Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, advocates mob rule government

[johnwk]

.
I’m not sure if Tucker Carlson actually supports “democracy” in its classical sense ___ which is comparable to mob rule government ___ or he simply hasn’t taken the time to learn the fundamental differences between our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” and that of a democracy in which a majority of what the people want they should get, i.e., mob rule government!

Let us listen to Tucker Carlson’s VERY OWN WORDS and you decide what he wants.

“I want a democracy where the majority of voters get to decide what their country does.” 

This is the classic definition of a “democracy” as distinguished from our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” in which our elected representatives, restrained by a written Constitution, set public policy.

Perhaps Tucker Carlson, and other hosts on Fox News Channel, who constantly refer to our system of government as a “democracy”, will expound upon their referencing our system as a “democracy” instead of the constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government’ which our constitution guarantees under Article 4, Section 4. 

JWK

John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed out that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...". 

[Cyber Liberty]

Good catch, @johnwk!

[DCPatriot]

Good catch, @johnwk!

Not so fast there...

We all know that true 'Democracy' is mob rule.

But @johnwk ...he's taking it out of context. 

What Tucker means is that the career Deep State and the militant Left with their complicit media (including social media giants Google and Facebook) don't comprise the majority of this country.

And yet their voices are the loudest

[Sanguine]

@johnwk, I've been concerned about Tucker's ideology or misunderstanding thereof for some time.  I like Tucker; I usually watch his show, but he appears to have a very shallow understanding of a constitutional republic.

[truth_seeker]

and then you ask yourself, why are "true conservatives" not more effective at persuading, changing view converting folks. ?


Answer: Tucker is one of the good guys; he could help.

Yet somebodythinks it is useful, to attack him over a distinction on commonly word usage.



just witnessed a demo of circular firing squad. Inabilityto identify friend or foe, and vvarious "conservative" afflictions.

"How many democrats can get on the head of a pin?"

[Cyber Liberty]

Not so fast there...

We all know that true 'Democracy' is mob rule.

But @johnwk ...he's taking it out of context. 

What Tucker means is that the career Deep State and the militant Left with their complicit media (including social media giants Google and Facebook) don't comprise the majority of this country.

And yet their voices are the loudest

I don't know the context.  There's a YouTube link, but I can't hear those very well, and CC usually sux.   

[skeeter]

Tucker makes the very common mistake of using the word democracy in place of democratic republic.

Tucker's been a target in the past few months which is a testament to his effectiveness, IMO. I also think he's receiving fire lately from the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP because of his strong stand against illegal immigration.

[Chosen Daughter]

Not so fast there...

We all know that true 'Democracy' is mob rule.

But @johnwk ...he's taking it out of context. 

What Tucker means is that the career Deep State and the militant Left with their complicit media (including social media giants Google and Facebook) don't comprise the majority of this country.

And yet their voices are the loudest

Oh, you mean career leftists in the GOP swamp like Lindsey Graham who appears to be the presidents mouthpiece lately?  Even on the ridiculous FOX News channel which obviously does not understand the type of government we have.

[INVAR]

and then you ask yourself, why are "true conservatives" not more effective at persuading, changing view converting folks. ?

Because emotion overrules logic in a society and among a people that have rejected foundational principles for what is expedient.  A people who reject in hostility what it no longer believes in for what is self-gratifying and what gives the people what they think they want in terms of government being their weapon of punishment.

just witnessed a demo of circular firing squad. Inabilityto identify friend or foe, and vvarious "conservative" afflictions.

You mean like when you ForeverTrump®s demonstrated that we are either 100% with you in fealty, or we are 100% the "enemy"??  "Get on the train or get run over by it"???

You people were the first to start shooting the backs of skulls while we slept in your tents.

[roamer_1]

and then you ask yourself, why are "true conservatives" not more effective at persuading, changing view converting folks. ?

Because Conservatism - Read Liberty - Comes with certain responsibilities.
Most Americans it seems, including many on this board, would rather have freedom - Which has consequences.

[johnwk]

@johnwk, I've been concerned about Tucker's ideology or misunderstanding thereof for some time.  I like Tucker; I usually watch his show, but he appears to have a very shallow understanding of a constitutional republic.

I think we agree!  It may be Tucker’s “shallow” understanding of the principles under which our federal constitution was adopted.  For example, Tucker Carlson seemed to be giving in to the socialist mantra of a guaranteed “living wage” in a recent show.


On Sep 7, 2018 Tucker seemed to be promoting the socialist nonsense of a “living wage” while condemning Amazon’s owner.


But under our free enterprise system, everyone working for Amazon, or any other company, are blessed to have the constitutionally protected right to personally negotiate the value of their own labor, while business owners likewise have the right to negotiate what wage will be paid for a particular job being offered.  Our system is based upon a mutual consent between business owner and employee.


If a person is not earning a “living wage” at their current job, the solution is to find an additional job or increase their skills to a level which will demand a “living wage”.

Tucker Carlson’s inner socialist tendencies seem to be getting the best of him by attacking the owner of Amazon rather than the problem___ the problem being unskilled employees being delinquent in improving their skills, or taking on an additional job in order to earn a living wage.


CLICK HERE for Tucker’s attack on Amazon's owner.


Instead of Tucker attacking Amazon’s owner because some employees are receiving food stamps, why not attack government force being used to provide government cheese, which is the real problem?  One of our forefathers addressed this issue as follows:


"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny." See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress” February 3rd, 1792


JWK


The unavoidable truth is, the Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’, Andrew Gillum and Ayanna Pressley’s socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

[Cyber Liberty]

Never forget the places Carlson worked before Fox News.

[Emjay]

.
I’m not sure if Tucker Carlson actually supports “democracy” in its classical sense ___ which is comparable to mob rule government ___ or he simply hasn’t taken the time to learn the fundamental differences between our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” and that of a democracy in which a majority of what the people want they should get, i.e., mob rule government!

Let us listen to Tucker Carlson’s VERY OWN WORDS and you decide what he wants.

“I want a democracy where the majority of voters get to decide what their country does.” 

This is the classic definition of a “democracy” as distinguished from our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” in which our elected representatives, restrained by a written Constitution, set public policy.

Perhaps Tucker Carlson, and other hosts on Fox News Channel, who constantly refer to our system of government as a “democracy”, will expound upon their referencing our system as a “democracy” instead of the constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government’ which our constitution guarantees under Article 4, Section 4. 

JWK

John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed out that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...". 

I like Tucker Carlson a lot and he does get excited about things.  I'm sure if you actually interviewed him, instead of just taking some words out of context, you would realize that he believes in a constitutional Republic just like we do.

Those words were in response to something horrible liberals had done.

[Sanguine]

I like Tucker Carlson a lot and he does get excited about things.  I'm sure if you actually interviewed him, instead of just taking some words out of context, you would realize that he believes in a constitutional Republic just like we do.

Those words were in response to something horrible liberals had done.

The Amazon thing really perturbed me.  He was attacking Bezos, "the richest man in the world", for the plight of an ex-Amazon employee who was living in her car.  She had gotten "hurt on the job" twice, and apparently the second time Amazon let her go with a month of salary and some COBRA payments.

Tucker's interview was horrible - he didn't ask her any of the questions that would help put her exit in context - he just assumed it was something Amazon/Bezos had done to the poor woman.  I got the impression that she was let go for reason, and had she really been injured on the job, she would have been on workers' comp.  Bottom line: she was living in her car because she didn't have a job.  She wasn't an Amazon employee.

[Emjay]

The Amazon thing really perturbed me.  He was attacking Bezos, "the richest man in the world", for the plight of an ex-Amazon employee who was living in her car.  She had gotten "hurt on the job" twice, and apparently the second time Amazon let her go with a month of salary and some COBRA payments.

Tucker's interview was horrible - he didn't ask her any of the questions that would help put her exit in context - he just assumed it was something Amazon/Bezos had done to the poor woman.  I got the impression that she was let go for reason, and had she really been injured on the job, she would have been on workers' comp.  Bottom line: she was living in her car because she didn't have a job.  She wasn't an Amazon employee.

I actually saw that interview and you are right.  The woman was not a good interviewee and couldn't seem to make her case for being mistreated.  It was a poorly done gotcha interview over Amazon.

Lot of people lose their jobs for various reasons.  Most of them do not move to their cars.

[johnwk]

I like Tucker Carlson a lot and he does get excited about things.  I'm sure if you actually interviewed him, instead of just taking some words out of context, you would realize that he believes in a constitutional Republic just like we do.

Those words were in response to something horrible liberals had done.

I too like Tucker's show.  Aside from that I took nothing out of context.  I even posted a link to Carlson's very own words.


Are we to forget that words matter?

Tucker has an opportunity to educate his audience, especially to the fact were are not a "democracy", which is a vile form of government and friendly to socialist thinking allowing rights associated with property ownership to be overruled by majority vote.


I am disappointed that you find my intended constructive criticism as being offensive.

JWK

   The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

[Emjay]

I too like Tucker's show.  Aside from that I took nothing out of context.  I even posted a link to Carlson's very own words.


Are we to forget that words matter?

Tucker has an opportunity to educate his audience, especially to the fact were are not a "democracy", which is a vile form of government and friendly to socialist thinking allowing rights associated with property ownership to be overruled by majority vote.


I am disappointed that you find my intended constructive criticism as being offensive.

JWK

   The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

Well, don't get all het up @johnwk   I did not find your post offensive.  I did find that you took some things he said on a certain day and made them into Tucker's stance on representative government.

Tucker is on the air 10 hours a week.  I hate it when he interviews idiots.  I fast forward through that.  I love his Mark Steyn segments ... what a couple of great guys.

Plus, I don't think we need to worry if a political analyst is wrong occasionally.  He has a long way to go to catch up with some of our Senators.

[Free Vulcan]

Whatever he said, I do agree that the 4th branch of government, the bureaucracy, should not be the decider.

[Absalom]

Because Conservatism - Read Liberty - Comes with certain responsibilities.
Most Americans it seems, including many on this board, would rather have freedom - Which has consequences.

-----------------------------------------------------
Hmm............ appears another urinary contest is about to explode over labels;
such as 'conservatism' which many toss around like a tennis ball @ Wimbledon.
So another reflection which is hardly my opinion.
The Natural Law was born alongside Mankind and derived from human nature
by applying logic and reason. It appears in the ideas and thoughts of the great
minds of the Fertile Crescent among them Hammurabi and Sargon.
Later the wise Greeks further advanced Man's understanding, particularly Plato
in his monumental work, "The Republic".
From these ideas, Principled Conservatism evolved, a body of enduring
precepts and rules governing conduct necessary for the sustainability of
culture/society involving attitudes, behaviors and sentiments about human
nature and having nothing, NOTHING, to do w/either politics or religion.
These precepts were advanced by Aristotle, then by the Medieval Scholastics,
among them Aquinas and Ockham and later by the English Whigs, among them
Burke, Hume and Locke.
Around 1750, the French Radicals , experts at religious heresy, birthed a secular
heresy in the form of the Enlightenment w/their mantra:
* Liberte' / liberty, freedom trumps all virtue,
* Egalite'/ we are all equal,
* Fraternite' /we are all bothers;
capturing in three words the bull shit that has spawned every ism of the modern
era most prominently progressivism, the father of Marxism.
Many insist that Libertarianism is the same as Conservatism. Wrong, as they have
little to do w/each other than the notion of property rights.
Suggestion; if one wishes to enlighten in order to persuade one must first understand!!!
 

[johnwk]

-----------------------------------------------------
Hmm............ appears another urinary contest is about to explode over labels;
such as 'conservatism' which many toss around like a tennis ball @ Wimbledon.
So another reflection which is hardly my opinion.
The Natural Law was born alongside Mankind and derived from human nature
by applying logic and reason. It appears in the ideas and thoughts of the great
minds of the Fertile Crescent among them Hammurabi and Sargon.
Later the wise Greeks further advanced Man's understanding, particularly Plato
in his monumental work, "The Republic".
From these ideas, Principled Conservatism evolved, a body of enduring
precepts and rules governing conduct necessary for the sustainability of
culture/society involving attitudes, behaviors and sentiments about human
nature and having nothing, NOTHING, to do w/either politics or religion.
These precepts were advanced by Aristotle, then by the Medieval Scholastics,
among them Aquinas and Ockham and later by the English Whigs, among them
Burke, Hume and Locke.
Around 1750, the French Radicals , experts at religious heresy, birthed a secular
heresy in the form of the Enlightenment w/their mantra:
* Liberte' / liberty, freedom trumps all virtue,
* Egalite'/ we are all equal,
* Fraternite' /we are all bothers;
capturing in three words the bull shit that has spawned every ism of the modern
era most prominently progressivism, the father of Marxism.
Many insist that Libertarianism is the same as Conservatism. Wrong, as they have
little to do w/each other than the notion of property rights.
Suggestion; if one wishes to enlighten in order to persuade one must first understand!!!

I have no idea what message you are trying to convey above and how it is connected to the subject of the thread.

JWK



The Democrat Party Leadership's offer for free government cheese is really not free. It first addicts and then enslaves participants on an iron fisted socialist run plantation.

[roamer_1]

Suggestion; if one wishes to enlighten in order to persuade one must first understand!!!

I have read it all, and you can keep your demon infested 'great minds'. as I had suggested earlier.

I am more interested in American Conservatism as a way of life. And that includes the Judeo-Christian Ethic, whether you like it or not. What is in that Conservatism requires no great minds to be made evident - It is inherent in the ground I walk upon. It exudes from a civil-libertarian mindset, and a simple, responsible life. It is made evident in the hard work of my own hands, and the simple thought that no man has the right to take that which I have made. Therein lies liberty, as America has found it.

[Cyber Liberty]

I have no idea what message you are trying to convey above and how it is connected to the subject of the thread.

JWK

Maybe it's just because my opinion is humble, but I think it adds some depth to the topic at hand.  Very germane.

[Absalom]

I have no idea what message you are trying to convey above and how it is connected to the subject of the thread.
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership's offer for free government cheese is really not free. It first addicts and then enslaves participants on an iron fisted socialist run plantation.

-------------------------------------------
Not that complicated.
I ended w/the assertion that if one wishes to enlighten in order to persuade, one must first understand.
So let's evaluate your opening sentence:

"........supports democracies in its classical sense - which is comparable to mob rule government-...."

The Ancient Greeks, among them Pericles and Solon of Athens (as well as the Romans),
were the very essence of Classical.They defined Democracy as the rule of plain people.
As did the the Britannica w/o a whisper about your 'mob rule' nonsense.
Hmm.............maybe those Greeks and Britannica had no idea what they were talking about.
FYI, the Greeks, who were self taught, had a hierarchical culture/society and permitted those
who had earned the right through their achievements, to speak for them in the Assembly.
Suggest you turn off the tee-vee and visit the the Library.

[Absalom]

I have read it all, and you can keep your demon infested 'great minds'. as I had suggested earlier.

I am more interested in American Conservatism as a way of life. And that includes the Judeo-Christian Ethic, whether you like it or not. What is in that Conservatism requires no great minds to be made evident - It is inherent in the ground I walk upon. It exudes from a civil-libertarian mindset, and a simple, responsible life. It is made evident in the hard work of my own hands, and the simple thought that no man has the right to take that which I have made. Therein lies liberty, as America has found it.

---------------------------------
There is no such 'critter' as uniquely American Conservatism, as
our heritage evolved from the early colonists who were English.
Principled Conservatism evolved from the Natural Law and had
nothing to do w/the Judeo-Christian Ethic which emerged several
thousand years later.

[Absalom]

Maybe it's just because my opinion is humble, but I think it adds some depth to the topic at hand.  Very germane.

------------------------
Appreciate the compliment.
My purpose was to provoke discussion;
rather than the typical urinary contest.