Some of page content & features are available only to members - Sign up only takes 8 seconds!

How Would You Compare Tucker Carlson And Sean Hannity? (FOX News)

+2 votes
25 views
May 24 in News & Informations ⌨ by Virginia (7,120 points)

Would you say that Tucker Carlson is more fair, more accurate than Sean Hannity? I did not know anything about either of them since I don't usually watch FOX news, but now I am interested...this below is on Wikipedia about Sean Hannity, is it true? Is Tucker Carlson more reliable?

"Hannity has promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories, such as casting doubt on Barack Obama's birthplace, promoting conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich, and reporting false stories about Hillary Clinton's health. "

1 Answer

TheOtherTink May 24

I think there is no comparison. Carlson is much more intelligent than Hannity, and much more factual.

And Carlson's show is very entertaining.  He always has one or more progressive guests with whom he debates and makes utter fools of by pointing out their internal contradictions, hypocrisy, etc., whereupon the guests try to change the subject or filibuster or otherwise try to evade answering, tactics that can fool no one except perhaps other lefty true believers.

Thanks Tink, knowing something of your perceptive powers ima go with that...I am watching more Bret Weinstein and I THINK that is what he was indicating...that he Weinstein respects Tucker Carlson but not so much Hannity...

Not to send you off on a time-consuming project, but I am mildly curious, and as you know I am also interested in the rational process...

So if you happen upon an example of Carlson "pointing out their internal contradictions, hypocrisy, etc., whereupon the guests try to change the subject"...do if you please post it?

Ok, Virginia, will do, but it will have to wait until this evening.  :)

Here is an example, Virginia.  :)


Hi Tink, well I have spent a while on this, and learned a great deal...yes, it is a fine example of what you were saying about Carlson, and the Santa Clara guy seems hopelessly ill-informed so that you even wonder how he holds his position of such responsibility, and Tucker Carlson did not let him slide by.

My question would be, since Tucker Carlson is a national commentator, representing MSM, shouldn't he himself have also done his research to know the constitutional grounds upon which the sanctuary cities won their lawsuit? And report that to his listeners?

And I will tell you, for me it was NOT EASY to figure that out, i.e., the grounds that Orrick used to find in favour of the sanctuary spots...apparently, some Fifth Amendment but mostly the Tenth Amendment. Tenth is, "the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people."

Here is something from a legal scholar, in the Washington Post: "...Supreme Court precedent mandates that the federal government may not impose conditions on grants to states and localities unless the conditions are "unambiguously" stated in the text of the law "so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds...Any such condition must be passed by Congress, and may only apply to new grants, not ones that have already been appropriated. The executive cannot simply make up new conditions on its own and impose them on state and local governments. Doing so undermines both the separation of powers and federalism.

Even aside from Trump's dubious effort to tie it to federal grants, Section 1373 is itself unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not 'commandeer' state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment."
So I kinda fault both of them, but especially the Santa Clara official.
Here if a Huff Post article that posts the entire November 2017 Orrick ruling, but I could not really figure that out...except I thought Orrick sounded a bit vindictive toward Trump.

Hi Virginia, I suppose Carlson might have spent a bit more time on why Orrick ruled the way he did, but I think he was treating that as a given, namely that Santa Clara won its case that it did not have to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and was not subject to grants being withheld.

I think Carson's purpose was to ferret out WHY the politicians in Santa Clara would not want to cooperate in enforcing some federal laws, immigration laws in particular.   That of course is when his guest, David Cortese, started squirming in a most entertaining manner, as many others like him have before.

P.S. Not everyone thinks the grounds for Orrick's ruling were quite as open-and-shut as the commentators in your links did. :)

Tink, ima come back later in the day for your comment...meanwhile, my computer cannot open the National Review link...is there a seed paragraph you could lift-and-paste? 

Also, even though I generally prefer not to evaluate in terms of left v. right, still in my reading that dynamic is taking on an interest of its own...so, do I recall correctly that the National Review is considered to present a conservative perspective?

Virginia, here is the opening paragraph.

"A showboating federal judge in San Francisco has issued an injunction against President Trump’s executive order cutting off federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. The ruling distorts the E.O. beyond recognition, accusing the president of usurping legislative authority despite the order’s express adherence to “existing law.” Moreover, undeterred by the inconvenience that the order has not been enforced, the activist court — better to say, the fantasist court — dreams up harms that might befall San Francisco and Santa Clara, the sanctuary jurisdictions behind the suit, if it were enforced. The court thus flouts the standing doctrine, which limits judicial authority to actual controversies involving concrete, non-speculative harms."

And yes, NR is about as far to the right as the HuffPo is to the left.  :)

Okay ty Tink...I do not feel I am even close to sorting out the dynamics here, but at least an introduction to them...

First, I DO see from this clip the skill of Tucker Carlson in calling out the appalling ignorance of that official. As to the immigration, to me it is REALLY obvious that we need immigration reform, it's been badly bungled. So to back up, do you personally think Trump went about that well, approaching it as he did through the EO? Did he issue his EO somewhat "in-your-face," confrontative and adversarial?

I read the USA has about 500 sanctuary cities/areas. What if Trump took the case to the major ones and in collaboration built something that would work? As it is, we seem to have a stalemate with nothing happening except name calling (as fantasist court), and we NEED a more effective policy than we now have. 

* * *

Oh...and my own ignorance is showing here...I did not know Huff Post was liberal. If you were to place Huff Post and NR on a scale of 0 to -10 and +10 respectively, with 0 being neutral, where would they fall?

Oh, maybe around -7.5 and +7.5, respectively.  :)

And yes, we need an immigration policy, but what it's really about is a political power struggle for future votes, which is the reason it has been so intractable.

In other words, fairly intense both of them! 

Yep. :)

Tink, do you see a way forward? Lots of important drama going on, with USA embroiled in power struggles while Rome burns...(and I DO hope that is an exaggeration).

Well, Virginia, as I see it, the Democrats are looking for a permanent national voting majority, as they already have in many large cities and several large states, so they are going to keep pushing for lax border security.

I haven't looked up the history of it in some time, but didn't Reagan agree to amnesty for millions of illegal aliens? And wasn't it a deal that there was supposed to be strict border security thereafter?  The latter never happened.

Tink, that 1986 bill is called the Reagan Amnesty, and it's quite interesting...

Reagan "knew that it was not right for people to be abused," Simpson says. "Anybody who's here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights."

Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, agrees. "It was in Ronald Reagan's bones — it was part of his understanding of America — that the country was fundamentally open to those who wanted to join us here." (Reagan said) "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally."

Then..."He was a Californian," Robinson says. "You couldn't live in California ... without encountering over and over and over again good, hard-working, decent people — clearly recent arrivals from Mexico." 

Then...That the U.S. failed to regain control of the border — making the 1986 law's amnesty provision an incentive for others to come to America illegally — would have infuriated Reagan, Robinson says.

Here is the link, it's from 2010 and it's NPR, which I am reading is known for its liberalism. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

...and if true, THAT is a sickening way to go about "looking" for a party majority.

Virginia, I fear the evidence of such 'looking' for such a party majority is all too real, and the middle class be damned. :(


Tink, as you know this is a time of discouragement for me...I don't see either party interested in a healthy middle class, and from some recent reading, am now considering the idea that a thriving middle class may be essential to BOTH a functioning democracy as well as a stable economy.

And, I am not sure where the way forward will come from; the only source remaining seems to be a kind of populism from the ground up, but then you look at "the post-modern worldview" as Bret Weinstein describes it, and the apparent success of THAT can make you lose confidence in the ability of people to self-govern...:'(  

Maybe this is where the Internet comes in...it's so easy now to access different worldviews, the various possibilities...maybe us common folk will still pull this off, find a way through the morass...

Yes, Virginia, I couldn't agree more that a healthy middle class is essential both for democracy and a stable economy.  Historically most of the radical-chic fools who had nothing but disdain for 'bourgeois' values were sadly disappointed after the Revolution came, when they discovered they were not to be part of the ruling Vanguard, contrary to their expectations. And even the communist street thugs who did most of the heavy lifting found they had just traded one tyranny for another.

image

"On the lamp posts."

Tink, it is not a permanent solution, but occasionally in history you find described an "enlightened monarchy;" not sure that ever worked like it seems in retrospect, but upon your suggestion I did watch a bio of Frederick the Great...the people he ruled certainly admired him, "Old Fritz"...and then there was a fellow in India some millennia back maybe his name was Asoka?

;)  :silly:  

I am joking of course, but (ahem) maybe in desperation we need to consider ALL the alternatives...

And, even if socialism didn't lead to these "lantern" scenarios, even if it worked as dreamed, I don't think socialism would give humankind a good venue for our potential, I cannot get it to work in my mind...worker bees/ants/ termites, not enough space for our innovation, creativity, actualizing our own uniqueness.

In previous decades, I myself did have the freedom to be my own rather strange self...but no more. If you are not willing now to become a commodity for the use of others (in the USA), you WILL get evicted and all kinds of strange things...and I have no doubt society benefits from its misfits, maybe could not even thrive without them.

Related questions

Question followers

0 users followed this question.

36 Online
0 Member And 36 Guest
Today Visits : 3833
Yesterday Visits : 6238
All Visits : 8232949
...