mike, you said this tv show will be far more powerful in ten years when trump is either dead or on his sixth wife. or on his third term as president. kristen, did you say this is going to be typical hollywood dribble? yes. andy: okay. i meant that. whatever it is, it s not good. andy: michael malice, everything you said in the segment was dead wrong. typical u.s. imperialist propaganda. [laughter] andy: mike, you said you enjoyed the assassin s choice of attire. can we agree there is something sexy about female assassins?
advocate for england colonizing and having imperialistic policies toward india and parts of africa, the caribbean, all around the world. so, at best, putting that bust back in the oval office sends a mixed signal. and in fact, to those that were colonized by england under churchill, it sends a clear signal of what mr. trump finds applaudable. i wonder what dr. king, whose bust is still there, would say to churchill, who was very derogatory toward dr. king s mentor, mahatma gandhi, one he admired and studied. so, you have the american gandhi facing england s imperialist who derided gandhi and indians.
soon after donald trump took office as president, he returned to the oval office the bust of winston churchill, former prime minister of england, and there was the reports that, oh, he took the bust of martin luther king jr. out, and he very proudly said, no, i ve kept dr. king s bust in and returned to the oval office the bust of winston churchill. in fact, when he met with the prime minister of england, you could see they stood on both sides of the bust of winston churchill. now, winston churchill stood up against hitler, was one of the heroes of world war ii, and fought against nazism, but that s not the whole story. winston churchill was a clear imperialist that clearly was an
answer as to why. but nonetheless, he ended up doing the right thing, which wad to say, i don t like it, i don t understand it. but i got to honor it because it has been done. tucker: my sense is thatt obama felt the third world immigration into america was good for its own sake because it makes america better in some way, he was never forced to explain. what i find so striking, this was public. i noticed this when the story broke several months ago.n. no one pressed the den president on it. i think the underlying assumption is that former british colonies have a moral obligation to take poor people from around the world. i wonder where that obligation comes from. i think it is larger than that. i think it is first world. you go to europe, the swedes, they call themselves the superpower of international philanthropy. they pride themselves. it is sort of is a residue of imperialism. we are no longer imperialists. we are now going to be the benefactors of the world. we will demand
in the past, as an imperialist, you might have civilized them, but you took other natural resources. tucker: there was no more brutal imperial power than imperial japan, which invited a lot of asia and mess them up. no one expects that japan will take any refugees ever. but the japanese themselves don t. what i am saying is, the former western powers, imperial powers, still feel what the french used to call there obligation to civilize. in fact, i think, persists, no longer in the brutal way, the way that we took their wealth. but that persists. there is a sense, and the entire west, particularly in europe, that we have an obligation, sort of, i don t know, because we were so historically lucky, that we ended up advanced and they ended up not advanced. thus, we owe the world