This is just so extremely partisan and vituperative. Why is it so unfathomable that Tucker Carlson could actually have views that evolve? ( He started out at CNN after all). Listen to his NY Time podcast interview, he explains very well his relationship with Trump and his views on the Iran war.
In that NY Times interview he recounts at length how he spoke in person with Trump and on the phone many times about going to war with Iran, always trying to convince Trump not to do it. Carlson says he had the strong impression that Trump did not want to go to war with Iran and that there was no enthusiasm for it among his advisors either. Carlson believes that Trump felt he had to attack Iran, that he was forced into it. The question that haunts Carlson and which he talks about at length in this interview is why, and who, and how is the most powerful man in the world forced into a war he doesn't want ? The answer seems to be: The Israel lobby - although Carlson is honest and says he doesn't have any direct proof.
Trump was ( WAS) always critical of foreign wars and was the first republican to break the taboo and say that Iraq was a disaster. He campaigned on getting the US out of foreign wars and keeping us out. What changed?
No evidence? Are you aware that Sec of State Marco Rubio said that the reason the USA attacked Iran was because we knew that Israel was going to attack Iran, and then our ally would be attacked? Are you aware that after the first ceasefire, the very next day Israel killed a few dozen civilians in Lebanon and has done everything to sabotage the ceasefire? Common sense alert: Iran is not a vital interest for the United States ( we have tons of oil and gas). Iran is a vital interest for Israel. Miriam Adelson, an avowed zionist and Israeli citizen was Trumps biggest donor. The list of circumstantial evidence is very long. And then ask any USA politician about the AIPAC lobby.
There is no MAGA split. Tucker and Owens are media whores looking for a niche audience to carve out. Besides, although MAGA is tasting like cheap whiskey today, voting for Democrats is like deciding to drink sewer water laced with carcinogens. Republicans are good with inter party conflict and differences of opinion compared to the Democrats that assassinate any that step out of line from their ideological purity tests.
Isabelle, you and Frank Lee are made for one another; both narrowly read, media illiterate trolls, lurking around Persuasion to “own me some libs”. And I say this in the kindest possible way. 😎
I was hoping that the answer to the question in the title would be the citizens of the US, but sadly the Democrats seem incapable of uniting around a sensible set of policies.
As for Carlson (can we please stop referring to him as "Tucker" in this chummy manner, as if we all know him), he is of course a monstrous hypocrite and opportunist, but unfortunately that in no way rules him out as a candidate for the next US president. He gave an interview to the Economist recently and it was notable that he had no substance by any of his pronouncements, which is great for a podcaster but should be disqualifying for the leader of a great country. Sadly, Trump has shown that substance no longer matters for a US president.
> The betting odds site Polymarket has JD Vance leading the Republican GOP field with 39%, followed distantly by Secretary of State Marco Rubio at 22%, and then Carlson all the way behind them at 6%. I would never ever give betting advice to any Persuasion reader, but if I did, I might well counsel laying some sweet cheddar on Carlson.
This is just so extremely partisan and vituperative. Why is it so unfathomable that Tucker Carlson could actually have views that evolve? ( He started out at CNN after all). Listen to his NY Time podcast interview, he explains very well his relationship with Trump and his views on the Iran war.
In that NY Times interview he recounts at length how he spoke in person with Trump and on the phone many times about going to war with Iran, always trying to convince Trump not to do it. Carlson says he had the strong impression that Trump did not want to go to war with Iran and that there was no enthusiasm for it among his advisors either. Carlson believes that Trump felt he had to attack Iran, that he was forced into it. The question that haunts Carlson and which he talks about at length in this interview is why, and who, and how is the most powerful man in the world forced into a war he doesn't want ? The answer seems to be: The Israel lobby - although Carlson is honest and says he doesn't have any direct proof.
Trump was ( WAS) always critical of foreign wars and was the first republican to break the taboo and say that Iraq was a disaster. He campaigned on getting the US out of foreign wars and keeping us out. What changed?
It's the Israel lobby but there's no evidence? Then again, who needs evidence when there's a nice conspiracy theory to turn to.
No evidence? Are you aware that Sec of State Marco Rubio said that the reason the USA attacked Iran was because we knew that Israel was going to attack Iran, and then our ally would be attacked? Are you aware that after the first ceasefire, the very next day Israel killed a few dozen civilians in Lebanon and has done everything to sabotage the ceasefire? Common sense alert: Iran is not a vital interest for the United States ( we have tons of oil and gas). Iran is a vital interest for Israel. Miriam Adelson, an avowed zionist and Israeli citizen was Trumps biggest donor. The list of circumstantial evidence is very long. And then ask any USA politician about the AIPAC lobby.
So you have evidence but Carlson doesn't? Maybe you should give him a call.
There is no MAGA split. Tucker and Owens are media whores looking for a niche audience to carve out. Besides, although MAGA is tasting like cheap whiskey today, voting for Democrats is like deciding to drink sewer water laced with carcinogens. Republicans are good with inter party conflict and differences of opinion compared to the Democrats that assassinate any that step out of line from their ideological purity tests.
If you are a democrat politician you have to believe that men can give birth.
Isabelle, you and Frank Lee are made for one another; both narrowly read, media illiterate trolls, lurking around Persuasion to “own me some libs”. And I say this in the kindest possible way. 😎
I was hoping that the answer to the question in the title would be the citizens of the US, but sadly the Democrats seem incapable of uniting around a sensible set of policies.
As for Carlson (can we please stop referring to him as "Tucker" in this chummy manner, as if we all know him), he is of course a monstrous hypocrite and opportunist, but unfortunately that in no way rules him out as a candidate for the next US president. He gave an interview to the Economist recently and it was notable that he had no substance by any of his pronouncements, which is great for a podcaster but should be disqualifying for the leader of a great country. Sadly, Trump has shown that substance no longer matters for a US president.
> The betting odds site Polymarket has JD Vance leading the Republican GOP field with 39%, followed distantly by Secretary of State Marco Rubio at 22%, and then Carlson all the way behind them at 6%. I would never ever give betting advice to any Persuasion reader, but if I did, I might well counsel laying some sweet cheddar on Carlson.
How big is your position on Carlson?
Why do these articles have different titles when they pop up on my screen and when I read them? I only see this on Persuasion