Candace Owens makes a hard pitch on Russian state TV for Tucker Carlson to run for president

[QP!]

MAGA IS TOAST.

We will see.

I am not so sure that a candidate cannot emerge, present as new and pull the coalition back together based on their one true unifying position which is 'hate of 'others' and coalescing around someone telling them "all your problems are do to the 'others' and i will attack the 'others' for you".

I could see most of the maga coalition reuniting again if a 'new person' emerges who can spin that right.

 

[cawacko]

you say that as we constantly see more and more reality TV people moving into politics and achieving great success.

What we have learned, the last few election cycles, is the LESS you look like a typical career politician and present as something new and diffeerent wanting to 'disrupt the old system', the easier it is to gain traction.

I find you entire analysis of why Tucker would not work to be outdated and flawed.

Trump is the obvious example of an outsider. But he built up his brand over decades and it was not as an ideologue.

Carlson is an ideologue who had a strong following on Fox News but that's different than having a national brand that attracts people from all walks of life like Trump did.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

"was" their perfect candidate...

maga has split. The core of maga is now aligned with Rubio and the NeoCon's and believe in a reinvigorated "America as world policeman because bad people run countries some where and America MUST take them out spending tax payer money'. those people would not support Tucker now.

The big portion of maga who was America First and believed Trump was ending all the foreign wars and adventurism and would pour tax payer dollars into home based improvements are now mostly out of the coalition.

Before the split i saw Tucker as the only person, currently on the map who could keep the Trump coalition together but no longer.

Steve Bannon may run and try but i think he is a charisma killer and cannot attract people to vote for him.

most people are with tucker.

neocons are a minority faction and hated like the aids they are.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

We will see.

I am not so sure that a candidate cannot emerge, present as new and pull the coalition back together based on their one true unifying position which is 'hate of 'others' and coalescing around someone telling them "all your problems are do to the 'others' and i will attack the 'others' for you".

I could see most of the maga coalition reuniting again if a 'new person' emerges who can spin that right.

tucker and Candace are both better than you.

you're a traitor pile of hsit.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

we know how you neocons feel about Israel.

are you gonna suck chinas cock too when trump tells you to?

 

[FastLane]

popular podcast host Candace Owens, best known for her bombastic rhetoric and spreading conspiracy theories, made a hard pitch for Tucker Carlson running for president while on Russian state television on Thursday.

Owens spoke to the press while attending Russia’s ‘Davos,’ the St Petersburg Economic Forum, alongside other Russia-friendly celebrities like Steven Segal and Andrew Tate.

MSN

Owens has gone over the cliff crazy.

 

[QP!]

Trump is the obvious example of an outsider. But he built up his brand over decades and it was not as an ideologue.

Carlson is an ideologue who had a strong following on Fox News but that's different than having a national brand that attracts people from all walks of life like Trump did.

i am not sure why you define "outsider ideologue" as unelectable while pushing the idea that "outsider with no ideology who was a Democrat who switched to Republican as he saw "poorly educated" voters as his target" as some type of electable ideal???

Both Tucker and Trump built up a brand over decades. BOTH have swayed very far from their early career political leanings and positions following whatever trend they think will make them popular. BOTH have NATIONAL BRANDS as people from coast to coast are aware of them and support them in huge numbers.

Give me a bullet point list of what you think defines Carlson as an ideologue that does not currently align with what Trump ran on, and also represented to believe, in 2024 just so i can see what your basis for the separation you perceive is??

 

[QP!]

Trump is the obvious example of an outsider. But he built up his brand over decades and it was not as an ideologue.

Carlson is an ideologue who had a strong following on Fox News but that's different than having a national brand that attracts people from all walks of life like Trump did.

Also i would like you to separately address why you think an 'outsider ideologue' who espoused all the core positions Trump did in 2024, while promoting that 'I am an absolute ideologue on these issues of immigration, voting, etc and thus you do not have to worry about me ever changing', would not have been acceptable to the maga coalition?

What in being an "ideologue" do you think would have turned off that maga coalition? Do you think they prefer someone 'open to new information and change in their views?'

 

[cawacko]

i am not sure why you define "outsider ideologue" as unelectable while pushing the idea that "outsider with no ideology who was a Democrat who switched to Republican as he saw "poorly educated" voters as his target" as some type of electable ideal???

Both Tucker and Trump built up a brand over decades. BOTH have swayed very far from their early career political leanings and positions following whatever trend they think will make them popular. BOTH have NATIONAL BRANDS as people from coast to coast are aware of them and support them in huge numbers.

Give me a bullet point list of what you think defines Carlson as an ideologue that does not currently align with what Trump ran on, and also represented to believe, in 2024 just so i can see what your basis for the separation you perceive is??

Trump had a national brand beyond politics and far beyond anything Carlson has done. Carlson has a national brand within those who follow politics closely, and specifically basically Fox News viewers. That's not the same thing.

And this is all academic since Carlson isn't going to run and he's so far off the deep end that if he did it wouldn't go anywhere today, but even at his peak on Fox News it takes more than being an ideologue on Fox News to hold together a national coalition.

 

[QP!]

Trump had a national brand beyond politics

So?

and far beyond anything Carlson has done.

And? Are you saying "Trump established the threshold for how "Far a brand must reach and anything less is not enough".

You seem to be arguing 'whatever Trump did sets the bar and standard'. Defend that if you believe it or make clear you are not saying that and thus there is no reason to push an idea that because Tucker brand is 'national brand is below Trumps... then that means it is not sufficient'

Carlson has a national brand within those who follow politics closely, and specifically basically Fox News viewers. That's not the same thing.

It is not the same thing. It is arguably BETTER as Trump had to work hard to align the Fox News and its followers to him which he knew was KEY in his first run. Trump knew he needed to silence all or most dissent in Fox and capture that audience, something arguably Tucker would never have had to over come.

And this is all academic since Carlson isn't going to run and he's so far off the deep end that if he did it wouldn't go anywhere today, but even at his peak on Fox News it takes more than being an ideologue on Fox News to hold together a national coalition.

I am not debating with you whether Tucker will run or not, but rather the view point you pushed that he could not run, for the reasons you presented which to me seem inaccurate and absolutely flawed in their analysis and defensibility.

Even in this post i am replying to now, you seem to be pushing 'reasons' as if not debateable when they clearly do not hold up under the slightest stress test such as 'having a National brand based on being a Democrat supporter, philanderer, Billionaire who switched to run GOP as he saw the voters as dumb and co-optable', is the more natural fit than 'building a National brand as being the most trusted face and voice for Fox News'... and you take that and spin it as 'Trump having the clear path to run and win over what would become maga', while saying 'Tucker's path does not exist via that venue'.

It makes me wonder if your entire post is really an exclamation of 'Trump no longer likes Tucker so i must rationalize that Tucker was never true maga, could never have run, etc'?? something we see with many magats here the minute Trump excommunicates and decries a former top perceived magat.

 

[cawacko]

Also i would like you to separately address why you think an 'outsider ideologue' who espoused all the core positions Trump did in 2024, while promoting that 'I am an absolute ideologue on these issues of immigration, voting, etc and thus you do not have to worry about me ever changing', would not have been acceptable to the maga coalition?

What in being an "ideologue" do you think would have turned off that maga coalition? Do you think they prefer someone 'open to new information and change in their views?'

I'll repharse this for you. Trump had a national brand for decades built on many things. Tucker Carlson's brand is built on politics, specifically as an appealing to Fox News viewers and a portion of the right-wing base.

Carlson having (in the past) a strong appeal with a select part of the #MAGA base does not mean he's the 'perfect' candidate to carry the whole coalition.

He couldn't have done it.

 

[cawacko]

So?


And? Are you saying "Trump established the threshold for how "Far a brand must reach and anything less is not enough".

You seem to be arguing 'whatever Trump did sets the bar and standard'. Defend that if you believe it or make clear you are not saying that and thus there is no reason to push an idea that because Tucker brand is 'national brand is below Trumps... then that means it is not sufficient'


It is not the same thing. It is arguably BETTER as Trump had to work hard to align the Fox News and its followers to him which he knew was KEY in his first run. Trump knew he needed to silence all or most dissent in Fox and capture that audience, something arguably Tucker would never have had to over come.



I am not debating with you whether Tucker will run or not, but rather the view point you pushed that he could not run, for the reasons you presented which to me seem inaccurate and absolutely flawed in their analysis and defensibility.

Even in this post i am replying to now, you seem to be pushing 'reasons' as if not debateable when they clearly do not hold up under the slightest stress test such as 'having a National brand based on being a Democrat supporter, philanderer, Billionaire who switched to run GOP as he saw the voters as dumb and co-optable', is the more natural fit than 'building a National brand as being the most trusted face and voice for Fox News'... and you take that and spin it as 'Trump having the clear path to run and win over what would become maga', while saying 'Tucker's path does not exist via that venue'.

It makes me wonder if your entire post is really an exclamation of 'Trump no longer likes Tucker so i must rationalize that Tucker was never true maga, could never have run, etc'?? something we see with many magats here the minute Trump excommunicates and decries a former top perceived magat.

You're responding to arguments I didn't make and then trying to speculate on motives.

At the end of the day if you believe Tucker can, or could have, been the next leader for the #MAGA movement you are free to do so. I don't.

 

[QP!]

I'll repharse this for you. Trump had a national brand for decades built on many things. Tucker Carlson's brand is built on politics, specifically as an appealing to Fox News viewers and a portion of the right-wing base.

Carlson having (in the past) a strong appeal with a select part of the #MAGA base does not mean he's the 'perfect' candidate to carry the whole coalition.

He couldn't have done it.

ok so continue your thought.

If "Carlson having a brand based in the strong appeal with a select (near ALL) of the Maga base does not mean he's the perfect candidate"...

then follow that by making the case that ...

'Trump having a National brand as New York Billionaire, Democrat, philanderer, atheist with no natural appeal to the maga base' made him the 'perfect candidate', in your view and why you now measure anyone else against that Trump bar as if they need to tick the same boxes to have run?

On its face, prior to 2016 when no one was taking Trumps run seriously and it was widely mocked, it seems your view would have been in the vast minority but what you have seemingly done now, is what most magats do, which is not only rationalize and ignore all Trumps flaws and deficiencies... but worse you have convinced yourself they are strengths and virtues, others need to match up to or they could not run.

 

[QP!]

You're responding to arguments I didn't make and then trying to speculate on motives.

At the end of the day if you believe Tucker can, or could have, been the next leader for the #MAGA movement you are free to do so. I don't.

^^ That is an obvious lie and cop out, which anyone who reads that post can see. A clear attempt to now duck out from your failed arguments.

I broke your post up deliberately to ensure each response DIRECTLY correlated with the position you were stating as i perceived it while calling for you to clarify if you felt it did not.

You cannot quote a single thing i said in that post that i cannot quote what it was in reply to based on the position you were forwarding.

 

[Ross Dolan]

It is time to build a serious third rail and stop rewarding “lesser evil” politics.

The people still blindly riding the MAGA train after all of this are not thinking clearly. They are protecting a broken machine because they are terrified of letting go of it.

Yes, breaking from that system may let Democrats win in the short term. So be it. The current political order is already headed for a crash, and frankly, Democrats deserve to be the ones holding the bag when it happens. They helped create most of the incentives, institutions, spending habits, and cultural rot that got us here.

The answer is not more loyalty to a party that keeps betraying its voters. The answer is building something outside the two-party hostage situation.

Your contempt for the American left is noted, Zymurgy, and you certainly are entitled to that opinion.

Allow me, however, to present a question I never get answered from those who suppose the position of the American right is better.

FIRST THE PREDICATE FOR THE QUESTION: The top 1% of families in America own one-third of the total wealth of our country. The top 10% of families own two-thirds of all the wealth of America. The bottom 50% of families own between 2 and 2 1/2% of the total wealth. The disparity has increased every year from the 1950's on. I, personally, suppose the disparity already to be unhealthy to the point of almost certain destruction of our freedom.

NOW, THE QUESTION: How much higher must the disparity get before you see it that way and are willing to do what has to be done in order to rein it in?*** Would the top 10% have to own 75% of the total wealth before you see it as a danger? 80%? 90%? 99%?

***Almost certainly the needed changes would be governmentally generated restrictions that are more in line with the legislative thinking of the left rather than with that of the right.

 

[cawacko]

^^ That is an obvious lie and cop out, which anyone who reads that post can see. A clear attempt to now duck out from your failed arguments.

I broke your post up deliberately to ensure each response DIRECTLY correlated with the position you were stating as i perceived it while calling for you to clarify if you felt it did not.

You cannot quote a single thing i said in that post that i cannot quote what it was in reply to based on the position you were forwarding.

Failed arguments? The day Tucker takes over the #MAGA coalition I will start a new thread calling myself out and giving you your flowers.

 

[QP!]

It is time to build a serious third rail and stop rewarding “lesser evil” politics.

The people still blindly riding the MAGA train after all of this are not thinking clearly. They are protecting a broken machine because they are terrified of letting go of it.

Yes, breaking from that system may let Democrats win in the short term. So be it. The current political order is already headed for a crash, and frankly, Democrats deserve to be the ones holding the bag when it happens. They helped create most of the incentives, institutions, spending habits, and cultural rot that got us here.

The answer is not more loyalty to a party that keeps betraying its voters. The answer is building something outside the two-party hostage situation.

Your contempt for the American left is noted, Zymurgy, and you certainly are entitled to that opinion.

Allow me, however, to present a question I never get answered from those who suppose the position of the American right is better.

FIRST THE PREDICATE FOR THE QUESTION: The top 1% of families in America own one-third of the total wealth of our country. The top 10% of families own two-thirds of all the wealth of America. The bottom 50% of families own between 2 and 2 1/2% of the total wealth. The disparity has increased every year from the 1950's on. I, personally, suppose the disparity already to be unhealthy to the point of almost certain destruction of our freedom.

NOW, THE QUESTION: How much higher must the disparity get before you see it that way and are willing to do what has to be done in order to rein it in?*** Would the top 10% have to own 75% of the total wealth before you see it as a danger? 80%? 90%? 99%?

***Almost certainly the needed changes would be governmentally generated restrictions that are more in line with the legislative thinking of the left rather than with that of the right.

For the record i am going to affirm zymurgy position above but refuse the label as "contempt for the left" as it is "Contempt for what the Dem party had become" which was a centrist corporatist party, speaking to the left while serving the wealthy and corporate donors.

Yes they were still to the 'left' of the republicans but that does not mean they were 'progressive' or 'populist' in their actual positions outside a few scant movements (ACA).

What we saw for decades was 'Dem politicians decry the right' and with examples of decrying tax cuts put in when republicans took power BUT NEVER even trying to reverse them once in. They allowed almost every change to stand empowering corporations, empowering the power of oligarchs, etc, etc with a strong scolding but no action.

Trump recognized it and Bannon recognized it prior. The most dangerous political position in America (and is still) is a person and party who would unite Trumps populist right with Bernies populist left, with themes of 'America First... investments directed at the people... taking power from the rich and corporations... disrupting the status quo, with a true focus of addressing the pains of the middle and lower class'.

If a politician and party ran on that and MEANT IT, and implemented it, they would have the biggest support base for election for decades to come. A new era of reconstruction.

I thought for a moment when Trump ran on EXACTLY that messaging and won, even though it was all based on lies, that the Dems would see it and embrace it and shift that way. Instead we instantly saw, what we always see which is the corporate Dems (Pelosi wing) supported by corporate media, all repeating the same message and that is 'for Dems to win they MUST NOT move to the left and towards the populist progressive base', they call THAT the mistake of the past. While laughably acknowledging in their next breath that is exactly how Trump won, by shifting his perception that he was a populist leftist along the lines of Bernie.

 

[QP!]

Failed arguments? The day Tucker takes over the #MAGA coalition I will start a new thread calling myself out and giving you your flowers.

Yes. even this post you make here is a failed argument. A strawman.

As the argument is not one of which of us can speak to the future with certainty as to a Tucker win. The argument is over your positions as to 'why Tucker had no chance and why Trump was seemingly ideal, to capture and lead the maga coalition that formed in 2016'.

I gave my reasons why i think Tucker was much more of a natural to lead that maga base that formed and you pushed that it was Trump, despite being antithetical to almost every core belief and moral and not seen as a serious player in those early days... was in fact the ideal that others will be compared to and if they do not match his qualities, shows they could not run'.

i do not think that in any way misrepresents what you said as you certainly seemed to suggest, with no specificity that Trump had all the core qualifications to appeal and unite that base and Tucker did not, despite acknowledging Tucker was already super popular with that base.

 

[Ross Dolan]

For the record i am going to affirm zymurgy position above but refuse the label as "contempt for the left" as it is "Contempt for what the Dem party had become" which was a centrist corporatist party, speaking to the left while serving the wealthy and corporate donors.

Yes they were still to the 'left' of the republicans but that does not mean they were 'progressive' or 'populist' in their actual positions outside a few scant movements (ACA).

What we saw for decades was 'Dem politicians decry the right' and with examples of decrying tax cuts put in when republicans took power BUT NEVER even trying to reverse them once in. They allowed almost every change to stand empowering corporations, empowering the power of oligarchs, etc, etc with a strong scolding but no action.

Trump recognized it and Bannon recognized it prior. The most dangerous political position in America (and is still) is a person and party who would unite Trumps populist right with Bernies populist left, with themes of 'America First... investments directed at the people... taking power from the rich and corporations... disrupting the status quo, with a true focus of addressing the pains of the middle and lower class'.

If a politician and party ran on that and MEANT IT, and implemented it, they would have the biggest support base for election for decades to come. A new era of reconstruction.

I thought for a moment when Trump ran on EXACTLY that messaging and won, even though it was all based on lies, that the Dems would see it and embrace it and shift that way. Instead we instantly saw, what we always see which is the corporate Dems (Pelosi wing) supported by corporate media, all repeating the same message and that is 'for Dems to win they MUST NOT move to the left and towards the populist progressive base', they call THAT the mistake of the past. While laughably acknowledging in their next breath that is exactly how Trump won, by shifting his perception that he was a populist leftist along the lines of Bernie.

I understand your position and arguments, QP, and agree with some of them. Perhaps I have unfairly incorporated other posts of Zmurgy and others on the right into my thoughts there. In any case, SOMETHING has to be done about the wealth disparity...and my opinion is that "what must be done" will come primarily from those on the left. I am far to the left on social issues...and (perhaps for the reason where we are in agreement) left the Democratic Party decades ago. I am an Independent who "caucuses" with the Dems on most things.

 

[QP!]

Your contempt for the American left is noted, Zymurgy, and you certainly are entitled to that opinion.
...

For the record i am going to affirm zymurgy position above but refuse the label as "contempt for the left" as it is "Contempt for what the Dem party had become" which was a centrist corporatist party, speaking to the left while serving the wealthy and corporate donors.
...

Additional to my post and for illustrative purposes here is how i see where the Dem party sits in relation to Canadian politics where i feel there has been (but shrinking) a real divide between center left and right.


From left to right by party... with the actual CENTER (..!..) falling between Liberal and Conservative party of Canada.

New Democrat ........... Liberal Party..!..Conservative Party............ Democrat party (US)...Republican party .................The American Freedom party.

The distance i am putting between each matters as it shows how little or much difference i see between the parties and how they may over lap in many areas.