Tucker Battles NM Candidate Who Dislikes the NRA

We can all laugh at that guy and talk about how ignorant he is but bottom line is he has gotten a small stage to speak to plenty of willing and able idiots out there that will buy into that crap hook line and sinker.

With more and more people like him running for office it's going to get sporty in the near future.

I have changed the title for obvious reasons. Let’s not do this again.

The progressives are trying to one up each other here in the 1st Congressional District. Each of them is trying to look the most anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-morality in an attempt to garner votes from the lunatic fringe left.

I honestly think that they learned the wrong lessons from the 2016 election. They think that they need to push even harder to the left. They think that Hillary wasn't socialist enough, so they keep pushing the envelope. I certainly hope that they are in for a rude awakening again this November.

i have posted this sentiment to tucker's fb pgs:

am i alone in being disappointed with tucker's defense of 2a? he is unfortunately the best we have on tv/catv, but he is sorely lacking.

first off, he is a bully. doesn't let anyone speak (and discredit themselves) and thus makes an incoherent, often, argument and refutation of leftist views. i am always disappointed in his approach, letting these guys thoroughly off the hook with his babbling, frothing at the mouth, interrupting, and generally off base approach to a useful debate.

again, i know he is the best we have, but still, i can hope...

others?

for eg, he got on a jag about the rate of fire of an ar15, trying to disprove the idiot leftie. it went on and on. was so far 'off point', i think he'd lose any audience.

Actually I like Tucker and think that he IS effective though not perfect. He interrupts when they don't answer a straight question and keeps pointing to the fact they won't answer. I don't know how many lefties or "independents" watch but IF they do it becomes apparent that the left are very fact deficient.

500c said:

i have posted this sentiment to tucker's fb pgs:

am i alone in being disappointed with tucker's defense of 2a? he is unfortunately the best we have on tv/catv, but he is sorely lacking.

first off, he is a bully. doesn't let anyone speak (and discredit themselves) and thus makes an incoherent, often, argument and refutation of leftist views. i am always disappointed in his approach, letting these guys thoroughly off the hook with his babbling, frothing at the mouth, interrupting, and generally off base approach to a useful debate.

again, i know he is the best we have, but still, i can hope...

others?

Click to expand...

I disagree

I think you missed the point of Tucker’s method. The candidate for NM representative ran a crass, impolite add saying “eff the NRA. Tucker even made the point that the candidate’s approach was meant to shut down debate and be divisive. Tucker used this guy’s own methods against him to drive that point home.

I’ve seen Tucker give praise to guests he doesn’t agree with for bringing their arguments with facts and logic. This guy didn’t and got what he deserved.

Bravo Tucker!

500c said:

i have posted this sentiment to tucker's fb pgs:

am i alone in being disappointed with tucker's defense of 2a? he is unfortunately the best we have on tv/catv, but he is sorely lacking.

first off, he is a bully. doesn't let anyone speak (and discredit themselves) and thus makes an incoherent, often, argument and refutation of leftist views. i am always disappointed in his approach, letting these guys thoroughly off the hook with his babbling, frothing at the mouth, interrupting, and generally off base approach to a useful debate.

again, i know he is the best we have, but still, i can hope...

others?

Click to expand...

While I sometimes think Mr. Carlson goes overboard in his attempts to draw out answers, and when two people get to talking over each other they become incomprehensible and annoying, I think you're being too harsh. Carlson only has maybe 5 to 9 minutes or so and when his guest is being evasive or specious, he tries to make him be more direct.
With regards to the politician in this TC segment, he's simply a rude loudmouthed lout. Although it's become chic to disdain the NRA today, amongst the liberal elitists, it CAN be done without resorting to vulgarity.
IMHO Tucker is one of the better spokesmen for our cause.

That congressional district is rife with Democrats running in the primary election and everyone of them is hammering Trump and the NRA although Davis is the only one I've heard use profanity. The sad thing is that one of them is going to get elected because it's Albuquerque.

That exchange almost became quickly unwatchable and it wasn’t because of the anti-gun candidate.

Guy insults the NRA. Tucker insults the guy. Guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Tucker is a real jerk about it. Nothing achieved except for me thinking the anti-gun guy is the better human and better communicator right up until he is factually wrong.

Tucker is not someone with whom I’d ever have a conversation if I had a differing opinion - I’d never get to make my own point or counter to his point. He’s a bully and this clown of a candidate shows the quality of person willing to go on his show.

For what it’s worth, you can hold people accountable without being disrespectful of them or outright mocking them to their face.

500c said:

i have posted this sentiment to tucker's fb pgs:

am i alone in being disappointed with tucker's defense of 2a? he is unfortunately the best we have on tv/catv, but he is sorely lacking.

first off, he is a bully. doesn't let anyone speak (and discredit themselves) and thus makes an incoherent, often, argument and refutation of leftist views. i am always disappointed in his approach, letting these guys thoroughly off the hook with his babbling, frothing at the mouth, interrupting, and generally off base approach to a useful debate.

again, i know he is the best we have, but still, i can hope...

others?

Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of TC either. He doesn't seem to be willing to discuss the issues. About all he did there was launch a personal attack on the guy for using foul language in a political ad. The point the candidate was trying to make was the NRA was responsible for all of the mass shootings in this country. I would have tried to get to the bottom of that reasoning by flushing the guy out on why he believed that and ask him to support his beliefs with some facts.

The guy also said he was a cop, The ABQ police have had some real problems shooting people themselves.

In the past five years, the police department of Albuquerque, a city of just 550,000, has managed to kill 28 people — a per-capita kill rate nearly double that of the Chicago police and eight times that of the NYPD. Until now, not one of the officers in those 28 killings had been charged with any crime.

Click to expand...

https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur...d-albuquerque-police-force-gone-wild-20150129

In 2013, while chairman of the Albuquerque Metro Crime Stoppers, Pat Davis was arrested on an aggravated DWI charge, where he blew a .16, twice the legal limit.

Click to expand...

https://townhall.com/notebook/micah...about-guns-knows-about-driving-drunk-n2481418

The guy left himself open and TC didn't really call him on any of it. I honestly don't think he has what it takes to interview a liberal AG politician.

500c said:

i have posted this sentiment to tucker's fb pgs:

am i alone in being disappointed with tucker's defense of 2a? he is unfortunately the best we have on tv/catv, but he is sorely lacking.

first off, he is a bully. doesn't let anyone speak (and discredit themselves) and thus makes an incoherent, often, argument and refutation of leftist views. i am always disappointed in his approach, letting these guys thoroughly off the hook with his babbling, frothing at the mouth, interrupting, and generally off base approach to a useful debate.

again, i know he is the best we have, but still, i can hope...

others?

Click to expand...

What you are witnessing on the show is rhetoric instead of dialectic argumentation. Unfortunately, most people respond to rhetorical arguments--e.g. emotional appeals--not dialectic. For example, how many people watch CSPAN versus cable news. The reason is that most people find dialectical arguments boring with the caveats and required costs and benefits analysis. In a true dialectical argument, the winner is the "truth". In a rhetorical argument, it is whatever sways the majority of the audience.

Politics, almost universally, relies on rhetoric rather than dialectic which is why a whole lot of policies that make a lot of sense in general are viewed as off the table. Why, they can be easily attacked by rhetoric and cause candidates that support them to lose at the polls. In some respects, that is why politicians easily become jaded about their electorate--they often know what needs to be done but do not act towards it because it is a loser politically.

Tucker cut his teeth on the old CNN Crossfire show where it was nothing but rhetorical combat between opposing sides. If you notice, most cable news shows use that format. The idea that this represents a scholarly discussion is of course laughable but it engages partisans and thus eyeballs for advertisers which is the whole point of commercial tv. There is also the problem that those who are ignorant watching the show fall prey to the "false middle ground" fallacy. There is not always an acceptable middle ground on every issue and two viewpoints hardly ever covers the whole gamut of policies that are possible. If you want dialectic arguments--read books and articles, if you want rhetoric--watch tv "news".

Tucker founded the Daily Caller in between CNN and his stint at Fox and he does know the difference b/t rhetoric and dialectic argumentation but rhetorical "foodfights" get the ratings and that is his job rather than to educate the audience. Some education may occur but remember the focus of tv networks is to hold you in your seat, make you watch ads, and return again tomorrow for some more of the same.

boom boom said:

If you want dialectic arguments--read books and articles, if you want rhetoric--watch tv "news".

Click to expand...

That's why I don't have any live programming nor care to watch any TV "news". There's nothing there but a bunch of commentators like Carlson who have to reinvent themselves from time to time get a pay check. He isn't as conservative as he might claim. If one cares to look into his past it would be rather clear.

-And this is why I quit watching television in 1998. Pure emotion, minimal logic.
My internet provider would actually REDUCE my bill if I would only add cable.

No way. The hypnosis tube might distract me from reloading.

theotherwaldo said:

-And this is why I quit watching television in 1998. Pure emotion, minimal logic.
My internet provider would actually REDUCE my bill if I would only add cable.

No way. The hypnosis tube might distract me from reloading.

Click to expand...

Do you realize that every video has a 'reload' button ?

Sorry ... couldn't resist

theotherwaldo said:

My internet provider would actually REDUCE my bill if I would only add cable.

Click to expand...

Same situation here only with Dish. Cable isn't available. My neighbor has Dish and internet package. His internet provider is the same as mine. There is only one where I live. His package is about 50% less than my internet without Dish. I called them on it and they just said I didn't qualify for the package as I wasn't a new customer.

Tucker asked him straight up 'Were any of these shooters NRA Members'?...and the guy refused to answer then going off on a rant while attempting to filibuster the time available without having to actually answer any questions. This is the typical politician way of doing an interview and it must be VERY frustrating for the host.....ask simple questions but never, never get an answer.....likely because his question pretty much shoots down the fellows whole campaign.

To the best of my knowledge....NO NRA member has committed any of the mass shootings, and if any political bent was established in the shooters history...it's usually that they lean far left where violence is an accepted means of getting what they want. Wasn't it Marx who popularized the phrase, 'The end justifies the means'? *I know...he didn't originate the saying...but he used it to good effect*

The political affiliations of shooters doesn't seem to be a prime motivation as compared to other demons. We certainly can come up with racist motivations, religious motivations, revenge, suicidal motivations. Using violence is not a tool primarily of the left or right. It is tool of bad people. Knowing history is useful as compared to cliches.

For the phrase - the Internet is your friend: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_end_justifies_the_means

Not Marx, Karl or Groucho.

Unfortunately, Albuquerque is not going to elect a pro-gun candidate so this guy stands a good chance of being elected. As whole New Mexico is pro-gun but the state is controlled by Liberals from Albuquerque and Santa Fe.

Personally, I failed to see why this person needs to be confronted. He has essentially told everyone of his constituents that belong to a certain organization he does not want their support. While I understand that everyone wants to be wanted… There are some men you simply have to walk away from. If he doesn't want your support simply withdraw your support.

Then just for giggles and grins remind his supporters that there will be children present in his public appearances and if they are really poor enough parents to subject their children to a person that habitually uses such language.

Pat Davis was charged with aggravated DWI after he hit a car while driving drunk. He beat the charge because he has connections with the democratic party in Valencia County where he was able to get the trial moved. The charge was pleaded down to simple DWI.

If he had been convicted and sentenced under the NM guidelines as he should have been he couldn't even own a firearm because he would have been a felon.

https://politicalfireball.com/2014/07/29/why-dwi-punishment-in-nm-is-a-joke/

TC never asked the right questions. Like..... do you think it's OK to drive drunk and injure people with your vehicle, which he did, but not OK to belong to an organization that promotes the RKBA. TC is a sad excuse for an interviewer on any network. He didn't do his homework.

Meagan Kelly would have cut that guy up.

This loser used up his 15 minutes of fame and has now dropped out of the race, throwing his (non-existent) support to another progressive hater of freedom.