon all of them claimed excitedly that even -Jane- agreed that the rare bird had appeared.

The moral of the story is that I may seem like a spoilsport even to those on my own "team" at times, but when I claim things are true, one can be reasonably sure that I have solid evidence to back it up, regardless of what side I'm on in a particular debate.

 

[goat]

I'm sorry goat, but that's not a source for your claim, those are population numbers. Now, if you'd said that you -think- that Tucker's interview of Putin had a billion views worldwide, that would have been one thing, but you stated it as a fact. You may have noticed that I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to evidence. This reminds me of a story- I was once a bird watcher, and I read a book talking about bird watchers once- there was a story of one bird watcher (let's call her Jane) that was a stickler for evidence when someone claimed that x or y rare bird was seen. A lot of people considered the person to be a spoilsport, but there was -1- case where it became an asset. One bird watcher (let's call him Joe) hadn't come to an event where this stickler -did- come to the conclusion that a rare bird citing was legitimate. When Joe came to the next one and everyone told him they'd seen a rare bird, he said that perhaps it wasn't true. Whereupon all of them claimed excitedly that even -Jane- agreed that the rare bird had appeared.

The moral of the story is that I may seem like a spoilsport even to those on my own "team" at times, but when I claim things are true, one can be reasonably sure that I have solid evidence to back it up, regardless of what side I'm on in a particular debate.

Jared Diamond is a bird watcher who wrote a book titled "The Third Chimpanzee" about evolution and the advancement of human socioeconomics. The problem is that Jared is a racist trying to impress his grad students on how smart he is. Jared wrote from his white European eyes with no consideration for the negative effects imperialism had on the population of Chinese, Indian, and African cultures. He had zero evidence yet he was happy to pull shit out of his ass.

I like Jared and I like his books but he's not a reliable source. I spent my life weeding out the bullshit. The only thing I have is my credibility, so when I post something, the odds are I did my homework on reality. I can find a link to make anything into a fact. You're the one using Wikipedia as a source. That's the lazy way of doing things on the net. It's foolish to think that Putin/Carlson got anything below 1 billion views.

 

[Scott]

I'm sorry goat, but that's not a source for your claim, those are population numbers. Now, if you'd said that you -think- that Tucker's interview of Putin had a billion views worldwide, that would have been one thing, but you stated it as a fact. You may have noticed that I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to evidence. This reminds me of a story- I was once a bird watcher, and I read a book talking about bird watchers once- there was a story of one bird watcher (let's call her Jane) that was a stickler for evidence when someone claimed that x or y rare bird was seen. A lot of people considered the person to be a spoilsport, but there was -1- case where it became an asset. One bird watcher (let's call him Joe) hadn't come to an event where this stickler -did- come to the conclusion that a rare bird citing was legitimate. When Joe came to the next one and everyone told him they'd seen a rare bird, he said that perhaps it wasn't true. Whereupon all of them claimed excitedly that even -Jane- agreed that the rare bird had appeared.

The moral of the story is that I may seem like a spoilsport even to those on my own "team" at times, but when I claim things are true, one can be reasonably sure that I have solid evidence to back it up, regardless of what side I'm on in a particular debate.

Jared Diamond is a bird watcher who wrote a book titled "The Third Chimpanzee" about evolution and the advancement of human socioeconomics. The problem is that Jared is a racist trying to impress his grad students on how smart he is. Jared wrote from his white European eyes with no consideration for the negative effects imperialism had on the population of Chinese, Indian, and African cultures. He had zero evidence yet he was happy to pull shit out of his ass.

I like Jared and I like his books but he's not a reliable source.

I've never read anything from Jared, so I went to Wikipedia to get an introduction to the man. The entry on the most recent book of his that they cover, Upheaval (2019) supports your assertion that he's skimpy on evidence:
**
Anand Giridharadas, reviewing for The New York Times, claimed the book contained many factual inaccuracies.[38] Daniel Immerwahr, reviewing for The New Republic, reports that Diamond has "jettisoned statistical analysis" and the associated rigour, even by the standards of his earlier books, which have themselves sometimes been challenged on this basis.[39]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond

I spent my life weeding out the bullshit.

Sounds like a laudible endeavour.

The only thing I have is my credibility, so when I post something, the odds are I did my homework on reality.

That sounds good too.

I can find a link to make anything into a fact.

I'd like to see you try it, especially on something I disagree with.

You're the one using Wikipedia as a source.

I certainly do, yes, but let's remember that the one thing Wikipedia -always- has are sources of its own. This is why I frequently use it when I'm not too knowledgeable on a subject, and would like to start learning and/or teaching others who also aren't too knowledgeable on a subject. This doesn't mean that I always agree with its conclusions. However, the fact that their articles always have sources has meant that on at least one occassion, I've found that their source material contradicts their article. Now, you could say that this proves that it's not a good source. I would say that it proves the importance of having sources for things that one writes. For while a person (or group of people) may draw a false conclusion from a given dataset, if you follow the evidence long enough, you tend to find the truth. It's for this reason that I really like Andre Gide's line of trusting those who seek the truth and doubting those who find it. For while it's easy to claim that just about anything is true, it's frequently much, much harder to provide compelling evidence that this is the case. Seeking the truth is a wise endeavour, while being too eager to claim to know what the truth is its opposite.

[Using Wikipedia is] the lazy way of doing things on the net.

No, the lazy way is just making a claim without providing any source at all. Now, this isn't to say that I don't do just that sometimes. One doesn't know what people will find issues with and there is certainly such a thing as providing more information than an audience is interested in going through. But if challenged in a respectful way, I tend to almost always either provide evidence for my claim or concede that I couldn't find any.

It's foolish to think that Putin/Carlson got anything below 1 billion views.

One can say that "It's foolish to think" and then follow with any statement one likes. It can certainly be useful if one's goal is to intimidate others into thinking that one's claims are true, or at least into having them not voice their doubts. But it's not evidence for one's point of view.

 

[goat]

I've never read anything from Jared, so I went to Wikipedia to get an introduction to the man. The entry on the most recent book of his that they cover, Upheaval (2019) supports your assertion that he's skimpy on evidence:
**
Anand Giridharadas, reviewing for The New York Times, claimed the book contained many factual inaccuracies.[38] Daniel Immerwahr, reviewing for The New Republic, reports that Diamond has "jettisoned statistical analysis" and the associated rigour, even by the standards of his earlier books, which have themselves sometimes been challenged on this basis.[39]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond



Sounds like a laudible endeavour.



That sounds good too.



I'd like to see you try it, especially on something I disagree with.



I certainly do, yes, but let's remember that the one thing Wikipedia -always- has are sources of its own. This is why I frequently use it when I'm not too knowledgeable on a subject, and would like to start learning and/or teaching others who also aren't too knowledgeable on a subject. This doesn't mean that I always agree with its conclusions. However, the fact that their articles always have sources has meant that on at least one occassion, I've found that their source material contradicts their article. Now, you could say that this proves that it's not a good source. I would say that it proves the importance of having sources for things that one writes. For while a person (or group of people) may draw a false conclusion from a given dataset, if you follow the evidence long enough, you tend to find the truth. It's for this reason that I really like Andre Gide's line of trusting those who seek the truth and doubting those who find it. For while it's easy to claim that just about anything is true, it's frequently much, much harder to provide compelling evidence that this is the case. Seeking the truth is a wise endeavour, while being too eager to claim to know what the truth is its opposite.



No, the lazy way is just making a claim without providing any source at all. Now, this isn't to say that I don't do just that sometimes. One doesn't know what people will find issues with and there is certainly such a thing as providing more information than an audience is interested in going through. But if challenged in a respectful way, I tend to almost always either provide evidence for my claim or concede that I couldn't find any.



One can say that "It's foolish to think" and then follow with any statement one likes. It can certainly be useful if one's goal is to intimidate others into thinking that one's claims are true, or at least into having them not voice their doubts. But it's not evidence for one's point of view.

After watching the entire Putin/Carlson interview, I started a thread titled "Putin pimp slaps Carlson, but then I realized Putin was talking to the world instead of the US, so Carlson did a good job making sure the interview was seen worldwide. There is someone tracking how many views it got so I was surprised on how fast it passed 1 billion views. I know the count is accurate because it makes sense.

 

[Scott]

After watching the entire Putin/Carlson interview, I started a thread titled "Putin pimp slaps Carlson, but then I realized Putin was talking to the world instead of the US, so Carlson did a good job making sure the interview was seen worldwide. There is someone tracking how many views it got so I was surprised on how fast it passed 1 billion views.

Does this someone have a web page with the number? I ask in the hopes that perhaps this someone explains how they calculated this number.

I know the count is accurate because it makes sense.

I certainly be surprised if it's true, but that doesn't mean it is by default.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I generally only considered someone to be a liar if I've seen evidence that they don't believe what they're saying. I've never seen any evidence that Tai doesn't believe what he's saying. I think his main problem is he can be averse to really looking at information that conflicts with his worldview, which can make it difficult for him to see the untruths in it.

I've had Hawkeye on permanent "ignore" for some time now and have told him so (although I keep forgetting to ban him on my created threads). He's a crank who has some core conspiracy issues he periodically injects into my discussions and threads.

P.S.: your last sentence is pure projection. Add on your incessant need to have the last, repetitive word. Just saying.

 

[Scott]

I generally only considered someone to be a liar if I've seen evidence that they don't believe what they're saying. I've never seen any evidence that Tai doesn't believe what he's saying. I think his main problem is he can be averse to really looking at information that conflicts with his worldview, which can make it difficult for him to see the untruths in it.

I've had Hawkeye on permanent "ignore" for some time now and have told him so (although I keep forgetting to ban him on my created threads).

I don't actually ignore anyone, but I imagine you've noticed my fairly extensive thread ban list. To me, the ignore option kind of strikes me as allowing someone to put a "kick me" sign on my back and thinking that it's fine because I can't see it. Thread bans, on the other hand, is the equivalent of not allowing someone to come to your party. Sure, they can gripe about it in someone else's party, but it's not the same.

He's a crank who has some core conspiracy issues he periodically injects into my discussions and threads.

As you may know, I'm rather fond of certain conspiracies myself, but I draw the line at assuming that someone is lying or, worse yet, an agent of some government or other.

P.S.: your last sentence is pure projection.

Pfft, it was spot on .

Add on your incessant need to have the last, repetitive word. Just saying.

Not sure what y ou find repetitive about my last words -.- Anyway, if you'd like to say some more things in this thread, don't let me stop you. We may disagree on things, but it seems we both value civility even when we disagree with someone on something. This can be hard to find in forums sometimes.

 

[Nordberg]

Alright, I will grant you that it does appear that Tucker did privately say that he hated Trump. That does seem to be out of alignment with other things he has said about him, but I've never heard him -deny- that he wrote that, so there does seem to be some honesty there. I also think it's possible that Tucker may have -temporarily- hated Trump and has since changed his mind about him. As I imagine you know, I've personally never been a fan of Trump. As to the case regarding Dominion, I'm not familiar with the details, but I -have- heard that there has been evidence that voting machines have been rigged, and certainly not just from conservatives, so I wouldn't be surprised if many allegations against Dominion were true. One other thing- paying a fine does not mean that one is guilty. The truth isn't always revealed in courts of law.

There is no such evidence. That is why Dominion prevailed. That statement says a lot about you. Fox had deep pockets and could not prove Dominion did wrong. They should have put you on the stand and you could tell them that you have heard Dominion machines were rigged. You would be laughed out of court.

 

[Scott]

Alright, I will grant you that it does appear that Tucker did privately say that he hated Trump. That does seem to be out of alignment with other things he has said about him, but I've never heard him -deny- that he wrote that, so there does seem to be some honesty there. I also think it's possible that Tucker may have -temporarily- hated Trump and has since changed his mind about him. As I imagine you know, I've personally never been a fan of Trump. As to the case regarding Dominion, I'm not familiar with the details, but I -have- heard that there has been evidence that voting machines have been rigged, and certainly not just from conservatives, so I wouldn't be surprised if many allegations against Dominion were true. One other thing- paying a fine does not mean that one is guilty. The truth isn't always revealed in courts of law.

There is no such evidence.

Seems to be plenty of evidence that Dominion Election Systems was up to shady things. Found an article published today on one such case:

Sheriff Dar Leaf Announces Investigation into Michigan 2020 Election: Claims Possession of “Sensitive Documents” Tied to Dominion Employees and High-Profile Figures Including Jocelyn Benson and Dana Nessel — Accuses Muskegon County Prosecutor of Attempting to Usurp His Ongoing Investigation | Gateway Pundit

 

[Taichiliberal]

Seems to be plenty of evidence that Dominion Election Systems was up to shady things. Found an article published today on one such case:

Sheriff Dar Leaf Announces Investigation into Michigan 2020 Election: Claims Possession of “Sensitive Documents” Tied to Dominion Employees and High-Profile Figures Including Jocelyn Benson and Dana Nessel — Accuses Muskegon County Prosecutor of Attempting to Usurp His Ongoing Investigation | Gateway Pundit

Big deal. Seems the MAGA minions think that consistent repetition will get a different result. That didn't work when they tried to repeal Obamacare, didn't work when they tried to prove the 2020 election was rigged. But to keep the suckers funding campaigns and sending an alleged billionaire donations, they'll just keep banging that drum.

 

[Scott]

Big deal. Seems the MAGA minions think that consistent repetition will get a different result. That didn't work when they tried to repeal Obamacare, didn't work when they tried to prove the 2020 election was rigged. But to keep the suckers funding campaigns and sending an alleged billionaire donations, they'll just keep banging that drum.

I think we can agree that we're no longer talking about the subject of this thread, but I do believe that this subject deserves a thread of its own. So I've made one and responded to your post there:
Investigations into the 2020 U.S. Presidential Elections | justplainpolitics.com

 

[Taichiliberal]

I think we can agree that we're no longer talking about the subject of this thread, but I do believe that this subject deserves a thread of its own. So I've made one and responded to your post there:
Investigations into the 2020 U.S. Presidential Elections | justplainpolitics.com

My response to that:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Presidential-Elections&p=5926997#post5926997