1 One hearsay is that if one was listening to Tucker not that frequently, it could become obvious that Tucker simply went mad at some point.

I've joked that his FBI handlers are just that desperate to discredit the releases of the congressional videos.

The thing about commenting on politics, or commenting on commenting?  Recent times have been hard on everyone's mental health, and trying to stay in the business seems to have been especially maddening.

Okay, so I have been trolling/commenting on political blogs for maybe as much as fifteen years (According To Hoyt under another handle), or perhaps even twenty or so.  But, it was not income, so I could quit for a while if the situation got too confusing.  I have absolutely needed those breaks.

Maybe I was never /that/ sane, but I definitely have had some worse periods, where I actually later appreciated the opportunity I took to be silent. 

Honest, true, sane, and will not get the speaker punished.  Achieving one does not automatically achieve others. 

I can be honest and also closely approximating true.

I can be honest and also closely approximating sane. 

I am not trying to run a viable business of pushing out words.

David French is, and seems to have picked dishonesty. 

I don't really know anything about Tucker Carlson.  I tend to think that the search for a human to champion right, when no one closer is championing right, is a weakness of personal philosophy, and personal conviction.  IE, instead of pretending that bad people are good, if alone in the world, remain resolute that the world can go frustrate themselves.

Putin is basically similar to HRC. 

I'm not sure if the Putin fanboys I have seen online are mostly paid Russian assets, or go along to get along American nominal Christians in the visible Christian church, who were never really brought into the true Christian church by the Holy Spirit.  It is fundamentally absurd to suppose Putin as a champion of Christendom.  Whatever the merits of Orthodoxy, Putin has tried to lead Muslims against Christians. 

For me, the big moral qualm is funding for defense programs.

I like funding for defense programs.

There's the pragmatic trade off that letting the Democrats steal a lot, and take credit for good things done by others, is undermining the long term political support for defense programs. 

If a Biden can be allowed fraudulently into office, no future defense spending questions can remain entirely isolated from the question of the returns from that spending being destroyed by a further future Biden cognate.  I can like Ukraine a lot, like fighting the Russians, like lots of the spending for Ukraine, and still understand that fighting the Ukraine funding in congress now makes confidence available for longer term defense spending in the future. 

(Expecting anything from congress now except theater is short term ism.  I know the service community is committed to lobbying for continued funding.  It is still short termism, and not having any officers speaking on the record about this congress's basic ability to deliver anything good is prudent but maybe undermines positioning for having strategic vision.)