- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: JD Vance asked about Tucker Carlson: Dana Loesch Commentary
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:22 am to IvoryBillMatt
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:22 am to IvoryBillMatt
when you have time? You mean from spending all day trying to find articles that you feel are a gotcha to Trump and his followers?
1
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:28 am to Pedropatterstine
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:38 am to cornerstore
quote:
Tucker done lost his flipping mind
A bunch of us said this in 2023-2024 and we were down-voted to oblivion. People on here really believed his story about demons scratching him in his sleep even though he sleeps with his dogs.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:48 am to DeBoar
None of these tucktard clowns will watch the video.
JD Vance outright says Tucker supports El-Sayad.
Twisting into pretzels does not change this, just because Tucker went on to say Rodgers sucks.
They both clearly say El-Sayad is "American First" I mean.... there is no other conclusion as Vance said.
They back Tucker no matter what-because he despises Trump. NOT because they are libertarian bernbots. They could care less about Tucker.
Who do they think they are fooling?
JD Vance outright says Tucker supports El-Sayad.
Twisting into pretzels does not change this, just because Tucker went on to say Rodgers sucks.
They both clearly say El-Sayad is "American First" I mean.... there is no other conclusion as Vance said.
They back Tucker no matter what-because he despises Trump. NOT because they are libertarian bernbots. They could care less about Tucker.
Who do they think they are fooling?
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 9:50 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:50 am to cajunangelle
Didn’t watch the clip. Dana Loesch sucks. She is right there with Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:51 am to cajunangelle
Thanks for posting. I.had never listened to her before. Answering your actual question....
Vance should have hit back harder on impeachment: "I observe President Trump on a daily basis. The idea that he should be removed from office is ludicrous. Tucker would know that if he didn't listen to cheap leftist gossip."
Other than that, I thought Vance's answers were perfect...then again, I favor fact-based honest discussions rather than personal attacks based on distortions.
Does Loesch think that Vance and Carlson are working together to hijack the conservative movement?
Vance should have hit back harder on impeachment: "I observe President Trump on a daily basis. The idea that he should be removed from office is ludicrous. Tucker would know that if he didn't listen to cheap leftist gossip."
Other than that, I thought Vance's answers were perfect...then again, I favor fact-based honest discussions rather than personal attacks based on distortions.
Does Loesch think that Vance and Carlson are working together to hijack the conservative movement?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:02 am to IvoryBillMatt
I posted that video. I thought you saw it.
Yes, she is questioning this idea.
The thing is, if it happens it will be as sudden as it was with Pence. Logically this would satisfy the gop and dnc establishment.
Let's imagine it happens. Who do you think Vance chooses as VP? Tucker?
Yes, she is questioning this idea.
The thing is, if it happens it will be as sudden as it was with Pence. Logically this would satisfy the gop and dnc establishment.
Let's imagine it happens. Who do you think Vance chooses as VP? Tucker?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:27 am to cajunangelle
quote:
posted that video. I thought you saw it.
Thanks, I hadn't seen it. Will watch when I can.
Like many, I have some suspicions that Vance might be a Thiel plant to execute some hidden agenda. On the whole, I remain hopeful that he is as he presents.
Gun to my head, I think the backlash against Vance is that he isn't sufficiently Neocon. Seems like the beginning of a war of surrogates:
Neocons for Rubio
Isolationists for Vance
By nature, I am an Isolationist, but I am willing to listen. Rubio is a MUCH better spokesman for interventionist foreign policy than I thought he would be.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:33 am to cajunangelle
Why do women continually puff up their lips. 
She was much more attractive before.
She was much more attractive before.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 10:38 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:46 am to cajunangelle
quote:people back tucker because he's a populist/nationalist, not a socialist of libertarian
They back Tucker no matter what-because he despises Trump. NOT because they are libertarian bernbots. They could care less about Tucker.
are you tired of being wrong about everything you post?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:47 am to GreatLakesTiger24
King groyper ^
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:50 am to DeBoar
everyone is a frick your feelings anti-woke right-winger until an actual right-winger shows up (that's me)
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:52 am to roadGator
quote:
There was a thread yesterday about Tucker and some interview he did.
A series of tweets with absolute lies in the titles and body of the tweet
And because of the hate for Tucker here, confirmation bias took control and the lie was repeated and made their truth even in the face of Grok correcting their lies.
Everything Tucker said in the interview supported the muslim over Rogers.
You can keep your head in the sand all you want because he didn't explicitly say, "I endorse the muslim," but it was a tacit endorsement.
When you say you wouldn't vote for Rogers with a gun to your head while simultaneously praising the policies of his opponent, everyone with common sense and without bias sees that as Tucker favoring the muslim.
Your view isn't surprising considering how the fake Christian Tucker has convinced you all that Islam isn't a threat.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 11:08 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Everything Tucker said in the interview supported the muslim over Rogers.
You can keep your head in the sand all you want because he didn't explicitly say, "I endorse the muslim," but it was a tacit endorsement.
When you say you wouldn't vote for Rogers with a gun to your head while simultaneously praising the policies of his opponent, everyone with common sense and without bias sees that as Tucker favoring the muslim.
Your view isn't surprising considering how the fake Christian Tucker has convinced you all that Islam isn't a threat.
Also, most importantly Tucker and his guest declared El-Sayad as an AMERICA FIRST candidate.
It is insane for the few idiots in this thread that hate Trump so much they white knight Tuckers intent.
JD Vance even said Tucker SUPPORTS El-Sayad.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 11:24 am to IvoryBillMatt
I forgot to add. I am not saying the theory is the case about Vance canoodling with Tucker to this point.
But when Tucker throws out that Trump should be removed more than once, plus remembering Pence.
It isnt far fetched to wonder.
But when Tucker throws out that Trump should be removed more than once, plus remembering Pence.
It isnt far fetched to wonder.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 11:29 am to GreatLakesTiger24
You will probably write in Nicholas Fuentes, so you may hate Trump and Jews more than the regular tucktards
Posted on 9/4/26 at 11:32 am to cajunangelle
Excellent retort
All you have is “you’re a bigot” like a lefty. Genuinely pathetic
All you have is “you’re a bigot” like a lefty. Genuinely pathetic
Posted on 9/4/26 at 11:49 am to cajunangelle
quote:
Also, most importantly Tucker and his guest declared El-Sayad as an AMERICA FIRST candidate.
It is insane for the few idiots in this thread that hate Trump so much they white knight Tuckers intent
El-Sayed is closer to America First than Rogers. He opposes blank checks to foreign militaries---Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc.---while American infrastructure crumbles. It doesn't mean that El-Sayed isn't crazy about other things, but this is a clear cut advantage over Neocon Warhawk Rogers.
As for Tucker's intent, he made it clear that he can't support the Republican party because---in his opinion---the Republican party stands for the interests of a foreign country over our own country. He made it equally clear that he doesn't support Democrats.
This is a consistent position whether that foreign country is Israel, Mexico, Turkey, etc.
I STILL haven't seen Tucker say something that was negative towards Jews. Likewise, I don't know of ANY liberal positions that Tucker has ever taken.
For religious reasons, I HAVE to support Republicans, but Tucker's position is rational, consistent and straightforward.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 11:51 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 11:56 am to cajunangelle
Vance did. Philip Klein in National Review:
quote:
In addition to his direct refusal to condemn Carlson, these are the Vance comments that drew the most scrutiny:
What I say to the people, like the root of antisemitism, the core of antisemitism to me, is the idea of blood libel. The idea that because of your genetics, because of your blood, because of your ancestry, you are guilty of a crime that you never committed. And I think that blood libel, which is at the root of antisemitism, is the exact opposite of the Christian gospel. And because of that, I believe the gospel is actually the solution to this.
Vance completely distorted what “blood libel” actually means. In reality, what it refers to is the idea that Jews regularly kill Christians as part of secret rituals, the most notorious example being the idea that the blood of Christian babies is used for the making of Passover matzot. The modern equivalents of blood libels are the litany of claims of supposed Jewish misdeeds, particularly the hoaxes about Israel committing genocide and inducing mass starvation in Gaza.
“Blood guilt” is the idea that all Jews are genetically responsible for the crimes of a single Jew, or for crimes that other Jews committed in the past. The idea of blood guilt was most relevant to historical forms of antisemitism — such as hating all Jews because “Jews killed Jesus.” The “blood guilt” line is one that Carlson himself has used to brush aside accusations that he has engaged in antisemitism.
So, whether intentionally or out of ignorance, Vance defined antisemitism in a way that conveniently absolves his friend Carlson. No, Carlson isn’t saying that every Jew today is guilty of killing Jesus. But what he is doing is going on air every day and spreading lies and conspiracies accusing Jews, and Israel, of bloody misdeeds and weaving it into a sinister conspiracy of global control.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 12:02 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
Watch the clip and tell me what you think about Vances answers...
Seems to me like he's refusing to crawl into the shite bin and fling it around along with everyone else. That's exactly what I got from it.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News