Tucker in his current incarnation isn't news (cue debate on previous incarnations but that isn't germane to this discussion). He simply invites people on to have a conversation like any other podcast. Some of the guests are more interesting and credible than others. I enjoy these long form interviews but always remember that everything said is simply one person's opinion.

 

I've always avoided overt political stickers on my vehicles because I think it's an invitation to road rage and vandalism in our hyper partisan society. I also think most issues are more nuanced than bumper sticker slogans.

I hope we can agree that damaging other people's property isn't political speech, it's just vandalism.

Philanthropy may be a tax haven and it may be for reputation polishing or a little bit of both. Some might even just be people putting their money where their mouth is. NGOs that receive taxpayer money in a modern day spoils system without accountability for the judicious use of said public money are a different kettle of fish. That's especially true if the money is recycled into the campaign coffers of politicians. That just adds a whole new dimension of corruption regardless of which side of an issue one is on.

 

NGOs funneling money to political campaigns is old school malfeasance. Nowadays just have a billionaire in your hip pocket to drop 10mil into a superpac to primary someone in some far off district who doesn’t bend the knee.

 

No, when you open with a narrative such as, "The last 30 years flying has gotten worse in almost every way", you are not "just inviting guests". That said, I agree with you 100% that he's not news, but more succinctly fake news.

 

There are a handful in local markets.

 

I didn’t realize rolling coal damaged the paint or made the car catch on fire. I guess these things are the same…

 

if they didn't have false equivalence they wouldn't have anything at all. They are the most violent group when they don't get their way as has been proven time and time again. Conservatives do have their bad actors, but as a whole are peaceful and stay to themselves. Plus they all have jobs so they don't have all day to take to the streets to cause havoc and destruction.

 

If you are talking about this from 3 years ago, not really the same thing:
"The lawsuit was filed by OAN because Maddow said OAN was "literally paid Russian propaganda." MSNBC successfully argued against defamation because Maddow was referring to a Daily Beast article which outed one of OAN's writers, Kristian Rouz, for working for Sputnik (actual Russian propaganda)."

 

Let's try to unpack that.

The good:

It's cheaper on an inflation adjusted basis (sometimes it's even nominally cheaper)

The number of city pairs has exploded such that it is certainly the fastest and most efficient method of travel between most places in the CONUS.

The bad:

TSA (maybe they keep us safe from bombs, hard to disprove a counterfactual) but they make the airport experience miserable and continually introduce arbitrary and capricious rules

Airports are absurdly crowded and so uncomfortable people pay extra money to access an oasis inside them

Seat pitch has been reduced to a level of uncomfort that most people pay extra to sit in seats that are slightly less terrible

Seat comfort would matter less if load factors were lower but management has grown very adept at keeping seats filled which leads to more uncomfort as 170 people try to share 2-3 toilets on 6 hour transcon.

Ancillary revenue (great for my 401k) but for the flying public it just means getting nickled and dimed. Literally everything costs extra or in the case of a basic economy fare isn't available at all.

So I would say except for cost, for the average member of the traveling public, the statement is true. If he had said that it has become less safe then that would have been something to fact check.

 

don’t forget that airport food is more expensive than theme parks.