Just hosting and listening to his takes isn't cause for outrage, who are we? The left? It's good when we hear the other side in less curated formats like this
Are.... um, are we talking about the same person?
This message would be correct if you were talking about Bret Weinstein or Malcolm Gladwell or a similar person.
Mike Baker is straight up Permanent Washington, National Security State, Uniparty, [DS], Intel Agency spokesperson. He isn't left or right. He's both/neither. He's whatever party likes the Agency the most currently.
I mean, if you are saying you can listen to him as like, opposition research, I guess you can... Strictly speaking I don't know his actual politics. Dude is on Fox News and Gutfeld. You can tell he doesn't fuck with Trump at all. Never heard him say much that was pro-Democrat. Or pro anything. He says A LOT of nothing and avoids answering questions, its frequently pointed out in EVERY COMMENT under JRE.
It's not that I'm looking to listen to only a conservative opinion. This guy isn't a voice or an opinion, he is a MOUTHPIECE. He speaks the language of ESTABLISHMENT. Pro-agency, Intel, Neo-anything. He isn't real and you can't take him seriously. You would find it impossible. The comments are flooded with others who are saying this.
So yeah. This isn't intended to be hostile or disagreeable. But I have to FERVENTLY disagree. It is possible you mixed him up with someone else. Or, you might mean it's good to get the [DS] message so we can learn their evil ways and counter. Either way this guy isn't a leftist.
He isn't anything. I guess that's another way to say SPOOK. 😱👻😆
It's more likely they slip up during candid conversation than curated media, and that has been interesting when it happens. We have gotten a lot of sneak previews through candid conversation
Okay, NOW I see your point. Totally germane and logical - some of the most telling things we've learned about "them" certainly have come from those candid moments, and the longform style absolutely cuts that way and encourages that.
In fact, I think I prove you right in my other comment where I detailed Baker's reaction to the Tucker clip. The first thing he goes to is something that didn't even occur to 98% of us who watched it - WHO is the source? He gives his motives away by repeating it about eight more times in a minute of talking, and also seems to be almost chiding Carlson and that source by saying they have potential to be a "conspiracy theorist" (immediate red flag in that term) and saying if they have proof that they have almost a duty to come forward.
What the fuck is that? Only Feds think and talk like this - the majority of us do not immediately become dubious WHATSOEVER so its VERY TELLING when he doesn't skip past that to the actual substance.
In general, Tucker has a proven track record of credibility - he hasn't directly lied to the public before on his show and he maintains viewpoints that our crowd agrees with and regards mostly as common sense. Unlike, you know, the fucking agencies, who lie all the time and then double down by justifying it when they're caught.
If anything it was a lack of confronting certain topics that disturbed and angered people. He is literally the standard bearer of credibility and the only remaining in-road to the silent Trump majority that Fox still has left currently. Tucker is like Atlas holding up the entire fucking thing; and they are well aware the numbers will go to Newsmax levels with one wrong move.
So I was entertaining the possibility that Rogan showed him that to fuck with him, but I'm doubting it now. Baker is a guy who GOES ON Fox, for Christ sake.
Very elucidating, almost naked in its purpose, that Mike Baker, former CIA and still in the "Intel biz" would go on JRE and act dubious toward the validity of this statement. Baker comes on as a Contributor and even sits for shows in-studio - if you have doubts or questions why not send a text?? What is your relationship if YOU CAN'T get an answer to that question? Is there no one who will answer you? Have you already tried? (Yes!)
What does it say about you, Mike Baker, if someone was reticent to tell you WHO the source Tucker claimed was? That you, a Fox guest, doubt the sincerity of Tucker & his source MORE than the audience? Are you just asking who the source is because you legitimately question CIA involvement in JFK's death? Are YOU BEING SINCERE?
No no no. None of this is good. It bodes VERY poorly for all involved. Either Baker knows that Tucker is as full of shit as the next man up at Fox and legitimately doubts the information he transmits nightly ... or Baker is not just a "retired guy" running an innocent little Intel store down the street.
Baker comes on JRE, acts like this is all new to him (even if it is, he NEVER EVEN mentions being able to contact anyone at Fox to find out) and goes right to questioning the sources. We know Tucker is highly insulated and does NOT do his show from the main studio these days. Bongino once mentioned before that his writers and Tuck's are next door to one another in the cubicles, though - I mean, isn't there someone Baker could ask?
Here's the finality of this. Baker is one of however many 🤡 reps and plants they STICK into the MSM places and thus it's likely he isn't exactly Prom King over there. He tried already to finagle the identity of this source person and didn't catch the fish.
So we'll put him back on JRE to stage this reaction and have Mike poke the bear, see if we can jar it loose. The #1 podcast for the #1 TV show - maybe someone will get a bruised ego and respond DIRECTLY!
Why else? If you're really buddies with the Fox fam, why deride Tucker with the "conspiracy" tag and say the source "owes it to America" to come out from the dark? Why give up the usual nothing speak and sound frustrated and adversarial for a moment there?
There is some dark shit that goes on right in front of us. Underneath what it claims to be is what it REALLY is - when you catch it in moments like these it can be pretty profound.
Sorry for the long response, thanks for explaining and I hope the example works to your point.
Are.... um, are we talking about the same person?
This message would be correct if you were talking about Bret Weinstein or Malcolm Gladwell or a similar person.
Mike Baker is straight up Permanent Washington, National Security State, Uniparty, [DS], Intel Agency spokesperson. He isn't left or right. He's both/neither. He's whatever party likes the Agency the most currently.
I mean, if you are saying you can listen to him as like, opposition research, I guess you can... Strictly speaking I don't know his actual politics. Dude is on Fox News and Gutfeld. You can tell he doesn't fuck with Trump at all. Never heard him say much that was pro-Democrat. Or pro anything. He says A LOT of nothing and avoids answering questions, its frequently pointed out in EVERY COMMENT under JRE.
It's not that I'm looking to listen to only a conservative opinion. This guy isn't a voice or an opinion, he is a MOUTHPIECE. He speaks the language of ESTABLISHMENT. Pro-agency, Intel, Neo-anything. He isn't real and you can't take him seriously. You would find it impossible. The comments are flooded with others who are saying this.
So yeah. This isn't intended to be hostile or disagreeable. But I have to FERVENTLY disagree. It is possible you mixed him up with someone else. Or, you might mean it's good to get the [DS] message so we can learn their evil ways and counter. Either way this guy isn't a leftist.
He isn't anything. I guess that's another way to say SPOOK. 😱👻😆
It's more likely they slip up during candid conversation than curated media, and that has been interesting when it happens. We have gotten a lot of sneak previews through candid conversation
Okay, NOW I see your point. Totally germane and logical - some of the most telling things we've learned about "them" certainly have come from those candid moments, and the longform style absolutely cuts that way and encourages that.
In fact, I think I prove you right in my other comment where I detailed Baker's reaction to the Tucker clip. The first thing he goes to is something that didn't even occur to 98% of us who watched it - WHO is the source? He gives his motives away by repeating it about eight more times in a minute of talking, and also seems to be almost chiding Carlson and that source by saying they have potential to be a "conspiracy theorist" (immediate red flag in that term) and saying if they have proof that they have almost a duty to come forward.
What the fuck is that? Only Feds think and talk like this - the majority of us do not immediately become dubious WHATSOEVER so its VERY TELLING when he doesn't skip past that to the actual substance.
In general, Tucker has a proven track record of credibility - he hasn't directly lied to the public before on his show and he maintains viewpoints that our crowd agrees with and regards mostly as common sense. Unlike, you know, the fucking agencies, who lie all the time and then double down by justifying it when they're caught.
If anything it was a lack of confronting certain topics that disturbed and angered people. He is literally the standard bearer of credibility and the only remaining in-road to the silent Trump majority that Fox still has left currently. Tucker is like Atlas holding up the entire fucking thing; and they are well aware the numbers will go to Newsmax levels with one wrong move.
So I was entertaining the possibility that Rogan showed him that to fuck with him, but I'm doubting it now. Baker is a guy who GOES ON Fox, for Christ sake.
Very elucidating, almost naked in its purpose, that Mike Baker, former CIA and still in the "Intel biz" would go on JRE and act dubious toward the validity of this statement. Baker comes on as a Contributor and even sits for shows in-studio - if you have doubts or questions why not send a text?? What is your relationship if YOU CAN'T get an answer to that question? Is there no one who will answer you? Have you already tried? (Yes!)
What does it say about you, Mike Baker, if someone was reticent to tell you WHO the source Tucker claimed was? That you, a Fox guest, doubt the sincerity of Tucker & his source MORE than the audience? Are you just asking who the source is because you legitimately question CIA involvement in JFK's death? Are YOU BEING SINCERE?
No no no. None of this is good. It bodes VERY poorly for all involved. Either Baker knows that Tucker is as full of shit as the next man up at Fox and legitimately doubts the information he transmits nightly ... or Baker is not just a "retired guy" running an innocent little Intel store down the street.
Baker comes on JRE, acts like this is all new to him (even if it is, he NEVER EVEN mentions being able to contact anyone at Fox to find out) and goes right to questioning the sources. We know Tucker is highly insulated and does NOT do his show from the main studio these days. Bongino once mentioned before that his writers and Tuck's are next door to one another in the cubicles, though - I mean, isn't there someone Baker could ask?
Here's the finality of this. Baker is one of however many 🤡 reps and plants they STICK into the MSM places and thus it's likely he isn't exactly Prom King over there. He tried already to finagle the identity of this source person and didn't catch the fish.
So we'll put him back on JRE to stage this reaction and have Mike poke the bear, see if we can jar it loose. The #1 podcast for the #1 TV show - maybe someone will get a bruised ego and respond DIRECTLY! Why else? If you're really buddies with the Fox fam, why deride Tucker with the "conspiracy" tag and say the source "owes it to America" to come out from the dark? Why give up the usual nothing speak and sound frustrated and adversarial for a moment there?
There is some dark shit that goes on right in front of us. Underneath what it claims to be is what it REALLY is - when you catch it in moments like these it can be pretty profound.
Sorry for the long response, thanks for explaining and I hope the example works to your point.