'You're not fooling anybody': Eichenwald challenges Tucker Carlson with a binder full of ...

[DonViejo]

‘You’re not fooling anybody’: Eichenwald challenges Tucker Carlson with a binder full of his falsehoods

SARAH K. BURRIS
15 DEC 2016 AT 20:19 ET

Fox News host Tucker Carlson got more than he bargained for when he had Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald on his show Thursday night. Eichenwald was prepared with a huge binder that said “Tucker Carlson Falsehoods” on the front of it. The binder held all of the examples of false information that Carlson has spoonfed Fox News viewers.

Carlson decided to hit Eichenwald for the tweets that the reporter was pushing out against Carlson. He also claimed Newsweek has suddenly developed a left-leaning slant to their news coverage. According to Mediaite, Carlson took issue with the Eichenwald tweet, “I believe Trump was institutionalized in a mental hospital for a nervous breakdown in 1990, which is why he won’t release medical records.”

Eichenwald began to explain but Carlson interrupted. Eichenwald began to speak again but Carlson hammered him more, demanding to know if Eichenwald believed Trump was in a mental hospital or not. Eichenwald took issue with the interruptions, ultimately resorting to asking Carlson, “Would you like me to answer the question or not?”

Eichenwald at one point shot back to Carlson, claiming, “You’re not fooling anybody, you’re trying to stop me from giving the answer.”

-snip-

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/youre-not-fooling-anybody-eichenwald-challenges-tucker-carlson-with-a-binder-full-of-his-falsehoods/

[ZoomBubba]

1. I would be careful with Eichenwald ...

... because he's making an claim without evidence himself:

According to Mediaite, Carlson took issue with the Eichenwald tweet, “I believe Trump was institutionalized in a mental hospital for a nervous breakdown in 1990, which is why he won’t release medical records.”

That's in conspiracy-theory territory and puts him in the same territory as Alex Jones.

Carlson still lies, but having Eichenwald lead the attack kind of takes away from that.

[unc70]

3. How do you know?

Eichenwald has been very solid with his reporting, very solid and correct. Your short track record at DU seems far less impressive.

[ZoomBubba]

6. Eichenwald has only offered insinuation ...

... and no proof. Without solid evidence, we'd sound silly making the claim.

Also, my track record is relevant how? I didn't know I was the topic.

[Tactical Peek]

7. They asked for proof and evidence, but got this.

Accurate medical disclosure is not too much to ask of a major party candidate or President-elect. The citizens have a right to know, and the person has a moral obligation to disclose.

[ZoomBubba]

9. And we have an obligation ...

... not to sound crazy ourselves. We may love insinuating that Trump was in a mental hospital, but what happens if we turn it into a talking point and it winds up not being true? We look like asses. Not worth the risk when we're already reeling and trying to regain credibility with non-partisan voters.

[moda253]

18. Or....

"We look like asses."

Or we start winning elections.

Sorry I don't want to stoop to their levels either. But then again I want my kids to actually live.

[ZoomBubba]

28. Which is what I have in mind too ...

... which is why I am so cautious about people who tell us things we want to hear. Some people are apparently thinking I'm saying "Democrats need to shut up and go with it" when I'm actually saying "embracing unsubstantiated claims may blow up in our faces and hurt us even more." I don't understand why no one is getting that.

[TheDebbieDee]

65. By all means, we should stay on the high road!

Look where that tactic has gotten us. Puh-leeze. Save that crap or tell it to Crooked Hillary!

[ZoomBubba]

66. Just because it works for the GOP ...

... doesn't mean it works for us. We have a drastically different base and in a way, require more than someone telling us what we want to hear. Plus, we just suck at talking to stupid people who love to get into a righteous fits over things like what Hillary is wearing or theorizing what expensive food she is eating by someone commenting on the smell of her farts. We just have a demographic with higher expectations of our info.

[TheDebbieDee]

68. ONLY IDIOTS keep doing the same thing over and while expecting

to get different results. Dems need to adapt to the way things are now or we will be stuck on the sidelines watching the republicans play the game without us - as we are now!

We need to adapt!

Think of those coal miners! They steadfastly refused to adapt to the changing economy and look what got them: stuck in the mountains w/o a pot to piss in, begging to be allowed to go back into those poisonous holes... Us Dems will be just like them...

[eniwetok]

81. what are you saying? we need to dumb down Dems? n/t

[11 Bravo]

22. Thanks for showing up to straighten us out.

You must be an amazingly wise individual. I had to be here way longer than a week before I thought I had this place figured out, and even after 14 years I still don't have all the answers, nor would I presume to instruct DU or Dems in general on how to proceed.

[ZoomBubba]

27. Good lord ...

... this is getting ridiculous. I offered MY opinion. Critique it, not me.

[byronius]

29. +1000

[yardwork]

72. Who is we?

[Hekate]

33. I must admit that interview with Dr Feelgood was inspirational....

I imagine it inspired Kurt Eichenwald to go digging much deeper for Humpty Donald's real medical history.

[Mc Mike]

11. Eichenwald has an excellent track record. Your only journal post seems to be

in favor of more conservative slants on issues like GMOs, nuclear energy, oil, and 2nd amendment, while offering criticism of Dem's 'high ideals'. You've only been here 9 days, and have hundreds of posts in a short time.

Sometimes people get suspicious of that kind of thing, zoom. If you pick some of your subposts that you feel best back the Dems and add them to your journal, that helps people see where you're coming from as a Dem.

The issue of dRumpf's mental un-well-being isn't really debatable. The unsubstantiated statement of his institutionalization, by Eichenwald, was the "main issue" in Carlson's mind only, meant to distract from Eichenwald's reporting on dRumpf and Carlson/Fox itself. If you focus only on that part of the o.p. info, you come off as an advocate of Tucker, Fox, and the orange dRumpfenfuhrer.

In any case, the whole issue could be cleared up by the tubby bald orange nazi releasing his health records, and since he only rose to political prominence by demanding records be released by our Prez -- making those demands year after year, and then denying the records were real and demanding more records be released -- it seems like something he's obliged to do.

Of course he's only obliged to do so if he's not a swinish nazi repug hypocrite, and is actually sane. You can't expect him to give the public information that every other Prez and candidate has released if he's a nazi hypocrite. And you can't expect an insane person to see that the easiest way to clear the whole issue up is to release his medical records.

[ZoomBubba]

12. I didn't realize that ...

... Democrats had anti-GMO, anti-nuclear energy and anti-2nd amendment positions. If so, please show me where it's at on the platform. If there's no stance on those issues, then you're just offering opinions — like me.

Anyway, you haven't explained the relevance of my past posts to this subject aside from you trying to make this about me instead of the credibility of Eichenwald's claim. I think we call that "shooting the messenger."

The issue of dRumpf's mental un-well-being isn't really debatable. The unsubstantiated statement of his institutionalization, by Eichenwald, was the "main issue" in Carlson's mind only, meant to distract from Eichenwald's reporting on dRumpf and Carlson/Fox itself. If you focus only on that part of the o.p. info, you come off as an advocate of Tucker, Fox, and the orange dRumpfenfuhrer.

In any case, the whole issue could be cleared up by the tubby bald orange nazi releasing his health records, and since he only rose to political prominence by demanding records be released by our Prez -- making those demands year after year, and then denying the records were real and demanding more records be released -- it seems like something he's obliged to do.

The claim still has to be credible and that requires something of substance. If you make claims without anything to support them, you're just going to sound nuts to people outside of the partisan sphere ... kind of like Alex Jones.

[Mc Mike]

13. The post to you was meant as a tip-off, only, Zoom.

It was not an attempt to open a dialogue between us discussing all of your conservative beliefs.

It wasn't meant unkindly.

You missed the part of the block quote you replied to, that said the whole institutionalization "issue" was the "main issue" in Carlson's mind, only. That it was meant to distract from Eichenwald's reporting on dRumpf and Carlson/Fox shilling for dRumpf, by lying over and over, a binder full of repug-backing propaganda lies.

Mr. E. brought a binder full of proven Carlson/Fox lies that were made to back dRumpf, and your response is that he "lied" about dRumpf. You are very much on a divergent tangent re this o.p. subject matter.

The orange dRumpfensnatcher has been shown by his own statements and actions to be mentally unwell, over and over again. He could prove this one statement you're so "anti-Alex Jones fired up about" is untrue, by giving the o.k. to release his medical info. It's insane not to do so, since his whole political persona is built on how he made the President release info. The sane thing to do would be to release his medical info, it's insane not to release his medical info.

Unless his medical info shows that he was institutionalized for some extremely serious faltering in his sanity, of course. Then he obviously can't release that info to prove he's sane. It's a catch 22 for the orange nazi, it seems.

[ZoomBubba]

14. You keep going after me ...

... because why?

Saying that we should be cautious of Eichenwald, who has made unsubstantiated claims, isn't the same as saying "Carlson is a reliable news source." We don't want Democrats to embrace nutty conspiracy theories and pointing out when people on our side embrace them does that. We want to have a credible public image, not the opposite.

[Hekate]

15. The poster was pretty explicit and to the point. Hundreds of posts in the first week does raise...

...an eyebrow.

But moving on from that, if you believe the OP or another post falls into tinfoil-hat territory, you are welcome to use your alert button. It's there in the Terms of Service we all sign: DU does not support nutty conspiracy theories.

Unless, of course, there really is a conspiracy. Then we expect good sourcing.

[ZoomBubba]

16. Alarms?

How many users do the same thing? I haven't said anything that is pro-Trump nor have I said anything that's even translates to "don't support Democrats." So, don't try to shift the focus to me if pointing out that something is unsubstantiated.

I'm not accusing the poster of tinfoil-hattery. I specifically said that going after the mental hospital thing can come off as such. If people, who are speaking as Democrats online, embrace this unsubstantiated theory and it turns out untrue, then we just hurt ourselves.

Now tell me, what's wrong with saying that? Why does that justify insinuating that I'm something other than what I say I am on here? Is this a Democrat site or a liberal-Democrats-only site?

[Hekate]

26. No "alarms" just "an eyebrow." Welcome to DU

[byronius]

37. Long-term posters have noticed substantial attempts to defray and silence the dialogue here.

Intelligent, organized pushes to harm discussion. Used to be it was only right wing dickheads who couldn't pretend to be liberal to save their lives. "Time to purge the party!", and shit like that.

Now it's careful and crafty and most likely well-paid state actors who show up to quietly sabotage according to a well-written script. The journalist was offering an opinion while Tucker Carlson (an unabashed sociopathic criminal with a body count) tries to do the standard right-wing neo-Russian thing -- lie like a vampire with every ounce of bile in his black heart, even if just to muddy the water.

And your particular focus seems aimed at turning eyes away from the story under the guise of concern. Eichenwald's an actual journalist, while Carlson is a shrill murder-puppet; if Eichenwald says he believes something may be true, it's worth looking into and examining. If Carlson opens his mouth, it's definitely a lie.

Not to mention -- it seems logical to me that Trump would have a history of mental breakdown and emotional wreckage. He's a terrible human being with more-than-sociopathic tendencies. In fact, the story rings quite true, and I want to know much more about it.

So perhaps just let the information flow continue. You've made your point; time to let others make theirs.

Unless you're up to something else, that is.

Like I said, we're a little paranoid around here since we had a gun shoved in our face and told to 'get in the car, faggot, we're going to make America great again'.

After that, some new guy who shows up and cautions us against looking at things real journalists think because they don't meet Tucker Carlson's standards is likely to get a few raised eyebrows indeed.

Surely you understand. Have you seen the hack video? We're in the middle of an undeclared civil war fomented by Russians and racists operating on behalf of sick billionaires, and truth generally comes out in these comment threads.

[ZoomBubba]

48. No attempt was made to defray the argument ...

... I commented on the excerpt and the part that stuck out to me and then the thread gets directed at me.

All I said was "I don't believe in touting unsubstantiated claims" and what I got in return was "You're a right-winger!" That's fucking absurd. It's even more absurd to start attacking me as a spy rather than "hey, a guy that has some time on his hands that likes to talk politics."

[byronius]

54. Like I said, we're a little paranoid since we had a gun shoved in our face.

You stated that Eichenwald is behaving like Alex Jones. That's a clear false equivalency, one of the standard tactics of disruptors. Alex Jones offers unsubstantiated stories and claims them as absolute truth. Eichenwald is doing nothing of the sort here.

Not to mention that one is clearly insane and on drugs, and the other is a long-term practitioner of the art of journalism. Berating Eichenwald for bringing up a story that cannot yet be substantiated because the first Gangster President is hiding everything, and suggesting that he's the same thing as a lunatic talk-show host who insisted that Hillary smells like sulfur ('I've talked to Secret Service people who say it's true!') is disingenuous and unhelpful. Eichenwald stayed well within the bounds of reason, and his reputation is what makes the claim so startling.


C'mon, man, you engaged in hyperbole. And the fact that you can't see it is troubling to everyone.

[ZoomBubba]

55. Eichenwald has done good work ...

... and like I said in my first post, Carlson is full shit. But when I hear unsubstantiated claims about mental hospitals, my knee-jerk response is skepticism AND I don't think it is beneficial to use as a talking point, because if untrue it can be turned back around on us.

Look at it from my point of view. Because of my job, I've been attacked by anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers, supporters of Tea Party politicians, etc., etc., not because I made attacks, but because I simply found facts that went against them. I'm an extreme skeptic and anything that sounds too good to be true sets off alarms for me.

Personally, I would be happy if it were true. But it's not something I'm going to get my hopes up about. I don't mean to come off as the guy who walks in and pisses on the birthday cake, but I just want to win and I am afraid that embracing things that can likely wind up not being true or entrenching ourselves too ideologically will hurt that.

I mean, I'm freaked out too.

[byronius]

59. Well, fine then. However --

No one's 'embracing' the story. But it does sound like it might be true. It's quite logical that it would be true. I did not find Eichenwald's presentation of the story as being outside journalistic boundaries or in fact remotely similar to what the right wing does everyday.

Again, did you see the DU hack video? Might freak you out even more.

[ZoomBubba]

60. I heard about the hack ...

... guess they're worried all the lurkers may pick something up.

[byronius]

61. The Magnificent Democratic Underground will never die.

I find this place the most important site on the internet, period.

It's an amazing resource. In the 2008 election, I knew everything before my journalist wife got it off the AP wire. The ground crew was vast and amazingly quick. A lot of hard info delivered in a quickly-digestible form.

So when that fucking gun got shoved in my face this time, I knew immediately what the nation, the world, and the human species was in for.

They didn't touch anybody else. And not because they couldn't. They just hate and fear this site more than any other.

Hmmmmm...

[ZoomBubba]

63. I guess ...

... I need to see this video. Sorry it happened. I guess I didn't understand the depth of it.

I've lurked around for years but I decided to sign on here after the election. A lot of it due to the fact that FB and Twitter have become utterly unbearable and there was a good balance of Blue Dogs, moderates and others here. I can see the eyebrow raising now, but I will point out that I haven't said anything that has been in support of Trump or the GOP in general. I have an admitted distaste for Bernie, but that's not wholly uncommon here. I think we're pretty much on the same team and ultimately want to win.

[byronius]

64. +1, then. Welcome to DU.

[ZoomBubba]

67. I did check out the video on YouTube ...

... and saw comments on it. Lots of conspiracy theories that DU did it to itself ... but I don't understand the logic of it. But then again, we had a race here when one candidate sent out a mailer that included a photo of his opponent eating a philly cheese steak with no text explaining what it meant ... and won.

[byronius]

69. That's a remarkably standard-issue neo-Nazi tactic.

Trump does it everyday -- like suppressing the black vote and then gloating that they stayed home because they were responding to his logic. It's galling, primal, and utterly false, kinda like that whole side of the ideological spectrum.

Projection is also a standard hallmark of that crew. I've been on this site for long enough to know just how powerfully factual the process is -- bullshit of any stripe does not fly here for long. There is definitely no logic in DU false-flagging itself on election day; it's not like anybody outside would care except for the people that hate it.

For the people that live here, though -- it smelled like blood, death, murder and torture. A very good window into the soul of the tribalists who are shortly to wreak havoc on our small planet. That video successfully convinced me that there should be no quarter given, no compromise -- ever. These fuckers need to go. They represent the end of the species. Some other planet might spread to the stars if they succeed, but it won't be us.

So it was like getting punched in the face really hard -- but they should have killed us all instead.

Because now I recognize that this is all truly, mortally personal. They need to get off my planet.

The dialogue is over for me forever. My heart has hardened. They need to go.

[Ilsa]

90. How did I miss the DU hack video?

I'm looking for it on du, not finding it. Can you help me on that?

[byronius]

92. I hated finding this for you.

It gives me deeply violent feelings.

[Ilsa]

97. Holy crap.

I wish I could unsee that, now.
I hope whoever put it together, performed it, etc is the first to live in the likely inevitable nuclear fallout.
Anyway, I'm sorry I asked and please forgive me. It enrages me, too. It's the kind of crap that feeds drumpf's ego. It reminds me of the crap they posted about W.

[byronius]

98. Definitely a declaration of total war.

Not just mockery, but full-on authoritarian glee. It has a Russian flavor to it; that may just be cover, who knows.

It has filled my heart with hatred.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

71. You keep saying "claims", plural.

Are there others? P

Perhaps I just missed them all due to paying more attention to Eichenwald's solid record of providing the public with excellent, substantial, well-sourced investigatory journalism.

[eniwetok]

83. you need to understand the ultra-partisan mindset

Ultra-partisans have an instinct for what helps or hurts their side... and what helps or hurts the other side. In this, it often matters less what's true... but what serves their side's interests. DU is so full of ultra-partisans that it's often difficult to have any rational discussion here. So here we're just supposed to believe E kicked ass when he failed to answer the question about Trump. And if anyone dares to say that... be prepared to get the shit beat out of you and to have your motives questioned.

[byronius]

91. Welcome to DU. Chortle.

Yeah, Tucker Carlson has a point too, right? We should all listen, right?

'Ultra-partisan' -- just a bunch of commie wildheads on this site, pure emotion, no logic, no fact?

I do not find your statement to be factual in the slightest.

[eniwetok]

94. where did I ever say TC has a point?

That you can't even read my comment for what it actually says without a wild reaction, projecting your own views into my words... tends to prove my observation correct about many here. If anyone dares expresses an opinion the doctrinaire extremists don't like, they'll try to rip your throat out.

What's not factual in the slightest is your denial this isn't true.

And with that... this discussion is over and you can have the last rant.

[byronius]

95. You're the one who called DU 'ultra-partisan'. I don't agree. And I didn't 'rip your throat out'.

Hyperbole much?

No rant here. You seem like a regular person. But all politics is personal, isn't it? And there is no lockstep on this site, at all, period. Do not see that.

[Perseus]

62. I would like to give my humble opinion

1. Zoom has a point, democrats have been known for rejecting fake news, as a matter of fact, the "news fakers" have commented that they stopped trying to target liberals in general because "they find out immediately that its fake news so the story is dead, usually, in less than two days, so we stopped, but republicans will eat anything we publish, so we target them only.". If Eichenwald has some proof then please bring it on, now is when it is needed the most, if he doesn't have any proof and was just trying to create some interest, then it should be treated as fake news for now.

2. All dictators have mental issues, Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez, Saddam, etc. they all have big egos, are narcissistic, liars, traitors, etc., etc. sooo, does Trump have mental issues? of course he has, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have enough intelligence to follow on an agenda of destruction that could keep him in power for many years, I mean, dictators don't stay for short terms, popular acceptance is not required for them to stay in power.

Ok, what I am trying to say is that the fight must be made by outlining the corrupt behaviour the GOP commits every day, there is no need for fake news, and if Eichenwald has the goods to prove the claims, then please show it, but if not then we work with what the GOP produces on a daily basis, there is plenty of that.

[Mc Mike]

75. I don't take political disagreement for "disingenuous infiltration", for the most part, Perse.

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:49 PM - Edit history (2)

Nobody has an opinion that's more important than any other Dem post-er's here, unless they're engaged in front line investigative reporting or research. And the more Dems of all stripes we hear from here, the better it is for the site, as it increases our body of political knowledge and clout.

If I know and like a post-er's past slant on the issues but disagree with one post of theirs, or if I agree with the post mostly and want to amplify or tweak part of it, I'll post "respectfully disagree" and discuss the issues.

Here is the simple o.p. issue, it's been brought up before numerous times, and ignored by the opaque, high volume new post-er in question: the story is NOT about Eichenwald generating fake news for a living, like those 'news fakers', Jones, Breitbart. Kurt has a binder full of pro-dRumpf falsehoods Carlson and Fox pumped out to benefit orange hitler. That's the story. Carlson tried to MAKE the story about Eichenwald generating 'fake news', but "Eichenwald says dRumpf institutionalized" is not the o.p. title or subject. Tucker is blowing smoke in order to distract from the massive amount of lies he and his network made to get il Douche A into power. Pretending that one as-yet-unsubstantiated statement from Kurt E. cancels out a binder full of lies from the repugs. 'Kurt's just as bad as them". It's a slimy, sleazy, transparent lie from the nazis.

Now a new post-er pops up, says let's start the discussion at "Carlson has a point'. No, he doesn't.

This was pointed out in a polite way and ignored by them, a couple of times. Simple suggestions were offered on how a new post-er could use the site functions to show where they're coming from as a Dem, to clear up ambiguous appearances or unfair allegations vs them. The suggestions were offered politely and in a reassuring manner, but sadly were not taken as a reassurance by them.

The new person is kind of de-railing the discussion about the o.p. topic, by complaining about how they aren't reassured. And they offered to discuss their conservative leanings on a number of other issues. That offer was sidestepped, but they went on to demonstrate that it wasn't side stepped, in their mind.

So by all means, let's hear about GMOs and green Nukular power, in addition to Eichenwald = Bircher Jones rhetoric. That's sure to advance discussion of the actual O.P.'s subject matter.

They said they've been viewing the site for years, but appear to have no clue about the nature of its day-to-day back-and-forth discussions on the issues. Over and over again, they come back to post a lament about how the discussion has turned into a discussion about them, then they sidestep all actual attempts to make the discussion about the o.p. subject matter. They refuse to debate the central issues, which have been re-stated to them in post after post.

So they're either honest but completely hapless, or are engaging in a quite ham-handed attempt at obfuscation. Making it all about them while complaining strenuously about how "it's being made all about them". Forcing a constant re-statement of what the o.p. subject matter is, in every posted reply to them. I have had to re-state the o.p. subject 3 times so far, so we're not gaining any ground re discussing the issues, here.

Kurt has an impeccable track record of hard-hitting scoops. I've paid attention to him since he covered the 9 detailed intel pre-warnings that li'l bush ignored about the 9/11/01 attacks, when Kurt published them in September of '12. Something happened in North Africa that wound up burying that story, I forget where it happened though. It'll come to me, if I think long and hard enough.

So

1) Blatantly, obviously, dRumpf has mental issues, and has shown it constantly in public appearances and media statements he makes.

2) He could but won't release medical records that disprove it.

3) Eichenwald has a comprehensive listing of repug Carlson/Fox lies that helped get dRumpf into power.

4) It's an obvious false equivalency to focus on Carlson's lying lame attempt to accuse Kurt of the horrible crime of 'making things up', instead of looking at the long list of Carlson lies that the o.p. is pointing out.

5) Carlson made his lying charge to distract from the repug dRumpf Carlson Fox lies.

6) Carlson, Fox, dRumpf, Breitbart, Jones, and the repugs make fake news stories up with lying allegations all the time, and can't show that Kurt Eichenwald has done so even once, so it's ridiculous to bemoan how "our side is acting like them".

7) And now the pig nazi repugs are threatening and attacking Kurt and his family.

Talk to me about anything you want to, but don't talk to me about "Eichenwald's unproven allegation that dRumpf was institutionalized", and how "it hurts Dems". I'm done talking, with everyone, about that non-issue.

[byronius]

99. Well said.

[Mc Mike]

101. Thanks, byronius. nt.

[Sunlei]

24. hey bubba, I noticed you too.

[ZoomBubba]

30. So?

[Sunlei]

35. So?

[ZoomBubba]

43. Point?

Are you accusing me of something?

[Sunlei]

50. The Journalist has been attacked with lights to trigger seizures & his family is terrified. No time

to feed you now.

[ananda]

32. It's clear that you don't know what Dems stand for.

We stand for humanity in every instance against corporations
and wannabe dictators who care only about the rich and corporate.

So yes -- anti-GMO, pro-choice, pro human and civil rights for
everyone, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
pro gun control (not anti-2nd amendment, which has to do with
18th century revolutionary America and not the white power
militias and gun-nuttery aligned with crazed CT's), pro universal
healthcare for every person in the USA bar none, anti-torture,
anti-occupations of countries to exploit their resources, and
pro clean and green energy which does not include fossil fuels
and nuclear power.

And yes, I would still check up on Eichenwald's tweet about
Trump's mental health in 1990 because it's responsible to make
sure of facts, something that Trumputin and his deplorables
would not understand anyway.

[ZoomBubba]

41. So, where has the Democratic Party ...

... taken an official stance against GMOs?

I'll already tell you that they haven't. They're not going to stand against the science that has shown that GMOs are safe. The Democratic party does not have a stance against nuclear power, which is green, and they still officially all renewable energy by 2050, but still support oil exploration.

Hillary also favored increasing research and investment into nuclear energy:

Hillary Clinton (D): Meeting the climate challenge is too important to limit the tools available in this fight. Nuclear power—which accounts for more than 60 percent of our zero carbon power generation today—is one of those tools. I will work to ensure that the climate benefits of our existing nuclear power plants that are safe to operate are appropriately valued and increase investment in the research, development and deployment of advanced nuclear power. At the same time, we must continue to invest in the security of our nuclear materials at home, and improve coordination between federal, state, and local authorities. We must also seek to reduce the amount of nuclear material worldwide—working with other countries so minimize the use of weapons-grade material for civil nuclear programs.

You're assuming you speak for Democrats when the platform doesn't have such a position. You are projecting your own opinions.

The rest of what you said doesn't not contradict anything I said.

[Sunlei]

57. BS your're trying to stifle free press in America. Do you know who threatens his kids & family?

Are you part of the same group? How much do they pay? is it by the word or the post?

[ZoomBubba]

58. Please show me ...

... where I'm trying to stifle free press?

[eniwetok]

80. DU is full of paranoids who see right wingers hiding under every other paragraph

That being said there often are right wingers hiding under every other paragraph.

I had the same objections to the interview as you did.

[eniwetok]

79. so in your mind...

The burden of proof is on Eichenwald to back up his claim... and when he got a chance to answer he went down some rabbit hole about who's on the wall of the CIA. Carlson's an ass but at that point we can't blame Carlson. Noting Eichenwald's failure is NOT reason to suspect someone's a closet right winger. I noted it below as well... and I suspect I'm far to the left of you. So should I accuse you of trying to sabotage clear thinking?

That being said... Trump clearly seems to suffer from some mental disorder and I love this pic

[W T F]

34. But that's an acceptable speculation for FOX news to make against HRC. The point is.......

Eichenwald is trying to point out their double standard tactics, and he turned the table on Carlson.

[link:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/20/clintons-health-continues-to-spur-controversy-and-conspiracy.html|

[world wide wally]

40. Now you are there comparing it to Alex Jones

[azureblue]

42. can you read?

He did not make a claim. He said that it is his belief. A chasm of difference, the latter being solely his own personal opinion. I hope your reading comp skills improve..

[ZoomBubba]

44. You're not really ...

... showing a difference.

[Mc Mike]

76. Here's 129 tweets about dRump from Kurt Eichenwald's investigative reporting,

see if there are any Alex Jones or Breitbart type lies in there.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2604543

[ZoomBubba]

77. Irrelevant ...

... and Eichenwald has now discredited himself by claiming the institution claims were a "joke" to lure out a source: http://www.businessinsider.com/kurt-eichenwald-trump-mental-hospital-tweet-2016-12

Now anyone who embraced the claim looks like an idiot.

[Mc Mike]

86. Your opinion, and concern on these issues, is noted. Thanks for the re, Bub.

[ellie]

96. It would be irresponsible not

to speculate that Trump is bat shit crazy. I read the Twitter thread where Eichenwald posted his belief that Trump was institutionalized for a nervous breakdown and while I don't remember the exact details it seems Eichenwald had a reputable source for his belief.

So, it would be irresponsible not to speculate that Trump was institutionalized in a mental hospital in 1990.

Oh, and I have been here since the beginning in 2001.

[geomon666]

2. Why is Tucker Carlson still a thing?

Can someone explain this to me? I remember this freak from the 90's and into the 00's but then I assume that he was so fucking embarrassed by the Bush presidency that he disappeared himself from television and now like a bad case of genital warts, he rises yet again.

[JHan]

5. exactly... i mean just look at his taste in ties..smh.

[Eliot Rosewater]

56. Tucker is simply one of many tools in the

propaganda arsenal of the oligarchy.

He portrays a level of credibility merely by shrugging shoulders and sighing at the truth. Fortunately for him, telling the truth or being factual is not important or required by his viewers or readers.

That is how propaganda works, once the subject has been exposed to endless lies and misinformation, they become unable to discern truth from propaganda.

This explains why people to this day believe Hillary refused to allow a response to assist in Benghazi and any number of other absurdities.

[superpatriotman]

4. I dislike *ucker Carlson as much as anyone

but Eichenwald was acting a fool

[nini]

8. I agree

Both of them were annoying as hell.

[azureblue]

46. and it's high time

we hit them back with their own weapons. Here, Mr. E proved quite effectively that Tucker can't stand his own tactics being used against him, and I am sure that is the case for all Repubs.

This is not a case of lowering ourselves to their level. Not at all. Thsi is a case of fighting fire with fire, and hitting repubs at their weakest points. And their tactics and thin skins are their weakest points, so let's steamroller right back at them.. We know that reason and logic doesn't work, and neither does diplomacy. We have tried, Lord knows we tried to work with them as reasonable people but they fell like they are entitled to rule America.

Mr. E did the right thing, and Tucker's reaction prove sit. More of that, please...

[nini]

53. There's a difference between standing your ground

and helping your opponent prove some bogus point.

There's a line that once passed just makes the whole thing absurd. It was passed.

[Terry_M]

36. Completely agree

Carson's question was simple - was your tweet BS or not. Doesn't take a book to answer.

[underpants]

10. Tucker is such a tool

[Augiedog]

17. Here we call his show "the fucker tucker pucker" show

[HurricaneWarning]

19. Personally

I would like to hear more about Trump being institutionalized. I wish Tucker would have let him finish.

[mcar]

23. Eichenwald posted a lot about it on his Twitter feed

[Sunlei]

20. fox lies and fox is an arm of the Republican party. The Party that destroys American democracy.

better say it now before republicans wall off ANY free press 'questions' and hack this message board again to shut-up the peons.

Sunlei, 12/2016

[ffr]

21. Fox Noise will probably not want Eichenwald on any of their shows again.

[perdita9]

25. Please publish Tucker Carlson's Falsehoods

I know I'd buy a copy

[world wide wally]

39. Yes!

[ZoomBubba]

49. Well, all you have to do ...

... is go to the Daily Caller's Facebook page if you can stomach it.

[Mc Mike]

102. Who's the editor in chief of the Daily Caller, bubba?

[Sunlei]

52. right here, all will be uploaded, twitters free. https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald

https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald

[Mc Mike]

73. I had no idea that these criminal acts were occurring against Mr. E and his family.

Thanks for posting the info. Repugs sure are swinish nazis.

But on the other hand, one time Mr. E. made an unsubstantiated allegation about dRumpf being institutionalized. So it all evens out, I suppose.

[oldtime dfl_er]

31. They are learning from the Orange Julius Caesar

The current MO seems to be to shout them down, not let them answer, and then call them ridiculous.

[Sunlei]

38. Republicans don't want the world to know their man is ill for decades and has a medication problem.

hope his trump tower Doctor isn't writing prescriptions for him and that's why trump goes home to his tower every single night. He won't ever be able to get off those drugs.

[ananda]

45. Right now this is NOT a fact.

It's unknown and unclear whether Trump was institutionalized.

If Eichenwald has evidence, he's not sharing it.

So I think it's likely he was just putting that possibility out there
to see if it would cause a reaction strong enough to get Trump
to release his medical records.

Since this story did not gain traction, it just fell down a rabbithole
and disappeared for the most part ... until now in this thread.

And now that Trumputin is dictator-in-chief of New Trumpistan,
we will never see his tax or medical records; and facts will be
strictly off limits.

[azureblue]

47. just like Obama's birth certificate was

Nope. All that crap the GOP pulled on Obama will come back on them ten fold. We are pissed. We will go to court to get those records.

[Sunlei]

51. He has his medical records from those decades, before the trump tower live-in Doctor.

[Justice]

70. Don't rationalize that they "both do it" Complete false equivalence.

Zoom has a TINY TINY point about Eichenwald.


It was a tweet, not a story, not a series, not a mantra or position pushed for days or weeks or months.

He deleted it shortly after posting. He did not insist that it was real, and defend it for months, and claim he planned to send it, and then claim it just a joke etc etc. Every pore of Tucker's body oozes disdain for Obama and giddy love for Trump - he can barely contain himself. He cannot even make a straight statement about Obama - his voice and facial expressions are insulting.

Get my point??

I will NOT now question or condemn everything Eichenwald says -- or more importantly publishes in Newsweek because of a tweet sent and then deleted shortly thereafter.

[colsohlibgal]

74. Doubt Eichenwald Would Have Made This Up

The Orange fraud could quell all this by releasing info all others in his position have released.

There seems to be so much he wants to keep secret....why?

And I trust Eichenwald a whole lot more than smug Tucker Carlson... Or the crass narcissist that with the help of Putin is....gulp...about to take office.

[eniwetok]

85. there have been rumors about Trump's use of speed since the 90s

http://gawker.com/rumor-doctor-prescribes-donald-trump-cheap-speed-1782901680 and clearly Trump is clearly mentally disturbed in many ways... but Eichenwald really didn't answer the question. Sure, Carlson wanted to stonewall him but even when he got his chance to answer Eichenwald started blabbering about the fuckin' CIA. WTF!!

[eniwetok]

78. I think both came off looking like fools

I like Eichenwald's reporting... and Carlson is a noted buffoon... but Eichenwald had his 30 seconds and instead of answering the question he went off on some bizarre diversion about who's on the wall at the CIA.

[WilliamH1474]

82. THANK YOU.

I have been reading the replies and so far am somewhat disappointed. Since when is it ok for someone to just throw something out there and then refuse to back it up?

I have been proud at the attempts to crack down on fake news, and conspiracy BS but when did we decide there is a double standard? I know I would have been livid if a well respected journalist decided to say something like that about Hillary and then refused to back it up.

I hate that little wormy guy Tucker, but I also can't stand that Eichenwald went on there and basically made himself look like he was an unprepared idiot. He had a chance several times to directly answer the question, and he makes a statement about the CIA and the stars on the wall.

THEN he devolves on twitter, and from what I saw got up to 46 tweets before he apparently lost it. He is now saying that he had a seizure and is going to be suing the tweeter and all this stuff that is really just making him look unstable.

He has lost a lot of credibility in my book.

Part of being a journalist is digging deep, and finding the truth. He threw out some accusations, and then when pressed he came up blank.

[eniwetok]

84. as I wrote elsewhere...

83. you need to understand the ultra-partisan mindset

Ultra-partisans have an instinct for what helps or hurts their side... and what helps or hurts the other side. In this, it often matters less what's true... but what serves their side's interests. DU is so full of ultra-partisans that it's often difficult to have any rational discussion here. So here we're just supposed to believe E kicked ass when he failed to answer the question about Trump. And if anyone dares to say that... be prepared to get the shit beat out of you and to have your motives questioned.

Partisanship is often less about principle and more about herd behavior and party. Combined with the Dem's lack of a long term vision of where to take this nation in 20-50-100 years... but instead concentrating on the next election... it leads to ideological drift or some other ideological inanity. So bathrooms for some become a bigger issue than trying to abolish the EC which has now given us both the Bush and Trump Juntas in just a matter of 16 years. But then, maybe that's just me. I'm concerned about the big, strategic issues... like finally making the Constitution democratic... and the big economic issues... not identity politics.

[Mc Mike]

87. I like most of your journal entries, eni. Except your $15 minimum wage opposition.

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)

But what you're weighing in with, on this o.p., is the foulest thing to hit the scene since zoom's many myopic observations. You won't even demonstrate knowledge about the sub-threads on this one o.p. issue, but now you launch into a lofty overview about how the Dems should soul search nationally.

The false equivalency argument, put forward by Fox, Tucker, zoom, and you is a blatant joke. Eichenwald has done a ton of excellent reporting on dRumpf, the repugs for years. One tweet where he said "I believe dRumpf was institutionalized", which was not published in any of the many credible news sources Kurt worked for, is not "Kurt = Alex Jones, drumpf, fox, Carlson, Breitbart, the repug party".

The hundreds of tweets Eichenwald made, that show drumpf and repug lies and scandals, which THEN went on to be covered by legit news sources that published him for years, somehow none of those tweets are discussed. But by all means, let's hear from Carlson and Fox about how Eichenwald made a false allegation tweet, while Carlson and Fox have lied hundreds of times with "official news".



You posted all over this thread, and never touched fire. You posted 7 times so far, and ignored 18 DU post-ers with good points about the overall issue that you won't acknowledge. You're so concerned with the issue, though.

You start out with "Right wing "news" liars have a point, our side is acting like Alex Jones", and should be called out on this behavior. And you end with "Dems should jettison "identity politics". "


This journal post of yours engages in "identity politics":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027728894

It's extra funny because in that post you accused the repugs of "over focusing on the bathroom issue in a threatening manner". (But they "won", right?) Now you think Dems talked too much about bathrooms.

But once again, you can't demonstrate comprehensive knowledge or acknowledgment of this thread's important issues, so it's not disappointing that you aren't able to demonstrate a coherent knowledgeable view about the national issues you ponder and analyze.

(4 other posts on your journal's last page are also "identity politics" in their nature; liberty/libertarian, economic inequality, Social Security / retired citizens.)

Your lack of acknowledgement leads you to a transparently false self-assumption of knowledgeability. Any critiques of -- or plotting future courses for -- the Dem party which emanate from your quarter will therefore rightly fall on deaf ears, for the most part. Even within this thread.

[eniwetok]

88. identity politics...

You You start out with "Right wing "news" liars have a point, our side is acting like Alex Jones", it should be called out on this behavior. And end with "Dems should jettison "identity politics". "

WTF are you talking about? I didn't mention Alex Jones. There are 6-7 mentions of AJ... none of those posts are mine. Please retract.

As for another of your points you seem to be butchering... I wrote "But then, maybe that's just me. I'm concerned about the big, strategic issues... like finally making the Constitution democratic... and the big economic issues... not identity politics."

I never said the Dems should abandon them. Did I? There still are issues, social justice, economic, whatever, linked to one's identity. But I want to see energy going into developing a vision of where Dems want to take the nation in 20-50-100 years. Without a vision, there will be no strategy. And without either... we're back to the Dems being myopic.... just looking towards that new presidential election. I don't want to ever lose site of that vision of that better society where many of those identity politics questions might take care of themselves.

As for herd behavior... it should be obvious... and it's caused by ideological drift away from principle as a party changes it's positions. It happens all the time. Bill Clinton stole issues from the GOP. Trump stole issues from the Dems. In large part they both reshaped their parties. Back in 2000 liberal Dems were against Bush's irresponsible tax cuts and for debt paydown as necessary to strengthen Social Security. 12-13 years later when Obama proposes keeping most of Bush's irresponsible tax cuts but raising them on the rich... liberal Dems supported him. Gone is talk of debt paydown. Partisans tend to drift with these changing positions. I still see growing debt to be a problem regardless of what Obama did.

As for this thread... I didn't care about any posts about E's other reporting. I was only commenting ON THE INTERVIEW. I do have that right... you agree? And surely E knows how to answer a question in 30 sec... and yet he blabbered on about the CIA. It was presented as E kicking Carlson's ass and in the end the entire video was a waste of time... not some mighty triumph over Fox.

[Mc Mike]

89. I was working under the assumption that when you agreed with posts, you understood them.

I meant what I said about your journal entries. I didn't see much that didn't look good, to me. So I don't want to declare undying enmity with you on one BIG disagreement, here.

But the first post is zoom saying "Eichenwald = Jones", his post 6 affirms that position against a push back from unc. Then you replied to agree with him. That's your post 80, (and 79). Q E f in D.

You had to skip pertinent posts from Sun, Ananda, Byron, Hekate, Yard, 11 B, Tactical to post your learned viewpoint. And the bonus is where you bemoan, in post 83, about how "ultrapartisan du ers" won't listen to divergent voices or have a rational discussion. After you sidestepped that rational discussion on a bunch of pertinent points you don't want to address. You can't address anything I said in the 3 posts to zoom and Pers. And all of those points are on topic and pertinent. Stop crying and discuss.

You made a ton of posts that just agreed that Eichenwald has done wrong. You're wrong. But tell you what. You delete your post 80 agreeing with Zoom (it's only one of your 8 anti-Eichenwald posts, shouldn't hurt too much). Then I'll retract that part of my critique of your posts via edit.

The push to allow our transgendered citizens to use the danged bathroom is about guaranteeing their Constitutional rights, which makes the Constitution function more democratically. That's how that works. When you said (post 84, where you reiterated your unhappiness with the lack of civilty and substantive debate) that you're concerned about the big issues, not identity politics, the obvious conclusion to be drawn is an advocacy to dump identity politics. Of course, we're able to multitask, and push everywhere to get results in some places, it's not an either / or. But people being able to take a leak is an "Improve Constitutional Democracy" issue, so you're all set both ways with that one. But your perception that Dem pols and activists only worked on bathrooms and didn't and aren't working on those big issues -- that is just your perception. It doesn't get codified into reality because you perceive it thus.

Zoom is behaving myopically. You chimed in over and over to back his myopic viewpoint. Then you want people to take your Dem soul-searching critique that "Dems are behaving myopically" seriously? Several other low volume newly returned or newly joined post-ers agree with you and zoom. One high volume old timer agreed. None of them is doing anything but stating their opinion, all are justified in that. That's different from you and zoom. You go on and on, nattering away, not addressing the issue.

You say you don't care about any other Kurt Eichenwald reporting, don't want to talk about it. But you want to talk about long term national visions, social security, and drag the Debt and deficit spending into this thread? Ridiculous. You're squirting ink like a cuttlefish. I'll defend the Dems and crush the repugs' side on the Debt and Deficit spending, in any general discussion. But you're waaaaay off topic trying it here.

Address the issue, it's very simple. Who cares about that lying fake news 'reporter' Carlson's 30 second deadline for Kurt to "justify" his horrible "Crime" of one non news "false tweet"? You'd have to be crazy to be a Dem and think Carlson and Fox have a point. Of course, you'd have to be crazy to be a repug, period.

The issue is that you're crying about how people are so partisan and they attack opposing viewpoints instead of discussing the issues, but you spend zero time discussing the issues and a ton of time crying about the "attacks". Then try to throw a ton of derailing irrelevancies into the mix. The title of the post says Eichenwald has a binder full of Carlson Fox news lies. You're pretending that you're discussing the o.p., by critique of Kurt's video performance, and completely ignore the substance of the o.p. title; which is the subject of the o.p. . And you think that's clear headed thinking, logical argumentation, legit discussion, masterful debate? If so, that might provide a clue to why your viewpoints aren't being taken seriously, eni.

The entire video is a waste of time? It was a pretty short fucking video, and you spent a lot longer than that commenting over and over on it.

You aren't making much sense.

Libertarianism is a stupid and evil, cartoonish nazi repug joke. Always has been. I do have that right to make that comment, you agree?

[eniwetok]

93. do you really think I'm going to waste time doing an autoposy on this thread?

Seriously, you wrote all that to critique my posts in this thread? Sorry, I'm not going to get stuck in another debate about how a topic was discussed. My point was clear... I like Eichenwald's reporting... Carlson was a predictable ass trying to run the clock on the discussion, but then when Eichenwald had his time... he blew it. I'm not going to let the fact that he brought a binder full of Carlson's spin, lies, and half truth distract me from that simple fact. I was waiting to see what Eichenwald had on Trump and I got shit for the time invested.

End of story... and end of discussion.

If you want to start a thread on my narrow libertarian views on personal liberties... feel free. Just don't forget to include that I'm an FDR progressive who wants to reign in corporate power, finally make our federal and state government democratic, for massive investments in renewable energy, against free trade, for Single Payer, making the tax code highly progressive again, wants the government to again give protection to organized labor etc etc.

[Mc Mike]

100. Yeah, that seems about right.

Last edited Fri Dec 23, 2016, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Don't waste your time talking about the issues, waste your time talking about how you're not going to waste your time.

You "got shit for the time invested" in viewing the short vid, so you invested time typing 14 posts about how your time was wasted.

None of the issues in your last para are pertinent to the discussion of repug liars and Eichenwald's many many truth filled investigative reporting scoops on the particular details of those repug liars and their lies.

But you took time to think and type them, anyway.

[Mc Mike]

104. Kick.

[Scurrilous]

103. K & R

[Mc Mike]

105. Kurt is now coming out with the story he couldn't run in Newsweek.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210307189