I read a article few months ago claiming Tucker is controlled opposition. I will try to locate it. The premise is, Tucker covers every story superficially. He may cover the hard hitting stories but never digs deeper than needed, never goes up the ladder to expose where the evil stems from.
Fox fired Tucker, what impression does that paint with the general public? One would think, the Fox and Tucker split must mean they were sitting on opposite sides of the fence. You would think that Tucker leaving Fox would give him the freedom to expand on many of the Q topics like globalism, or crimes against humanity.. He has not.
When Tucker interviewed Putin, did he question Putin about the biolabs in Ukraine or the hundreds of billions laundered through Ukraine? Did Tucker ask about Putin's struggle with the international banking industry, Putin's effort to eliminate them from Russia?
If Putin is joining forces to create BRICS to compete with the petro dollar, he is in direct conflict with Rothchild control of the planet monetary system. I'm sure Putin knows about the Israeli / Rothchild connection, bribing our politicians with Mossad honeypot Epstein Island scenario and control of our media. Was this discussed? What did we get? Lesson on Russian history?
The Fox /Tucker split made the MAGA supporters think Tucker was fired for covering topics that benefit the Trump administration, but in reality we are still getting a 40,000 foot view. Tucker is not digging deep enough to show the evil complex behind the curtain.
Edit: Here is the article I referred to. It was posted Feb 11th. Why did it seem like I read it a few months ago? I think there is so much information coming in, it distorts the perception of time.
The fact that there are many who aren’t open to those possibilities (controlled opp) is puzzling.
I pretty much wrote him off as controlled when he ‘lost’ a copy of hunter’s hard drive ‘in the mail’. Does anyone even remember that fiasco??
Still like what he is doing - but remain skeptical due to his apparent inability to dig. He seems to scratch the surface on things, come to a conclusion and convince rather than dig and vet out any deeper information and facts.
Good grief. Tucker isn't digging deep enough? Tucker very clearly is only going to report on something that he can vet, and 100% confirm. Tucker has always been the voice of reason, he clearly shows the ability to adapt to new information as long as the information is 100% factual, and can be proven. You expect him to go ranting about "Evil" and such things that CANNOT be proven.
To me it sounds like this article you read is the opposition trying to discredit Tucker.
Don't get me wrong, I like Tucker, I'm just saying the possibility exists and we have to be aware of the concensus coming in from every direction.
I realize covering some stories, digging to deep could be risky, perhaps get you killed. Tucker's heart might be in the right place, but he knows not to wade into deep water.
What I talked about above is just info to keep in the back of your mind, helps people see the truth if and when it exposes itself.
Thanks for the link I always appreciate a different perspective, I don't agree with a lot of what this writer says. I do agree that it's worth scrutinizing Tucker for things he's said in the past but people change. I believe since the Covid sham, and election scam that Tuckers perspective has drastically changed. Tucker used to hate on Alex Jones, and used to mock him incessantly, but now seems open to a lot of what Alex says which is wild even giving him an interview.
What this writer says about Tucker ignoring elites just to make fun of liberals, and play off the republican vs democrat dichotomy is just silly. Tucker being the most watched primetime TV host it's his job to get ratings, and do the show that his producers/boss at Fox want him to do, that doesn't make Tucker a deceptive spook does it? It makes him a good TV show host. Making fun of the liberal sherpa every night gets ratings, ranting about shadowy elites that are controlling everything without ironclad proof would send his show into a death spiral.
The writer of this article Alan MacLeod makes some good points about Tucker that I will take into consideration from now on, but I don't agree with his overall sentiment about Tucker.
I read a article few months ago claiming Tucker is controlled opposition. I will try to locate it. The premise is, Tucker covers every story superficially. He may cover the hard hitting stories but never digs deeper than needed, never goes up the ladder to expose where the evil stems from.
Fox fired Tucker, what impression does that paint with the general public? One would think, the Fox and Tucker split must mean they were sitting on opposite sides of the fence. You would think that Tucker leaving Fox would give him the freedom to expand on many of the Q topics like globalism, or crimes against humanity.. He has not.
When Tucker interviewed Putin, did he question Putin about the biolabs in Ukraine or the hundreds of billions laundered through Ukraine? Did Tucker ask about Putin's struggle with the international banking industry, Putin's effort to eliminate them from Russia?
If Putin is joining forces to create BRICS to compete with the petro dollar, he is in direct conflict with Rothchild control of the planet monetary system. I'm sure Putin knows about the Israeli / Rothchild connection, bribing our politicians with Mossad honeypot Epstein Island scenario and control of our media. Was this discussed? What did we get? Lesson on Russian history?
The Fox /Tucker split made the MAGA supporters think Tucker was fired for covering topics that benefit the Trump administration, but in reality we are still getting a 40,000 foot view. Tucker is not digging deep enough to show the evil complex behind the curtain.
Edit: Here is the article I referred to. It was posted Feb 11th. Why did it seem like I read it a few months ago? I think there is so much information coming in, it distorts the perception of time.
https://cygnusx1.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-tucker?r=pezuu&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post&triedRedirect=true
Great post - agree 100%
The fact that there are many who aren’t open to those possibilities (controlled opp) is puzzling.
I pretty much wrote him off as controlled when he ‘lost’ a copy of hunter’s hard drive ‘in the mail’. Does anyone even remember that fiasco??
Still like what he is doing - but remain skeptical due to his apparent inability to dig. He seems to scratch the surface on things, come to a conclusion and convince rather than dig and vet out any deeper information and facts.
Good grief. Tucker isn't digging deep enough? Tucker very clearly is only going to report on something that he can vet, and 100% confirm. Tucker has always been the voice of reason, he clearly shows the ability to adapt to new information as long as the information is 100% factual, and can be proven. You expect him to go ranting about "Evil" and such things that CANNOT be proven.
To me it sounds like this article you read is the opposition trying to discredit Tucker.
Don't get me wrong, I like Tucker, I'm just saying the possibility exists and we have to be aware of the concensus coming in from every direction.
I realize covering some stories, digging to deep could be risky, perhaps get you killed. Tucker's heart might be in the right place, but he knows not to wade into deep water.
What I talked about above is just info to keep in the back of your mind, helps people see the truth if and when it exposes itself.
Read this and tell me what you think.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/tucker-carlson-biography-nicaragua-cia/279782/
Thanks for the link I always appreciate a different perspective, I don't agree with a lot of what this writer says. I do agree that it's worth scrutinizing Tucker for things he's said in the past but people change. I believe since the Covid sham, and election scam that Tuckers perspective has drastically changed. Tucker used to hate on Alex Jones, and used to mock him incessantly, but now seems open to a lot of what Alex says which is wild even giving him an interview.
What this writer says about Tucker ignoring elites just to make fun of liberals, and play off the republican vs democrat dichotomy is just silly. Tucker being the most watched primetime TV host it's his job to get ratings, and do the show that his producers/boss at Fox want him to do, that doesn't make Tucker a deceptive spook does it? It makes him a good TV show host. Making fun of the liberal sherpa every night gets ratings, ranting about shadowy elites that are controlling everything without ironclad proof would send his show into a death spiral.
The writer of this article Alan MacLeod makes some good points about Tucker that I will take into consideration from now on, but I don't agree with his overall sentiment about Tucker.