>>507940223 (OP)>>507940361I think the Tucker interview was great.
I think it's shattering the Overton window.
But I also think we need to consider the source.
And we need to consider that Tucker's motivations are not the same as ours.
And I saw a lot of people in the replies to the clip,
they were rushing in to say, ah, well, Tucker won my trust back with this one.
We cannot be so naive.
I beg you.
I'm literally begging you.
Please do not be so naive.
And I see it all the time.
Unfortunately, it's just the Pareto curse.
It is just the curse of throngs and masses of low IQ depth grovelers.
But the way that people think is, you know, I like Tucker. I don't like Tucker.
I like what he said. I don't like what he said. I like what he said.
Now I like him. I trust him.
And it's like, we got to be a little more sophisticated than that, guys.
We can like what he says. And maybe there's some commonality there.
While also not forgetting who he is, you know, because I literally saw that.
I saw someone reply, "yep, he gained back my trust."
I trust him now. And it's like, he did a good interview.
But, you know, let's peel back the layers a little bit.
Let's try not to have short-term memory loss here.
It's like with Trump.
I mean, Trump can say something you like one day and people are like, oh, we're back in.
We have to discern patterns.
We have to discern subtleties.
We have to know what we're dealing with here.
This is a plea to the more intelligent people reading the thread.
We can't be tricked by this stuff all the time, you know?
If he's our guy, then why was he behind Milei?
What's he doing with Viktor Orban all the time?
Riddle me that one.
