Tucker Carlson breaks kayfabe in interview with Swiss Paper, bashes Trump

[Fro]

https://www.weltwoche.ch/ausgaben/2...ot-capable-die-weltwoche-ausgabe-49-2018.html

I don't agree all with it, but a good read to see him dropping the Faux News character and speak honestly sounding more like the bowtie wearing guy on CNN he used to play:

In your book you speak a lot about people who attack Trump, but you actually don't say very much about Trump's record.

That's true.

Do you think he has kept his promises? Has he achieved his goals?

No.

He hasn't?

No. His chief promises were that he would build the wall, de-fund planned parenthood, and repeal Obamacare, and he hasn't done any of those things. There are a lot of reasons for that, but since I finished writing the book, I've come to believe that Trump's role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the Congress and then does. I don't think he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the system. I don't think the Congress is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that.

I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration before Trump arrived in Washington. People were bothered about it in different places in the country. It's a huge country, but that was not a staple of political debate at all. Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" “Why should we sign a trade agreement and let the other side cheat?” Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions that no one could answer.

Apart from asking these very important questions has he really achieved nothing?

Not much. Not much. Much less than he should have. I've come to believe he's not capable of it.

Why should he be not capable?

Because the legislative process in this country by design is highly complex, and it's designed to be complex as a way of diffusing power, of course, because the people who framed our Constitution, founded our country, were worried about concentrations of power. They balanced it among the three branches as you know and they made it very hard to make legislation. In order to do it you really have to understand how it works and you have to be very focused on getting it done, and he knows very little about the legislative process, hasn't learned anything, hasn't and surrounded himself with people that can get it done, hasn't done all the things you need to do so. It's mostly his fault that he hasn't achieved those things. I'm not in charge of Trump.

A bunch more and some good points made on people not being able to handle rapid change and lashing out.

 

[VanPastorMan]

https://www.weltwoche.ch/ausgaben/2...ot-capable-die-weltwoche-ausgabe-49-2018.html

I don't agree all with it, but a good read to see him dropping the Faux News character and speak honestly sounding more like the bowtie wearing guy on CNN he used to play:



A bunch more and some good points made on people not being able to handle rapid change and lashing out.

Rapid change is usually not good change when it comes to life. Politically It's why the founders made it so hard to pass bills to become laws. You really have to go through the ringer to make a law. That's a good thing. Sometimes the best news coming out of Washing is, "gridlock". It means they have to work through the issues. Usually this works pretty well and we are all better for it.

 

[sglowrider]

Rapid change is usually not good change when it comes to life. Politically It's why the founders made it so hard to pass bills to become laws. You really have to go through the ringer to make a law. That's a good thing. Sometimes the best news coming out of Washing is, "gridlock". It means they have to work through the issues. Usually this works pretty well and we are all better for it.

Isn't your man, Trump suppose to represent 'drastic change'? Or is that very different to 'rapid' change?

 

[VanPastorMan]

Isn't your man, Trump suppose to represent 'drastic change'? Or is that very different to 'rapid' change?

Trump wants America to go back to being the leader it once was. When America leads the world is a safer place. It's his view and it's mine. Who we gonna give the leadership of the world to? Russia? China? That would be bad for the world.

 

[Morrison]

Trump wants America to go back to being the leader it once was. When America leads the world is a safer place. It's his view and it's mine. Who we gonna give the leadership of the world to? Russia? China? That would be bad for the world.

Oh my. Trump has done more in two years to cede world leadership to Russia and China than most thought possible.

 

[UncleMark]

Oh my. Trump has done more in two years to cede world leadership to Russia and China than most thought possible.

Yeah, but Putin and Xi don't have the cool red hats, do they? Huh? Huh???

 

[Morrison]

Yeah, but Putin and Xi don't have the cool red hats, do they? Huh? Huh???

Yeah, but the slogan was probably coined in Russia, and the hats made in China.

 

[sglowrider]

Trump wants America to go back to being the leader it once was. When America leads the world is a safer place. It's his view and it's mine. Who we gonna give the leadership of the world to? Russia? China? That would be bad for the world.

I give you that -- you are consistent.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yeah, but the slogan was probably coined in Russia, and the hats made in China.

Winner.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Trump wants America to go back to being the leader it once was. When America leads the world is a safer place. It's his view and it's mine. Who we gonna give the leadership of the world to? Russia? China? That would be bad for the world.

If that’s what he wants why is he doing the opposite? America is the least repected it has been in years.

 

[twenty02]

https://www.weltwoche.ch/ausgaben/2...ot-capable-die-weltwoche-ausgabe-49-2018.html

I don't agree all with it, but a good read to see him dropping the Faux News character and speak honestly sounding more like the bowtie wearing guy on CNN he used to play:



A bunch more and some good points made on people not being able to handle rapid change and lashing out.

That was a very good interview. Lots of points I agree with him on.... Particularly that we are in the midst of some type of significant political shift that has yet to fully settle.

The Democratic Party is out of touch with the working class.

Well, that's the remarkable thing. For 100 years the Democratic Party represented wage earners, working people, normal people, middle class people, then somewhere around-- In precisely peg it to Clinton's second term in the tech boom in the Bay Area in Francisco and Silicon Valley, the Democratic Party reoriented and became the party of technology, of large corporations, and of the rich. You've really seen that change in the last 20 years where in the top 10 richest zip codes in the United States, 9 of them in the last election just went for Democrats. Out of the top 50, 42 went for Democrats. The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of average people is now the party of the rich.

Donald Trump, who is often seen as this world-changing figure is actually a symptom of something that precedes him that I sometimes wonder if he even understands which is this realignment. He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing them at all. Trump intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was this large group of voters who had no one representing them and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still ongoing.

In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class. The Republican Party which has never represented the middle class doesn't want to. That is the source of really all the confusion and the tension that you're seeing now. I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our voters and we're going to represent them whether we want it or not.

They have to, or they will lose.

They have to, or they will die. Yes.​

 

[mainway_toys]

That was a very good interview. Lots of points I agree with him on.... Particularly that we are in the midst of some type of significant political shift that has yet to fully settle.

The Democratic Party is out of touch with the working class.

Well, that's the remarkable thing. For 100 years the Democratic Party represented wage earners, working people, normal people, middle class people, then somewhere around-- In precisely peg it to Clinton's second term in the tech boom in the Bay Area in Francisco and Silicon Valley, the Democratic Party reoriented and became the party of technology, of large corporations, and of the rich. You've really seen that change in the last 20 years where in the top 10 richest zip codes in the United States, 9 of them in the last election just went for Democrats. Out of the top 50, 42 went for Democrats. The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of average people is now the party of the rich.

Donald Trump, who is often seen as this world-changing figure is actually a symptom of something that precedes him that I sometimes wonder if he even understands which is this realignment. He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing them at all. Trump intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was this large group of voters who had no one representing them and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still ongoing.

In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class. The Republican Party which has never represented the middle class doesn't want to. That is the source of really all the confusion and the tension that you're seeing now. I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our voters and we're going to represent them whether we want it or not.

They have to, or they will lose.

They have to, or they will die. Yes.​

There are 42,000 zip codes in the US. Trying to draw conclusions based on just 50 is ridiculous.

 

[IUCrazy2]

There are 42,000 zip codes in the US. Trying to draw conclusions based on just 50 is ridiculous.

Keep telling yourself that. You may not like Carlson but he is dead on with this observation.

And we draw conclusions based off of a small number of counties every 4 years. We call them "swing states" but in reality it is usually just a few counties in those states that tend to swing in the elections.

 

[NPT]

There are 42,000 zip codes in the US. Trying to draw conclusions based on just 50 is ridiculous.

This article appears to support what twenty02 said.

 

[twenty02]

There are 42,000 zip codes in the US. Trying to draw conclusions based on just 50 is ridiculous.

Not really. All voting data shows that Clinton/Trump evenly spilt the over $250k income bracket. We don't have data on what you might really call the "rich"...as there aren't enough of them in numbers to show up in election data....but we look at the top 50 zip codes....and you see where the top 0.1% live.

We all know that Clinton won college degreed individuals by about 9 points....but she won those with post-graduate education by like 23 points. Believe Trump got something like 44% of union households.... These are all huge shifts in patterns.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/samant...-list-americas-most-expensive-zip-codes-2017/

 

[Cortez88]

Not really. All voting data shows that Clinton/Trump evenly spilt the over $250k income bracket. We don't have data on what you might really call the "rich"...as there aren't enough of them in numbers to show up in election data....but we look at the top 50 zip codes....and you see where the top 0.1% live.

We all know that Clinton won college degreed individuals by about 9 points....but she won those with post-graduate education by like 23 points. Believe Trump got something like 44% of union households.... These are all huge shifts in patterns.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/samant...-list-americas-most-expensive-zip-codes-2017/

These working class whites are not voting based upon economic policy. The GOP has been blatantly antagonistic to unions. Look At Wisconsin. That state has been a Koch GOP experiment for destroying public unions. That GOP attack continues today in the pursuit of more RTW states and high profile court cases.

It is very hard to come to any conclusion about why these folks are voting Republican other than innate prejudices and xenophobia. I wish I didn’t think that way but once POTUS told people to just be you, we have seen a lot of ugliness. A lot of people would prefer to be openly ugly than economically prosperous. The Democrats cannot do anything about that other than our vote them.

 

[wiede]

These working class whites are not voting based upon economic policy. The GOP has been blatantly antagonistic to unions. Look At Wisconsin. That state has been a Koch GOP experiment for destroying public unions. That GOP attack continues today in the pursuit of more RTW states and high profile court cases.

It is very hard to come to any conclusion about why these folks are voting Republican other than innate prejudices and xenophobia. I wish I didn’t think that way but once POTUS told people to just be you, we have seen a lot of ugliness. A lot of people would prefer to be openly ugly than economically prosperous. The Democrats cannot do anything about that other than our vote them.

Several studies have been linked on here that back up your point. The popular talking point is that it’s economic dissatisfaction, and being “left behind”.

But it’s really about white privelage not being what it was, and fear of not being the dominant group in the country. That largely explains what the areas that are most afraid of immigrants are the ones with very little to no exposure to immigrants/minorities/different cultures.

I came from one of those areas- Southern Indiana. Lots of latent and some overt racism/xenophobia. Especially as you moved further and further out into the countryside. It’s easy to be that way when you’re around nothing but people like you.

But, those groups will never admit that’s what is going on. It’s too painful. And no one wants to admit that they’re racist, even a little bit.

 

[AtlasShruggd]

Several studies have been linked on here that back up your point. The popular talking point is that it’s economic dissatisfaction, and being “left behind”.

But it’s really about white privelage not being what it was, and fear of not being the dominant group in the country. That largely explains what the areas that are most afraid of immigrants are the ones with very little to no exposure to immigrants/minorities/different cultures.

I came from one of those areas- Southern Indiana. Lots of latent and some overt racism/xenophobia. Especially as you moved further and further out into the countryside. It’s easy to be that way when you’re around nothing but people like you.

But, those groups will never admit that’s what is going on. It’s too painful. And no one wants to admit that they’re racist, even a little bit.

My in-laws are (were) from Scottsburg. Every time we visited I was always taken aback by the overt racism. I'm from North and East of Ft. Wayne, not exactly the bastion of liberalism but comparatively I was beret wearing French Socialist,

 

[mainway_toys]

This article appears to support what twenty02 said.

Thanks, but an "article" by a right-wing think tank is about as valid a source for evidence as any random post from a forum like this. In fact, I'd put more stock in a forum post, because (I assume) nobody here is being paid to twist facts to a desired viewpoint.

My point was that a handful of zip codes on one end of the financial spectrum is too small and unrepresentative to be statistically meaningful as an indicator.Big cities have most of the wealthiest zip codes and the biggest cities are in blue states. So what? It doesn't meant that everyone, or even a majority in those zip code are wealthy (let alone Democrats), and it certainly isn't representative of how income is distributed by zip code across the country. For instance, I live in St. Joseph County, which has ten or so zip codes. I don't need statistics to say with absolute confidence that the reddest zip codes in the county (those in Granger) are massively wealthier than the bluest in South Bend. I would bet MOST metropolitan areas in this country break down the same way.

Yes. There are a lot of wealthy Democrats in this country, but that doesn't make the Democratic party the party of the rich. Maybe someday the roles will reverse, and Democratic policy will be based on greed, but not any time soon.

 

[twenty02]

Thanks, but an "article" by a right-wing think tank is about as valid a source for evidence as any random post from a forum like this. In fact, I'd put more stock in a forum post, because (I assume) nobody here is being paid to twist facts to a desired viewpoint.

My point was that a handful of zip codes on one end of the financial spectrum is too small and unrepresentative to be statistically meaningful as an indicator.Big cities have most of the wealthiest zip codes and the biggest cities are in blue states. So what? It doesn't meant that everyone, or even a majority in those zip code are wealthy (let alone Democrats), and it certainly isn't representative of how income is distributed by zip code across the country. For instance, I live in St. Joseph County, which has ten or so zip codes. I don't need statistics to say with absolute confidence that the reddest zip codes in the county (those in Granger) are massively wealthier than the bluest in South Bend. I would bet MOST metropolitan areas in this country break down the same way.

Yes. There are a lot of wealthy Democrats in this country, but that doesn't make the Democratic party the party of the rich. Maybe someday the roles will reverse, and Democratic policy will be based on greed, but not any time soon.

You have to look at comparable trends....I noted in another thread regarding Joe Donnelly....that the wealthiest county in Indiana (Hamilton) has been progressively getting more purple. Donnelly only lost the county by a handful of points....actually outperforming his numbers from 2012.....while he swung negative by something like 10 points statewide, as the deep red rural/small/medium town areas became even deeper red.

These are the same trends you see across the country, where upper middle-class and wealthy areas are becoming more blue comparatively to prior decades.

Tech industry....being the lifeblood of now a lot of higher income job growth is certainly part of it. As is the culture of urban/suburban life vs the blue collar dominated swaths of the nation.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Thanks, but an "article" by a right-wing think tank is about as valid a source for evidence as any random post from a forum like this. In fact, I'd put more stock in a forum post, because (I assume) nobody here is being paid to twist facts to a desired viewpoint.

My point was that a handful of zip codes on one end of the financial spectrum is too small and unrepresentative to be statistically meaningful as an indicator.Big cities have most of the wealthiest zip codes and the biggest cities are in blue states. So what? It doesn't meant that everyone, or even a majority in those zip code are wealthy (let alone Democrats), and it certainly isn't representative of how income is distributed by zip code across the country. For instance, I live in St. Joseph County, which has ten or so zip codes. I don't need statistics to say with absolute confidence that the reddest zip codes in the county (those in Granger) are massively wealthier than the bluest in South Bend. I would bet MOST metropolitan areas in this country break down the same way.

Yes. There are a lot of wealthy Democrats in this country, but that doesn't make the Democratic party the party of the rich. Maybe someday the roles will reverse, and Democratic policy will be based on greed, but not any time soon.

Barone is extremely smart on these issues and it doesn’t matter where his article is published.