Was Tucker Carlson actually fired from FOX? Or is it a story to establish himself as a “new media” personality, siphon the attention of the disaffected younger generation watching Joe Rogan and implant this idea that democracy itself is inherently broken in the country?
He brings on guest after guest to paint narratives of corruption that create a rather vague image - and then falls back into a reprieve of how a “growing number” of people think the last election was fraudulent.
I think the perspective in a community like this is that there is a corrupt establishment which stands to benefit from maintaining the status quo - but who stands to benefit if you as an individual are convinced that democracy in America is inherently broken? And where’s the legitimate evidence to support such a claim?
Tucker Carlson’s support of Nayib Bukele, who democratically strong-armed Congress to legally upend the justice system, gives us a narrative that if a government is that corrupt, then a leader is justified in completely cleaning out the establishment - including the justice system. So the question on my mind is how do you convince people that the justice system itself is corrupt? How sinister of a plot would it be to deify one man (or woman) enough to allow them to corrupt the legitimacy of a country’s justice system?
I remember hearing a radio ad for Kamala Harris for the Attorney General of California and thinking to myself, “My God, that is an ambitious woman.” Ambition with no real destination or goal from what I can tell.
But is Trump’s ambition to be seen and remembered as a messiah or God? Some friends brought up how moments of Trump on The Simpsons have come true in real life and how strange is that - and a thought from nowhere hit me to wonder out loud if that is in fact a PR stunt. What better way to become prophetic, a deity, a messiah - than to spookily recreate moments from an iconic American television show? God, the reality that it is likely a PR stunt to make him godlike hits me like a bucket of nails to the head.
Because of the implications of both positioning the question of whether or not the election was fraudulent and the casual insistence of a growing popular opinion of the fraudulence, until Tucker Carlson provides most serious evidence for this postulation, I think I need to consider him a nonsense person.