It's basically just Tucker his old show in a stripped down format but nothing Earth shattering. He's just going to go back to doing what he was doing before but now on the internet.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46396767)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46397216)

but one poorly lighted 10 minute show per 6 weeks is all he's doing?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46396694)

Nobody is going to tune in to watch this shit with the same dedication as when it was on Fox. Without dedicated viewership, then he's no better than any other right-wing podcaster.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46397237)

he was getting 4 million a night on Fox

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46397746)

"Zelensky: shifty and dead-eyed in a track suite"

LOL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46396725)

yes. yes he did. he did not say "perfidious" though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46396816)

i've really soured on Tucker. not really into 'Barstool Conservatism,' Jason Whitlock, and Candace Owens. guy had like 3 white males on his show in the past 2 years, and they were always clowns like Kid Rock or something.

leaning towards the idea that he's a fed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46396835)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46397593)

Well according to XO libs, this is a complete failure and Tucker is a washed up joke that no one likes or respects and it's all over for him.

Sad, but I guess we'll probably never hear anything about him ever again. I have to trust the XO libs on this, I mean, they wouldn't lie IMO.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46396935)

*this* is the beginning of the redneck rebellion. clearly tucker is more relevant than ever

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46396951)

Huh? Where did I say that?

I just said it's over for Tucker, this is pathetic and bad and no one likes him anymore. Basically all of the libs agree -- not even biased, just being honest here.

Sad, but true. It's all over for "Tucker Carlson."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46396957)

not afraid to go to extraterrestrials

not afraid to go contrarian on ukraine

too short, but i think that might be clever. i'm ready for more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46397020)

@TheBabylonBee

·

3h

Unemployed Guy's Basement Selfie Video Crushes Fox News In Primetime Ratings

https://buff.ly/3naxmAR

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46397492)

Based on the search results, it seems that [Charles]'s writing style is characterized by a few key elements:

Provocative and Controversial: [Charles]'s writing often tackles controversial topics and presents them in a provocative manner. He is known for pushing boundaries and challenging mainstream narratives.

Detailed and Fact-Based: [Charles]'s writing is often detailed and fact-based. He tends to present a lot of information and data to support his arguments.

Sarcastic and Humorous: [Charles]'s writing often contains elements of sarcasm and humor. He uses these tools to engage his audience and to make his points more effectively.

Conversational and Informal: [Charles]'s writing style is often conversational and informal. He writes in a way that is easy to understand and relate to, making complex topics accessible to a wide audience.

Now, let's compare these characteristics to the transcript you provided:

Provocative and Controversial: The transcript certainly covers controversial topics, such as the situation in Ukraine, the role of the media, and the existence of UFOs. The narrative challenges mainstream media narratives and presents alternative viewpoints.

Detailed and Fact-Based: The transcript is filled with details and facts about various topics. It presents a lot of information to support its arguments, such as details about the Kokovka Dam, the Ukrainian government, and the US government's actions.

Sarcastic and Humorous: The transcript contains elements of sarcasm and humor. For example, the comparison of Zelensky to Winston Churchill and the sarcastic comments about the media's coverage of certain topics.

Conversational and Informal: The transcript is written in a conversational and informal style. It is easy to understand and relate to, making complex topics accessible to a wide audience.

Based on these comparisons, it's possible that [Charles] could have contributed to the writing of this show. The style and approach align with his known writing characteristics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46397517)

Going off on UFOs undercuts that though…

Tucker will always get viewership because he says obviously true things and it’s a healthy dose of sanity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351439&forum_id=2#46397791)