Musk slams Tucker Carlson interview with fraudster who claims he had sex with Barack Obama (1 Viewer)

[JacksinPA]

Musk slams Tucker Carlson interview with fraudster who claims he had sex with Barack Obama

Tucker Carlson interviewed convicted fraudster Larry Sinclair on his latest broadcast on X, where the 61-year-old claimed “he had a night of crack cocaine-fueled sex with Barack Obama.”

nypost.com

X owner Elon Musk called out Tucker Carlson for not providing “objective evidence” in allowing a convicted fraudster to claim he had sex with Barack Obama on the tech mogul’s social media platform.

Carlson, who’s been airing his show on X, interviewed frequent Obama basher Larry Sinclair for an episode that was posted on Wednesday.

During the nearly 42-minute segment, Sinclair claimed to have had a “night of crack cocaine-fueled sex with Barack Obama, and that Obama came back for more the next day.”

“Assess for yourself,” Carlson captioned the video, which has amassed nearly 14 million views as of Thursday.
================================================
Musk is crying all over his huge bank account. He's complaining that his platform 'X' has been losing ad revenue. Listening to Tucker, I can guess why,

 

[Loulit01]

Doesn't Musk have a rocket booster to blow up, or a social network to ruin? The man needs something to do.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Moderation version X. A big boy fight will bring in more members.

I actually welcome this. If Musk is brave enough to let Tucker go toe to toe, it could be real news.

 

[bubbabgone]

Musk slams Tucker Carlson interview with fraudster who claims he had sex with Barack Obama

Tucker Carlson interviewed convicted fraudster Larry Sinclair on his latest broadcast on X, where the 61-year-old claimed “he had a night of crack cocaine-fueled sex with Barack Obama.”

nypost.com

X owner Elon Musk called out Tucker Carlson for not providing “objective evidence” in allowing a convicted fraudster to claim he had sex with Barack Obama on the tech mogul’s social media platform.

Carlson, who’s been airing his show on X, interviewed frequent Obama basher Larry Sinclair for an episode that was posted on Wednesday.

During the nearly 42-minute segment, Sinclair claimed to have had a “night of crack cocaine-fueled sex with Barack Obama, and that Obama came back for more the next day.”

“Assess for yourself,” Carlson captioned the video, which has amassed nearly 14 million views as of Thursday.
================================================
Musk is crying all over his huge bank account. He's complaining that his platform 'X' has been losing ad revenue. Listening to Tucker, I can guess why,

What would that "objective evidence" look like, I ask haltingly.

 

[JacksinPA]

What would that "objective evidence" look like, I ask haltingly.

Security TV footage or photography? This accusation is ridiculous.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

So, what is the point of this interview in the first place? Obama is not a newsworthy individual these days. He's not running for office. He holds no office.

Lots of private citizens engage in what could be considered unsavory behavior everyday, but Tucker doesn't highlight those people. Why would he do this for Obama? So, given the reputation of the source, why should anyone be concerned?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Let the fascists fight each other.

 

[Helix]

Bally McTannen promotes far right wing bullshit on a YouX channel.

News at WGAF.

 

[gbg3]

Moderation version X. A big boy fight will bring in more members.

I actually welcome this. If Musk is brave enough to let Tucker go toe to toe, it could be real news.

I welcome it too. Let Tucker do his interview and then let Musk question if the info from this guy is accurate. That's the way free speech should work IMO - from all three of them.

 

[Nickyjo]

Tucker’s just upset because Obama probably doesn’t have to tan his…

 

[dseag2]

Tucker’s just upset because Obama probably doesn’t have to tan his…

 

[JacksinPA]

So, what is the point of this interview in the first place? Obama is not a newsworthy individual these days. He's not running for office. He holds no office.

Lots of private citizens engage in what could be considered unsavory behavior everyday, but Tucker doesn't highlight those people. Why would he do this for Obama? So, given the reputation of the source, why should anyone be concerned?

Musk & his mouthpiece stooge Tucker are just trying to throw dirt at the Dems.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I welcome it too. Let Tucker do his interview and then let Musk question if the info from this guy is accurate. That's the way free speech should work IMO - from all three of them.

Oh yes! Free speech! And when Musk's advertisers (you know, the people who pay the bills) leave the platform in droves, we'll see how costly "free speech" can be. There's a reason why major newspapers across the country don't run ads for strip clubs on their front pages. Is it because they hate free speech?

 

[Emlee]

So, what is the point of this interview in the first place? Obama is not a newsworthy individual these days. He's not running for office. He holds no office.

Lots of private citizens engage in what could be considered unsavory behavior everyday, but Tucker doesn't highlight those people. Why would he do this for Obama? So, given the reputation of the source, why should anyone be concerned?

Cult45 believes Obama is really the one running the government, that he’s running a shadow government, and Biden’s just the puppet.

 

[JerryW]

Musk might be now a bit concerned, with the drop of activity & this crazy TC interview (failed polygraph years ago), that X is on its way to being a tabloid -

Sensationalism happens with free speech.
Loving free speech doesn't mean paying (running X) to provide sensationalism. But maybe his Saudi funders love it.

 

[StillBallin75]

When the two worst people you know are at each other's throats...

 

[gbg3]

Oh yes! Free speech! And when Musk's advertisers (you know, the people who pay the bills) leave the platform in droves, we'll see how costly "free speech" can be. There's a reason why major newspapers across the country don't run ads for strip clubs on their front pages. Is it because they hate free speech?

I'd agree free speech can sometimes be somewhat or very costly. But I'd also argue selective censorship (especially if it is of an entirely true story) can be much worse.

In a sense, the harmful costs of free speech (and a very poor and politically driven decision) are precisely what BUD learned.

But I'd argue, in all these cases, free speech is the better option than selective censorship.

I have no idea if the story about Obama is true and accurate (it wouldn't surprise me if it was) but I certainly don't think it should have been censored because it appears to be uncomfortable to some hearing it. I do, however, think the more a story is fact checked before it is published, the better it ages.

As far as how a story ages, think of how the New York Post Hunter laptop story was initially treated with intense censorship. Then look at how it has aged (now known that it was accurate, very substantive, and full of future ramifications). A whole lot of lies and coverups had to happen in the beginning in order to fiercely try to censor that true story. I'd argue those lies and coverups needed to censor and halt the truth back then - are now coming back to bite the many people who actively and willingly participated in the desired/demanded censorship back then.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I'd agree free speech can sometimes be somewhat or very costly. But I'd also argue selective censorship (especially if it is of an entirely true story) can be much worse.

In a sense, the harmful costs of free speech (and a very poor and politically driven decision) are precisely what BUD learned.

But I'd argue, in all these cases, free speech is the better option than selective censorship.

I have no idea if the story about Obama is true and accurate (it wouldn't surprise me if it was) but I certainly don't think it should have been censored because it appears to be uncomfortable to some hearing it. I do, however, think the more a story is fact checked before it is published, the better it ages.

As far as how a story ages, think of how the New York Post Hunter laptop story was initially treated with intense censorship. Then look at how it has aged (now known that it was accurate, very substantive, and full of future ramifications). A whole lot of lies and coverups had to happen in the beginning in order to fiercely try to censor that true story. I'd argue those lies and coverups needed to censor and halt the truth back then - are now coming back to bite the many people who actively and willingly participated in the desired/demanded censorship back then.

So I take it you were very unhappy when it was revealed that candidate Trump got the National Inquirer to "catch and kill" three different stories to prevent his extra-marital affairs from coming to light.

 

[bubbabgone]

Security TV footage or photography? This accusation is ridiculous.

TV footage? You think Obama doing blow and getting blowed was on TV?
You want to see video or photos of a blow job in a limo? There was no one else around and the driver was the one who introduced Sinclair to Obama.
I suppose someone could pour through security camera footage of Obama buying the caine but it would depend on their availability back around 2000 and authorities anxious to look for it.
C'mon man.

 

[Chomsky]

I'd agree free speech can sometimes be somewhat or very costly. But I'd also argue selective censorship (especially if it is of an entirely true story) can be much worse.

In a sense, the harmful costs of free speech (and a very poor and politically driven decision) are precisely what BUD learned.

But I'd argue, in all these cases, free speech is the better option than selective censorship.

This is the type of Conservatism I can get behind!

I have no idea if the story about Obama is true and accurate (it wouldn't surprise me if it was) but I certainly don't think it should have been censored because it appears to be uncomfortable to some hearing it. I do, however, think the more a story is fact checked before it is published, the better it ages.

As far as how a story ages, think of how the New York Post Hunter laptop story was initially treated with intense censorship. Then look at how it has aged (now known that it was accurate, very substantive, and full of future ramifications). A whole lot of lies and coverups had to happen in the beginning in order to fiercely try to censor that true story. I'd argue those lies and coverups needed to censor and halt the truth back then - are now coming back to bite the many people who actively and willingly participated in the desired/demanded censorship back then.

What? Upon what do you base your belief that the guy's story might be accurate?

 

[JacksinPA]

TV footage? You think Obama doing blow and getting blowed was on TV?
You want to see video or photos of a blow job in a limo? There was no one else around and the driver was the one who introduced Sinclair to Obama.
I suppose someone could pour through security camera footage of Obama buying the caine but it would depend on their availability back around 2000 and authorities anxious to look for it.
C'mon man.

The question was 'what proof.' An image, electronic or photographic, would suffice.

 

[Lycanthrope]

LMAO if Musk is upset by this because he thinks it compromises the reputation of his platform.

 

[StillBallin75]

Oh yes! Free speech! And when Musk's advertisers (you know, the people who pay the bills) leave the platform in droves, we'll see how costly "free speech" can be. There's a reason why major newspapers across the country don't run ads for strip clubs on their front pages. Is it because they hate free speech?

The world would actually be a much better place if strip clubs were platformed more than right wingers

 

[bubbabgone]

The question was 'what proof.' An image, electronic or photographic, would suffice.

And the answer was me asking you if you had photos of every one of your drug/sexual encounters.
No? Then why would Sinclair? You really expect him to pull out a flip cell phone and say "smile" or "snort that pipe"?
At the time, Obama wasn't famous and there was no reason for anyone to remember him ... except apparently to someone that had that kind of contact.

 

[Demon]

LMAO if Musk is upset by this because he thinks it compromises the reputation of his platform.

Or he's just trying to look reasonable.