this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
696 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18672 readers
2736 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A spokesperson for the Russian government clarified that it has rejected requests to interview Vladimir Putin from reputable media outlets

The Kremlin’s first public response to Tucker Carlson’s announcement that he’s landed an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin was to fact-check the former Fox News host.

On Wednesday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed that Carlson had indeed interviewed Putin, but took issue with Carlson’s claim that “not a single Western journalist has bothered” to interview Russia’s president throughout the nation’s war with Ukraine, which has raged for more than two years.

...

Putin’s refusal to sit down with most Western media outlets likely has less to do with accusations of bias so much as an unwillingness to be subjected to legitimate scrutiny of his government. Russia has been accused of committing atrocities and war crimes in its offensive against Ukraine, including the unlawful executions of civilians. Putin’s government is also infamous for its frequent detainment of political rivals and critics, as well as the cloud of mysterious deaths and poisonings of those in his orbit.

Whether Carlson will question Putin on any of these matters remains to be seen. The former Fox News host’s history of granting softball interviews to controversial influencers, political figures, and authoritarian leaders, indicates this is unlikely. Given everything we know about Putin’s propaganda machine, it’s clear that in Carlson, the Russian government sees a safe opportunity to broadcast its carefully crafted messaging to American viewers.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 113 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (42 children)

Republicans are very nearly all either (1) manipulative traitor cunts who amass power and money no mater the cost to others; (2) mentally defective degenerates, useful idiots.

load more comments (42 replies)
[–] [email protected] 97 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't think he's a useful idiot, he knows exactly what he's doing. 1980's Trump was a useful idiot, advocating for the end of the Western international order because it made him look and feel smart and powerful.

Tucker is participating in a quid pro quo. He gets a major interview which makes him the center of the conversation for a while and gives him negotiating leverage in his next project, Putin gets his preferred message out to the American Right.

[–] Imgonnatrythis 35 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, but he's definitely an idiot.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago (3 children)

No, he's intelligent, and that's why he's dangerous. He knows how to launder Russian propaganda and white supremacist talking points to a broader audience.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I think he's vying to up his VP cred. Would make him useful, but maybe less of an idiot. Immoral? Yes. Idiot... Not entirely.

That's why we gotta watch out for him. He gets VP and Trump dies? I think it could be worse than many imagine.

[–] Imgonnatrythis 9 points 6 months ago

I'm already on suicide watch if Trump is prez again. At that point you'd be foolish to hold on to hope. I don't care if he picks Satan for his VP or even Satan's boss MTG.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I've never seen a side shot of tucker Carlson that I can recall. Now I know why.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago

Relevant Preacher

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

deleted by creator

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

He used to frame it with a bow tie until Jon Stewart roasted it clean off his wattle

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

Probably vodka.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 6 months ago (6 children)

I wish Hunter S Thompson was still alive and could write a bit in his RS column about this...

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 6 months ago

Peskov claimed on Wednesday that Carlson’s position on the conflict with Ukraine is “not pro-Russian by any means, and it’s not pro-Ukrainian; rather, it’s pro-American. But at least it stands in clear contrast to the position of the traditional Anglo-Saxon media.”

Pffft hahaha, what a fucking racist dork. That's some 4chan-level shit.

Also, while I think it's overall a good article, I think calling Tucker a useful idiot is unfair. When I think of a useful idiot, I think of someone who means well, but is on the wrong side without realizing it. Tucker's not a smart man, but he knows what he's doing. If you ever watch his shit (which I only recommend to verify his grift), he's not just disconnected from reality, but actively contrary to it. He's trying to poison the well, while inoculating his viewers to reality and any argument based on it. He's not simply wrong, he's lying. He knows what he's doing is wrong, but he's doing it anyway, for his own benefit.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago

Useful to Putin and his puppets. Useless idiot as far as actual American interests are concerned.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago

It was part of the deal to let him interview Putin

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

He's a conservative

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago

I'd almost put money on this useful idiot being used to funnel new information/strategy back to the orange lard and it's lawyer

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

This is going to be on Tucker's new streaming platform, right?

So at least almost no one will see it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

Except that everybody is talking about it, which is a success for both Putin and Carlson already.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I think Putin is paranoid about being near someone who is not FSB and having an "accident", because that is how he operates. He is doing a Stalin speedrun, and I don't think he'll last much longer.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

I'm also imagining the end being much like the comedy Death of Stalin...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

Weren't they replaying segments of his show on RT?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

That side shot reminds me of Piers Morgan! 😅

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I hope that Tucker asks all of the important questions that Putin has avoided until now and then promptly disappears to 'play golf' in Siberia for the next couple of decades.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

The language of the article suggests the interview already happened but is not yet released. Could be a mistake, but I'm guessing they need to edit it, show the Kremlin for approval/final edit, then release.

load more comments
view more: next ›