https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_nFI2Zb7qE
The Tuckster "You dont even have fox where you're from!"
Rutger "I have a thing called the internet that lets me watch whatever I want anywhere in the world"
Boy did good, but not sure I can ever forgive his pronunciation of Davos.
Tucker didn't come off well there, but this Rutger guy really was acting like a douche.
He's trying to assert that Tucker and other Fox hosts are doing the bidding of billionaires, and purposely not bringing up subjects by order of the billionaire Murdochs?
Come on.
Fox News is biased and does aim its coverage at conservatives and what they want to hear, but so do the left-leaning channels like MSNBC. Their coverage has nothing to do with what the Murdochs personally want to see.
The guy just kept making the same points over and over:
1) Tucker and the other Fox hosts are on the payroll of billionaires, and do their bidding. (At one point, he oddly complained that the hosts are "millionaires". So? Why shouldn't hosts of a big channel make a lot of money?)
2) The US once had marginal tax rates of 70-90%, so we just need to return to that, and everything will be swell.
3) Most Americans support higher taxes on the rich and on wealth, so therefore we need to do it.
They probably did decide to suppress this one from the show because Tucker was too frantic and angry, but this Rutger guy seems more like a Euro conspiratard than a formidable debating opponent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
did anyone at all not expect druff's first 7 words to be these?
I hate to break it to you, but it is indeed possible for both the guest to be an insufferable conspiratard douche AND the host of the show not handling him well.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
did anyone at all not expect druff's first 7 words to be these?
I only have 1 bar so can’t really load the video. But responding to the guys argument as Deuff presents it, was he irony of course is that the liberal media caters to a much more educated, wealthy Demo than Fox News. The liberal media caters to billionaires as much as, if not more than, right wing media, it is just more subtle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The truth is the leftist agenda is pretty much good for rich, educated liberals, and isn’t much better for the poor masses than the Fox News agenda. In fact you could argue leftist policies are much worse for the poor than conservative ones, because they result in plots becoming dependent on govt., which generally doesn’t end well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiflV3oecVs
i was at this game GambleBotSatire
Can cuck the Tuck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
did anyone at all not expect verminaard's first 6 words to be these?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI hate to break it to you, but it is indeed possible for both the guest to be an insufferable conspiratard douche AND the host of the show not handling him well.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
my experience has been that generally speaking, when a dutch historian gets invited to speak at davos, he is rarely an insufferable conspiratard douche.
I don't watch a ton of Tucker, but from what I have seen he is actually pretty good at "debating" in these kinds of segments. Keep in mind he does these kinds of "debate" segments a lot where he is normally arguing with someone in their own field of expertise, and given that he holds his own pretty good most of the time. This obviously wasn't one of those times he held his own, which is why Fox tried to bury it.
Once you quote Chomsky, you lose all credibility. Finished.
He's become a darling of the left since his Davos rant, because he called out the super rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
my experience has been that generally speaking, when a dutch historian gets invited to speak at davos, he is rarely an insufferable conspiratard douche.
They were so enamored with him that they neglected to notice that he really is little more than a conspiratard.
Listen to the points he's trying to raise. He's not just simply advocating higher US taxation of the rich.
The main point he's making is that there's a US-led conspiracy -- even among some liberals -- to keep everyone away from the subject of taxing the super wealthy.
In Rutger's mind, the billionaire owners of Fox are paying millions to hosts like Tucker to distract the public with other issues and to attack anyone who suggests taxing the super wealthy.
And he believes this is widely going on in the US -- not just at Fox. For example, he even believes that many rich people on the left are also creating distractions by talking endlessly about social justice issues, while purposely avoiding the taxation matter.
It's absurd.
Go listen to his main points, and you'll see what I'm talking about here.
He really thinks he's some kind of rebel by supposedly being the only guy willing to talk about taxing billionaires more -- even though this has become a widely discussed subject all over America in recent months.
Also, Tucker didn't entirely disagree with him! Tucker tried to respond by saying that many super wealthy people and large corporations use loopholes to avoid paying taxes, so therefore raising the marginal tax rate to super-high levels won't solve the problem. Instead of giving much of a coherent response, Rutger started mocking Tucker for being brainwashed and finally coming around to admit the loopholes. So even when Tucker semi-agreed with one of the points being raised, Rutger taunted him by basically saying, "If you agree with me now, then you're proving you were selling out before."
There's no way to have a discussion with someone acting in such a manner.
You’re being a conservotard here by inflating what he is describing as a “conspiracy”. That requires coordinated planning and communication among the various parties. Rutger doesn’t make that claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffHe's become a darling of the left since his Davos rant, because he called out the super rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
They were so enamored with him that they neglected to notice that he really is little more than a conspiratard.
Listen to the points he's trying to raise. He's not just simply advocating higher US taxation of the rich.
The main point he's making is that there's a US-led conspiracy -- even among some liberals -- to keep everyone away from the subject of taxing the super wealthy.
In Rutger's mind, the billionaire owners of Fox are paying millions to hosts like Tucker to distract the public with other issues and to attack anyone who suggests taxing the super wealthy.
And he believes this is widely going on in the US -- not just at Fox. For example, he even believes that many rich people on the left are also creating distractions by talking endlessly about social justice issues, while purposely avoiding the taxation matter.
It's absurd.
Go listen to his main points, and you'll see what I'm talking about here.
He really thinks he's some kind of rebel by supposedly being the only guy willing to talk about taxing billionaires more -- even though this has become a widely discussed subject all over America in recent months.
Also, Tucker didn't entirely disagree with him! Tucker tried to respond by saying that many super wealthy people and large corporations use loopholes to avoid paying taxes, so therefore raising the marginal tax rate to super-high levels won't solve the problem. Instead of giving much of a coherent response, Rutger started mocking Tucker for being brainwashed and finally coming around to admit the loopholes. So even when Tucker semi-agreed with one of the points being raised, Rutger taunted him by basically saying, "If you agree with me now, then you're proving you were selling out before."
There's no way to have a discussion with someone acting in such a manner.
But it would be fair to say that there is *implicit collusion* among the super rich and most mainstream media outlets in the US regarding tax policy. And that’s because even the “liberal” mainstream news channels in the US operate as commercial entities and don’t want to upset their major advertisers. And those major advertisers are beholden to their shareholders. And because stock ownership is so heavily concentrated among the super rich, that equates to being beholden to them. Cenk Ughar, founder of The Young Turks, has been pointing this out for years. And his own experience working for MSNBC a number of years ago drove that home for him
And the US has the least regulated/most privately owned major commercial TV news outlets of any major country in the world. So it is also reasonable to point to the major US media outlets as being the most active participants of this implicit collusion, with Rupery Murdock’s Fox News the most aggressive actor among them by far.
Do you like Tuxker Carlaon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI hate to break it to you, but it is indeed possible for both the guest to be an insufferable conspiratard douche AND the host of the show not handling him well.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Everything plays out as it has played, as long as everyone just follows their best interest in the short term. That's about as much conspiracy you need.
One of the better limitations to this, that rest of the world has, is "the Hamptons not being a defensible position".
Cenk Ughar. LOL. fuck off.
dutch historian: hey davos, the whole world thinks your tax evasion, manipulation of tax laws, and right wing echo chamber brainwashing of simpletons into believing its in their best interest to make billionaires richer is tearing the fabric of society apart.
turker qualson: wow thats intense, you should come on my right wing media echo chamber show and discuss it.
dutch historian: thanks for having me. youre part of the problem and so is the network who pays you lavish amount of money to push their agenda.
turner kaleson:
https://i.imgur.com/bXcWx2r.png
druff: wow so much for the tolerant left