shockedcanadian
Diamond Member
- Aug 6, 2012
- 32,168
- 29,534
- 2,905
A long post, but I think Trump supporters should weigh in. Tucker is right on some issues, wide right on others and I think it's a gross mischaracterization of Trumps policies. He's been doing this alot lately.
I think I've sort of figured Tucker out a little bit more after tonight, though I'm still quite confused, if anyone can enlighten me please do. At first I thought he was libertarian, but I've come to the conclusion he is more of a Neo-Con (though he has to accept how wrong he was now about Bushes excursions). Is he far right domestically, but "hey, let's not get too tough in excursions overseas"? I don't know. As I said, he confuses me.
As such, from what I have gleaned from him the last few months, he might be one of those "the cops are never wrong" types I referred to earlier, which is as frightening as the radical alt-left, especially because I KNOW for a fact, that definitely in Canada and Toronto, covert police often have MANY liars who full of completely full of shyte. Not mistaken, "well meaning", or misunderstood, I mean COMPLETELY FULL OF SHYTE. I know, I was accused of having a gun at school as a teen and the uniformed police who came, pulled me out of class and searched me and my locker up and down proved that their own (from a different agency) were full of shyte.
Many have benefited from ruining peoples lives without ANY concern for human rights, transparency or truth. I'd tell that to Tuckers face without a smile and as much as I think he is a sharp guy who could beat me in most debates, in such a debate he would lose mercilessly. It's not about race, at least in Canada; it's about opportunity. Both for them to exploit you if you are poor, and, to give themselves a plush career at the expense of others sons. F them and their lineage.
Tonight Tucker was right about the abuses of rioters, he has a point about Kushner who is a little too Hillary-like liberal, and I don't particularly trust ALL of his judgement. However, I think he's wrong about the idea that Trump "letting people out of prison" (which is totally inaccurate), is showing weakness. His First Step Act is reasonable policy, especially when some deserve a second chance for mistakes, non violent in nature, or, as many years have passed. He has read enough of the cases to know when something is amiss or extreme. That's why we elect leaders.
Tucker himself admitted he was falsely accused of a crime by a former women he worked with. He received of the benefit of the doubt and justice that worked in his favor. What if he hadn't?
Trumps key to 2020 is in fact, being a reasonable libertarian who stands up to global socialists, illegal immigration abuses and China. China is HUGE. Tucker thinks Trump having "to look tough" is good policy, is surprisingly shallow for his pedigree. Trump has to be a leader and he has been, he doesn't need to be a wannabe George Bush Jr. He has to support the Constitution and give resource and assistance to governors and mayors. If they don't want it, he will have to step in if it can protect citizens. He shouldn't show weakness in the face of adversity, but he doesn't need to go overboard. His supporters just want a leader who will call it like it is, they don't need a Napoleon. Good cops, National Guard and the military if needed, will do their job and be supported by the president.
Tucker is making the same mistake his detractors do and pretending all of the countries problems are due to something he could control. That is NOT how civilized, free societies operate, as much as we'd all like to be Emperor. Trump is present and he's been active. Tucker is wrong when he suggests this will define his presidency. Him standing up to China, building a wall and keeping his promises has defined his presidency. His handling of the Wuhan Virus, not backing down from the alt-left and these current protests/riots, is him simply doing his job, they were unexpected circumstances.
Thank you for your time.
I think I've sort of figured Tucker out a little bit more after tonight, though I'm still quite confused, if anyone can enlighten me please do. At first I thought he was libertarian, but I've come to the conclusion he is more of a Neo-Con (though he has to accept how wrong he was now about Bushes excursions). Is he far right domestically, but "hey, let's not get too tough in excursions overseas"? I don't know. As I said, he confuses me.
As such, from what I have gleaned from him the last few months, he might be one of those "the cops are never wrong" types I referred to earlier, which is as frightening as the radical alt-left, especially because I KNOW for a fact, that definitely in Canada and Toronto, covert police often have MANY liars who full of completely full of shyte. Not mistaken, "well meaning", or misunderstood, I mean COMPLETELY FULL OF SHYTE. I know, I was accused of having a gun at school as a teen and the uniformed police who came, pulled me out of class and searched me and my locker up and down proved that their own (from a different agency) were full of shyte.
Many have benefited from ruining peoples lives without ANY concern for human rights, transparency or truth. I'd tell that to Tuckers face without a smile and as much as I think he is a sharp guy who could beat me in most debates, in such a debate he would lose mercilessly. It's not about race, at least in Canada; it's about opportunity. Both for them to exploit you if you are poor, and, to give themselves a plush career at the expense of others sons. F them and their lineage.
Tonight Tucker was right about the abuses of rioters, he has a point about Kushner who is a little too Hillary-like liberal, and I don't particularly trust ALL of his judgement. However, I think he's wrong about the idea that Trump "letting people out of prison" (which is totally inaccurate), is showing weakness. His First Step Act is reasonable policy, especially when some deserve a second chance for mistakes, non violent in nature, or, as many years have passed. He has read enough of the cases to know when something is amiss or extreme. That's why we elect leaders.
Tucker himself admitted he was falsely accused of a crime by a former women he worked with. He received of the benefit of the doubt and justice that worked in his favor. What if he hadn't?
Trumps key to 2020 is in fact, being a reasonable libertarian who stands up to global socialists, illegal immigration abuses and China. China is HUGE. Tucker thinks Trump having "to look tough" is good policy, is surprisingly shallow for his pedigree. Trump has to be a leader and he has been, he doesn't need to be a wannabe George Bush Jr. He has to support the Constitution and give resource and assistance to governors and mayors. If they don't want it, he will have to step in if it can protect citizens. He shouldn't show weakness in the face of adversity, but he doesn't need to go overboard. His supporters just want a leader who will call it like it is, they don't need a Napoleon. Good cops, National Guard and the military if needed, will do their job and be supported by the president.
Tucker is making the same mistake his detractors do and pretending all of the countries problems are due to something he could control. That is NOT how civilized, free societies operate, as much as we'd all like to be Emperor. Trump is present and he's been active. Tucker is wrong when he suggests this will define his presidency. Him standing up to China, building a wall and keeping his promises has defined his presidency. His handling of the Wuhan Virus, not backing down from the alt-left and these current protests/riots, is him simply doing his job, they were unexpected circumstances.
Thank you for your time.
Last edited: