*blocks your path*

you're not answering my question

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YTl219vH2QE
youtube.com/watch?v=wxL8anduw2w
youtube.com/watch?v=2Pgx7QaCIz8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

W what question Tucker Senpai?

Oh no. I'm not falling for this again. I am *not* going to end up on a Youtube "Tucker Porn" video.

*Laughs*

> Okay, okay...

*Looks Puzzled*

*Laughs*

i'll tell you anything you want to hear, except the truth

I wish he would mount me and pound my pussy until I'm all Tuckered out

*high pitched laughs*

Tucker this is what you do. You have guests over and get them in gotcha questions and don't let them respond.

do you feel in charge?

He gives plenty of them time to respond. That's where the comedic element of the show comes from.

Does anyone literally jack off to this? I was able to once and there were no chicks on the screen.

>hfw I answer with some leftist bullshit

Don't usually agree with his politics but the way he tore that BuzzFeed prick to shreds the other week has earned him the title of "based as fuck" from me.

I thought the USA Today guy was going to cry

>this is the best person drumpftards and rightists have to offer
LOL

Does anyone else find this style of interviewing infuriating?

>guy is brought on who has clearly prepared for different material than the stuff he's being asked
>host ambushes him with partisan gotcha questions
>host looks confused and indignant while the guest fumbles around for an answer to line of questioning they did not anticipate
>guy looks like shit and feeds into partisan news bubble

This shit is the bread and butter of cable news and it's clear that they're just deliberately misleading their guests so they can have a live straw man to bash. This is the shit that keeps the news bubbles from crossing over, because anyone who does is liable to get shat on with this tactic.

...

He asks questions about whatever they talk about though. If people are gonna talk politics, they better have the intelligence to come up with some cogent answers on the quick.

why should people get the questions in advance before an interview? how is it Tucker's fault they aren't prepared?

>Le right wing bill Maher face

Link me to one interview where this happens

Do you think he's still assblasted by the Jon Stewart interview back when he was on CNN?

You still haven't answered his question.

Links plz

>its a "tucker carlson invites an idiot on his show who is completely out of their league and asks a bunch of gotcha questions, abusing his position as host to steer the conversation in his favor" episode

gb2 with this horse-shit

Everyone knows what you are doing. I'm trying to answer your question but you have to let me answer the question.
Look, I'm about to answer the question if you would just let me. Everyone knows what you are doing and you need to just let me answer the question already.
Can I answer the question now? Is that okay with you? Oh here you go again, the people are smart and they know what you are doing by not letting me answer this question that I've been trying to answer.

>Oh but I did read your article and it doesnt mention anything about that!
thats always my favorite part, cant cuck the Tuck he is just too knowledgeable

>pretend the answer given doesn't make any sense
>pretend to win
>right wing retards applaud

TUCKER I THINK IVE MADE MY POINT PERFECTLY CLEAR

can someone give me a quick rundown on this guy?

he BTFO leftist, SJW and fascist protestors on a daily basis

wtf I hate Tucker now

>can I finish? Tucker can I finish? Tucker. Tucker can I answer the question? Tucker you aren't letting me answer the question. Tucker can you let me talk?

They never make sense though, they divert to another topic because he traps them with their own bullshit logic almost every time. the other times they just straight up contradict themselves.

youtube.com/watch?v=YTl219vH2QE

he gives him tones of time to respond they just never do which is why he then starts to make fun of them

He has a show on Fox where he basically tears leftists a new asshole using racist things like reality, facts and logic. What's great about it is he invites everyone on his show yet only the truly insane or truly retarded leftists accept the invites so it's usually just him using arguments a 9 year old could come up to easily destroy moronic SJWs and neo-dems.

if anything we just brings up past statements of them to point out what kind of hypocrites they really are

I don´t see how that is a bad/evil debate tactic

Why would you want your guest to be unprepared for your line of questioning? It only serves to reinforce the false notion that the opposing side of any substantial issue is a delusional, easily debunked fool.

>that check list

Except it doesn't. He treats everything from an absolutist stance and thus pretends to expose a hypocrisy with false parallels while the guest is trapped in the absurdity.

Basically the same deal as SJWs. He just has a TV show.

>strawmen
>ad hominems
>pretending to be retarded
this guy is from Sup Forums isn't he

No, half of the people that come on the show write bullshit hit pieces on Trump, his supporters, etc. Then when questioned on why they think what they think, they can't answer.

These people aren't prepared because they're literally bullshitting.

Have you actually watched any of his interviews? Or are you just retarded?

Let's play a quick game of whodidit

>gotcha questions

Is this the new buzzword for calling someone out for hypocrisy and bullshit?

Pretending to call that a guest interview and not a character assassination is pretty shitty, though.

>Ok I'll let you finish, go ahead.
>*proceeds to go on 3 minute rant about something completely unrelated to what Tucker asked in order to dodge the question*

is TCT news kino?

>the same deal as SJWs
he is not censoring them he lets them talk and they are dumb, brainwashed and crazy and expose themselves like that teacher who was organizing people to violently attack "fascists", Tucker ask "who is a fascist" she responds "It's someone who is committing violence, and trying to organize other people to commit violence"

name one interview where this happens

i'll wait

>person correctly assesses Carlton's tactics
>hurrr did you watch his interviews

It's literally what he fucking does. It's this:

>guest: i'm against this
>tc: but a year ago you supported it
>guest: tries to explain why it's a different case
>tc: what?
>guest: reiterates it's a false parallel
>tc: *confused face* you're not answering my question

Every fucking time.

who was in the wrong here?

this cant be real

Then post an interview where he does.

every fucking time

>Reiterates false parallel
Diversion.

Like the USA Today guy. They are asked a blunt question which they can't answer because they have no clue on what they're actually talking about.

lol you gotta love how all right-wingers are now officially white nationalist neo-nazis. Even the non-white ones.

Any one posted in this thread. Go ahead. Actually look and listen instead of masturbating.

even the gay jew ones

Those videos are a different case, you ate drawing a false parallel.

No. Post a specific one where you think it happens and explain yourself instead of dodging.

I'll wait.

The last show was great desu.

No, it's a tactic of asking yes or no questions on deliberately obtuse and nuanced issues where a simple yes or no would betray a lack of understanding of the issue but a non-committal response would be seen as slimy or misleading.

They are questions where the interviewer probably already knows the answer and is expecting the interviewee to slip up so they can jump down their throat with some recently reported statistic or event on their network that serves to undermine the guest's position.

Trump complained about it all the time on the campaign trail.

pointing out what people have said or done in the past is hardly a character assassination. especially if it fits with the topic they are interview about

now if he brought up an ugly divorce or some shitty thing that they might have done in their youth that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic I would be willing to agree with you

It's not a diversion.

Stealing is wrong.
Is stealing a loaf of bread when you're starving wrong? Yes.
Is it the same as stealing a car? No.

As I said, he takes an absolutist stance and doesn't and derails a nuanced explanation with a confused face.

It would be less funny if not for his Scooter Libby bullshit he likes to kindly forget about when he rails about politicians.

>so you deny their freedom of speach to anyone you disagree with
>but what if that person is Hitler and is recluting nazis!
>you are not answering my question
>what if they are using their free speach to reclute for isis?
>I'll ask again, will you deny their freedom of speach to anyone you disagree with
>but what if that person is a nazi, fascist, homophone, transphone, mysoginist, racist?
>you are not answering my question

kek

>especially Jews

what?
when has he ever even mentioned Judaism

Nice false parallel, bud

That's not what happens though. Please cite an actual interview where this happens.

This guy is such a fucking tool. I'm sure his PR team is happy to ride the altright wave to pretend this faggot is "our guy"

literally everything you said is wrong, senpai

I love the fact that the person interviewed was already crazy enough that he didn´t even feel the need to question what counts as "nazi speak" to them

is time to post some tucker porn

youtube.com/watch?v=wxL8anduw2w

He definitely didn't do this with the Asian teacher SJW. He kept on-point with her and tried to understand her authoritarian logic as best he could before turning it around to try and show her the irony of the shit she was saying.

youtube.com/watch?v=2Pgx7QaCIz8

>had a conservative show during the Bush administration

Instant drop

>*makes concerned tuck face*
>"What are the CIA telling you, Kurt?"
top fucking kek

He did an interview with a mexican immigration activist recently where he asked his guest how he could consider himself a proud Mexican considering their immigration policy towards other Central American nations, citing Mexico's tough stance on immigration. Despite this obviously not being the guy's area of activism or expertise (and also despite the fact that Tucker's facts on the issue meant to prove Mexico was tougher on migrants than the US were ultimately incorrect). That's a question whose only resolution for the guest is to either admit hypocrisy or attack the question and the interviewer, which ALWAYS looks bad for the guest since he likely didn't prepare for this kind of personal attack, and certainly not this specific line of questioning. This is a guy who puts out water bottles in the desert; he doesn't know off the cuff what Mexico's policy on their southern border specifically entails.

>Mexico was tougher on migrants than the US were ultimately incorrect

source on that? It's a federal offense to be an illegal in mexico, plus they built a fucking wall on the border of guatemala

If those are his only options his stance is idiotic. That's the point of the question.

>"We must not allow white supremacists like Gavin McInnes to preach hate in our university."
>"Well do you support Black Lives Matter chanting 'Pigs in a blanket fry 'em like bacon."?
>"Listen Tucker I'm not here to say what we should and shouldn't say."

What the fuck? Why do these leftists never just answer the god damn question?

>He did an interview with a mexican immigration activist recently where he asked his guest how he could consider himself a proud Mexican considering their immigration policy towards other Central American nations, citing Mexico's tough stance on immigration. Despite this obviously not being the guy's area of activism or expertise

Actually he was attacking his claim that the guy considered himself a PROUDER Mexican than an American

>and also despite the fact that Tucker's facts on the issue meant to prove Mexico was tougher on migrants than the US were ultimately incorrect

No they weren't.

>That's a question whose only resolution for the guest is to either admit hypocrisy
>ALWAYS looks bad for the guest since he likely didn't prepare for this kind of personal attack,

Point out blatant hypocrisy is not a "personal attack", I'm sorry.

This is the same dude who claimed the US should be able to decide who can come into their country and 5 minutes later did a 360 and said the US doesn't deserve to choose who comes into their country because of their history with SA and the Middle East.

He was an absolute joke.

>everyone at home watching this guy
>even their Moms call them Fredo

It hasn't been a federal offense to be undocumented in Mexico since 2011 and while there certainly are some walls built on the border, there is no contiguous Mexico-Guatemala border wall. Most of it is fairly open or blocked by natural barriers.

Thing is, lots of people don't know either of these things because they take talking heads at face value who deliberate take on guests that can't challenge their worldview, like Tucker Carlson.

>I like your tie

savage

never expected FOX news to be the ones to speak the truth

Mexican heritage =\= Mexican government policy. If you think pride in one's culture is pride in one's government, ask any self-proclaimed patriotic American how they feel about Congress.

>US doesn't deserve to choose who comes into their country because of their history with SA and the Middle East.

That was not what he said, just Tucker's interpretation on his position that the US government should be more ethical in its treatment of migrants. At no point does he advocate free and unlimited borders.

>This is a guy who puts out water bottles in the desert; he doesn't know off the cuff what Mexico's policy on their southern border specifically entails.

This idiot is calling for and supporting Mexico's interest in litigation through the US court system to "jam up" our process. If he knows enough about that to write pieces and call for disruption then I'm sure he knows a little bit about Mexico's policies as well.
The point is that Tucker was calling him out on his hypocritical attitude on the US while conveniently ignoring Mexican policy, which was a valid argument to which this guy continued to dodge the questions because he knew Tucker was right.

>Tucker has outspoken lefty on his show
>Quotes him directly and asks for explanation
>Retard goes off on tangent
>Repeatedly refuses to answer question
>Tucker eventually ends segment

OMG GOTCHA LMAO RIGHT WING RETARDS

>Relatively left wing guest on Bill Marr gives basic fact about Trump
>AHHHH FUCCCCCCKKKK OFFFFFF
>Yells HITLER over him as he tries to further explain basic point

*Thunderous Applause* DRUMPF BTFO

>muh culture
90% of your culture is from Europe. The rest is dia de los muertos. You're obviously a butthurt Mexican, fuck off retard.

Except Tucker wasn't right. He said being undocumented in Mexico was a federal offense. It is not. Yet Tucker pressed his guest on it repeatedly.

>muh semantics

>Mexico disobeys their laws to deport and arrest who they please
>USA disobeys their laws to let millions of shitty people have a better life

No. He literally says the US shouldn't be able to have a wall to determine who comes into their country because "it doesn't stay out of other countries business". When Tucker tries to press him on specifics he doesn't answer because he knows how bad it will make his argument look. Not to mention the idea that a border wall is immoral in any way is fucking retarded on its own. Ultimately his position is inconsistent and hypocritical which is why he dances around so many questions.

>Mexican heritage =\= Mexican government policy

The Mexican government is part of Mexico. It was clear he didn't want to say anything bad about Mexico, even when he was given a chance to make his position more clear.

>He said being undocumented in Mexico was a federal offense.

Tucker was wrong about something because of a change in law that happened a few years ago.

W-when did he lose the bow tie? I gave up on 24 hour news before obama got elected.

So every single person he catches being retarded, who've come from the entire range of the left from random protesters to actual politicians, all happen to be retarded, and all coincidentally are Democrats.
Interesting.

The entire point of attack was based on semantics, though.
And now you've moved the goalposts.

Look, I'm not saying the Mexican guy's politics are correct. Hell, I think the Wall may be good for America. The problem is that these talking heads operating with shitty tactics that promulgate misinformation either deliberately or unintentionally by failing to even entertain the logic of opposing factions in a fair way. This interview was an egregious example of that.

>literal definition of cherrypicking

They're more interested in spouting hyperbole