Tucker Carlson out at Fox News

Of course there's some election fraud, in every election.
There's no man made way to make fraud go to 0%.

If man thinks up a plan, man also finds a way to get around said plan.

But there's not enough fraud to change election outcomes.
And when fraud is discovered, it gets dealt with.

But in NO WAY, SHAPE, or FORM, was the 2020 election stolen from anyone.

 

You can say it til you're blue in the face, but the statistical 'irregularities' (some would say implausibilities) and general untrustworthiness of the govt leads many to 'know' that you are wrong. Simply saying they don't have proof doesn't reasonably allow for the presumption that they are being disingenuous and 'trying to overthrow the govt.' They are trying to protect the govt from what they see as a coup every bit as much as you are. The govt tossing them in prison indefinitely for trespassing, and then not doing the same thing for others who trespass at other protests, isn't helping repair the damaged perceptions at all...

 

Dude, just stop.
The company pushed the fake story that there were no free and fair elections in the US so hard that the majority of the losers still are believing it today. And they knew it was fake all along. And subsequently they were made to pay almost 800 million bucks to a company they damaged. An other company is going to use the exact same evidence to get 2.5 billion bucks. WTF is wrong with you by looking at it as if this is some kind of spare change. They made so many people believe this fake news that some basically committed terrorism at jan 6.

And this is absolutely nothing compared to what happened in CNN / MSNBC. I mean.... it's not as if that lead to massive lawsuits at all, big uproars within society etc etc.

 

Please .. Shut Up - quit saying stupid things to me .. Who told you I said that rights within the US constitution were Unlimited .. cause it wasn't me ?

Answer the question ...instead of ignoring what was posted to you and attributing made up fantasy to others.

 

You are aware that each state runs their own elections.
It's not a federal election.
Each state has R and D and maybe I people running each of their own elections.

So, your gov't claim is pretty much nonsense in terms of the 2020 election.
trumps hand picked AG Barr admitted there was not enough evidence of fraud to have an impact on the election.
Rather than staying and listening to trumps lying, he quit.

It appears you are basing your baseless claims on emotions and not logic.

 

The only difference between stategov and fedgov is stategov is accountable to a smaller electorate. That does tend to reduce corruption and lack of accountability, but not by as much as we 'states rights'ers tend to think. Unfortunately, many of our state legislators consider their 'service' to state government as merely a rung on the ladder to the big leagues of 'serving' at the federal level where there is more power, more opportunity for personal enrichment, and more bureaucracy within which to dilute accountability and obfuscate corruption. Reducing federal power would reduce this allure... But as it is now, they tend go along to get along with whatever they think will make them more friends in fedgov, where they hope to eventually end up. Not everyone, obviously, but far too many. Just because states 'run' their own elections doesn't mean the people running state elections don't have a bias -or the means to apply it- in cooperation with their federal counterparts (and in cooperation with other states to affect federal outcomes). My 'claims' (beliefs, really) are based on the reality of power and corruption, as opposed to blind faith in a system that largely is able to regulate (or not) itself.

 

you are free to put up all your concerns about fraud in each State so it can be reviewed.

 

Not agreeing with you at all. Just laying out the logical reason why he was fired, not some internet conspiracy theory you are putting through though.

 

In other words you do subscribe to conspiracy theories, because rour position.eality and facts do not support even remotely your position.

 

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

Wait....you're saying that FOX can't tell Carlson what to say? Yeah, they can.

Where is this coming from........left field?

That's what Tucker cost them by talking

It will

For him leaving? Maybe a shred of credibility

Which, sadly, is the largest cable news audience

Wait, it's their company.

You think he had a right to his own agenda and not the company's? Odd

All made up non-issues that mean nothing but knock yourself out if that's what you like.

 

Yeah, I do. Deservedly so.

 

I subscribe to conspiracy theories far more often than I subscribe to coincidence theories, thats for sure. Outside of provable facts, everything else is one or the other.

How often do you buy a lotto ticket?

...also, did you just say my position doesnt support my position? Perhaps you could explain that a bit better?

 

Free =/= able. I don't suppose you know how much time and money that involves... would you be able to do that?

 

How about your best one that proves the election was stolen?

 

There is no proof.

I presume you've seen the videos posted ad nauseum even to this website of people running the same ballots through the machines over and over from boxes that arent stored or transported according to regulations after ballot counting hours close and the election watchers have left (sometimes been kicked out) of the counting office for reasons that turn out to be manufactured (citation- the 'water main' breakage that never happened), but since there isn't a comprehensive list of how often these sorts of 'irregularities' occurred, nor do we have any method of determining how often it happened that wasn't recorded and uploaded to the internet, its neither proof nor evidence of anything other than our election integrity is severely compromised and any election COULD be stolen using such means...

But the results are statistically implausible. Not impossible, but implausible. I mean, over a long enough (infinite) timeline, even things that are implausible are also innevitable. However, we havn't had an infinite number of elections. Statistically, we've had very few relative to the enormous unliklihood that one could result like 2020 did. Here's one example.

"If we are to accept that Biden won against the trend of all these non-polling metrics, it not only means that one of these metrics was inaccurate this time for the first time ever. It means that each one of these metrics was wrong for the first time, and at the same time as all the others. It is not statistically impossible, but it is statistically implausible"
Pollster says Biden election victory is not 'statistically impossible' but 'statistically implausible' | Washington Examiner

But since you asked for proof (for, like, the umpteenth time, because you and I have had this same discussion more than twice already...), what would YOU consider 'proof' the election was stolen? (The govt and the corporate news telling you so doesn't count.)

 

It looks like TV news fans won't have Tucker Carlson to kick around anymore.

 

Tucker is on Twitter now, using live feed for his shows. Thus, he can still "be kicked around" since that is pretty much made public whether one subscribes to Twitter or not.

 

Hope it is OK: Numbered to respond below with my point clarifications of what you are responding to in brackets:

1) Yes. I am agreeing with you on the idea that a private company can fire someone. I ask for your agreement that IF a government entity were to coordinate or coerce a private company into firing someone regarding their lawful speech, that would constitute a first Amendment violation. IF. And no, Tucker made them a ton of money. They tanked on that recent lawsuit that was very winnable for other reasons.
2) Yeah, RINOs have tons of credibility.
3) Not a right. Hypothetical: you have a Burger King employee that is bringing literally millions of new customers to you through his advertising. But he begins every sales pitch with the statement, "you really should go to Wendy's instead." Burger King would have every right to fire such an employee. But you have to read between the lines. In light of the $ he brings in, why would you? And that is the real story.
4) This is pure head in the sand thinking. Example? Hey, did you hear the Left wants a Covid Amnesty?

 

That is one huge IF and pure fantasy but the answer would be YES.

Hmmmmm.......................probably not.

A liar has none

An absolutely terrible hypothetical but beside that the REAL story is money." The answer to all your questions is money." Oh, the answer is yes I would

Like I said.....you do you.

 

Funny and lot of truth bombs.

 

Do you think that pharmaceutical companies might object to being defamed, like Dominion did?

But why would FOX worry about that?

Thanks for the link <sarcasm>. Never mind, I saw the quotes, Izzy posted, from it. The speech seems like a real snoozer, and doesn't look to live up to your billing, as explaining why Tucker was fired-- at least not any better than than is spelled out, by the obvious facts.

The line of @Nemesis 's, prompting your question-- particularly the part about the financial liability that Tucker had become for FOX-- is something most people understand, just because it is so plainly apparent, therefore no "official anonymous source" is necessary. Nemesis had apparently just been supplying this common sense fact, for those who'd seemed they could benefit from the assist.

While there could well be a pile of contributory straws, behind this breaking of FOX's backing, I think it is safe to surmise that the idea that he would be dragging them into more of the expensive suits, like they'd just had to settle with Dominion, was by far the heaviest one. The current reporting is that what had given FOX the additional push, to settle the Dominion case, had been that on the eve of the trial, the top Network brass, just wanting to get a sense of what they were in for, took a look at Tucker's redacted emails, made public by Dominion, for the first time, without any redactions. Apparently, no one had imagined that they could've been that much worse!

On top of what that cost them now, to keep those redactions out of the news, and what they might mean with regard to the current suit by former producer Abby Grossberg, over Tucker creating a hostile work environment--

<Google Snip>
A former producer is suing Fox News after accusing Mr. Carlson of overseeing a hostile and discriminatory work environment. And the Murdochs have reportedly grown tired of trying to corral a controversial host who proudly says he can't be controlled.3 days ago
https://www.nytimes.com › dealbook
The Calculus Behind Firing Tucker Carlson - The New York Times
<End Snip>

-- as well as how "Tucker content" might put them in a worse position, in the upcoming SmartMatic suit, apparently Tucker had just begun talking about some new conspiracy theory, that FOX execs may have feared could lead to some future suit. Top that off with Tucker's refusal to cow-tow to any prohibitions laid down by his employer, because he felt he was worth too much to them, to be fired, and the rest, like I said, is common sense.

 

I am not interested in doctored videos or taken out of context videos.

They've all been debunked.

Since there's no proof, as you and I both claim. And Barr quit rather than lie about a stolen election.

It would be wise to no promote THE BIG LIE anymore.

 

You know, Carlson and others in those roles are not news people?
They are propagandists, catering to a specific audience.
They aren't in the business of giving facts and letting listeners/readers decide.
They are in the business of telling their target audience exactly what they want to hear.

 

I notice you didn't answer the question.