Tucker Carlson Tears Into Ted Cruz In The Most Gloriously Awkward Interview You'll See

[ThatRobGuy]

Tucker Carlson Tears Into Ted Cruz In The Most Gloriously Awkward Interview You'll See

The right-wing media personality got into a shouting match with the Republican senator from Texas.

www.huffpost.com

In the clip, Carlson ― who opposes the U.S. joining the conflict between Israel and Iran, earning the wrath of the GOP establishment including President Donald Trump ― asked Cruz for some basic facts about Iran, such as the population.

“You don’t know the population of the country you seek to topple?” Carlson asked in disbelief. “How could you not know that?”

“I don’t sit around memorizing population tables,” Cruz said.
“Well it’s kind of relevant because you’re calling for the overthrow of the government,” Carlson said.


...it only got more heated from there.

 

[public hermit]

Tucker Carlson Tears Into Ted Cruz In The Most Gloriously Awkward Interview You'll See

The right-wing media personality got into a shouting match with the Republican senator from Texas.

www.huffpost.com

In the clip, Carlson ― who opposes the U.S. joining the conflict between Israel and Iran, earning the wrath of the GOP establishment including President Donald Trump ― asked Cruz for some basic facts about Iran, such as the population.

“You don’t know the population of the country you seek to topple?” Carlson asked in disbelief. “How could you not know that?”

“I don’t sit around memorizing population tables,” Cruz said.
“Well it’s kind of relevant because you’re calling for the overthrow of the government,” Carlson said.


...it only got more heated from there.

I share some of your glee, but only because I think they're both moronic. Carlson makes a good point because these politicians, it's the last thing on their mind. But Carlson is a moron if he thinks that is a good argument in a political context where a few folks are deciding the fate of the world. It makes me sad these people are running things, whether it be politicians or someone with a public voice, because it's all a reflection of how absolutely ignorant we are as a society.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But Carlson is a moron if he thinks that is a good argument in a political context

Which one?

Actually, I thought his arguments about knowing the population size and ideological profile of the majority is fairly good.

If regime change is the plan (I would personally advise against it, as it hasn't worked well in the past)

Knowing the population size and ideological demographics of that country is a crucial piece of information to have.

1) Regime change wars create asylum seekers, knowing the population size is pertinent to forming estimates of exactly how many may end up being displaced that other countries will have to take in.

2) If you're going to make an attempt at "regime change", knowing the ideological background of the people is crucial to knowing what kind of leader to attempt to install.


Again, noting that I'm not a fan of regime change efforts...but if I was going to do it, I would certainly want to know how many people are there, and a detailed breakdown of what ideological positions they have.

 

[public hermit]

Which one?

Actually, I thought his arguments about knowing the population size and ideological profile of the majority is fairly good.

If regime change is the plan (I would personally advise against it, as it hasn't worked well in the past)

Knowing the population size and ideological demographics of that country is a crucial piece of information to have.

1) Regime change wars create asylum seekers, knowing the population size is pertinent to forming estimates of exactly how many may end up being displaced that other countries will have to take in.

2) If you're going to make an attempt at "regime change", knowing the ideological background of the people is crucial to knowing what kind of leader to attempt to install.


Again, noting that I'm not a fan of regime change efforts...but if I was going to do it, I would certainly want to know how many people are there, and a detailed breakdown of what ideological positions they have.

I like your points, and under normal circumstances, I would treat them as if they could be of value, but with this administration, everything can change in one evening of social communications by our president. That being said, I agree and don't think regime change is a good idea. I also think Iran, under its current regime, is happy to press an ideology through any means necessary. I also think most of our politicians are stupid and cannot wisely carry out our best interests. So, yeah, no easy answers here.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Which one?

Actually, I thought his arguments about knowing the population size and ideological profile of the majority is fairly good.

If regime change is the plan (I would personally advise against it, as it hasn't worked well in the past)

Knowing the population size and ideological demographics of that country is a crucial piece of information to have.

1) Regime change wars create asylum seekers, knowing the population size is pertinent to forming estimates of exactly how many may end up being displaced that other countries will have to take in.

2) If you're going to make an attempt at "regime change", knowing the ideological background of the people is crucial to knowing what kind of leader to attempt to install.


Again, noting that I'm not a fan of regime change efforts...but if I was going to do it, I would certainly want to know how many people are there, and a detailed breakdown of what ideological positions they have.

Why would anyone care what leader is installed, as long as all the uranium enrichment facilities are vaporized?

So we can all agree, together, that nation building in Islamic-majority countries is a waste of time. But that doesn't mean we can't strip them of weapons that pose a danger to us and our allies.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Carlson doesn't understand that Iran can continue on as a country, just like they are, on their own.

...*Minus* the enriched uranium and a few dozen politicians.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why would anyone care what leader is installed, as long as all the uranium enrichment facilities are vaporized?

So we can all agree, together, that nation building in Islamic-majority countries is a waste of time. But that doesn't mean we can't strip them of weapons that pose a danger to us and our allies.

After Europe's experience with having to take in Syrian refugees, they may have an opinion on that.

There's no way to do a "regime change" that doesn't involve some significant degree of destabilization...which creates migrants.

If the leader of Iran is unwilling to make a deal, regime change would be the only option.

Obviously the US will win that one from a purely military standpoint...one bunker buster and their operation is done for, but Iran's leader already said they plan to escalate if that happens, which will lead to him getting taken out. -- hence, the destabilization I was referring to.

 

[Landon Caeli]

After Europe's experience with having to take in Syrian refugees, they may have an opinion on that.

There's no way to do a "regime change" that doesn't involve some significant degree of destabilization...which creates migrants.

If the leader of Iran is unwilling to make a deal, regime change would be the only option.

Obviously the US will win that one from a purely military standpoint...one bunker buster and their operation is done for, but Iran's leader already said they plan to escalate if that happens, which will lead to him getting taken out. -- hence, the destabilization I was referring to.

I'm not sure how large Iran's government is, but certainly removing their leadership, starting from the top down, should be the top priority. At some point, as the killings go down the line, there will be somebody who doesn't want to die, and is willing to wave a white flag, right? Persians are smart people! Once you get past the idiots on top, you'll finally get to the intelleligence, right? I mean, one would think.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Are we going to find out, that Iran is no threat to the United States. And Trump is just start trouble with Iran. Over a possible lie. I don't care for Tucker. He's was a trouble maker and he was dishonest on The Fox news channel. But I do believe, that our politicians should know more about the country, that they want to start trouble with. Because of Trump.

 

[Yttrium]

I'm not sure how large Iran's government is, but certainly removing their leadership, starting from the top down, should be the top priority. At some point, as the killings go down the line, there will be somebody who doesn't want to die, and is willing to wave a white flag, right? Persians are smart people! Once you get past the idiots on top, you'll finally get to the intelleligence, right? I mean, one would think.

Sure. Of course, the religious leaders are the ones who hold the real power, starting with Khamenei. Remove the top ones, and you get... a bunch of fanatical hot-heads who are very popular with the people. Hrm.

That might not work out so well.

 

[Pommer]

Carlson doesn't understand that Iran can continue on as a country, just like they are, on their own.

...*Minus* the enriched uranium and a few dozen politicians.

Tell me why the U.S. gets to decide (unilaterally) which nations are “allowed” to try to possess the capability to produce nuclear weapons?

I'm not sure how large Iran's government is, but certainly removing their leadership, starting from the top down, should be the top priority. At some point, as the killings go down the line, there will be somebody who doesn't want to die, and is willing to wave a white flag, right? Persians are smart people! Once you get past the idiots on top, you'll finally get to the intelleligence, right? I mean, one would think.

Aren’t we supposed to be “the good guys”?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Tell me why the U.S. gets to decide (unilaterally) which nations are “allowed” to try to possess the capability to produce nuclear weapons?

Because we are the apex... The height of mankind.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Sure. Of course, the religious leaders are the ones who hold the real power, starting with Khamenei. Remove the top ones, and you get... a bunch of fanatical hot-heads who are very popular with the people. Hrm.

That might not work out so well.

As long as the hot heads don't have a drop of enriched Uranium, and a depleted stockpile of weapons..? Then whatever they're left with is their own problem.

 

[BCP1928]

Because we are the apex... The height of mankind.

The what? OK, I've been Poed.

 

[Landon Caeli]

The what? OK, I've been Poed.

...But setting aside the fact that the US is the most powerful nation in the existence of man, all of Europe, as a whole, also doesn't want Iran to have these weapons... So why the resistance from people here anyways?

 

[BCP1928]

...But setting aside the fact that the US is the most powerful nation in the existence of man, all of Europe, as a whole, also doesn't want Iran to have these weapons... So why the resistance from people here anyways?

Because people suspect that Iran's eagerness to have nukes is being provoked in order to come up with a reason to strike Iran.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Because people suspect that Iran's eagerness to have nukes is being provoked in order to come up with a reason to strike Iran.

But the info on their nuclear capabilities is coming from the UN... You can't even trust them?

 

[BCP1928]

But the info on their nuclear capabilities is coming from the UN... You can't even trust them?

I didn't say that their eagerness to have nukes was being exaggerated, I said it was being provoked.

 

[Pommer]

...But setting aside the fact that the US is the most powerful nation in the existence of man, all of Europe, as a whole, also doesn't want Iran to have these weapons... So why the resistance from people here anyways?

Great, if the President would like to take the evidence to the UN and form a multi-national coalition to make sure that Iran becomes incapable of producing nuclear weapons, I’d get on board with that.

But “deciding” for the rest of the world to go ahead with Israel is pushing the concept to the limit.

 

[SimplyMe]

Which one?

Actually, I thought his arguments about knowing the population size and ideological profile of the majority is fairly good.

If regime change is the plan (I would personally advise against it, as it hasn't worked well in the past)

Knowing the population size and ideological demographics of that country is a crucial piece of information to have.

1) Regime change wars create asylum seekers, knowing the population size is pertinent to forming estimates of exactly how many may end up being displaced that other countries will have to take in.

2) If you're going to make an attempt at "regime change", knowing the ideological background of the people is crucial to knowing what kind of leader to attempt to install.


Again, noting that I'm not a fan of regime change efforts...but if I was going to do it, I would certainly want to know how many people are there, and a detailed breakdown of what ideological positions they have.

I hear "Shahs" are popular in Iran, particularly ones set up by the US government.