But we know, with absolute certainty, from the Dominion lawsuit subpoenas, that Tucker Carlson was privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite.
His private texts include, "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait.”
And
"I hate him passionately. ... I can't handle much more of this”.
This isn’t that. To consider his, or anyone else’s, honesty I compare what they say to the evidence they present and contrast that against competing claims from other sources.
> So what you mean by "honest" is "they believe the same things as facts like I do, and draw the same conclusions?"
I think it means "I am a sucker with no critical thinking skills and fell for their propaganda".
The attempts to whitewash and normalize Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson also give pause. It's hard to believe someone can be this gullible, specially after being presented with facts and still doubling down on whitewashing the character.
So you are doing the same as all of us: checking the quality of evidence best we can and then weighing it best we can.
But then somehow you feel the need to make your opinion and the opinion of the people that somehow align with you (or vice versa) somehow more objective or ethically better by calling it "honest", or best aligned with the evidence (as if people could not disagree on the quality of evidence, or take into account other things) or the like.
That's the part I wholeheartedly disagree with you. We're all blind men touching an elephant.
Is there something special about you that has you convinced you’re not being tricked? Like do you think you have some exceptionally good bullshit detector? I’m genuinely curious about the mentality here.
What lead you to believe you can take two people like Tucker Carlson and MTG who are PRIMARILY known for spouting bullshit and you can somehow magically decipher the signal from the noise? Is it just the topic of Israel that you agree with them on? What are you actually comparing them against? I’d love to know more about what you’re describing looks like in practice because it sounds very handwavy at the moment and maybe it would be a better discussion with concrete details.
Because in this case most politicians are performing double speak and failing to directly answer questions about recent Israel conduct. Many of these politicians claiming in private what most of us are seeing in the news. It is refreshing to have at least some politicians step up to the plate and directly speak to the numbers and multitude of evidence.
Likewise consider the opposite. Until recently I really respected Buttigieg, but when asked about Israel he cannot answer the question. He hopelessly looks for a moderate safe way out and it looks really incompetent.
> Because in this case most politicians are performing double speak and failing to directly answer questions about recent Israel conduct. Many of these politicians claiming in private what most of us are seeing in the news. It is refreshing to have at least some politicians step up to the plate and directly speak to the numbers and multitude of evidence.
Wait a minute, you were already faced with the fact that the likes of Tucker Carlson defend positions in public that they personally criticize and attack in less public settings.
And yet, even after being faced with that information, you still opt to ignore it and whitewash Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson as being this paragon of objectivity?
I'm starting to wonder what you are trying to do with this thread.
I am skeptical of any numbers from a war zone with a public relations war going on at the same time. This appears to be generally admitted, as witnessed by quotes as the long standing and cross cultural "the first casualty of war is truth." [1]
So I'm curious. How do you know the numbers are factual and they eye witnesses are what they say they are?
Sure, so get foreign journalists in there so that we can all know for sure. Until such time I will retain the personal opinion that Israel is lying about everything.