Yes quite interesting - he is involved with the organization “Human Rights First”.
One of the targets of this group is “Extremism”.
Under the heading of Extremism, they specify that “the ideology of the anti-democratic far-right extremist movement is an existential threat to our democracy.”
They also fight “systemic injustice”, which has “plagued America since the founding of the nation - especially when it comes to people of color and historically marginalized groups.”
Sounds like the guy’s a real Social Justice Warrior.
And what did you think about what was said by the former American general about Ukraine’s repossession of Crimea?
As has been pointed out before, war makes for strange political coalitions. It should be possible to evaluate the content of an opinion on its own terms without looking for the author’s political affiliations for a signal whether to agree or disagree with the opinion or to take or dismiss the information it contributes to the discussion. Tucker’s opinion on the Ukraine war - like the opinion of the anti-war left - should have no presumption in its favor merely because he is not anti-Trump, or is anti-woke. His taking Putin’s side against Ukraine because the progressive Biden admin and the woke globalists support Zelensky is very dangerous to America - far more immediately dangerous to America’s national security than the fantastical globalist conspiracy to control the world through provoking WW3 were it true, which it is not.
Yes, a strange coalition. The “anti-war left” is not all anti- war any more. And alot of conservatives are no longer pro-war. Both Trump and DeSantis, for example, have come out against the war.
You may think that’s merely for political expediency, but you can’t presume that, any more than you can presume that Tucker is “taking Putin’s side”, or is against Zelensky simply because Biden and the globalists support him.
But the fact that Biden and the globalists do support Zelensky does raise a very legitimate question -
Why would those in power - people who we know to be criminals and traitors, and who are collaborating in the present “fantastical globalist conspiracy to control the world” (which, as a matter of fact, IS happening), and are purposefully advancing the destruction of democracy in our own country, care about democracy in Ukraine?
Why are they so concerned about protecting the integrity of Ukraine’s borders when they are purposely destroying the integrity of our own borders, and allowing our own country to be flooded with unvetted foreigners, many of whom are criminals and terrorists, and all of whom will stress our welfare system, infrastructure, and culture to the point of total collapse?
Who are actively aiding and abetting our biggest enemy, the CCP, in infiltrating, buying off our politicians, our corporations, taking over our manufacturing, stealing our technology, releasing bio-weapons on us - the list goes on and on…
It defies logic to then believe that they have America’s best interests at heart in suddenly being “pro-democracy” about Ukraine.
Whether they want to start WW3 or not is an open question, but they certainly aren’t working very hard to prevent it. Now it even looks as if Xi - Putin’s new ally thanks to Biden - is going to embarrass and humiliate Biden further by stepping in and doing what Biden just couldn’t pull off, and negotiate a peace deal. But if he does, it will be on his terms.
Liz, I did not watch the video, but happily you did.
Claire, I find lots of information on my interests, interesting.
I do not “presume” that Tucker has taken Putin’s side in the Ukraine war because the globalists (and Biden) support Zelensky, I deduce it from what he says explicitly. From what he says about Zelensky, I can discount his statements that he is not pro-Putin, and that only people who want WW3 would say that he his. His expressed contempt for Zelensky (see the insults he pours upon him: “Ukrainian pimp”, “corrupt strongman”, “despot”) contrasted with the lack of expressed contempt or insults for Putin, speak volumes about his abandonment of perspective. The inference that Tucker has sided with Putin is quite justified.
One of Tucker’s lines of attack against Zelensky is that Zelensky is an evil autocrat, clamping down on political (pro-Russian) opposition, suspending civil rights. He conveniently forgets that Zelensky is at war with Russia. He overlooks the fact that Zelensky’s enemy is a far more evil autocrat who has clamped down harder, more violently and more systematically on political opposition and suspended the civil rights of more numerous populations over greater expanses of territory to secure his tenure in office than Zelensky could ever achieve, even if he was an aspiring autocrat. Zelensky is not fighting to retain political power. He is fighting for his life.
For Putin, Ukraine represents unacceptable political opposition to his autocracy. It must be eliminated or neutralized. That is why he invaded Crimea in 2015, fomented civil war in the Donbas region and attempted a putsch against Zelensky in 2022.
Tucker’s attacks the US supplying of military aid to Ukraine because Ukraine is not a democracy does not stand up to logic. Something else is working his mouth. I have elsewhere shown that Tucker uses the phrase “saving democracy” as a trigger for patriotic Trump voters, who recognize the phrase as the pretext for Democrats’ post- January 6th judicial abuse against them. If Biden is “saving democracy” in supporting Zelensky’s violence against Putin, then Putin is presumptively in the position of patriotic opposition to Biden. This opens the door for Tucker’s approval of Putin’s national and religious values - blood, soil and God - and Putin’s violent vindication of them against globalist attack. The identification of Putin with old-fashioned values and Russia as a bulwark against wokery is a particularly dangerous version of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Tucker confuses political fights with war, which always and everywhere starts where politics and civil law end. War is the reassertion of might is right. Tucker evidently believes that Putin’s reassertion of Russia’s might (hundreds of thousands of dead, millions displaced) is a righteous answer to the political ambitions of Tucker’s political and ideological enemies, represented by Biden and his friends, the globalist conspirators. While Biden is in power, Biden’s friends are political enemies; any leader of a state friendly to America that Biden supports is a political enemy; any state leader against the state supported by Biden is a political ally.
Tucker’s is a very narrow, parochial, short-term view, motivated by journalistic vanity. Tucker aspires to mobilize an anti-war faction as a force in the coming election, so that he has political sway, so that his show matters for election coverage. The “Tucker Carlson Voter” will be a thing for pollsters. The responses to his questions of politicians standing for election will be fodder for his show. Just watch him use them for a Tucker Carlson endorsement. Just watch the viewer ratings rise. All of which is fine, but should provide a context for evaluating his opinions.
I will continue to watch Carlson, confident in the knowledge that politicians are even more skilled than he is in providing rabble-rousing election sound-bites holding them to nothing e.g. De Santis refers to the Ukraine War as a “territorial dispute”, which superficially matches Tucker’s (and Putin’s) view that it is something for Putin and Ukraine to sort out between them. I’m happy that Carlson beats CNN. I’m grateful for his culture war exposes. I switch off the sound of his biggest commercial sponsor - the MyPillow Guy - and make coffee during Tulsi Gabbard or General McGregor interview segments. What I do not do, is let Tucker gaslight me into confusing Ukraine with New York or Chicago or other progressive Democrat strongholds, Zelensky with their monstrous woke mayors, or Putin with a police force putting down a BLM riot, or a border control force protecting its border in a security operation.
Let me remind of the forum policy: no linking without a hook for the reader. We ask that when a link is posted to initiate a thread that it is accompanied with a quote of the specific text that raises issues or that the poster wants to discuss. Dumping a Tucker Carlson segment without any input from you as to why you want us to view it presumes upon our time, and assumes that we will find it worth talking about, even if we have already viewed it without seeing fit to put it up. In posting an over one-hour long video with the title “Should and will Ukraine Take Back Crimea” with the hook that it was “interesting” I counter-presumed on your time, confident in the knowledge that you would not view it. Insight into the winnability of the war for Ukraine clearly does not interest you. Liz did view the video, or at least some of it, but chose to find interest in it peripheral to the question of “should and will Ukraine Take Back Crimea” i.e. the political bone fides of the organization under whose auspices the video was taken.
Let me say right here and now that I am not interested in a war of sources with you. Your drop-and-run passive-aggressive technique is not an effective dodge to what you perceive as intellectual insults and belittling in my repeated requests for reasoned substantive defenses of anti-war positions. If Tucker Carlson “says it” for you in a segment of his show then we are entitled to know what “it” is in your own mind and words. That way we can evaluate it in discussion with you, on this forum. If I wanted to talk about or respond to Tucker, I would comment directly on the clips on the Fox News website or YouTube.
I am prepared at any time to engage with you on the Ukraine War, not your sources and authorities, even if you are not prepared to engage with me (and totally ignore my sources and authorities). I’ve done enough shadow-boxing with Tucker Carlson (and others) you push in front of us.
The fact that Tucker criticizes Zelensky and says little about Putin does not ipso-facto make him pro-Putin. You jump to that conclusion, but it may just mean that Putin himself is irrelevant to his argument. His point is not which of the two is more evil or autocratic - it’s that the U.S. should not be pouring money down a bottomless pit of war while we are trillions in debt, and facing not only financial, but civilizational collapse at home.
And whether or not Tucker is using the phrase “saving democracy” to trigger his base for political gain (another assumption) that doesn’t ipso-facto mean he doesn’t sincerely believe his own argument.
Biden and his ilk, on the other hand, most certainly lie about “saving democracy” - from “far-right extremists” - as they destroy it. Why should we not suspect they are lying about saving it in Ukraine, as well?
Zelensky is only “fighting for his life” because the U.S. is funding him. Meanwhile, in our own country, we are fighting for our life against our own government. That’s why I argue that our fight at home must be our all-consuming priority - negotiate in Ukraine; fight for our own survival.
But you consider that an “empty slogan”, as you apparently see no threat to our nation’s survival.
Well, Claire…I did not know of this forum policy. I do not have a lot of online time, and I often post items of interest to me thinking that the forum members may also find them interesting. Nobody on this forum is required to click on the post or the link or to bother to read anything that I post.
I fully understood your insult of “interesting” and would have watched a shorter video, but I do not have the time to watch a long one such as the one you linked to.
I don’t mind when others post links without much information attached to them. Some posts I never click on the link, but I do check out the forum replies.
I think you are wrong about Tucker and I believe you are clueless as to the reasoning of Americans, who agree with most of what he says.
I am not bringing a war to you or to this forum. You have done that well.
Your drop-and-run passive-aggressive technique is not an effective dodge to what you perceive as intellectual insults and belittling in my repeated requests for reasoned substantive defenses of anti-war positions.
This is truly bizarre, Claire. And it gets even more bizarre when you write:
“I am prepared at any time to engage with you on the Ukraine War, not your sources and authorities, even if you are not prepared to engage with me (and totally ignore my sources and authorities). I’ve done enough shadow-boxing with Tucker Carlson (and others) you push in front of us.”
Is this what you “reason” I am doing, or do you simply “believe” it to be true, because I do not conform to your opinions and obey your demands? What is it you want from the TAC Forum? What do you want it to be?
This has been a rather casual forum, and I am dismayed by the slow turn it has taken.
Is there anyone on this forum who didn’t know what this OP was about and worry over clicking a link that they might have seen already or wonder if there was a discussion to be had? If they thought there might be a discussion to be had, did they worry about what it might entail?
Is anyone here so mindless that they NEED A HOOK to gather any of this information or to continue with this thread whether they want to or not? Is there anyone here who feels that any other member is “pushing in front of them” any video from anyone? Well, for gawd’s sake, say something if you are offended or threatened by this occurrence. Or, just skip to another post, just like, you know…change the channel. I do it and it is easy for adults to manage.
This is a crock! Get off this soapbox, Claire! You are attacking those, who have supported TAC and TAC Forum, and there aren’t many of us left. We used to welcome newbies and encourage them to post and to reply, but recent newbies have been run off…or that is how it has seemed to me.
I accept that you are gradually taking over, but either this is a friendly and welcoming place for atheist conservatives and all their viewpoints…or it isn’t. Your opinionated tirades over the posts of those who are not with you on points concerning the Ukraine-Russian War is creating an atmosphere that is not welcoming.
Anti-War is not Pro-Putin. Asking that the U-R War end with negotiations over territory is not Pro-Putin. Not wanting to strangle the US any further is not Pro-Putin. Saving our country at the risk of negotiations by Ukraine and Russia on territory is not Pro-Putin. Ending this war to keep from having a global war is not Pro-Putin.
We each have our sources for information, because we are each different and gather information differently. And…look, our sources support our viewpoints! Who would have thunk it? If you don’t “see fit” to post a video, and I do…what is the harm? I don’t have TV. Maybe others don’t watch Tucker. Do we, now, have to clear it with you to find out if you think we should post a Carlson video, which INTERESTS us?
Or…Claire, you and I could just never read each other’s posts or replies again. And I would be fine with that. I am tired of this. It harms the forum. It harms Jillian. How many of us post and reply? Six? Four of us make up the bulk of posts and replies. How many readers? 30 to 40?
Claire, let us cease and desist. The war is continuing. We disagree and can’t quite understand the others viewpoint. Is there room for both viewpoints? Is there some sort of agreement that the world might be in trouble and the war is part of that? Seems like we have enough to worry about and I guess that I am deciding to never post anything or reply to anything concerning the Ukraine-Russian War on TAC Forum again. That’s it.
Thank you, Jeanne! I second all of that.
I appreciate your second, Liz. And I am sorry for it, at the same time.
Atheist Conservatives may have different views, even in our degree of hostile-to-theists atheism. We can certainly have different political views, foreign affair views, social views and economic views, and still be conservatives.
And, if we are hard to sway on our viewpoints, does it mean our viewpoints are totally wrong…or do we simply look at a situation from a different way? Can we try to understand the viewpoint of others, while not budging an inch on ours, and still be considered reasonable people? I don’t see why not. Open forums, or closed forums, must operate this way or else it may as well become a blog of the dominant voice. Differing viewpoints do not threaten a forum.
Was Yazmin a Russian bot, because she had a viewpoint that was similar to mine? I doubt it. Was she a bot, because she failed to directly engage on the forum? Maybe, but I am not real clear on what a bot is, nor on how it would benefit its owner to take part in TAC Forum. I tend to think she was not a bot. And Yazmin was important to the forum, until she blundered into the Ukraine-Russian War. Bot or not, she was okay until then. Why?
I am not a bot. I would be much more sophisticated if I were a bot and I would read all the right books and listen to the right music and be altogether more intellectual. And, I would have lots of time to spend online with this forum.
See…unsophisticated me, is all I am. I do the best I can, and I frequent TAC Forum so as not to allow my brain to turn to oatmeal. I do not push my “narrative,” (if I have one. I admit to being complicated in my views) although I have from time to time pleaded with members to prepare for the hard times I believe are coming…sooner than later, perhaps. But, that is because I care about people here.
So…after a late night rant, because I am annoyed that there seems to be hostility towards me…and Liz…I must apologize for it. I wish to maintain the peace and casual debate of the site, but I am not the rolling over sort of person that takes bullying from anybody to anybody, or to myself. So, from time to time, I may have take a stand when the push comes to shove. I wish Yazmin would have replied to prove herself not to be a bot, but she didn’t, nor did she respond to a message from me. Either way, bot or not, Yazmin was bullied off the forum.
I have had more than two decades of atheist forum debates, and I tend to stick until the forum folds on me, and is no more. I am not departing TAC Forum, but I will for a time try to avoid confrontation over this particular topic.
Yazmin was not bullied off this forum. “She” chose to stop posting when I called “her” bluff. How did I know “she” was bluffing? “She” posted strings of links without comments, seldom engaged in an exchange of remarks, and though “she” claimed to be British and living in Britain, when the Queen died she had no comment to make. Did not mention it or comment when others posted about it. At that point I said I knew “she” was a bot. (Maybe “she” was not a bot but a person with an assumed fictitious identity, which is virtually the same thing.) “She” promptly disappeared. It was “her” choice.
If I were accused of being a bot, I would do something to prove I wasn’t. Wouldn’t you?
I understood that Yazmin, who or what ever she was, did not defend her position here, which was very odd. What her purpose was is less clear, as she was an important and contributing member for a long time. Was she waiting for the opportunity to start a Pro-Putin /Anti-Ukraine propaganda attack at TAC? That seems unlikely to me.
But what happened was bullying a member off the forum. Why she didn’t stop sooner or just avoid the threads on the war or defend herself and her opinion in her own words, I don’t know. The activity surrounding all this took the form of bullying. That is what it looked like to me on this side of the forum. Others have not been able to take the heat either, and knowing how it feels to be named something besides what I am (an atheist and a conservative and a patriot) on a forum long ago, the heat can be uncomfortable at the least and defeating at the worst. It isn’t the hot debate. It is the “name-calling attacks” and the insulting attitudes that get to you, and that is merely for having a differing viewpoint than the moderator…for not agreeing with the dominant voices.
It is that, which makes a forum unwelcoming …and is too much like the way of the Extremist Left. Yazmin’s was an unusual case, because she did not, for whatever reason, defend in her own words either her position or herself. Yet all was well, until she differed in her opinions on the Ukraine-Russia War.
TAC Forum is home to me, and I am very grateful to be a part of it. It is mostly out of concern for its future that I write these uncomfortable posts.
As I have often observed: Generally speaking, trying to argue with a woman is like trying to crack an egg on a pillow.
So not only on the Left but even here, expressing a difference of opinion is “bullying” an interlocutor?
If so, forums of debate are harsh intellectual environments, and the First Amendment itself is no more than a permit to crush your neighbor; the challenging of a popular assumption is cruel; and America is a nation of snowflakes.
I take it you will protest that none of that is true, nor what you meant?
Am I bullying you with my argument? If so, please just bully me right back.
You are a very valuable contributor, Jeanne. We disagree strongly on only one or two of many issues.
Let’s transgender mentally when we discuss those issues, and confront each other like men.
No, expressing a difference of opinion is not bullying another interlocutor…fellow conversationalist…I had to look up the word.
Being hostile to a fellow forum member and making insinuations about them over a conversation/debate is bullying… and add some name-calling (Pro-Putin, Russian Bot) and accusing them of deliberate “pushing” and “dumping” of information and/or links with no identification or “hooking” dialogue is bullying.
Why would anyone want to stay, especially when before the U-R War, all was well? Dust ups happen on forums, even the most civil of them, but the U-R War has been disturbingly different.
I will be damned if I will discuss or confront like a man. No thanks, Jillian.
I didn’t think the egg would crack.
I mean I didn’t expect it to. And it didn’t.