• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tucker Carlson

calamity said:
Ah, of course. The only racism Righties see--Black people saying something.
Click to expand...

Oh-- so you single out something Carson said over a decade ago and declare that defines him.

But you are not willing to do that to Rev. Sharpton. And when asked, suggest the person asking is motivated to ask by bigotry.
 
Barnacle said:
After watching the first 10 minutes of Tucker Carlson tonight, you will be pleasantly surprised to hear that Fox News stands behind Tucker, which means advertisers should now boycott the Fox News channel all together. Right?!?

We'll see how many advertisers will stop buying commercial time on Fox News. (grin)
Click to expand...

Yup. Tucker has decided not to engage the circus.
 
jdog21 said:
Sounds like he was making the point that facilitating a marriage of a 16yo to a 27yo isn't the same as felony child rape, and he is right its not the same.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but Warren Jeffs raped a bunch of kids too.
 
gulfman said:
Other sponsors will take their place
Click to expand...

Ah, that comes back full circle to profitability. Will Carlson make them money? Or, will the toxicity of being associated with a misogynist child rape defender cost them money?
 
Winston said:
I hate to break it to you, but Warren Jeffs raped a bunch of kids too.
Click to expand...

At the time of that conversation that wasn't known, and that wasn't what was being discussed.
 
jdog21 said:
At the time of that conversation that wasn't known, and that wasn't what was being discussed.
Click to expand...

Looks like it was known at the time. And, what was being discussed? The validity of imprisonment? I'd say putting a child rapist away is a good thing.

Warren Jeffs - Wikipedia

In July 2004, Warren Jeffs' nephew, Brent Jeffs, filed a lawsuit against Warren alleging that in the late 1980s Warren had anally raped him in the Salt Lake Valley compound then owned by the FLDS Church. Brent Jeffs said he was five or six years old at the time, and that Warren Jeffs' brothers, also named in the lawsuit, participated in the abuse. Two of Warren Jeffs' other nephews made similar claims. Brent Jeffs' brother Clayne committed suicide after accusing Warren Jeffs of sexually assaulting him as a child.
Click to expand...
 
Winston said:
Looks like it was known at the time. And, what was being discussed? The validity of imprisonment? I'd say putting a child rapist away is a good thing.

Warren Jeffs - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

He wasn't convicted of any child sex crimes at that time. What was being discusses was that dude being charged for child rape when his involvement was facilitating a marriage of a 16 year old to a 27 year old. That was his crime, and Tucker was pointing out that wasn't the same style of crime as rape or child rape, he just faciliatated a child marriage and that you have to take those facts instead of trying to associate other non facst into the mix. So how can you back up your claims that Tucker was talking of something different?
 
veritas1 said:
If you insist. Since the term "hate crime" wasn't being used back in Emmett Till's time, I wasn't considering it. Now, if we are past that side trip, maybe we can discuss why liberals hardly ever get the same treatment as conservatives in these cases.
Click to expand...
Ask ex-Senator Al Franken
 
Athanasius68 said:
Oh-- so you single out something Carson said over a decade ago and declare that defines him.

But you are not willing to do that to Rev. Sharpton. And when asked, suggest the person asking is motivated to ask by bigotry.
Click to expand...
Tucker recently criticized Biden for something Biden said in 1975

That's 44 years ago
 
jdog21 said:
He wasn't convicted of any child sex crimes at that time. What was being discusses was that dude being charged for child rape when his involvement was facilitating a marriage of a 16 year old to a 27 year old. That was his crime, and Tucker was pointing out that wasn't the same style of crime as rape or child rape, he just faciliatated a child marriage and that you have to take those facts instead of trying to associate other non facst into the mix. So how can you back up your claims that Tucker was talking of something different?
Click to expand...

First of all, being an accomplice in rape is about as bad as doing the raping, of which Jeffs did a lot of that himself too.

Second of all, Tucker's framing in the interview is incomplete. Warren Jeffs is an evil son of a bitch. Anyone who followed the story at the time knew that. Tucker failed to mention that Jeffs was accused of rape going back to 2004. So, Tucker was zeroing in on what the prosecutors could charge in 2006, in order to defend a known child rapist going back to the 80's, whose reign of terror caused suicides of family members. When anyone who paid the slightest bit of attention, read the smallest article on it, knew that Jeffs had been accused of child rape going back to 2004.

And then in 2007, what do you know? Arizona charged 8 counts of incest and child rape. They would eventually get him on real rape charges, because he is an abominable child rapist, whose activities have haunted the lives of who he touched. So, either Tucker had a massively bad take on current events, or he's just an immoral guy. But, go ahead and keep defending child rape jdog, the tribalism runs strong in you. Must defend Republicans..... must.. defend rapists...
 
Understand what those of the leftwing attacking Carlson are claiming - and how extreme the leftwing trivializes rape. They are claiming there is NO difference between marrying a 16 year old and forcibly raping a 16 year old stranger.

Carlson is accurate in in what he said as a distinction. The reason that person was prosecuted is because he is part of a religious group the government intensely dislikes. Nor did he himself rape anyone or have sex with the 16 year old. He did a marriage ceremony from what I understand. So - to those attacking of the leftwing - officiating an illegal marriage between a 16 year old - never touching her - to a 27 year old is EXACTLY the same as a man kidnapping a 16 year old and raping her. That is how much those leftwingers trivialized violently forcible rape.

Teenage marriage was common historically, in the 1950s in the USA it was 12% of all marriages, nor is it that rare now. The percentage of teenagers who are virgin in the USA? 55%. Apparently the other 45% are all rape victims?
 
Last edited:
Winston said:
First of all, being an accomplice in rape is about as bad as doing the raping, of which Jeffs did a lot of that himself too.

Second of all, Tucker's framing in the interview is incomplete. Warren Jeffs is an evil son of a bitch. Anyone who followed the story at the time knew that. Tucker failed to mention that Jeffs was accused of rape going back to 2004. So, Tucker was zeroing in on what the prosecutors could charge in 2006, in order to defend a known child rapist going back to the 80's, whose reign of terror caused suicides of family members. When anyone who paid the slightest bit of attention, read the smallest article on it, knew that Jeffs had been accused of child rape going back to 2004.

And then in 2007, what do you know? Arizona charged 8 counts of incest and child rape. They would eventually get him on real rape charges, because he is an abominable child rapist, whose activities have haunted the lives of who he touched. So, either Tucker had a massively bad take on current events, or he's just an immoral guy. But, go ahead and keep defending child rape jdog, the tribalism runs strong in you. Must defend Republicans..... must.. defend rapists...
Click to expand...
Its easy to see how you are so flawed. No one is defending anyone. Its simply stating that someone is convicted of facilitating a child marriage and that we should judge him on that fact. If you believe that is wrong and to the extent you think that deserves punishment, that's all fine but don't judge someone based on incomplete evidence where they havnt been found guilty of anything.
 
jdog21 said:
Its easy to see how you are so flawed. No one is defending anyone. Its simply stating that someone is convicted of facilitating a child marriage and that we should judge him on that fact. If you believe that is wrong and to the extent you think that deserves punishment, that's all fine but don't judge someone based on incomplete evidence where they havnt been found guilty of anything.
Click to expand...

Except that it was public knowledge that Jeffs had been accused of child rape going back to 2004. How could Tucker not know that?

Also the GIRLS, they were GIRLS, a 16 year old girl, in the case Tucker is referencing, told Warren Jeffs, that they did not consent to be married to their would be suitors, because they were surely to be raped over and over again, and they were.
 
Winston said:
First of all, being an accomplice in rape is about as bad as doing the raping, of which Jeffs did a lot of that himself too.

Second of all, Tucker's framing in the interview is incomplete. Warren Jeffs is an evil son of a bitch. Anyone who followed the story at the time knew that. Tucker failed to mention that Jeffs was accused of rape going back to 2004. So, Tucker was zeroing in on what the prosecutors could charge in 2006, in order to defend a known child rapist going back to the 80's, whose reign of terror caused suicides of family members. When anyone who paid the slightest bit of attention, read the smallest article on it, knew that Jeffs had been accused of child rape going back to 2004.

And then in 2007, what do you know? Arizona charged 8 counts of incest and child rape. They would eventually get him on real rape charges, because he is an abominable child rapist, whose activities have haunted the lives of who he touched. So, either Tucker had a massively bad take on current events, or he's just an immoral guy. But, go ahead and keep defending child rape jdog, the tribalism runs strong in you. Must defend Republicans..... must.. defend rapists...
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton was accused of rape - every voter knew that - and Democrats voted for him anyway. In your logic, tens of millions of Democrats are all immoral pro-rape - or at least YOU think that in your message's reasoning. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Winston said:
Except that it was public knowledge that Jeffs had been accused of child rape going back to 2004. How could Tucker not know that?

Also the GIRLS, they were GIRLS, a 16 year old girl, in the case Tucker is referencing, told Warren Jeffs, that they did not consent to be married to their would be suitors, because they were surely to be raped over and over again, and they were.
Click to expand...

Yes and the parents of those GIRLS and that husband should be the focus of the conversation, not really the parson that facilitated their meetings.
 
joko104 said:
Bill Clinton was accused of rape - every voter knew that - and Democrats voted for him anyway. In your logic, tens of millions of Democrats are all immoral pro-rape - or at least YOU think that. :roll:
Click to expand...

This is a pathetic false equivalency. Jeffs is a convicted rapist with a life sentence. Bill Clinton is not.
 
jdog21 said:
Yes and the parents of those GIRLS and that husband should be the focus of the conversation, not really the parson that facilitated their meetings.
Click to expand...

They were all in a cult jdog. Warren Jeffs is the Grand Father of them all. He sexually penetrated every single person on the compound whenever he wanted to, regardless of age or willingness. IMO, that should be the focus of the conversation. Not some desperate deflection on what they could charge.
 
Winston said:
They were all in a cult jdog. Warren Jeffs is the Grand Father of them all. He sexually penetrated every single person on the compound whenever he wanted to, regardless of age or willingness. IMO, that should be the focus of the conversation. Not some desperate deflection on what they could charge.
Click to expand...

And once convicted of that fact then you can talk about his horrible perversions but doing show before hand is speculation.
 
jdog21 said:
And once convicted of that fact then you can talk about his horrible perversions but doing show before hand is speculation.
Click to expand...

The girls were married off against their will. Tucker isn't even right on the merits of the case. He's just defending a rapist, for God knows what reason.

And.. Jeffs would be indicted on 8 counts of incest and sexual assault in 2007.
 
Winston said:
The girls were married off against their will. Tucker isn't even right on the merits of the case. He's just defending a rapist, for God knows what reason.

And.. Jeffs would be indicted on 8 counts of incest and sexual assault in 2007.
Click to expand...

And when was he convicted of his crimes before or after Tuckers comments?
 
jdog21 said:
And when was he convicted of his crimes before or after Tuckers comments?
Click to expand...

Jeffs first conviction was in the mid-'00's for being an accomplice to the rape of underage girls. His last conviction was in the early '10's. So, it depends on which crimes you are referring. He wasn't convicted of incest until after that interview. But, he was serving time for marrying off girls against their will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom