What's new

Tucker Carlson’s Rhetoric and White Replacement Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
I haven't read the whole thread.
Cool. Now you know it contains the answers you seek, many from direct responses to you. It's up to you to choose to avail yourself of that knowledge, or not.

Educating you would not be pointless, just unnecessarily repetitive, and would diminish the contributions of the posters who already provided the information.
 
Cool. Now you know it contains the answers you seek, many from direct responses to you. It's up to you to choose to avail yourself of that knowledge, or not.

Educating you would not be pointless, just unnecessarily repetitive, and would diminish the contributions of the posters who already provided the information.
I don't know why you would expect he would read your response, since he obviously hasn't before.
 
Cool. Now you know it contains the answers you seek, many from direct responses to you. It's up to you to choose to avail yourself of that knowledge, or not.

Educating you would not be pointless, just unnecessarily repetitive, and would diminish the contributions of the posters who already provided the information.

So, someone answered my question about a specific video before I asked my question about a specific video?

No, no they didn't. Neither have you.
 
I imagine this is how it feels when people argue with Tucker.
I have not and have no plans to watch a Tucker Carlson video. I have no idea what he says and no interest in what he says.

So that out of the way I just want to say that I agree with you and I believe you.
This was my first problem.

Why do I make such dumb decisions?
 
So, someone answered my question about a specific video before I asked my question about a specific video?

No, no they didn't. Neither have you.
I didn't say "before", I said "in reply to".

The questions you asked, "Going back to the video, what did the Carston guy say that was white supremacy? I'm serious. Educate me." was in post #37.

Red replied to your question in #38 and #39, and you responded in #40 with "I guess, for me, politics get too political." rather than engage in any sort of substantive discussion. The Thriller responded with even more detail, including several links to reputable sources, in #41-43, which were ignored.

As I said, there isn't much left for me to say. Your level of concern seems entirely on the surface to me, but only you can say for sure.
 
Last edited:
The policy platform of the America First Caucus:


And the platform’s opening paragraphs on immigration:

Immigration
The America First Caucus recognizes that our country is more than a mass of consumers or a series of abstract ideas. America is a nation with a border, and a culture, strengthened by a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions. History has shown that societal trust and political unity are threatened when foreign citizens are imported en-masse into a country, particularly without institutional support for assimilation and an expansive welfare state to bail them out should they fail to contribute positively to the country. While certain economic and financial interest groups benefit immensely from mass immigration, legal as well as illegal, and the aggregate output of the country increases, the reality of large segments of our society as well as the long-term existential future of America as a unique country with a unique culture and a unique identity being put at unnecessary risk is something our leaders can afford to ignore no longer.

As such, America’s legal immigration system should be curtailed to those that can contribute not only economically, but have demonstrated respect for this nation’s culture and rule of law. America’s borders must be defended, and illegal immigration must be stopped without exception.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top