News Productions Multimedia Marketplace
Sign up for Grabien Breaking News Alerts

For full access to this clip, save a copy to your eLocker, buy an embed code, or log into your GrabienGold account.
 Use clipper to adjust file type
Tucker Hammers College Student Opposed to Sean Spicer Speaking: ‘Why Are You a Fascist?’ Is a Stupid Question
Fox News

Name: Fox News


Tucker Carlson Tonight

Name: Tucker Carlson Tonight


Tucker Carlson

Name: Tucker Carlson

Employment: Fox News; Daily Caller

Position: Co-host; Editor-in-chief

, Jake Bittle

Name: Jake Bittle

Not online media
> Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson tonight.” Interest two days, newly selected White House press secretary Sean spicer will travel west to speak at the university of Chicago. One of the nation’s most prestigious and expensive colleges. He’s coming at the invitation of longtime Obama aide David Axelrod, the topic of course is politics in the presidential campaign. Not everybody on campaign believes he should be allowed to talk in public. They argue that by inviting a trump supporter to campus, the school’s quote normalizing the incoming administration. Some students are threatening to shut down the event entirely. One of those joins us now. He is university senior, he is also the editor of the weekly paper. Things are coming on tonight.
>> Thank you for having me, tucker.
>> I like your type.
>> You wrote on Facebook that you wanted to shut this thing down, and you suggested projectile vomiting, I assume it was a joke. You said that Sean spicer should not be allowed to speak. I read about what you wrote about it. One of your explanations was, he represents a press operation that is hostile to freedom of speech, to the freedom of the press. Therefore, he shouldn’t be allowed to talk. There seems an irony in that. He is against freedom of speech, so don’t let him talk? How does that work?
>> Sure. What I was saying, was not that he shouldn’t be allowed to talk, rather, what I was saying, I, as a student, yes, it was a joke when I said that. I wouldn’t projectile vomit on him. I’m glad that he made it. I get to expand what I meant to you. What I meant was that I am a student and my peers are allowed to respond to his presence on my campus, in ways that aren’t just civil or decorative decorate and don’t involve for standing up after the event and asking him a question. I never said he should be disinvited, I never said he shouldn’t be allowed to talk.
>> In ways that involve a force? It sounds like. When you say, we should be allowed to respond, how about the traditional path, which is a counter case. You disagree with the stands for, which is fine, and you say, this is what I stand for. You don’t believe in that, it seems like.
>> Sure. Sean spicer was hired and was paid to have certain opinions and to support certain policies about the press. He has power, a national platform, he is in the news every day. He has access to policymaking power. If I stand up and ask him a question and say, have you ever considered that, he could give me a smarmy answer, the last 20 seconds, I don’t get a follow up. Then, what do I do? I would like to raise my ability and voice my frustration in ways that aren’t going to die after 20 seconds and he gives me a nonanswer. He’s a spin doctor, you know.
CARLSON: “That’s a stupid question, though. Why are you a fascist? I’m not sure we can agree on what that means. How about, specific, you believe this, you are in favor of this policy, here is why I think it is wrong or hurts America. Make your case. And all the social media that I write today, I haven’t seen you doing that. Instead, you are clearly smart, I see you calling names, which seems to be the way people respond. Wouldn’t it be better to make a case?”
>> Sure. I mean, I think that no matter what kind of case I make, no matter how good of a point I make to him, he has no reason to listen to me and no incentive to listen to be. This isn’t about who is right. It is about who has power. So, I think that students in the country need to mobilize in ways that would actually get people that we like an office and start up sort of discussing and sanitizing environments, moderated conversations. Does that make sense?
>> What sort of does. Just to help you elucidate it more come I want to put it on the screen something that you wrote in your school newspaper recently, you said this, “Now, we are faced with a real crisis with the election of term. We must take real action, the ivy league translation of the vulgar give trump a chance. Real action, human, donating money to the aclu, to standing rock, Planned Parenthood, call your representatives, protest, flipping cars when trump walks away from the Paris climate agreement, attacking racists, attacking people in the supermarket, whatever it takes.” I have a bunch of questions. The first is, who’s whose cars would you flip?
>> I don’t know yet. It depends if he walks away from the Paris climate accords. If you dwell on the more exaggerated or hyperbolic parts of this article, which is, after all, just an article, you won’t get a chance to ask me what I think political action constitutes. All of this is meant to express, tucker —
>> Weight. You were just explaining — first of all, let me say, having read things you’ve written, going back to high school, you have written a lot, you are pretty articulate what they precise command of the language. In an article this long, you can ask Blaine what that action, what form it would take, in this case, you said, it takes flipping cars over. Someone paid for those cars. Those aren’t your cars. To destroy other peoples property to make your point isn’t a valid path, is it?
>> First of all, they flipped cars, second of all, tucker, I think that — yeah, it’s an article, I exaggerated. I am trying to explain what I think I actually mean by political action it doesn’t consist of moderated Q and a sessions or bipartisan roundtables. At the institute of politics. I think that you want to say that this way of engaging in politics is a sort of young, petulant thing among close minded liberals, but really, the ancestry of this kind of action as the tea party. They staged massive demonstrations, they called the representatives incessantly, and they got people that they wanted in office, through a grassroots mobilization. Frankly, there is a lot of political participation in that. I don’t think that it is fair to say that what I am doing a sort of catastrophic or intolerant, really, what I’m trying to argue is that young people need to be politically motor boys in ways that don’t involve talking and asking questions, and going back and forth. Big light, knowing things. What about the Paris climate agreements?
>> If America were not to participate in this climate accord, carbon levels would rise it so much the world that it would be past the point where we can bring it back down. In a safe or efficient way.
>> That’s address you know nothing about it. Let me ask you this.
>> That is because I don’t have the numbers on it.
>> No, no. Here is my point. You are the editor of a weekly paper, people listen to you, and rather than explain, here is why you ought to support the Paris climate agreement, your position is, if you don’t believe everything that I think I believe, even if I have no details, I’m going to flip your car over. I will vomit on you. I will commit an act of violence, I will beat you up in a supermarket. That is not debate. That is something dumber, no?
>> Tucker, how can I possibly make a case to the trump Administration that he ought not walk away from the Paris climate accords?
>> You don’t even know what it is.
>> How could I possibly make a point in a way that would want him listen to me? It’s not about who can make better points, this guy has a platform, he has control of the country and can do whatever he wants, no matter what he wants. It’s not about whether I can convince him and the administration that it’s wrong, it’s about whether I can make sure that he feels enough pressure that he won’t do it, and doomed the future of our planet.
>> So, what you are articulating is in politics, its nihilism. You are saying that none of this matters. Whoever has the gun, is the guy in charge. That is what you are saying.
>> Tucker, that is exactly what I am not saying. I have convictions. I would like to express them on terms that are not set by my opponent. You understand what I mean?
>> I think we can all agree on these terms. Rational, elucidated fact-based debate. That carries the day. If you don’t agree with that, if you think vandalism carries the day, then, we can’t really have a conversation because we are starting from places that are so different that is not even worth it, right?
>> Right. So, you want to say that I want to hear the other side out and I won participate in rational debate.
>> Yeah.
>> How can I possibly to participate in a rational debate with someone who literally controls the country? Think about this for a second.
>> I don’t think vomiting on him will be the answer to that.
>> You establish the segment by telling me that that was a joke and I agreed with you.
>> I think — look — I will say this last thing. I think you are smart, you probably have valid points, I disagree with them, but it might be better to explain what they are, rather than to start with, hey, I will hit you in the face if you don’t like that. That is where you are starting from.
>> That’s fair, tucker. I think that you have sort of a skirted around or my actual point is. Look, you have read my writings in high school. You know that the tradition of hyperbole in writing that goes back.
>> I get that. Jake, thanks a lot for joining us. I appreciate it. T
Please wait...