"Libertarian" Tucker Carlson complicit in call for martial law on the border

[jmdrake]

Right. Because what we really need to save freedom in the United States is to further erode freedom in the United States.

[Grandmastersexsay]

What delusional person ever referred to tucker as a libertarian? He doesn't even call himself one.

[Superfluous Man]

What delusional person ever referred to tucker as a libertarian? He doesn't even call himself one.

I think he used to call himself one. And he supported Ron Paul in all his presidential runs, including when he ran with the LP in '88.

That said, I think even then Tucker was an immigration restrictionist. I think he's become more of one since then though, and in recent years has also been inconsistent on the drug war.

Others who have called themselves libertarians include Sean Hannity and Bill Maher. For all his faults, Tucker has more of a right to the label than they do.

[Danke]

Tucker Carlson is "complicit" because of what one of his guest said about the border?

[Brian4Liberty]

"Libertarian" Tucker Carlson complicit in call for martial law on the border

Apparently you don’t want to be taken seriously if you are going to spin that segment that far from what it was about. Tucker’s show is all about hyperbole, but I think you trumped him with that.

What was in the segment? Mostly talk about how many US forces are deployed around the worl, and how they could be used to secure the border. This is what Tucker talked about, and Ron Paul has also taken this position.

The guest on the show said one time that there should be “martial law” on the border, but Tucker never even commented on that. It was extraneous to the entire conversation, and Tucker probably didn’t want to go off on a tangent.

[enhanced_deficit]

There is no risk of any 'martial law' there .. especially as long as social liberal Sheldon Adelson is MAGA's top funder. Let's remember Tucker, Coulter were banned from MAGA managed CPAC 2019, one more slip and they could be put by MAGA in same bucket of banishment as Steve Bannon.
At this point, there are many more signs of a 'martial kitchen' at the border than any 'martial law'.







Pentagon sending 100s of cooks to border to cook food for migrants

Apr 26, 2019
The Pentagon plans to send about 300 more U.S. active-duty troops to the border as cooks and drivers, some of whom will come into contact with migrants as they hand out food to migrants as part of the mission to help U.S. Customs and Border Protection deal with the large number of migrants arriving at the southern border.



To give credit where due, MAGA is delivering on his 'big heart' policy promise.

[jmdrake]

Tucker Carlson is "complicit" because of what one of his guest said about the border?

Tucker is complicit because he didn't come back and say "Well I don't agree with that."

[jmdrake]

Apparently you don’t want to be taken seriously if you are going to spin that segment that far from what it was about. Tucker’s show is all about hyperbole, but I think you trumped him with that.

What was in the segment? Mostly talk about how many US forces are deployed around the worl, and how they could be used to secure the border. This is what Tucker talked about, and Ron Paul has also taken this position.

The guest on the show said one time that there should be “martial law” on the border, but Tucker never even commented on that. It was extraneous to the entire conversation, and Tucker probably didn’t want to go off on a tangent.

If blinding myself to the truth is what I need to be taken seriously by you then I don't need to be taken seriously by you. Yes, Tucker didn't comment on that. That is what is meant by being complicit! I didn't say Tucker advocated martial law, but he did not challenge a guest who advocated for martial law. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/edmund_burke_377528

If Tucker had a guest on that said "In order to save this country we need to send Jews to the gas chamber" and he didn't challenge his guest's position everyone (sane anyway) would see that as being complicit. I'm sure if Tucker had a guest on that said "To save this country we must impeach Trump" he wouldn't just let that slide.

[Brian4Liberty]

Tucker is complicit because he didn't come back and say "Well I don't agree with that."

Ok. So your rule is that every host is responsible for what others say on the show unless they immediately disavow what they said? That would make shows very hard to produce.

[jmdrake]

Ok. So your rule is that every host is responsible for what others say on the show unless they immediately disavow what they said? That would make shows very hard to produce.

There was only one thing the guest said that Tucker possibly could disagree with which was martial law. Seriously dude, you can come up with a better argument than that.

Edit: Note that Tucker had already explicitly endorsed troops on the U.S. southern border before the guest came on. All he had to say was "While I agree with troops on the border, I don't think that necessitates martial law." That's it. Not hard.

[Superfluous Man]

Tucker is complicit because he didn't come back and say "Well I don't agree with that."

He didn't just refrain from disagreeing with it. The whole tenor of the segment was him cheering on what the guest was saying. I don't know if Danke asked his question before actually watching it or what.

[jmdrake]

He didn't just refrain from disagreeing with it. The whole tenor of the segment was him cheering on what the guest was saying. I don't know if Danke asked his question before actually watching it or what.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Superfluous Man again.

[Anti Federalist]

Ron Paul supports Martial Law?

Oh dear...

[Anti Federalist]

Oh my...

[Anti Federalist]

Oh heavens to Betsy...

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul supports Martial Law?

Oh dear...

1) Did you stop listening to Ron Paul post 2016?



2) The military can be used to secure the border without martial law. For example using U.S. troops to help Mexico secure its southern border.

3) Why are you against my saying that Tucker should have said to his guest "I'm for troops on the border, but I'm against martial law?"

Seriously dude, I never said that troops on the border must mean martial law. But Tucker's guest specifically endorsed martial law and Tucker didn't call him out on it. I think he should have. I would hope if you had been Tucker you would have.

[kona]

I've never seen Tucker refer to himself as a libertarian, not now, not when he voted for Ron. In fact, I've seen him say quite often he's NOT a libertarian, and often makes fun of them.

[jmdrake]

Oh heavens to Betsy...

Here is Ron Paul in 2018 explicitly saying he's against the militarization of the border. See at 16:15.



We don't need a police state to fight illegal immigration according to Dr. Paul.

[jmdrake]

What delusional person ever referred to tucker as a libertarian? He doesn't even call himself one.

I've never seen Tucker refer to himself as a libertarian, not now, not when he voted for Ron. In fact, I've seen him say quite often he's NOT a libertarian, and often makes fun of them.

Okay. How about just pro freedom? Is allowing a guest a pass on openly calling for martial law inside the U.S. a pro freedom stance? Yes or no?

[oyarde]

I've never seen Tucker refer to himself as a libertarian, not now, not when he voted for Ron. In fact, I've seen him say quite often he's NOT a libertarian, and often makes fun of them.

Hannity used to say he was a registered conservative which I think is an actual party in new york . I have never heard any of them claim to be libertarians . Martial law is and has been in force at the border longer than most posters here have been alive . The border Patrol is the sole authority . Formed in 1924 . his is nonsense but I am glad when JMDrake is here anyway.

[oyarde]

If anyone is complicit it is the american people . Most of whom do not want open borders as they see no benefit to them .

[Anti Federalist]

Here is Ron Paul in 2018 explicitly saying he's against the militarization of the border.

Ok, good, so honest people with strong convictions and principles can change their minds.

I've changed mine about this issue from where I was a few years ago...it is an invasion and must be dealt with in that manner.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Tucker Carlson isn't a libertarian. That's why he's effective. Well, one of the reasons. He's explicitly apologized for his libertarian phase in multiple talks.

[Stratovarious]

Tucker Carlson complicit in call for martial law on the border

You make it sound like a crime, is it a crime to not argue with a guest.

We aren't far from needing Martial Law at the border, Nancy Pelosi et al has set this up, ripe for it.

[nobody's_hero]

Tucker is complicit because he didn't come back and say "Well I don't agree with that."

Great, a fk'ing SJW soyboy tactic.

How about no.

"If you don't spend 25 hours a day, 8 days a week personally denouncing all the stupid sh1t in the world, you automatically agree with it"

. . . .GTFO with that nonsense. Not everyone wants to play a king-of-the-hill version of who-can-be-the-most-indignant. That's what liberals who intend to live on college campuses their whole lives do. Definitely the liberal media expects you to apologize and denounce everything, and the thing is, even if you did, it would never be enough to please the fk'ers.

[TheCount]

"If you don't spend 25 hours a day, 8 days a week personally denouncing all the stupid sh1t in the world, you automatically agree with it"

What the hell does that have to do with him inviting a guest onto his "news" show, thereby giving him a global platform to say "all the stupid sh1t in the world," and then giving him a complete softball on it? Hell, he opened the segment by talking up how the military is "improving the lives of foreigners, a lot of foreigners, in a lot of different places."

If Tucker Carlson can't be expected to weigh in on Tucker Carlson's show, why is Tucker Carlson on Tucker Carlson's show?

[nobody's_hero]

What the hell does that have to do with him inviting a guest onto his "news" show, thereby giving him a global platform to say "all the stupid sh1t in the world," and then giving him a complete softball on it? Hell, he opened the segment by talking up how the military is "improving the lives of foreigners, a lot of foreigners, in a lot of different places."

If Tucker Carlson can't be expected to weigh in on Tucker Carlson's show, why is Tucker Carlson on Tucker Carlson's show?

Not-denouncing does not equal endorsement.

If I hadn't replied to you, does that mean I automatically agree with your comment? Is that how opinions work? Damn I better make sure I'm on here all the time to fire back at your comments, because there's a lot of stuff you say that I disagree with.

[oyarde]

Why is martial law at the border now disturbing to people ? The 100 year anniv is coming up . They no longer even wear the 75 yr anniv medal on the dress uniform .

[RJB]

Not-denouncing does not equal endorsement.

If I hadn't replied to you, does that mean I automatically agree with your comment? Is that how opinions work? Damn I better make sure I'm on here all the time to fire back at your comments, because there's a lot of stuff you say that I disagree with.

Neg rep. You didn't denounce The Count with strong enough language.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think he used to call himself one. And he supported Ron Paul in all his presidential runs, including when he ran with the LP in '88.

That said, I think even then Tucker was an immigration restrictionist. I think he's become more of one since then though, and in recent years has also been inconsistent on the drug war.

Others who have called themselves libertarians include Sean Hannity and Bill Maher. For all his faults, Tucker has more of a right to the label than they do.

The “Strippers for Paul” bit was a little disingenuous and cheap. FWIW.