absolutely shocking. and to hear this from a faculty member s mouth is very scary.. we are at risk of really losing america very quickly, tucker, if this continues. this idea of we are just judging the quality of the speaker is a completely ex post facto i justification. this is pure viewpoint discrimination. what we are seeing, tucker, is the confluence of twore very dangerous trends in america today, which is the emasculation of the police in the black lives matter era, so, you cannot count on the police to keep order. then, the spread of victim-ology ideology. the reason speakers like myself and ann coulter are being turned down, and shouted down and silenced, is because of this preposterous idea that to be a minority student or a female on a college campus today is quite literally to be at risk of your existence. this is a complete delusion.te but these students that are trying to silence speakers are doing it in the name of their
i do want to know what is goingt on and why senior members of the trump administration admittedly are receiving money from the russian government. that is what michael flynn did and chairman jason chaffetz, the republican chairman that is not a unified field theory. tucker: far be it for me to defend the actions of general flynn but he was not a member of the trump administration when he received this money. here is my question. can i stop you right there? you are not concerned that the national security advisor received payments from foreign governments and lied about it because it was a couple weeks tucker: i already said that what i think he did was wrong. i am merely saying, let s not overstate it or bend the truth about it. he was not a member of the trump administration. i think the distinction is real. so, you are not concerned about it? tucker: i said three times i am. you are doing exactly whatot bothers me. you are taking a known fact and spinning it into someth
own literal existence and safety. and this keeps going on and on and on and it has to be stopped. tucker: exactly. thank you for saying it. what you have here are people who are conflating opinions with violence. they are saying, you shouldn t be allowed to speak because youy words are the same as an act of violence.au then, they are committing violence to prevent you from expressing your views.ol does anybody acknowledge this irony? i mean, this is actually insane. no, the ironies are so multiple. the fact that these people havei the gall to go under the moniker of antifascist is mind-blowing! i don t know i don t want to engage in the same hyperbole as the left, but i don t know whatn to call this behavior if not fascist. they are not only silencing speakers, but they are exercising brute force over their fellow students to decide what they are allowed to hear. there should be an uprising of students. but more importantly, there should be an uprising of faculty. we have conferr
happening? let me just say this is all about creating jobs and growing the economy. m on the personal side, this is about tax simplification and about limiting deductions. although the rate is coming down on the top end of 35%, there will be many, many deductions gone. as a matter of fact, we are taking all the directions out other than charitable donations and mortgage interests.ta effectively, the effective tax rate will not be a reduction for the rich. tucker: will it be a rise? we ll see.e i don t think it ll be a rise buton it won t be a reduction. this is about creating jobs. tucker: if you are making 500 grand a year, do you see your tax rate move it all effectively? we ll have to run all the numbers when we come out with the brackets and everything else. but this is really about the middle income tax cuts. this is about lowering business taxes.s. we need to make businesses competitive in the united states. we have the most uncompetitive system. we have high business r
initiated civil forfeiture actions. his fortune is estimated at $14 billion. now, it so happens, coincidentally, that the estimated cost of the wall is between 14-20 billion dollars. the legislation i filed yesterday was said that any proceeds should be spent building a wall and securing the border. i got to say that there is a justice in that. these drug cartels are the ones crossing the border with impunity, smuggling drugs, smuggling narcotics, engaged in human trafficking. they are the ones violating our laws. it is only fitting that their ill-gotten gains fund securing the border. tucker: the cost of a border wall is relativelyur low compared to a lot of other government programs. so, when you hear its opponents on both sides say cost is a reason to oppose it, what is your reaction? that is not the reason they oppose it. the opponents of the border wall