destroy-trump-media. we'll see you back here tomorrow night. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." last night, at a dinner with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer, president trump apparently hammered up the framework to a deal that would protect 800,000 illegal aliens now covered under daca from being deported. they will get to stay, and under current law, so will millions of their relatives. it would be a massive amnesty, the biggest ever granted in american history. this is thrilling news for democrats and for open borders advocates everywhere. in return for this concession, the president receives nothing, no reduction in overall immigration totals, no titan restriction on foreign workers who take jobs from americans, no

e-verify, no end to chain migration. the president isn't even getting a border wall, though he insisted he will somehow get one later possibly. >> able to get something in six months, will you continue the daca program? >> we'll talk about that, but i think adil will be made within six months. >> no relief for the wall, is that what you're saying? >> they cannot obstruct the wall. the wall, to me, is vital. if i don't get the wall, then we will become the obstruction. we have to have an understanding that, whether it is in the budget or some other vehicle, in a fairly short period of time, the ball will be funded. otherwise, we're not doing anything. >> tucker: the president seems confident it will work out in the end, but there's no reason to be optimistic. the fate of daca recipients is, by far, the biggest piece of leverage he ever will have. if he gives it away for free, none of his other immigration priorities, the priorities he ran on and won the presidency

with will be considered paid almost 40 security measures to keep hearing about? they're ridiculous. they mean nothing. in any case, they'll be rolled back instantly the next time a democratic president wins. if this president doesn't get funding for a wall now, it will never be built, period. in israel and hungary, a wall has proven effective, and that is why democrats oppose when on our border, not because it won't work, but precisely because it will work. they have no interest in helping the flow of illegal immigrants no matter how much might hurt americans who already live here. they've done the math. democrats lost in 2016 because our middle class rejected them. that means the practical options now. they can embrace the issues the middle class cares about or they can import an entirely new electorate from the third world and change the demographics of the u.s. so completely they will never lose again. they are going with the latter option. yesterday, we told about college park, maryland, where illegal immigrants have the right to

vote in the elections. that's the beginning of a much larger trend. we consider total confidence that letting illegals vote everywhere and all elections will be a mainstream democratic position within five years if not much sooner. anyone who opposes it will be called a racist. bet money on in it. the dividends in such a strategy are just too obvious. there are, by the ways, ways to make a daca compromise that might improve this country. once given legal status, dreamers will be eligible to legalize their family members through family unification, meaning the amnesty will end up covering millions, not just a few hundred thousand. a real daca compromise would explicitly ban this possibly make it clear that legal status will only be offered to dreamers or not any of their extended family. a real daca compromise could also require that beneficiaries give up citizenship and all other countries. after all, the claim -- you've heard it a lot -- is that they deserve it legalization because america is the only country they know. but don't count on any kind of deal like that from the current republican leadership.

as one of our colleagues told us just this morning, when nancy pelosi and paul ryan sit down to talk immigration, they aren't opponents negotiating, their allies strategizing. in the mid-1990s, congress came close to passing legislation that would have included powerful barriers to illegal immigration and lower levels of legal immigration. paul ryan and a staffer for sam brownback wrote a series of letters that helped kill that bill. there is no reason to believe he has changed at all. earlier this year, we had spoke to ryan on this show and he assured us the house could working hard to fund the border wall. that was a lie, and not the only one the g.o.p. leadership is told its voters. nominally, congress is told by republicans, but on immigration, democrats control the agenda. why is that? because paul ryan and many other corporate republicans agree with them on every substantial point related to immigration. president trump goes along with this because he wants a legislative victory badly and his party is incapable of giving him one. this arrangement cannot last

forever. a part of this out of sync with its own borders will collapse and splintered. republicans don't have to agree on every policy detail, obviously, but there ought to be some nonnegotiable principles at the center of it all. borders are real. citizenship matters. america comes first. if you can't say any of that with a straight face and mean it and act on it, maybe you are in the wrong party. congress and tim ryan is a democrat. he represents ohio, dimona valley, and he joins us tonight. congressman, thanks for coming on. >> how are you? >> tucker: i'm great. you are upset about the possibility of daca being canceled, and i know you are an economic populist. i wonder how many of your voters woke up this morning in youngstown and thought, i hope the key priority of congress is to make sure more illegal immigrants get citizenship. do you think a lot of them think that? >> well, first of all, tucker, these are kids. these are kids who came here with family members. they did nothing wrong, and we are trying to solve a problem.

of course we want to talk about jobs, but this is an immediate crisis that, quite frankly, the president created. he could have handled this in a much better way of just saying, let's figure out if he wants to go through the legislative process to formalize this. we could have done that without all the drama. but here we are -- there are 800,000 kids. that's what we're talking about. >> tucker: are we talking about a hundred thousand kids? what about their parents? what about their relatives? would you support a compromise that prevents legalizing the relatives. i understand feeling sorry for kid brought here at 2. i don't feel sorry for the parents. are you willing to say no? >> my idea would be, first, let's take care of the kids. they did nothing wrong, let them come in. then we have 11 million people here who are undocumented who are, in many ways, contributing. and what i would say is, let's

figure out what we are going to do with them. i don't think we should round them up and throw them out of the country. i think we need to figure out how we get them to become citizens, and that may mean paying a fine -- hold on, tucker. you asked me. paying a fine, paying back taxes, learning a language, welcome to the united states of america. with love to have you. this country was built on immigration, and we need to make sure, at the same time, we're securing the border. >> tucker: now we're getting into talking points, and you're dodging my question, a very simple one. >> i just answered your question. what are you talking about? >> tucker: the 800,000 800,000a recipients appearance and relatives and other country, and under the current of all, millions of people would be eligible to come here and get benefits as well. that's a lot of people, and other small number of people. do you support that or don't you support that? >> under the circumstances, as i said, that we try to keep these

families together, pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn the language, and welcome to united states of america. i mean, i don't know how many times you want me to say that. i think that is a very -- >> tucker: how can you be an economic populist? how can you say you care about wages when you're inviting poor people into the country to undercut the wages of americans were already working here who don't have jobs? i don't understand. you seem to be working at cross purposes. >> because these poor people, many of them, are in the shadows, and they get taken advantage of by people who hire them and don't pay them the minimum wage, don't provide them benefits, pension, all of these other things. so they are very susceptible to be taken vantage of. and, tucker, i know you care about human beings not being taken advantage of. if we stick together here and say, look, we have an issue, let's fix it, let's do it in a

just way, in a compassionate way, starting with the kids, moving everyone else into the system, and an independent analysis -- >> tucker: so you are very spun up and all democrats, a lot of republicans too, all spun up about the -- i wonder why i don't see the same level of outrage, not just from you, because he talk about working americans. but the members of your party. when was lester nancy pelosi or chuck schumer showed a similar level of outrage for the anti-5 million americans not working or the 50,000 last year -- the emphasis seems to be on non-american citizens. i don't think i'm imagining that. i bet you've noticed it. >> let's just unwrap this a little bit here. first and foremost, it was donald trump who started this whole thing a few weeks ago. things were moving along fine. these young people were

protected. we were all -- most people in the united states were in agreement. >> tucker: look, i'm not defending trump. i disagree with what he did today. but you know as well as i -- 13 state attorneys general's suit saying it was unconstitutional. he had to deal with it, i'm not defending him. what you're saying is wrong and you know it is wrong. he had to deal with this because the executive order was unconstitutional. that is just true and you know that. >> but who knows what would happen in the courts. that process was just starting. trump was not afraid to get involved and initiate a discussion, even with members of his own party, so he could have talked to those attorney general's if he had wanted to. he could have said, i'm not going to resend it, let's not scare the heck out of all of these kids. the fact of the matter is, i have been screaming about jobs. i'm still waiting for president trump to initiate his jobs program that would benefit everybody. it is september and he still

hasn't initiated the trillion dollar infrastructure bill. >> tucker: i agree with you, actually, and infrastructure. i think he should have started it. i'm with you on that. but you can't look in the camera and say that giving millions of new people, or poor people, work permits, is going to raise the wages of americans already here, it's just not, and you know it's not. so light -- >> [laughs] as i said, the president started the whole thing, we're just trying to fix the problem, and that's what the democrats are trying to become a part of the solution here. but independent analysts have said that if we create a robust, comprehensive immigration reform system that is compassionate, we will boost the gdp by 1.2% increase. we will now have 11 million people paying more taxes, paying in social security, paying into medicare, supporting these programs that everybody benefits

from. >> tucker: are we suspending supply and demand? the principle that if you have an overabundance of something, its value falls? are we going to get rid of it? we need to in order for your plan to work, i think. >> i don't even know if i understand your question, tucker. >> tucker: if you are for the border wall? if you were for border security, why not build a wall? >> we don't need one. here is the problem, you guys keep being wrapped around the axle on. most people who are here overstay their visas. okay? if you want to talk about drugs coming into the country, 90% of them come through ports of entry. we have enough technology today, let's get a technological update here. and if we want to protect a border wall, we can do it with sensors and a variety of other things. you don't have to play the cynical card. >> tucker: 20 years, that's exactly what it's about. about bringing in new people.

>> let's solve the problem. i think everybody is tired of this, we have 11 million people, let's figure out a way to bring them in. spoon democratic voters. i get it. >> wait a minute, wait a minute. trumped up more voters than romney and latino voters. this is a across party lines. if you look at the polling on daca, it has broad bipartisan support. >> tucker: you're right, we've got to go, and being told. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: congressman louis, it is a republican representing the state of texas. he joins us. thanks for coming on. my understanding was, i know this is your view, before any kind of immigration reform is done, we have to secure the borders. >> that unfortunately, is not i it, even going back to president bush. >> tucker: that says to me that the republican leadership is not against increasing the

number of illegal aliens in this country. how could i conclude otherwise? >> i do think that president bush wanted to secure the border. he didn't want a comprehensive plan. i don't think this has ever been mentioned before, but the texas republican delegation met with president bush, and we complained, look, we're your delegation, the largest republican delegation in the country, and we're tired of carrying water unless the border get secured. he started having the secretary of homeland security or karl rove come in, and karl rove did not like lots of people coming in. the freedom carcasses if you carcasses if he wants to >> tucker: but we have control right now. and what i see is people spouting the same very tired old

rhetoric around border security. all of the measures being proposed could be pulled back under a democratic administration, so maybe there is a reason a border -- at least on parts of it. what is the argument against it. i don't understand why it isn't happening now. >> it should be. we appropriated $1.6 million to get it started in the house, and the senate has had trouble getting there. and i really appreciate paul saying again this week to our conference, going to find the wall. he told me yesterday, going to find the wall, you can get across the park with all the water it takes. i want you in. >> tucker: why would the speaker publicly say that he was for keeping daca before building a border wall? >> well, because he has been, before that, before trump ran for office, since trump ran for office, so that has been part of

the establishment from day one. >> tucker: you're absolutely right. maybe i'm miss reading election results, but of all the candidates, it seemed like trump was the one calling for serious border security. maybe voters want that. >> in the general election, they were just one, he continues to push. but if we don't get the border secured, you and i have talked about it, but when i spent so many nights down there on the border, they make clear, and i have seen it with my own eyes. and somebody in washington says, let's talk about legalizing anybody, then there is a surge. as you know, we've had a surge -- >> tucker: having a surge right now. >> democrats like to talk about it, they think the more they talk come in.

i refused to talk about legalizing anybody until that border is secure. there are places, we've got to have a well, we've got to secure it, and once that is done, we'll talk about that. >> tucker: you are a lonely voice, unfortunately, on the hill. >> there are many good people that feel that way. in fact, tucker, we were able to stop bush from getting a bill to get that security. >> tucker: republicans are in charge right now. >> they get a bill, we stop that. >> tucker: now they're in charge. we've got a fox news alert, the u.s. pacific command announcing that north korea has launched another missile, that miss her, they say, went over jim before landing in the pacific ocean. they are saying it did not pose a threat to one. conservative radio host, will the school have the guts to

stand up for free speech? alan dershowitz after the break. senator bernie sanders pushing health care for all, a single pair, including for illegal immigrants. iyou always pay your insurance on time. tap one little bumper and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. liberty mutual insurance.

>> tucker: time now for "campus craziness" judgment day at the university of california berkeley, ben shapiro, the radio show host, scheduled to speak there in less than two hours. the school is at the breaking point. counselors are available for traumatized students. some buildings are boarded up.

cops are out at force, all over a speech by a single mainstream conservative. what's going on? alan dershowitz just wrote a book called "trumped up," a politicalization of differences. calling on uc berkeley to defend free speech. he is not a conservative or a trump supporter, he cares what the bill of rights. alan dershowitz joins us. thanks for coming on. >> thanks so much. today, ben shapiro, tomorrow, me. william buckley, e. these folks don't want to hear an alternative point of view on american university campuses, and they are prepared to use violence to stop this from happening. they are going to start protesting teachers. this is really going to spread. this is a very serious problem, and it has to be stopped now at berkeley, the home of the free speech movement. you can't have free speech for me but not for thee, which is

the way many of them wanted. free speech for the left, not the centers, not the right, not even for centrist liberals. i would be the subject of protest. >> tucker: and somebody said i blamed them last, the protesters and most of these idiot trust fund-ers, where the adults, that's what i'm bothered by, where the old-fashioned liberals who used to defend free speech and are silent in the face of this? why? >> i think everybody is terrified of being accused of being on the trump side. that accusation is made all the time. if i defend free speech, i'm an attack dog for a trump. if i defend civil liberties, the constitution. you have to choose sides. my grandmother was an immigrant from poland, she'd say, yeah, but was it good or bad for the jews? i understand that. i but today, is it good or bad r liberals, women, gays, latinos,

and if it's not good for you, forget about it, we don't want to hear it. >> tucker: how do you hold together a country identified like this? >> we need results. we need college administrators. it's largely the public college administrators. presidents of universities who listen to the squeaky wheel, faculty members who, some of them -- students often follow radical faculty members, and i really do think that universities, particularly public universities -- berkeley is a state-funded and federally funded public university, it has an obligation. if not a matter of choice. it must defend the first amendment. if ben shapiro is not allowed to speak, the first amendment will have lost a tremendous battle today, and that is by this is a very important event in the history of our rights. >> tucker: i couldn't agree with that more vehemently, and

as i've said, for the second time, you and i are in the opposite side of a lot of important questions. importantly, tell us the reception you have gotten from lifelong liberal friends to the things you have said on this show over the past six months? >> i think they have change sides. i'm a liberal democrat. i voted for hillary clinton. i would vote for her again. i'm just reading her book, which i love. i want to see daca renewed. i support gay marriage. i support the entire liberal agenda. but the liberal agenda means free speech for all. the liberal agenda means due process, not only for people who use support but for people who you vehemently oppose. it was a dictator in south america who once said, boyfriends, everything, for my enemies, the law. and we don't want that to happen, were returned of august people we disapprove of them. if you don't like ben shapiro,

don't listen to them, or even boo him. under the first amendment, a person is who is a critic of ben can stand up and boo and hiss, but he cast be allowed to finish, he can't be shouted down. i was shouted down at the university of irvine, i'm less polite than ben so i just shouted them back down. the speaker comes first. his rate and the right of his audience to have that communication trumps everything, and berkeley must do everything in its power, including the use of the police, including expelling students -- >> tucker: the most important thing. you're describing the liberal agenda 1973. i think things have changed, but i'm glad you're here to remind us. thank you, professor. >> thank you. >> tucker: bernie sanders says it is time to replace obamacare with eight single-payer health care system, and he says health care for all, and he

whoooo. i enjoy the fresher things in life. fresh towels. fresh soaps. and of course, tripadvisor's freshest, lowest... ...prices. so if you're anything like me... ...you'll want to check tripadvisor. we now instantly compare prices... ...from over 200 booking sites... ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. go on, try something fresh. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.

>> tucker: the democratic party may have been spared obamacare repeal. if that doesn't mean they're happy with the status quo there. senator bernie sanders of vermont has introduced a bill that would expand medicare to cover the entire u.s. population, effectively creating a single-payer health care system. it does nothing to exclude noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, which means they would be covered.

is america ready to give free health care to basically everyone in the world? our guest once worked as a staffer in bernie sanders office. she joins us now. thanks for coming on. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: without getting into details of the idea, the fact that it would allow noncitizens to get their health care, all of their health care, taking care of by u.s. taxpayers and illegal aliens to do the same as a deal killer, because that means that u.s. taxpayers are on the hook for the world's medical care. can you see why that would be a problem? >> i wouldn't say that that should be the deal killer. i think the concept of it all of everyone having health care in this country, which affects us all, whether we are spreading illnesses or taking care of people like my mother, who works for this country, for the state of oklahoma, and past due not having proper health care, i don't think the bill is about taking care of undocumented

immigrants. i do believe everyone needs to pay their share with society. i think what we have shared in strayed away from us having the conversation on if this country wants to invest in health care for all, if that should be a right, should it be a free pass for everyone, no. but should recover health care, absolutely. >> tucker: again, when you say "everyone," there is a legal and i would argue a moral distinction between u.s. citizens and non-u.s. citizens. it used to be, you met all americans, we are in this together. we join them or meet when necessary. we pay our taxes every april. we are americans. this bill allows everybody in the world as long as they make it to the united states, which is not hard, as you know, to get taxpayer-paid-four health care. do you see the distinction? >> i do, i do think that undocumented immigrants need to become documented. i think if we keep getting caught up in the semantics of it

all, there are people -- >> tucker: the semantics? >> yeah, the semantics of it all. there are people who think the everyday work in question to have the right to health care. do i believe undocumented citizens should become documented and pay taxes like everybody else? absolutely. >> tucker: hold on. they might not make it really clear that if you're not a u.s. citizen, you don't get taxpayer-funded health care. why not, because they don't want it, actually? how many people in this world, a couple billion, why wouldn't they come here if you combine wildly generous social service benefits like universal health care with open borders, a democratic program -- i'm not being mean. i'm being honest. why wouldn't every poor person on five other continents move here tomorrow, and what would it be like when they get here? would it be a good country to live in, do you think? >> i don't think that everyone wants to move to america for health care. they're doing that now and we don't provide health care. >> tucker: we do provide health care.

>> it not for free. >> tucker: we do, actually. we have a whole fund for it. yes, we do, actually. >> then what's the argument for that, if they're already getting provided for for free? with the argument about. >> tucker: the argument is, they could free health care in emergency rooms and it's paid for with a special emergency fund. this idea, this bill would expand full-blown cradle to grave health care for basically everybody in the world. and i just want someone on the other state and am excited to say, you're right, that's insane. it could happen and would wreck our country. why not say that. are you that afraid of alienating illegal aliens? are they that key a constituency to the democratic party now? >> i can't tell you that. i'm an independent, so i can't tell you that. but i'm not afraid of anything. i'm in i'm 60 gunner from the air force let's be clear that i do believe that all citizens believe need to become documented in this country pay their fair share. my concern is that we're getting

off the topic of medicare for all and having an actual -- >> tucker: it depends for the "all" is. we have to define the terms before have the conversation. i don't think that's a small thing morally or mathematically. it's just not sustainable. my advice -- look, i'm not even arguing against the idea. i'm arguing against the reality, the left doesn't believe in citizenship anymore. that has implications. >> tucker: tezlyn, thank you for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: a leading source of politics in american politics, up next, we will talk to a antifa activist who is also a college professor. excited for pumpkins pumpkin se latte's this paul? oh, you must be a bigot! that is the word from a feminist group who says every pumpkin spice latte you buy is a

>> tucker: america is plagued by the specter of fascism and violence, and in an ironic twist, they call themselves call themselves antifascists, antifa. whenever conservatives want to speak on campus, antifa groups are a reliable presence and they try to stamp out free-speech with vigilante violence with which they justifies a form of self-defense. a professor at john jay college of criminal justice. he founded a antifa group. professor, thank you for coming on. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: your position, tell me if i have this, people are defined as fascists do not have free-speech rights. >> my position is that communities have the right to defend themselves against groups that actively seek to eliminate members of that community. >> tucker: to defend themselves against violence -- >> yes. >> tucker: but physical violence? >> talking about a group that has a history -- >> tucker: are we going are we going to pretend were

suddenly in this historical group where dylann roof doesn't exist? >> tucker: are your professor? here's the question though. past statements that have espoused violence or is it acts of violence -- could you commit violence against me if you thought that i had a history of saying things that you mentioned were violent? >> i would never commit violence against you. when i was younger i was a libertarian and i looked up to you when you were a libertarian. >> tucker: let's take me out of this. the concept of self-defense is a legal concept, it's also got a long history and tradition. the idea is, if i'm hitting you, if i strike you physically. if i physically commit violence against you, but your seeming to say that anybody who has espoused ideas that have, at some point in history, lead to

violence, can be subject to vioe from you. you're not saying that? >> i'm not saying that. i believe it is the rate for communities to get together to assess what is a threat to them and to defend themselves against that threat. >> tucker: give me an example. what public figure in america right now could be shut down, could have his free-speech rights taken away, and could be the subject of violence under the standards are describing? >> for instance, i think the framework here of talking about violence as opposed to talking about preserving the very freedoms that you and i both enjoyed is a false one. ultimately, we are talking about a movement that actively advocates against all centers of democracy. we're talking about richard spencer, who publishes an article on july 28th by a man named vincent law or the headline was, to protect free speech, get rid of democracy. >> tucker: let's use that example.

i disagree with that. i haven't seen the piece, but it doesn't sound like something i would disagree with. does richard spencer have a right to speak in public? >> richard spencer is a danger to society. when he speaks simple public, what he is doing, publicly recruiting people to his very violent movement. >> tucker: does have a right to speak in public? >> i don't think he has a right to speak in public unopposed, and that is ultimately what the purpose of antifa is, to show up and oppose him. >> tucker: you shut people down, you prevent them for speaking, you commit violence against them. i know people who have been knocked down and beaten by people from antifa. that is true. it does happen. we have it on tape. we can roll the tape. you are saying that's justified? >> yes. i believe that communities have the right to defend themselves against threats to the community. >> against ideas they don't like. >> no, against people have explicitly said that they want to eliminate those people from our society.

>> tucker: your completing violence with ideas. >> no, i'm not. >> tucker: if i have not raised my hand to strike you -- >> in order to raise your hand to strike me, you have to think you're going to strike me. when you are going out in public as a protester explicitly saying that you want to eliminate most of the people from this country, i believe most of the people in this country have the right to say, no, that's not okay. >> tucker: okay, you have a right to say it's not okay. what you don't have a right is to prevent me from saying what i think, even if you disagree, and you definitely don't have a right to commit violence against me, and you're blurring the lines there. by the way, don't you work at a criminal college? okay, you don't have the right to do that. you have the right to make a counter case. you have see the distinction there? >> tucker, when i walked into this building, i counted five security guards at the front door and two police cars outside. are you going to tell me that the violence that they would

enact against someone who is looking to do you or any number of the people that work here harm, are you going to tell me that the violence that they enact to protect, preemptively, the staff that are protected also by the barricades that you have -- >> tucker: i don't even know -- i'm honestly not following you. i don't have security, but there is security -- speak of the security at your building. and the reason there is security at your building, that you have security, ultimately, that security provides a space for nonviolent civil discourse. >> tucker: slowed down. there are a million distinctions here. but you don't own the public square. >> but i believe the public owns the public square. the public isn't even in charge of the public. we are talking about a system that has been gerrymandered geg

people out of the society. not in the interests of a vast majority of society. we don't have representative ry the state. we don't. >> tucker: last question. do you teach students? >> i do. >> tucker: and do you teach them that the first amendment does not apply to people they disagree with? >> i teach them to think critically, and that is why i am very open about my antifascism and anarchism. >> tucker: so from somebody comes out and says -- >> i encourage them to research and explore and hold them to the same standards i would hold any other student. >> tucker: i bet. >> i do. i had an alt-right supporter in my class last semester. i worked with him on his papers. i got him better excitation, and he wrote a paper that was a a paper. i'm not discriminate against my students. >> tucker: you'd think the people that disagree with you should be beaten up.

all right, congressman -- oh, congressman [laughs] close! professor. thanks for coming on. it's hard to know what is a real story, a fake story. it is time for pumpkin spice lattes. a feminist group says pumpkin spice lattes are somehow a sign of white supremacy and you are supporting white supremacy if you buy them. why are they arguing that?

♪ >> tucker: starbucks pumpkin spice lattes have become an american tradition for many. people go people go because of tens of millions of them every year. could it be that they are racist? you may not have thought of that, but you may not be a member of the feminist group ultraviolet.

they said in a tweet, "that favorite tall drink of yours is funding rent. payments to white supremacy" claiming that starbucks is located in properties owned by the trump administration, one in trump tower. i think of this show as not just any cable news show but also a visual record of the times we are living in, the insanity now in progress, and this segment is going to be when the people 50 years from now watch -- how can pumpkin spice latte be a white supremacist beverage. domain is a nonsupremacist >> no, i know, this group ultraviolet came out, a feminist organization, and said that they want people to boycott buying pumpkin spice latte's lattes in locations that are in trump tower, essentially, in min manhattan. >> tucker: right. you often hear people say, the

activist left is a bunch of silly, out of touch left to make rich people, and that no make this kind of give some ammo for that argument. in a country with serious unemployment, huge levels of consumer debt, here are the entitled feminists of ultraviolet getting mad at starbucks. you kind of see why maybe this is almost like a stereotype? >> this isn't a new controversy. ever since trump started running for president, there has been pressure for retailers to pull out of locations in trump tower. so it's not just starbucks. also nike has been pressured. a people have been urged not to support anything that is involved with the trump brand. the issue -- >> tucker: when it'd be easier to make an argument instead of punishing -- i don't like starbucks. i don't care what happens to starbucks. that they're not responsible for the policies, i don't even know if he owns the building. wouldn't it be easier to make a straightforward argument against

whatever policies trump has that you don't like? >> what is problematic about this for me, and i am a feminist, historically, when we put pressure on certain corporations, sometimes it does affect policy change. in this case, starbucks does a ton, they do a ton, everything from working with vets to the transgender community. they are considered a progressive company. to hurt their bottom line is a way to create policy change and, obviously, it's a bit of conundrum. >> tucker: i hear companies describe this progressive, whether it is apple or uber, starbucks, they don't pay their employees very much but liberals don't seem to care as long as they sign into whatever fashionable rich person left because it is fashionable at the moment. why is there never any pressure for these companies to pay their employees more. that seems to be a virtuous thing to do. by not more health better health care or more vacation?

>> i understand what you're saying, and that's a problem across all kinds of countries where companies whether they are progressive or not progressive. that becomes a minimum wage question. >> tucker: why not pay them 20 bucks an hour if you're so progressive instead of just issuing some purple press press release on transgender bathrooms. you guys are rich, why not do that? did that occur to you? >> of course it occurs to me, there is a lot of problems with the way our system is right now. >> tucker: [laughs] it's hilarious. like a get out a free card. thank you for coming on. >> you won't see these folks at the post office. they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale.

go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.

>> sadly, we are out of time. would love to do another hour but tune in tomorrow and every night during the week at 8:00. above all, stay tuned for our friends over at in new york, the

five. that is next. see you tomorrow. >> hello, everyone, i am dana perino along with guilfoyle, juan williams, jesse watters and greg gutfeld and his 9:00 in new york city and this is the five. foxnews alert with north korea firing a ballistic missile that flew over japan before crashing into the pacific ocean and is another escalation with the crisis and comes days after the united nations passed a new set of strict sanctions against north korea and for details let's bring in the chief national correspondent, ed henry and effectually known as the sixth. >> even though greg doesn't like me, i like