Tucker Carlson and Mark Halprin Pretend 2024 is really 1998
In this interview Tucker Carlson talks with Mark Halprin, a well-connected journalist that Tucker Carlson cites as the epicenter of all political power and journalistic knowledge since the mid-1980’s. Accordingly, the magnanimous and enlightened Mark Halprin knows more about the institutions of electoral influence, political power structures, people and organizations of political influence than most journalists, so sayeth Carlson. And so, their discussion follows along.
If you are nostalgic for the time before you saw the strings on the political marionettes, and/or you like to remind yourself how you viewed politics in the era long before elections were decided by ballots instead of voters, you will enjoy this satiating conversation of how things used to be.
Both Halprin and Carlson pretend things are just like they were, while they apply 1998 political insight to the 2024 election year, and -for some reason- people discuss it.
However, if you have stopped pretending and you understand that modern political outcomes are determined by ballot systems, local ballot printing, fraudulent voter rolls to give the illusion of attribution to the locally printed ballots, and tabulation centers that conduct the necessary scanning of unattributed ballots to a number needed to generate the outcome, then this food-filled discussion about political sides between Halprin and Carlson ends up leaving you somewhat hungry.
Here’s an example. Within the interview Mark Halprin notes that Kamala Harris campaign has raised over a billion dollars, and that’s just the money from inside the campaign; there’s much more from “outside groups and interests.” With jaw-agape Carlson curiously asks where that money came from? Halprin replies, “I have no idea,” and they simply move along.
Yes, the conversation is about various subsets of voters, black men who don’t support Harris as much, and a multitude of other various popular narratives that surround the 2024 election as written in various media. Let me cut to the proverbial chase, none of that stuff matters.
Yes, along the same approach expressed by the Halprin’s and Carlson’s of the world, Barack Obama might be calling out the “brothers” who do not intend to vote for Kamala Harris. However, in the real world of 2024 a very non-pretending James Clyburn might just as well say, “yes they are, they just don’t know it.” Why, because Clyburn controls the ballots of “the brothers”; their voting intent is irrelevant.
Thus, we highlight once again the distinction between voters and ballots that seems intentionally lost amid a constructed interview between the very enlightened Halprin and the curiously incurious Carlson.
What exactly is the value of the conversation when the subject matter surrounding it is as useful to the 2024 election as vinyl records to modern rap music. You decide.
To answer the question about Kamala Harris’ extraordinary fundraising, let’s just revisit demonstrable history.
First, James Clyburn’s operation was constructed during the Obama era through the financing of something called the Pigford Settlement. Yes, Pigford-I was the payment mechanism behind taxpayer funds being shifted from govt to the very specifically black community. The Clyburn team, along with legal powerhouses like Morgan & Morgan, were part of the payment distribution architecture.
With the capital to start the mechanics of the AME ballot scanning operation now financed, along comes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, set up by Elizabeth Warren, to funnel fines and pressure payments from the USA banking and finance sector to a host of progressive networks, ie community organizing groups.
There you go. That’s the ‘elevator speech’ answer behind the odd “I don’t know” retort of Mark Halprin.
What was the intent of this interview? I have no idea. However, what they discuss seems like a conversation that might have been pertinent to elections many cycles ago, but not now.
In the modern era facilitated by the rise of Teh One Lightbringer of all political truth, what many might remember as our promised “fundamental change,” voters are irrelevant to the outcome.
That said, there are very serious efforts underway to apply tactical civics in this new battleground. In that contest based on reality we destroy local ballot printing operations, block the use of fraudulent voter rolls and find industrious ways to stop the secret scanning operations within the AME network of 17 county tabulation centers.
If tactical civics are successful, and we are about to discover that “if” answer, then the conversation that Halprin and Carlson are currently having might reapply in the next election. However, until then, talking about what voters intend to happen while ignoring the irrelevance therein, seems to miss the proverbial point of where we are in the modern era of ‘ballot collection’ elections.
Chapters:
0:00 Become a Member at TuckerCarlson.com
1:23 The State of the Presidential Race
6:37 Does Kamala Harris Stand For Anything?
12:23 What Is Harris’s Relationship Like With Joe Biden?
14:34 Harris Can’t Answer This Simple Question
16:01 What Do Harris’s Donors Think?
17:26 Mark Halperin’s Reporting That Biden Would Give up the Nomination
28:45 The Worst Scandal in American Journalism
31:09 Was the Biden/Trump Debate a Setup?
40:17 Covering the Trump Campaign
51:54 How Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama Took Out Biden
1:02:19 Corporate Media’s Self-Destruction and the Future of News
1:10:43 Black Men Are Voting for Trump
1:16:32 Why Is Our Voting System So Complicated?
1:18:58 Who’s Winning the Swing States?
1:19:54 Who’s Winning Nevada?
1:21:40 Who’s Winning Arizona?
1:25:55 Who’s Winning Georgia?
1:27:36 Who’s Winning North Carolina?
1:28:54 Who’s Winning Wisconsin?
1:29:39 Who’s Winning Michigan?
1:30:32 Who’s Winning Pennsylvania?
1:34:00 Here Is What the Private Polls Are Saying
1:39:21 War and NATO
1:50:15 RFK Jr. Being Anti-Establishment
1:53:48 Who Is Running the Country Right Now?
1:55:11 Trump Derangement Syndrome Will Be the Biggest Mental Health Crisis in American History
1:58:49 What Happens If Trump Loses?
NARCISSISM: […] If Trump wins, Obama might be seen as the aberration in the history of American politics, rather than Trump and his nativist authoritarianism. Obama acolytes have spent the last eight years rationalizing Trump as the last gasp backlash to the Democrat and his presidency. (link)
Mark Halprin gives his prediction about what will happen when President Trump wins the election. Tucker Carlson plays along, with both pretending not to remember what happened in 2016.
What Mark Halprin predicts, is exactly what happened in 2016. WATCH:
Every single thing in this response is exactly what happened in 2016. The silly part is both Tucker Carlson and Mark Halprin pretending not to remember what happened. Some reminder pictures from 2016 below.
In 2016 the Democrats: ~ organized a refusal to certify the election ~ boycotted the inauguration ~ claimed Russia hacked the election ~ broke out in violent protests, including arson, on inauguration day ~ put their genitals on their heads ~ conducted violent protests ~ began the Trump-Russia campaign for the next two years; then tried impeachments.
Post a Comment