Tucker Carlson DESTROYS Ben Shapiro With LOGIC and REASON

Chris Menahan
Nov. 20, 2018

This is what happens when Ben Shapiro isn't debating children...

SHAPIRO: So would you, Tucker Carlson, be in favor of restrictions on the ability of trucking companies to use this sort of technology specifically to, you know, sort of artificially maintain the number of jobs that are available in the trucking energy?

CARLSON: Are you joking? In a second. In a second! In other words, if I were president and ran the DOT, Department of Transportation, we're not letting driverless trucks on the road, period. Why? Really simple. Driving for a living is the single most common job for high school educated men in this country in all 50 states. Okay, that's the same group whose wages have gone down by 11 percent over the past thirty years. The social cost of limiting their jobs in a ten-year span, five-year span, thirty-year span is so high that it's not sustainable, so the greater good is protecting your citizens.

Look, capitalism is the best economic system I can think of, I think that anyone's ever thought of, but that doesn't mean that it's a religion and everything about it is good. There's no Nicene Creed of capitalism that I have to buy into, what I care about is living in a country where decent people can live happy lives, and so, no, I would say, no, are you joking?
Here's the full interview:

And some more highlights via Reddit:
Tucker: "Charles Murray's 2 books [Bell Curve & Coming Apart] was one of the most brilliant books I've read in the past 20 years..."

Tucker: "When male wages decline below those of females, marriage formation declines along with it but childbirth does not... net effect is you have no families..."

Tucker: "If I was President .. I wouldn't let driverless trucks on the road..."

Tucker: "We are on the cusp of a transformative revolution, and no one is trying to take control of it at all..."

Tucker: "The luddites are used for propaganda purposes to make the other side seem ludicrous.. but actually their concern is totally real..."
Here's another highlight from CNS News where Tucker states plainly that "it is never true that diversity is your strength":
Ben Shapiro: “But your viewpoint on diversity is basically, as I see it expressed in the book, that diversity is a neutral. It’s not good or bad inherently.”

Tucker Carlson: “It’s not a value.”

Shapiro: “It’s not a value.”

Carlson: “It’s a description.”

Shapiro: “Right. And so where do you see the conflict lying between right and left on that particular issue?”

Carlson: “Well, so, where I agree with you is that – while, as I’ve noted, I’m distrustful of complex ideologies – I do think that you need to start with certain things that you believe are true and act on them if you want to get to the place you desire to be.

“So, what I just noticed just as an American – and I’m not an intellectual, I’m a talk show host; so this is a very obvious thing – that our national motto has been redefined to its mirror image. So, of course, it was ‘Out of many, one,’ and now it is ‘Diversity is our strength.’

“So, I think it’s fair if you, without asking my consent, replace the core principle of our country, it’s fair for me to ask if that principle is worth organizing a country around. So, I just asked the obvious question, ‘Is diversity our strength?’ And of course, like so much they say, it’s not only untrue, it’s the opposite of what is true. It is never true that diversity is your strength. I’m for all kinds of diversity, but they’re not our strengths. In other words, is it true in your marriage: the less you have in common with your wife, the stronger your marriage is? ‘We don’t even speak the same language. That’s why we love each other so much.’ Is it true in your business? ‘We don’t know what we’re all doing here.’ Is it true in a military? No, it’s insane, actually. It’s the opposite, once again, of what is true, what is observably true.

“So, I just noted that. And by the way, at the same time I noted it – as I did 50 nights in the past 200 nights – I make the case explicitly against racism. Which is, you are not responsible for your immutable qualities. You can’t control your height, your hair color, your DNA, what your parents did. None of that is your fault, and you should not be punished for it or rewarded for it. That is an argument against racism – explicitly.

“And so, for that I’m a ‘racist!’ It’s like, no, you don’t understand. I’m arguing against all kinds of racism. I think it’s a really dangerous way to see the world.”
Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter, Facebook, Gab and Minds.

All original InformationLiberation articles CC 4.0

About - Privacy Policy