Tucker Carlson: How early rejection by hippie San Francisco mom made him shameless

[Moonlight Graham]

That explains why Carlson is a conservative.

[NAME REMOVED]

2 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

 

You can be critical of things without hating them. It might be hard for people on the left to understand as they are so consumed with hatred. You could learn a lot about love and humanity from Tucker. Perhaps, someday you will.

lol....nice troll job.

[BeaverFever]

14 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

I read Mary Trump's book back when it came out in 2020. It seems Donald was Fred Trump's favourite, and was spoiled. Fred took out most of his anger on his oldest son, Fred Jr, who died of alcoholism in 1981. 

I believe she said Fred Trump withheld affection, from both kids and the family in general. He berated them constantly and made his temporary approval conditional on them displaying certain behaviours like dominating others and encouraged unhealthy competition and bullying, between them.  Fred Jr was least favoured because daddy thought he was too “soft” and rewarded Trump’s bullying of his older brother. But Donald was not spoiled in terms of being showered with affection, he was just slightly better off than his brother.  He was only spoiled  in the sense that like all insanely rich people he had an army of flunkies to pave the road in front of him, clean ip messes behind him and do things like write him fake medical certificates for non-existent bone spurs so he could dodge the draft  

 

 

Family dysfunction

Well-to-do from the small fortune Fred’s brothel-keeper father had made, this unhappy Trump family was unhappy in its own way, all five siblings warped by its oppressive frigidity, “but my uncle Donald and my father, Freddy, suffered more than the rest.” In her telling, a critical shift came one night when Donald was 2 1/2. His mother nearly died from post-partum complications, was hospitalized for months and “never completely recovered.” Finally back home, she was … weird — an insomniac “wandering around the House at all hours like a soundless wraith… In the morning her children sometimes found her unconscious in unexpected places.” “Unstable and needy,” she used “her children to comfort herself rather than comforting them.” And so, as a result of his mother’s de facto abandonment and his father’s disengaged failure to “make him feel safe or loved [or] valued,” Donald developed “powerful but primitive defenses” — a willful callousness and “an increasing hostility to others … narcissism, bullying, grandiosity.”

…

That’s because, according to Mary Trump PhD, Fred Trump was a “sociopath” who taught his children that his affection for them “was entirely conditional.” One of his explicit conditions for approving of any Trump son was that he be a “killer.” And so Donald’s transgressions “became an audition for his father’s favor, as if he were saying ‘See, dad, I’m the tough one. I’m the killer.’ ” As when he obeyed Fred’s apparent order to drive up to Massachusetts and whack Freddy, who’d just achieved his dream of becoming a TWA pilot. “You know,” 18-year-old Donald told him, “dad’s really sick of you wasting your life.... He says he’s embarrassed by you ... Freddy, dad‘s right about you: you’re nothing but a glorified bus driver.” Freddy promptly became an alcoholic, got canned as a pilot, returned to the family business and ruined his marriage, finally living in his indifferent parents’ attic and dying from heart disease at 42 in 1981.

Meanwhile, the “reckless hyperbole and unearned confidence” of his shameless younger brother, masks for “pathological weaknesses and insecurities,” were a perfect match for the manic, money-crazed, celebrity-obsessed perception-is-reality zeitgeist. In the 1980s he turned himself into famous Manhattan developer Donald Trump.

 

https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=dffe646e-a537-4a02-a158-4e5c35356dae

Edited December 5, 2024 by BeaverFever

[NAME REMOVED]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, that's why you wanted us to like her. And that she was a woman.

Democrats insisted that because she has dark skin in a vagina she should be president. So you assume that if anybody else voted against her it was a rejection of that specifically. Not really - there were a lot of other reasons to not like her. You just couldn't think of any other reasons that you should like her so you assume that that's what the issue was but it wasn't for most Americans

You are an odd cat.

[CouchPotato]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

And you didn't like Kamala Harris because she's black.🙄

I think America just wasn't ready for her. Some people spoke about her as if she was too ditsy to be president, but if anything, she was too smart. The truth is the American people simply have a limited understanding of who can do what. And while she didn't let that limit her on a personal level, it did limit her from becoming president.

 

Kamala is simply ahead of her time. And someday when the American people are able to think more holistically, they might elect a woman of similar holisticity to chart the course for America in a more holistic manner.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

You are an odd cat.

If you think I'm odd for pointing out the truth, how odd must you think the democrats are for suggesting it in the first place.

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

I think America just wasn't ready for her. Some people spoke about her as if she was too ditsy to be president, but if anything, she was too smart. The truth is the American people simply have a limited understanding of who can do what. And while she didn't let that limit her on a personal level, it did limit her from becoming president.

 

Kamala is simply ahead of her time. And someday when the American people are able to think more holistically, they might elect a woman of similar holisticity to chart the course for America in a more holistic manner.

 

Possibly. But honestly I think it was just that america right now is at a moment in time, and they didn't appreciate the time has moments and that the moments make up the time that the moment is in. And they needed to Treasure and respect and comprehend that tiny temporal moment for what it is unburdened by what it had been in the past.

That and the giggling.

[gatomontes99]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

I have no attachment to Maddow whatsoever. 

That first op-ed link was, at a minimum, premature because we've seen in the reports that have followed Mueller's remarkably restrained report, the Trump campaign collusion with Russia was very real. Whether the reality lived up to Maddow's expectations I can't say.

 

Indeed, that second report is very bad. I have no knowledge or awareness of that story, but clearly not journalism. As bad as it is, feels like a drop in the bucket next to Carlson and Co.

There was no Russian collusion, just stop. Don't be intentionally stupid.

[Nationalist]

15 hours ago, Hodad said:

Not a journalist. Not in any way, shape or form.

Actually...it appears Tucker is the most popular journalist in the world.

 

[Hodad]

5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

There was no Russian collusion, just stop. Don't be intentionally stupid.

Absolutely there was. It's documented for all the world to see 

[Nationalist]

34 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Absolutely there was. It's documented for all the world to see 

LOL...accusations and lies do not make fact. I can document that you're a child molester. I can even pay people to agree with me. Does that make it true?

I guess in your world...it does.

You Libbies really do need to be introduced to what the words "truth" and "fact" mean.

Perhaps a re-education program?

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

LOL...accusations and lies do not make fact. I can document that you're a child molester. I can even pay people to agree with me. Does that make it true?

I guess in your world...it does.

You Libbies really do need to be introduced to what the words "truth" and "fact" mean.

Perhaps a re-education program?

Yes, we all know that in your senile old brain facts only count when they are compatible with your precious feelings. 

Meanwhile, back in reality, it's a matter of public record that Manafort what Manafort did and with whom. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Absolutely there was. It's documented for all the world to see 

The documentation shows there wasn't. The only way you could see that there was is to have a distorted tribal view that lets you alter reality to fit your desired outcome

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yes, we all know that in your senile old brain facts only count when they are compatible with your precious feelings. 

Meanwhile, back in reality, it's a matter of public record that Manafort what Manafort did and with whom. 

Ya I remember that case. I remember it was flimsy and rather polically motivated.

Yet you were insisting, regardless of facts, that the ridiculous RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA nonsense was based on facts...which it wasn't. It was based on seething lies.

Yup...A re-education program would serve you well.

[Hodad]

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Ya I remember that case. I remember it was flimsy and rather polically motivated.

Yet you were insisting, regardless of facts, that the ridiculous RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA nonsense was based on facts...which it wasn't. It was based on seething lies.

Yup...A re-education program would serve you well.

Sorry, you're either ignorant of the facts or lying. Every step of the collusion is documented in government reports--most comprehensively the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Select Committee report. 

There is no question whatsoever that the acts of collusion occurred. The most you can do is pretend that we can't know Manafort's reasons and motives for feeding the Russians information to target their US interference efforts.

[Nationalist]

41 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Sorry, you're either ignorant of the facts or lying. Every step of the collusion is documented in government reports--most comprehensively the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Select Committee report. 

There is no question whatsoever that the acts of collusion occurred. The most you can do is pretend that we can't know Manafort's reasons and motives for feeding the Russians information to target their US interference efforts.

Lol...

"Colusion Colusion...AHHH!"

What chickensh1t. Too bad the infamous investigation came up with bubkus.

Maybe Hilary-Billary should have spent more money.

[impartialobserver]

On 12/4/2024 at 5:00 PM, Hodad said:

I definitely blame him. He makes his fortune misleading stupid people. There are literally hundreds of idlots on prison because they listened to the lies he willfully and deliberately told to them. He even felt guilty about it--but not enough to stop doing it for the money.

Morally and ethically it's no different than the Nigerian Prince scam. Both make money by exploiting gullible people, there's just no law against lying on TV for money.

And let me guess.. the gullible who eat up his content are not to blame in any way? I blame the consumer who makes the dumb decision not the salesmen who peddle it. 

[Hodad]

9 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

And let me guess.. the gullible who eat up his content are not to blame in any way? I blame the consumer who makes the dumb decision not the salesmen who peddle it. 

 Well, sure, consumers could do things to avoid becoming victims, but if they knew better they wouldn't in that situation in the first place. 

An elderly woman I know recently lost about $400 to a fake bank scam. There's a pretty long list of red flags that could have alerted her to the fact of the scam. But it's hard to blame the victim for not being smart or savvy enough to defend themselves. 

Tucker wasn't lying to people to take money directly from them, but he was lying to them for his own financial gain. 

There are a lot of dumb people out there. And there are ignorant people out there. Gullible people. -- A lot of them from a generation when those faces on the TV had a business model based on being trusted and reliable. Before the cable news infotainment wave. People who grew up with Walter Cronkite or Tom Brokaw just aren't prepared to vet and filter. They have no natural immunity. 

At any rate, yes, people who exploit others are victimizing the exploited. They are scamming them. Conning them. Those perpetrators are to blame for their actions and any damage the victims suffer. 

[impartialobserver]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

There are a lot of dumb people out there. And there are ignorant people out there. Gullible people. -- A lot of them from a generation when those faces on the TV had a business model based on being trusted and reliable. Before the cable news infotainment wave. People who grew up with Walter Cronkite or Tom Brokaw just aren't prepared to vet and filter. They have no natural immunity.

So you are saying that they are of low intelligence and so are not to blame for their words/actions? Interesting theory. I do not subscribe to that. 

[Hodad]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So you are saying that they are of low intelligence and so are not to blame for their words/actions? Interesting theory. I do not subscribe to that. 

🤷‍♂️ Centuries of Western jurisprudence does buy that victims are not at fault for being victimized. That's why we hold fraudsters and scammers liable. It's why Bernie Madoff's victims were able to claw back what was left of their money. Etc. Etc. 

 

[NAME REMOVED]

5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So you are saying that they are of low intelligence and so are not to blame for their words/actions? Interesting theory. I do not subscribe to that. 

There are people who are susceptible to propaganda as well. Some of them are quite intelligent, just lacking in critical thinking. Just look at this forum as an example. Some of the MAGA cult member habitually spew incredible and wild conspiracies. They them attack the ones, who have the critical thinking skills to call them out, or point out the truth to them.

[Radiorum]

Why would anyone think that Carlson is anything other than a charlatan seeking to enrich himself?

[impartialobserver]

36 minutes ago, Hodad said:

🤷‍♂️ Centuries of Western jurisprudence does buy that victims are not at fault for being victimized. That's why we hold fraudsters and scammers liable. It's why Bernie Madoff's victims were able to claw back what was left of their money. Etc. Etc. 

 

In short, you give them a free pass for their ignorance. They can't help it... they have no choice but to believe him. Well, that does not work for me. I believe that folks have choice over what information they ingest and what they do what that information. My guess is that you would tell us that you are free to believe what you do... 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Why would anyone think that Carlson is anything other than a charlatan seeking to enrich himself?

We generally provides some indication of where his information is coming from or how he arrived at that conclusion, it's not that hard to go and double check it. Frankly saying the truth as much as possible helps elevate him in the eyes of other people so it's something he does whether he's a charlatan or not.

A better question is why would you believe any journalist or reporter is anything but a charlatan seeking to enrich themselves? I have never encountered one that didn't twist stories by intent or even worse make major errors because they were rushing a deadline and they didn't take the time to verify things.

Reporters are beginning they're not an end. All of them. I have to take what they say and then verify. And that respect Carlson's no different than any of the others

[Fluffypants]

On 12/4/2024 at 7:22 AM, Hodad said:

Eh, this is a real chicken-or- the-egg story. 

It's Tucker Carlson. It's he an arsehole because his mom didn't like him, or did his mom dislike him because he was an arsehole?

You mean when he was 6?

On 12/4/2024 at 6:12 PM, Hodad said:

Not a journalist. Not in any way, shape or form.

If he isn't a journalist NO ONE at MSNBC should be calling themselves journalists.