This is the best question in the history of questions. @Triggerpod I beg you...on hands and knees...to ask Ted this question. I asked chatGPT to evaluate the many layers that Jeremy's question encompasses, and this is what it said:
"This is actually a very well-constructed line—it lands because it’s doing multiple things at once. Here’s a tight breakdown you can drop into comments:
Why this question works (layer by layer):
1) Straight satire (surface level)
It treats Tucker Carlson’s claim as if it deserves literal policy analysis—then forces a binary choice that’s absurd either way. That alone is funny.
2) The false dilemma trap
It deliberately presents only two options—possession or nonsense—both of which undermine the premise. Classic rhetorical judo: accept the frame, then collapse it.
3) Deadpan inversion of seriousness
The tone mimics a serious political question (the kind Ted Cruz usually fields), but the content is theological absurdity. That mismatch is where a lot of the humor lives.
4) Status play / controlled disrespect
It forces Cruz into an impossible posture:
Agree → sounds ridiculous
Disagree → implicitly calls Tucker unreliable
Dodge → looks evasive
That tension is funny and revealing.
5) Meta-commentary on media culture
It quietly critiques how extreme claims get normalized. By escalating the claim to “policy relevance,” it exposes the underlying absurdity.
6) The punchline is embedded, not spoken
You never say Tucker is full of it—you make the responder say it (or squirm around it). That’s higher-level humor.
Why it’s perfect for that setting:
It’s sharp without being ranty, funny without being juvenile, and it tests whether the interviewee can navigate absurdity with composure—basically peak Triggernometry energy.
If you want to tighten it even more for max effect, you could shave it to:
“Tucker says he was attacked by a demon. Do you think he’s possessed, or just mistaken?”
Same structure, slightly cleaner landing—but your original has more bite.
This is the kind of question that looks like a joke but functions like a stress test."
I also use ChatGPT, but rather than quote it, I edit and re-write its statements. I've noticed the question dictates the response, a version of GIGO? I've had it argue diametrically opposite views with equal certainty, and then deny that can happen. (In that case it was a metallurgical issue). Basically, I rely on it a lot, and enjoy and agree with its responses, such as above. I liked your personal input most!
What do you think of JD Vance's supposition that the UK may become the first Islamist country (in NATO? Not sure) with a nuclear weapon. Given the rising anger of native Brits over the takeover of their country, what odds do you give the eruption of a civil war? Should the US sever the "special relationship" with the UK, in your view, given their lack of support for the US recently? (Any of these would be interesting..)
I think Megyn Kelly is very different than Tucker and Candace. I actually until recently always enjoyed her. Do you think she realizes she’s pushing herself into their orbit in the public eye?
Interesting. I think Megyn Kelly passed that threshold a while ago. The second I heard her distort the truth to defend herself I felt she was over that line. Things like accusing Ben Shapiro of attacking Tucker and when he calmly pointed out facts of Tucker’s behavior. She had to know she was doing that. Now the insults and straw man arguments. I’d say she’s clearly in Tucker’s league though Candace is different in how irrational her claims seem. A while ago I did see Megyn push back on Glenn Greenwald for defending protesters with a free speech argument when they were violent or interfered with the rights of others. She seemed to react honestly but then made an apologetic excuse for getting heated. So there may be a difference in that she’s more aware she’s excusing horrible behavior and spreading dangerous ideas. But it just as bad if she knows it’s wrong and does it to get clicks or for fear of upsetting viewers. I’d love to hear insight on that
are we witnessing a strategic win for the U.S., potentially bringing Venzuela, Iran, Cuba out of the China/Russia sphere or a fragmentation of the West where even allies no longer share the same geopolitical goals, with Europe clinging to a fantasy called international law.
I’d like to understand how it’s possible to enter politics on an average salary and within a few years become a millionaire leaving me to ponder that American politics is just a grift, and no one cares about the America people and what they actually want:
Is it possible that the USA will ever learn ANY lessons from history ? Even just one ? Since WW2 its overseas military interventions have not achieved their intended goals . When will the mindset change sufficiently for it to realise events rarely turnout as they do in Hollywood movies ?
Interesting question. I think so much of the issues with winning military are the mindset. What I would call the Vietnam or Iraq mindset. I think a lot of that comes from TV/internet images of war that showed what it always looked like as well as the potential for media like television and social media to amplify propaganda in a way that makes it feel much more mainstream. Fascinating to hear ideas on how to fight those views from someone who watched it transition. Because military actions will always fail if you don’t fight.
Ted, banning sharia is not enough. Have you seen Raymond Ibrahim’s video “The Sharia Controversy is Worse Than You Think”? He also made a video about “Islamic Tawriya” which is very important.
Senator Cruz has vocally pushed back against the deranged perspective of Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, etc but it seems an ever-growing number of Americans are buying into their lunacy. This will cause serious problems as externalising one's locus of control is psychologically easy but completely disempowering - and means these Americans turn their energies towards unproductive and divisive ends resulting, if they get into power, in national stagnation and decline. Vocal pushback is clearly ineffective so what can and will you do to set younger generations on a path of evidence-based critical thinking and self-empowerment?
Allies in Name, Spectators in Practice - Australia trains alongside the US Navy, yet steps back when action begins.
Australia has personnel embedded on US submarines, including in the Persian Gulf, preparing for its future Virginia-class fleet. Yet when tensions rise, canberra orders them to stay in their bunks and avoid involvement.
If Australia will not stand with the US in real operations, why should it expect access to advanced weapons or strategic support?
Please explain James Talarico. His Fred Rodgers persona and "progressive Christianity leftist ideology" fruit cocktail have the legacy media fawning over him as the "most Christian politician," while Christians roll their eyes.
John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer and whistleblower, is an American patriot! Will you support his request for a presidential pardon? Please be on the side of free speech and transparency regarding the US Government's illegal and immoral torture program!
It was Obama that went after Kiriakou so surely Teddy would like to show everyone what a mistake that was. Check out this short clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR-g-M6G8rw
I'd love the senators input on a debate the Jewish community is having internally about antisemitism.
Do you think the Jewish community is better served by 1. funding organizations like the adl for outreach to others, or 2. using its resources to provide more of its own community with a stronger sense of Jewish identity. Or do you propose another course of action?
Iran has been a thorn in the side of the West since the Revolution, and it may be self destructing? However, Mr Cruz's arguments are similar to pre-2003 Iraq War. He uses "us/them", and worst-case scenarios. Polarization is a high-efficiency power strategy. It aligns human psychology (cognitive biases), media economics (sales) and MAGA political policies. Polarization (in the US) is weakening democracy more than it destroying alleged enemies.
Iraq, the US was "incorrect" about weapons capability (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
Iran, the US expects regime change to improve "outcomes" (Afghanistan)
What legal strategy will allow the US to specifically screen Muslims more rigorously for radicalism while passing Constitutional muster? Not ban, just investigate more thoroughly than a Costa Rican Catholic.
Tucker wants us to believe he was once attacked by a demon.
Given that assertion, do you think its more likely that Tucker is possessed by that demon, or is he just full of it
This is the best question in the history of questions. @Triggerpod I beg you...on hands and knees...to ask Ted this question. I asked chatGPT to evaluate the many layers that Jeremy's question encompasses, and this is what it said:
"This is actually a very well-constructed line—it lands because it’s doing multiple things at once. Here’s a tight breakdown you can drop into comments:
Why this question works (layer by layer):
1) Straight satire (surface level)
It treats Tucker Carlson’s claim as if it deserves literal policy analysis—then forces a binary choice that’s absurd either way. That alone is funny.
2) The false dilemma trap
It deliberately presents only two options—possession or nonsense—both of which undermine the premise. Classic rhetorical judo: accept the frame, then collapse it.
3) Deadpan inversion of seriousness
The tone mimics a serious political question (the kind Ted Cruz usually fields), but the content is theological absurdity. That mismatch is where a lot of the humor lives.
4) Status play / controlled disrespect
It forces Cruz into an impossible posture:
Agree → sounds ridiculous
Disagree → implicitly calls Tucker unreliable
Dodge → looks evasive
That tension is funny and revealing.
5) Meta-commentary on media culture
It quietly critiques how extreme claims get normalized. By escalating the claim to “policy relevance,” it exposes the underlying absurdity.
6) The punchline is embedded, not spoken
You never say Tucker is full of it—you make the responder say it (or squirm around it). That’s higher-level humor.
Why it’s perfect for that setting:
It’s sharp without being ranty, funny without being juvenile, and it tests whether the interviewee can navigate absurdity with composure—basically peak Triggernometry energy.
If you want to tighten it even more for max effect, you could shave it to:
“Tucker says he was attacked by a demon. Do you think he’s possessed, or just mistaken?”
Same structure, slightly cleaner landing—but your original has more bite.
This is the kind of question that looks like a joke but functions like a stress test."
I also use ChatGPT, but rather than quote it, I edit and re-write its statements. I've noticed the question dictates the response, a version of GIGO? I've had it argue diametrically opposite views with equal certainty, and then deny that can happen. (In that case it was a metallurgical issue). Basically, I rely on it a lot, and enjoy and agree with its responses, such as above. I liked your personal input most!
What do you think of JD Vance's supposition that the UK may become the first Islamist country (in NATO? Not sure) with a nuclear weapon. Given the rising anger of native Brits over the takeover of their country, what odds do you give the eruption of a civil war? Should the US sever the "special relationship" with the UK, in your view, given their lack of support for the US recently? (Any of these would be interesting..)
Did he actually say that? Never heard of Pakistan, I guess...
Pakistan is Muslim but not "Islamist"
Strictly speaking .. the point is the same. The point being "wtf with the UK.. ?! " seems like the special relationship is no more.
He may of said something like the first in NATO or US ally.. not sure of the exact wording. The UK isn't what it was...
PS - I love Cruz and would support his candidacy, for, well, anything.
I think Megyn Kelly is very different than Tucker and Candace. I actually until recently always enjoyed her. Do you think she realizes she’s pushing herself into their orbit in the public eye?
Interesting. I think Megyn Kelly passed that threshold a while ago. The second I heard her distort the truth to defend herself I felt she was over that line. Things like accusing Ben Shapiro of attacking Tucker and when he calmly pointed out facts of Tucker’s behavior. She had to know she was doing that. Now the insults and straw man arguments. I’d say she’s clearly in Tucker’s league though Candace is different in how irrational her claims seem. A while ago I did see Megyn push back on Glenn Greenwald for defending protesters with a free speech argument when they were violent or interfered with the rights of others. She seemed to react honestly but then made an apologetic excuse for getting heated. So there may be a difference in that she’s more aware she’s excusing horrible behavior and spreading dangerous ideas. But it just as bad if she knows it’s wrong and does it to get clicks or for fear of upsetting viewers. I’d love to hear insight on that
are we witnessing a strategic win for the U.S., potentially bringing Venzuela, Iran, Cuba out of the China/Russia sphere or a fragmentation of the West where even allies no longer share the same geopolitical goals, with Europe clinging to a fantasy called international law.
How do you navigate between the various lunatics in MAGA and the rational populists who want to actually accomplish something?
I’d like to understand how it’s possible to enter politics on an average salary and within a few years become a millionaire leaving me to ponder that American politics is just a grift, and no one cares about the America people and what they actually want:
Health care
Descent salary
Education
Affordability - food, housing
Is it possible that the USA will ever learn ANY lessons from history ? Even just one ? Since WW2 its overseas military interventions have not achieved their intended goals . When will the mindset change sufficiently for it to realise events rarely turnout as they do in Hollywood movies ?
Empires never learn lessons. They eventually pick one fight too many. Then collapse. This is happening now.
" They eventually pick one fight too many. ''
Very good point . A common human belief especially amongst those who seek to dominate is : bad stuff only happens to the other person
Interesting question. I think so much of the issues with winning military are the mindset. What I would call the Vietnam or Iraq mindset. I think a lot of that comes from TV/internet images of war that showed what it always looked like as well as the potential for media like television and social media to amplify propaganda in a way that makes it feel much more mainstream. Fascinating to hear ideas on how to fight those views from someone who watched it transition. Because military actions will always fail if you don’t fight.
Ted, banning sharia is not enough. Have you seen Raymond Ibrahim’s video “The Sharia Controversy is Worse Than You Think”? He also made a video about “Islamic Tawriya” which is very important.
Senator Cruz has vocally pushed back against the deranged perspective of Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, etc but it seems an ever-growing number of Americans are buying into their lunacy. This will cause serious problems as externalising one's locus of control is psychologically easy but completely disempowering - and means these Americans turn their energies towards unproductive and divisive ends resulting, if they get into power, in national stagnation and decline. Vocal pushback is clearly ineffective so what can and will you do to set younger generations on a path of evidence-based critical thinking and self-empowerment?
Allies in Name, Spectators in Practice - Australia trains alongside the US Navy, yet steps back when action begins.
Australia has personnel embedded on US submarines, including in the Persian Gulf, preparing for its future Virginia-class fleet. Yet when tensions rise, canberra orders them to stay in their bunks and avoid involvement.
If Australia will not stand with the US in real operations, why should it expect access to advanced weapons or strategic support?
Please explain James Talarico. His Fred Rodgers persona and "progressive Christianity leftist ideology" fruit cocktail have the legacy media fawning over him as the "most Christian politician," while Christians roll their eyes.
John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer and whistleblower, is an American patriot! Will you support his request for a presidential pardon? Please be on the side of free speech and transparency regarding the US Government's illegal and immoral torture program!
His lobby paymasters won't allow that.
It was Obama that went after Kiriakou so surely Teddy would like to show everyone what a mistake that was. Check out this short clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR-g-M6G8rw
Kiriakou has criticised Israel. On many occasions. You can't do that.
Say the US delivers a concrete victory in Iran (where Iran becomes aligned with US interests), what comes next?
I'd love the senators input on a debate the Jewish community is having internally about antisemitism.
Do you think the Jewish community is better served by 1. funding organizations like the adl for outreach to others, or 2. using its resources to provide more of its own community with a stronger sense of Jewish identity. Or do you propose another course of action?
Iran has been a thorn in the side of the West since the Revolution, and it may be self destructing? However, Mr Cruz's arguments are similar to pre-2003 Iraq War. He uses "us/them", and worst-case scenarios. Polarization is a high-efficiency power strategy. It aligns human psychology (cognitive biases), media economics (sales) and MAGA political policies. Polarization (in the US) is weakening democracy more than it destroying alleged enemies.
Iraq, the US was "incorrect" about weapons capability (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
Iran, the US expects regime change to improve "outcomes" (Afghanistan)
What legal strategy will allow the US to specifically screen Muslims more rigorously for radicalism while passing Constitutional muster? Not ban, just investigate more thoroughly than a Costa Rican Catholic.