DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Tucker Carlson Interviews Vladimir Putin

I made it exactly halfway through so far. I won’t even cover the mistruths, revisionist history and blatant lies Putin has already tried to pass off (the one about them leaving Kiev as a show of good faith, and not because they were getting their asses kicked, was a real knee-slapper.

I will say that I am somewhat shocked. It seems that Carlson tried big to guide him down the NATO on your door step path because that’s been a tired talking point of both Carlson and MAGA. What shocked me is he didn’t really take the bait. I can’t believe it, but everything Putin has said, objectively, actually justifies sending more aid to Ukraine. He really doubled down on the denazification aspect, which is psychopathic. He said something along the lines of “Sure they should have the right to be their own people (after he spent the first part of the interview talking about how they’re not their own people), but not if they’re Nazis (which they aren’t in any way, shape or form).” So I guess in his mind, since Ukraine wants to somehow be independent, that deserves invasion with blatant human rights abuses in Bucha, the likes of which haven’t been seen since…well…the Nazis.

I can talk more tomorrow, but the guy told blatant lies, which is his MO, and things that didn’t make any sense logically (like the CIA sending “too bad” notes about the Chechen separatists.

I’m not listening to one second of this I personally don’t care what Putin has to say. However, I am interested to hear what Carlson has to say after the fact about the interview. I’m curious if he will come out as a shill or he questions any of what Putin says.

I'm not even halfway through either, but I don't know what you mean by "Carlson tried big to guide him down the NATO on your doorstep path"?

It seemed Tucker made a concerted effort to get him to stop the history lesson by constantly asking (by one way or another) what the heck that has to do with two years ago. Even laughing at him at one point when he insisted on continuing to resist.

What did I miss?

IIRC he said at the beginning of the interview and multiple times that Putin or Russia saw a threat from NATO’s push eastward. Instead of doing that, he started talking about things like 1653. I do think that frustrated Carlson because what Putin blabbed on about wasn’t insightful for anything.

I think we can add Putin to the list of septuagenarians who have no business being in power.

That weird thing going on with his body was also very strange.

It took a lot for me to listen to it given my open feelings toward Carlson. I’m with you though in wanting to see how he reacts. The bots on Twitter are already guzzling Putin. Mind blowing.

Ahh, I do remember that. I guess my mind saw no harm because Putin kept wanted to tell his tales of 500 years ago.

Always interesting to get the perspective of a madman. Seems like an adolescent, silver-spooned psychopath. That said, I doubt that I'll finish this unless some crazy narrative ensues and I feel the need to 'see for myself'.

And to be honest, I really don't keep up with the he said/ she said Russia, Putin b.s. I was burned to crisp after four years of Trump's Russia hoax and it continued through Hunter's laptop. I guess I don't have the required attention span for idiocy. I didn't mean to strike a nerve in either thread, you obviously hold much more passion toward the subject than I.

Senate panel backs assessment that Russia interfered in 2016

https://apnews.com/article/d094918c0421b872eac7dc4b16e613c7

Yeah?

Remember when this was all accepted as fact?

Until it was proven that the entire #hoax was conceptualized and funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC? And then FBI agents who championed the #hoax went to prison for actually providing info to the Russians?

Probably not, most of that wasn't on State TV.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rep-ad...ence-of-russia-collusion-in-plain-sight/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/schiff-russia-trump-collusion-236386

https://www.newyorker.com/news/swam...here-was-attempted-collusion-with-russia

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...n-the-white-house-by-luke-harding-review

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/27/16670950/trump-russia-timeline

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/5656...ia-says-full-picture-is-one-of-collusion

https://cnn.com/2018/08/22/politics/trump-no-collusion/index.html

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/28/democrats-trump-russia-investigation-congress-1025919

So you want to focus on the half that they were wrong about but refuse to admit the half they were right about. Typical.

And we've been hearing the lies about how the election was stolen for over three years now. Who is that champions that hoax? I know, I know, you only want to focus on the lies the other side has told.

If you bring something up and you talk about how it's a two way street of course it will be labeled as a bad thing. Which one are you going to use this time? Moving the goal posts or straw man?

Because God knows you won't admit that both sides are equally guilty.

But then at least in this case one of the two accusations was true. Russia did interfere with the elections. They were wrong about the connections between Russia and Trump. On the other hand, claiming the election was stolen is all a lie and there is no truth to be found in any of that.

Another nothing, meaningless meme with no thought or context. Once again, typical.

You're good brother. I didn't mean to come off agitated if I did. It's a topic that as much as I would like to get away from, has really become engrained in my every day life.

Chris Wallace bringing the house down here…