my point is that we don't need this from a razor company. >> we need it from every corner of society. if a brand can stand up to say be the best a man can get. then i think it will further the conversation to bring the country -- >> martha: you are the best we can get. my guys. all right. we'll take a night here. a lot of e-mails coming in. keep it coming. that is "the story" for tonight. tucker carlson up next live in d.c. ♪ >> tucker: good evening. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." the 2020 presidential race is effectively underway and has been since the midterms in november. the most formidable candidates have not officially announced yet. they want to be fashionably late to the party. it's obvious who they are. they are lining up donors, genning up publicity and trying to be impressive. the biggest contender in the group is beto o'rourke. he nearly beat ted cruz in a senate race this fall.

democrats love him for that. affluent progressives on the coast love him best. he is one of them. in the betting markets, o'rourke is the favorite to win the democratic nomination. two years from now he plausibly could be in the oval office. so it's work taking beto o'rourke seriously. what kind of president would he be? at this point we can only guess. we know like most people in his social class he is totally against border walls. >> we will fought when necessary against a president focused on building walls. >> no wall is going to solve legitimate security concerns. then perhaps you can be forgiven thinking that a wall will solve the problem. >> we in el paso are ashamed of this now. but this is one of those moments where the folks in germany look back on the berlin wall or the united states looks back on the project to intern japanese americans in world war ii. >> did you hear that? berlin wall, bad. border wall, also bad. indeed, bad, very much like

interning the japanese direct world war ii was bad. another racist attack on the asians from the f.d.r. administration. or something like that. whatever. walls are bad. okay? so far that has been the sum total of what we know about beto o'rourke's policy views. that and he went to the dentist recently. we know because he put it on instagram. thankfully now we know even more. o'rourke just did a two-hour long interview with a reporter from jeff bezos' washington newspaper, "washington post," which like o'rourke himself is a full-time mouthpiece for guilty rich people. o'rourke knew he was speaking to his own community so he relaxed long enough to explain what he really thinks about things, including border walls. walls are bad, o'rourke explained. not just because they intern perfectly decent japanese people but because they literally commit murder. rather we commit murder when we build walls. as o'rourke put it, if you construct a barrier along the southern border, "you will

ensure death. you and i as americans have caused the deaths of others through these walls." let that settle. whoa! we killed people. we didn't even know it. that is pretty heavy. how many people did we kill? should we turn ourselves in to the authorities or prepare for life on the lam? do we need passports? extra security? does paraguay have extradition treaty? so many questions. but the real question is what the hell is beto o'rourke talking about? it's not like he is pretending to know. he makes it perfectly clear he has no idea what he is saying. that is okay. he is not embarrassed about it. when the "washington post" asked o'rourke what he would do about illegal aliens oversaying their visas, a huge part of the immigration crisis he answered this way. "i don't know." thank you, mr. specoli, please take your seat. he is not in details.

he's in to ideas. big ideas. ideas of the future. sweeping panoramic truths about being, personhood and new modes of authentic express. the -- authentic expression. he is bigger than that of a micro guy. he is a transformer. what he wants to transform next is nothing less than the united states of america, starting with the belief the country was founding on. that is what he told jeff bezos' newspaper. does this still work, he asked? "this" being america. he wasn't so sure. so he asked a question that future his historians will recognize as a pivot point in the life of this country. can america "still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?" that is not a small question. the principles he refers to would include "bill of rights" freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and right to self-defense and fair trial. does any of that still matter?

or are all of those old ideas, stumbling blocks preventing people like beto, good and brilliant people who went to columbia and have beautiful weekend homes from getting the power they need to turn the place to a truly awesome country? a country where the skateboards outnumber s.u.v.s, and everyone is thin and has quality child care. a nation that values hot yoga above football. place where insensitive thoughts are banned and punished appropriately. beta doesn't know the answer to the questions right now but he is thinking about it. nate learner thinking about it, too. he is founder of website promoting beto presidential run and kind enough to join us tonight. unlike so many people on the democratic side you have come and i really appreciate that. so let me ask. straightforward question. when beto o'rourke says we need to rethink the principles on which the country was founded, would that include the free -- freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and second amendment? what does it mean?

>> on the surface and taken out of context that sounds bad. what he is talking about is a very common approach to constitutional law. constitutional scholars for centuries debated if the constitution should be taken literally and at word if it's a living, breathing document we should interpret as things change? and guess what? the country changed and the world has changed quite a bit in the last 200-plus years. what he is saying is perhaps we need to revisit part of the constitution as a result. that is a common discussion. >> tucker: look. i'm open-minded. by the way, there are things in the constitution, i think we should always have conversations about everything. >> exactly. >> tucker: that we disagree with. but what specifically is he talking about? what principles need to be revised? >> i'm not a spokesperson for beto or his campaign. but you know i do understand what he is saying as far as needing to revisit parts of the constitution. i think the electoral college is a good example. where you are empowering some voters more so than others and giving them more than a voice than others and that is

unfair. not what our democracy is about. that is something right there. >> tucker: what does it mean? we are very fairness. there is a lot of unfairness. i agree with that for sure. we should work as hard as we can to rectify it. give me an example of a principle that might be changed under beto o'rourke presidency? >> i don't speak for him or his campaign. i can't do that. >> tucker: fair enough. so he was asked about the border wall and he said -- i'm paraphrasing but pretty close -- we are killing people when we build border walls. what does -- how are we killing people? how have we killed people by doing that? >> in the context of what he was talking about he was making two points. one, when we militarize our border with mexico, you are increasing the risk that people will get hurt or killed when they cross the border in their encounters with our security forces and their side. also when you build a massive wall, at the point of entry where people are most likely to illegally cross the border they will seek out other points and those points tend to be more dangerous.

so if you force people find different and new ways to come in the country, a lot of those tend to be more dangerous and you are increasing the likelihood of killing people. so he is saying find a more civil and humane way to treat people coming in the country. he doesn't mean no border security. he doesn't no borders. >> tucker: of course they are. >> no, they're not. they are for treating people like humans. >> tucker: okay. but look, mexico had over 31,000 murders last year. that is about twice the number we had in the country as a population less than half after ours so it's one of the most dangerous countries in the world. it's fair to be concerned about the violence moving north. >> also fair to consider people might flee the violence for their families. >> tucker: that is true. but the rights of the interest of americans come first from the perspective of the government. >> 100%. absolutely. >> tucker: so explain to me, speak slowly if you want how we are forcing people to come across the border illegally? how are we forcing people to come across? i don't understand that.

>> we are not forcing people. it's that we should treat them in a humane and a civil way because they are humans. despite the way they have been described by donald trump and republicans, you know, they are not, they are not criminals. they are not rapists. they are not all drug dealers. many are coming here to seek better lives. >> tucker: i totally -- but i have never doubted that. some are bad people. most are just economic migrants who want to move to a richer country. >> exactly. >> tucker: i get it. i said many times i would leave honduras, too, and i would come here illegally if i could. i'm not joking. i get it. but i'm not from honduras. i'm from america and i don't want people driving down wages in the country. so don't we have a right to say no, you can't come in unless we want you to come? >> we absolutely have a right to do that. however, as americans we also have a duty to treat them a certain way. it's to respect their humanity and as individuals and not simply cast them aside. when you look at border security there is a certain way you should treat people and it's not forcing them to,

it's not putting them them at a massive risk and potentially killing them. >> tucker: how with we killing them -- if we erect a wall and say you can't cross is the same as killing them? >> putting up a wall puts them in danger because it forces them to find different point of entry. the wall is a massive, it doesn't accomplish anything or solve the problem of immigration, longer visas, people overstaying the visas. >> tucker: i'm glad you put that out there. that is totally fair. that is a talking point but it's real so i'm glad you mentioned it. mr. o'rourke was asked it, too, by jeff bezos' newspaper. his quote was i don't know. how can you not know? he represents texas. he has been asked about immigration for years and he hasn't thought of the visa overstays as you point out is a driver of the crisis. how can he not have an answer to that? >> after context it sounds bad but he said after that he would work with the people affected by and work with the policy makers and the experts and people on the ground who deal with this every day to find a solution.

this is refreshing that a politician is willing to say i don't know. if you look where the immigration reform has gone in 20 years, nowhere, a lot of politicians don't know. they have no idea what a solution is. we haven't found one. we need a debate and talk it over. >> i'm totally for that. >> sounds like you support him there. >> tucker: i support being honest about not knowing. >> be honest. >> tucker: try harder. let me asking something i don't know the answer to. i'm not being mean. i'm sincere. in the last election you had irish catholic guy with hispanic nickname running against actual hispanic guy with an anglo name. does that seem weird, audacious? >> ted cruz tried to make the point as well and texans got every it quickly. >> tucker: it's a real point. >> it's not a real point. the point is moot. it's something to joke about for a minute. >> tucker: okay. >> the nickname growing up. people call ted cruz "ted." and it's not, not something people care about. people care about real issues.

>> tucker: i asked about real issues and i ended it with as you point out joking about it for a second. i appreciate you coming on. >> of course. anytime. >> tucker: well, from "the view" to the dumb people on television, what you are hearing this week and it's a talking point of the week is that everybody who is not a democrat is by nature a bigot. that is what they are telling you. victor davis hanson responds to that after the break. after walking six miles at an amusement park, bill's back needed a vacation from his vacation. so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. chicken! that's right, chicken?! candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken!

since you're heading off to dad... i just got a zerowater. but we've always used brita. it's two stage-filter... doesn't compare to zerowater's 5-stage. this meter shows how much stuff, or dissolved solids, gets left behind. our tap water is 220. brita? 110... seriously? but zerowater- let me guess. zero? yup, that's how i know it is the purest-tasting water. i need to find the receipt for that. oh yeah, you do.

i am a techie dad.n. i believe the best technology should feel effortless. like magic. at comcast, it's my job to develop, apps and tools that simplify your experience. my name is mike, i'm in product development at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. >> tucker: if you watched tv this week you heard the talking point.

republicans and the people who vote for them are bigots. every one of them. the geniuses over at "the view," the daytime tv show suggested that almost half the country is just flat out immoral and should be shunned on the ground. watch. >> will the republicans now step up to the plate with donald trump? because he has been using, i think the border wall as sort of the dog whistle for racism. the government is still shut down and i think it's all about let's not let all the brown people in. >> there is 42% of the country that support the wall. are they all racists? >> that is a good question. >> i'm asking you that. i don't think so. i don't think so. i think a lot of people that believe in security. >> is donald trump racist? >> duh. >> do you think 42% of americans are racist? >> i just said i don't know. >> tucker: yeah, it's "the view" you can write it off like what do they know. not just "the view." nicole wallace had a real job at one point.

white house communications director recently under the last republican administration. this is her view. >> this does not have a parallel on the left. it doesn't. there isn't. there isn't a strain of racism on the left. so i think that this gets brushed under the rug. people tolerate. it's normalized. like you said, they don't have anywhere else to go. so they attach to the republican party. >> no racist on the left. literally not one says nicole wallace. over on espn, one of the hosts suggested it was racist -- not surprisingly -- if the president to serve clemson football team fast food at the white house. it's the fad of bigots -- it's the food of bigots. of course. >> when i saw him giving the football players predominantly black sport and fast food, my thought went different place. >> i think the president likes fast food. >> a bunch of jocks, i mean c'mon. >> tucker: so the consensus is the racism is on the right,

only conservatives can be racists. so what is racism? what does it look like? how do you know if you are racist? we have a handy checklist for you. get a pen and follow along to see if you can answer the questions. racist, they would support treating people differently based purely on their skin color. they would hand out jobs and contracts and college admissions letters based on your d.n.a. rather than anything that you had done. they would also say that some people opinions don't matter because of their skin color. that would be a racist statement, wouldn't it? they would ridicule people regularly on the basis of the skin color. racism? yeah. they would believe in race-based retribution, most ominously. that manes people of one race paying the price today for actions, decades or centuries ago by people they may not have any relationship to at all other than a similar appearance. what would that be like? the definition of racism,

right? people like this might even cancel activists marches if too many people of the wrong color showed up. what is that if not racism? they might write on-ed to say they don't want their own children to be friends with people of the other race. they might say a friendship like that would be impossible. that is what they would do. does it so you wanted like what republicans are doing? you decide. vicor davis hanson with the hoover institution joins us tonight. you what i noticed professor hanson? maybe i'm making this up in my head but people have a tendency to accuse others of doing the exact thing they are doing. have you noticed that? >> i think it's dangerous throughout history when you have a group that sets themselves up as the arbiters of the morality. we saw it with a catholic church and the abuse problems and we saw it in the #metoo and the hollywood liberals like harvey weinstein, kevin spacey. they feel they are not subject

to the same standards they demand of others. what is going on, representative king confused western civilization with the whiteness. they are not synonymous in the global world. japan can be more western than russia but the point is you have to find out what the rules are, tucker, because we are condemning him and we have hank johnson another member of congress who recently compared jews in israel to termites. and then we've got the editor, person on the editorial board of the "new york times" who said lut rally, i hate white people and compared them to dogs urinating on hydrants. the "new york times" was not upset. then we have the trope of rap music, major marquee rappers, ice cube, jay-z, scarface. it just rampant anti-semitism. we saw lebron james, our

national icon retweeting antisemitic tweet of a rapper with no consequences. so the american people say wow, what are the rules? the trump is porters are not -- supporters are not derided as stupid. but the new left wing mode is to say they stink. we saw that with peter strozk. mr. caputo from politico said they don't have any teeth. that is echoed by rick wilson. he called them garbage people, s-blank, f.b.i. remark. jim carey of all, the actor, compared the trump supporters to apes. that is along the metaphor that has a bad pedigree. what i'm saying is anytime that somebody says we're progressive and enlightened and not racist, that sends human nature to be what it is, to give them a blank check to

be racist which is your point. remember 2008, tucker, when joe biden said and what he said about barack obama? he was the first black candidate who was clean. clean. was articulate. harry reid echoed that and said he didn't have a negrody lecht and he was light- -- negro dialect and he was light-skinned. bill clinton said he would be serving him coffee and al sharpton tried to contextualize it. because the idea is they're progressives, good people. they couldn't be guilty of racism. it's not a window in their soul. it is with republicans but with the democrats, progressives and leftists it's inadvertent or allowed. it's dangerous to do that. >> tucker: tools to win power. we should remember that. professor, thank you very much. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: if they meant it, then the southern poverty law center wouldn't be on a lot of this. you heard of the splc, phony anti-hate group that exists to crush people they don't like.

to tar conservative organizations as fellow travel worse the k.k.k. or whatever. we have a director of immigration studies and his group just sued s.p.l.c. for designating them for a hate group. someone finally fighting back against this. what is the basis of lawsuit, mark? >> our attorneys decided the way to go is to file rego lawsuit under the reck tier influencer -- racketeer influence and corrupt allegations act. used against the mafia or whatever by the government. but there is civil parts where the private individuals can file suit. the basis of the claim they are committing wire fraud bier describing us as a hate group to do harm to my organization. >> tucker: has it done harm? >> it has done some. we work hard and it's hard to call us a hate group. we testified before congress a

hundred time and we cited in the supreme court decision and publish the work of professors from legitimate universities. nonetheless, it has, in fact, had an effect. one example we mention in the suit amazon has this program where you can designate a non-profit group to get small amount of revenue every time you buy something. we were removed from the program. the person who communicated that to us made the mistake of actually saying what the reason was. in print he said we just get our lists from the splc. >> tucker: that is what is remarkable to me. splc is the prierian guard of the party. fighting for the status quo and seeking to stand anyone in the way of power. but they are taken seriously by media outlets and the companies like amazon. why? >> good question. i'm not sure why. this is something you see in the tech industry where they assume progressive political views are just the normal political views. anybody who doesn't hold them

somehow is weird. and to be shunned. that is part of what it is. you see the same thing with journalism. where media cite the splc hate group designation as a fact. the person is this old and wearing a blue suit and he has been designated as a hate group by the splc. that is starting to change because they really have overreached. they have gotten slapped down a couple of times. there was a muslim reformer, liberal muslim anti-extremist. they labeled him extremist. he sued. they settled because they knew they would lose for $3 million plus. i don't expect them to go that asly in this case -- go that easily but we have a strong case. >> tucker: you have a very strong case. i looked at the accusations they leveled against you because you are a guest on the show and i was interested. there is no basis saying it about you. shocking. i think it's libel. we are rooting for you, of course. >> thank you. >> tucker: new report exposes google for blacklisting certain video searches on youtube.

you can probably guess who they targeted. we have details after the break. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines

and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

>> tucker: big tech companies try to control what you see online, of course. but they also try to control what you don't see. a new report, shocking one from breitbart exposes existence of a google blacklist for, "controversial youtube queries." questions that you ask on youtube.

trying to find videos. the flagrant abuse not surprisingly concerns abortion. after receiving a complaint from a political activist posing as a all right roer at slate.com -- a lot of those -- they decided to bury the videos and replace them with the pro-abortion videos. for example, by anthony letevuno were buried and de placed by the pro-abortion content from buzz feed and cnn. in a statement, they denied doing anything wrong and said any shift was due to algorithms, which are of course controlled by people. we are joined by the psychologist at the behavioral institute and technology. thank you for coming on. you were the first person i thought of when i read the story because you have done i think the cutting edge research in the effect of search, google search, and other digital platforms on human behavior.

political behavior. what kind of effect could this sort of distortion have on an election? >> you know i'm not a conservative. >> i do. >> i love america. i love democracy. i think we should all be rising above the politics here. and recognize the extreme danger that we are facing when a company like google can basically sensor anything it wants to sen -- censure anything they want to censure. this is a leak that confirms what we have been saying and writing for years. it confirms number one that individual employees at google have the power to manually remove material remauve the content we see.

they do with political ends. number two, this tells us that the google c.e.o. committed perjury when he testified before congress a few weeks ago. he said quite specifically that google never does this. >> so i mean my frustration levels are so high i don't want to take it out on you. but the first thought why isn't he being recalled back to congress to explain himself or face charges? you are not allowed to commit perjury. my question is can any of us trust that the next election won't be swayed dramatically in one direction by interference from the tech companies? >> i guarantee you that this past election was affected. i'll be releasing some data on this i hope in early march. i published a piece in which i showed that just one manipulation on google's part on election day, the go vote

reminder. that one reminder, that go vote reminder shifted between 800,000 and 4.6 million votes to democratic candidates on election day in 2018. >> so why isn't this the hacking of our democracy? how can you have a democracy under the circumstances? >> well, democracy is an illusion at this point. we have let the companies, google more than any other go completely wild. there are no rules, no regulations, no laws that restrict anything they do. again, the more one looks at what it is they are actually doing. the new leaks help a lot in my opinion. closer one looks at what they are doing, the more outraged one should become. i want to emfa says we should -- emphasize, we should all be outraged. not just conservatives.

>> i agree. i hope that what you just said pedes -- pings around the internet and winds up in the inbox of every member of congress on both sides. thank you very much. >> my pleasure, always. >> tucker: why is nobody covering this? it's a great question. this question as well. google's manipulation, the one we just told you about, why isn't that a violation of campaign finance law? the company's tube talk blacklist for example allegedly -- youtube blacklist for example suppressed information about maxine waters. and hermine is joining us. you saw a guy plead to felony because he paid off a person's gave with private funds. campaign violation. we have the most powerful person in the world putting thumb on the scale on behalf of the candidates. that is not a campaign contribution? how?

>> it's a campaign finance violation. if anybody thinks this is some sort of aberration, google has been doing this and bragging about it internally. even in the last election. i think your show has previously covered the fact that google made what i think, one internal person at google, the manager at google a violent campaign contribution by turning out the vote. and contributing turn out the vote efforts in several states that were swing states for hillary clinton and targeting latino voters. i think people should be encouraged to do democratic activities like this on both sides and help with elections. when a corporation does it, the corporate assets it needs to be disclosed as a campaign finance violation and declared as the other side repeat by the campaign -- receipt by the campaign. you have an example of maxine waters. play this out. we have 20 plus democrats running for the democratic nomination. if google decides to bump up the search engine results in a positive way for beto o'rourke in response for example to the

democratic candidates for president 2020, and then bump down gabbert or others for example that is a contribution. that contribution in my opinion to those candidates who benefit from it. valuable one. if it isn't disclosed as such, that is a fraud on our democracy. you can imagine what they are doing, i vis-avis trump. they are doing it with the republican for search engine and republican women and the california republican party and various other republicans. so i think this is, we think it's for googed and what we do online. this is a particularly shocking and alarming story we need to see members of the congress and the senators and the white house wake up about this issue. because otherwise we aren't talking about a democracy in the next two election cycles. we are talking about what it used to look like before we let big tech take over and control the outcome. >> tucker: i don't see how under the circumstances, all

things being equal, donald trump could get re-elected. i don't. under the circumstances, they won't have that. i wonder why the white house, they do control the executive branch of government. why they wouldn't be awakeed to that -- awakened to that. >> we have seen trump tweet about the issue on 2014. he tweeted about the subject matter of the story from breitbart. people called him. conspiracy theorist, that it isn't true. now we see the evidence they are doing this manipulation. but companies skillfully spread the money around, not just to the members of congress. but also people working in the administration who are looking for their exit. thousanding maybe i'll work on the other side of technology. maybe i'll advise them how to speak -- >> tucker: it's scary. vladimir putin is a much smaller threat to united states than google.

>> absolutely. >> tucker: thank you very much harmeet. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: the country is racing at high speeds to full legalization of marijuana. why is that exactly? what are the effects and what do we know about marijuana? it's uncool to ask. obviously. but being middle age we are going to anyway after the break. our grandparents checked their smartphones zero times a day. times change. eyes haven't. that's why there's ocuvite. screen light... sunlight... longer hours... eyes today are stressed. but ocuvite has vital nutrients... ...to help protect them. ocuvite. eye nutrition for today.

>> tucker: a well-known author in france has written books about the country middle and the working classes. he gave a long interview to a website called spiked about the yellow vest demonstrations there that convulsed french society and terrified the french government. our media hasn't said much about the yellow vests and that shouldn't surprise you. ostensibly the protest are

reaction to global warming and speed cameras. but he explains that you are actually watching revolt against stupid establishment and that includes the media. listen to his analysis here and ask yourself if it sounds at all familiar. "15 years ago, i noticed that the majority of working class people actually live very far away from the major globalized cities. far from paris, leon and and far from london and new york. technically our globalized economic model performs well. it produces a lot of wealth. but it doesn't need the majority of the population to function. it has no real need for the manual workers, laborers or small business owners outside the big cities. paris create enough wealth for the whole of france. london does the same in britain. you can't build a society around this. what the yellow vest protesters have in common they live in areas where there is hardly any work left. they know even if they have a job today they could lose it tomorrow and they won't find anything else.

they are also culturally misunderstood by the elite. one illustration of this cultural divide is that most modern progressive social movements and protests are quickly endorsed by celebrities, actors and the media and intellectuals. but none of them approve of the yellow vests. the emergence has caused a psychological shock to the cultural establishment. it is exactly the same shock that the british elites experienced with the brexit vote. and that they are still experiencing now three years later. many voters wanted to remind the political class that they exist. that is what french people are using the yellow vests for. to say we exist. we are seeing the same phenomenon in populist revolts across the world. all the growth and dynamism is in the major cities but people cannot just move there. the cities are inaccessible. particularly thanks to mounting housing costs. the cities have become very unequal, too.

parisian needs professionals and workers and immigrants for construction, catering, et cetera. business relies on this very specific demographic mix. the problem is that the people outside the cities still exist. the nonurban population actually encompasses the majority of french people. we have a new area but because they are progressive it creates there is an impression that there is no class conflict anymore. it's difficult to oppose the hipsters when they say they care about the poor and minorities. but actually they are very much complicit in relegating the working classes to the sidelines. not only do they benefit enormously from the globalized economy but they have produced a dominant cultural discourse which ostracizes working class people. think of the deplorables evoked by hillary clinton. there is a similar work of the working class in france and brit hume. e -- france and britain. they are looked as an am zonian tribe. the problem for the elites is this is a big tribe.

the reaction for the yellow vests has been telling in france. immediately protesters were denounced as xenophobes and they present themselves as the antifascist and anti-races but this is a way to defend the class interest. this is the only argument they can muster to defend their status. but it's not working anymore. now the elites are afraid. a lot has been made of the fact that the yellow vest demand vary a great deal. but above all it's demand for democracy. fundamentally they want to be taken seriously and integrated in the economic order. we need cultural revolution, particularly in the universities and the media. they need to stop insulting the working class, to stop thinking of them assh --s a imbeciles. we need to dispense of the dogma and think beyond the paris, london and new york."

if you found yourself as you heard that thinking he was talking about your country not france. there is a reason. in many ways he was. imagine what it would look like if the republican leaders understood what you just heard. they might start winning elections. ♪ >> tucker: well, every election cycle you probably notice more states legalize marijuana. it could be legal nationwide and likely will be. with drug abuse of all kinds soaring and the american youth falling apart is legalization a good idea? what do we know about marijuana? we have the author of "how to smoke pot properly" and co-host of the podcast "great moments in weed history." thank you for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: the first thing i notice is there an interesting piece by malcolm gladwell in the "new yorker" and he is agnostic about the question of marijuana but he made the question we don't know that much of the health effects of the marijuana. most of the claims made by the

opponents are unproven. but the c.d.c. does say there is a relationship between marijuana use and the rising schizophrenia rates and violence. why should we legalize something we know causes schizophrenia? >> well, i mean the first thing we need to understand is cannabis is objectively safer than many substances that are legal. alcohol and tobacco with, and many pharmaceutical drugs. to get to your point -- >> tucker: wait. can we pause for a second. how do we know that it's safer than alcohol and tobacco? i don't think we know much about it. we have been studying nicotines for hundreds of years and alcohol for thousands. we don't know that much about them. why do we say we know that when we don't really know that? >> we can compare the number of people who die from each substance every year. hundreds of thousands of people from alcohol and tobacco and zero people from cannabis. >> tucker: really? >> shorthand -- >> tucker: no.

that is not actually true. >> attributed to the -- absolutely it's true. saying something is not true -- >> tucker: well, i'm going to. if it is true, as the c.d.c. says cannabis use looks like it pauses and spurs -- >> what is a legal dose of cannabis? >> tucker: wait -- >> answer my question. >> tucker: wait. no. i'm saying you are looking at it wrong. if weed smoking causes schizophrenia and there is a suggestion that it does, schizophrenia kills lots of people and so does suicide and violence. if marijuana use hikes rates of violence and it seems there is a lot of evidence it does, then it kills people. so the question is do they die from suicide or violence? those are the real questions. you don't know the answer to them. why are you saying it's totally safe if you don't know it's true? >> i did not say it's totally safe. that is a ridiculous standard.

strenuous exercise can lead to a heart attack that is fatal. drinking too much water can be fatal. you need to understand the difference between correlation and causation. >> tucker: i do understand. >> apparently you don't. >> tucker: no, i do. what i understand most of all is the basic precip of science we don't know something until we prove it. almost nothing about marijuana is proven. why are you acting like we know when we don't? >> this is what is proven to be harmful, tucker. arrests 600,000 americans every year for making the choice to use a substance that objectively is safer than alcohol. and doing it in a way that targets the poor and minorities disproportionately is devastating to those communities. >> tucker: but i'm not arguing -- you are missing. i'm not arguing in favor of that. you are making a parallel argument -- >> you don't want to arrest anybody for cannabis?

>> tucker. i'm always for fair application of -- i have never been rousting people from their homes for smoking weed. but that is different to legal i it everywhere that will increase kids smoking weed. if it's causing schizophrenia, then i should be afraid of that, no? >> youth use is down in states that legalized first of all. second of all, it's not going to be legalized me, answer me this. who will grow and sell the cannabis? where will it magically appear from if not through a regulated taxed industry? if my aunt in kansas comes down with cancer where am i going to send her to buy a safe, lab-tested medical cannabis product to save her life in your system? who grows and sells the cannabis? >> tucker: i thought it was the u.s. government grew it in mississippi for years as you know. >> for seven people, tucker. for seven people.

>> i get it. but it's not impossible -- hold on. >> who is going to grow and sell it in your system? >> tucker: again, you are throwing another red herring in the argument and evading the question. >> that is not a red herring. >> tucker: we use opioids legally, they are prescribed by physicians. it doesn't mean the average person can buy opium. so you can have controlled marijuana growing for the medicinal properties which i'm willing to believe exist. you are talking about legalizing it that means many more kids will smoke it. if it causes schizophrenia it should scare the hell out of us. but it doesn't bother you because what, you take money from them? why doesn't it bother you? >> you are the one on here repeating old lies, and distortion and debunked claim. the author of the book you had on last week, everything he said has been debunked. >> tucker: really? >> i don't know if you read my article. i assume that is why you have me on. >> tucker: no. >> many of the people in the studies that he cited have

gone on twitter to say you grossly misrepresented our findings. the national academy of medicine? i'm not an expert in this. >> the author said -- >> you are not an expert but you are supposed to do your job, supposed to learn about -- did you read my article where i debunked all of this? >> tucker: let me ask a question. this is my real concern is schizophrenia, because it's a terrible disease and we can't cure it. a lot of people die from it and it's horrible, as you know. it's untrue, do you think that marijuana use looks like it could increase schizophrenia? is that a fake statistic? that is a sincere question for you. >> we need to know more and we should know more. but having you and authors come on and just confuse causation and correlation does no one a good service. >> tucker: i'm asking you a sincere question. >> this is my sincere answer. we have had society where the rates of cannabis use gone up

and rates of schizophrenia have not gone up at all. so to me that would put a lot of cold water on your idea that there is an epidemic of violence -- >> tucker: and i thought you were lecturing me about correlation and causation? look, i have zero interest in banning anything but i think we don't know that much. >> why did you have me on if you have zero interest in debating me? >> tucker: i was debating you. we are out of time. david, thank you. i appreciate you coming on. >> sure. >> tucker: earlier today we told you what many are staying in washington that fast food is racist. have a salad instead, too bad. salads are sexist now. it's 2019. we'll have details on that after the break. all that usaa s why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. we're the tenney's and we're usaa members for life. call usaa to start saving on insurance today.

and we'turn up your swaggerlife. game with one a day gummies. one serving... ...once a day... ...with nutrients that support 6 vital functions... ...and one healthy you. that's the power of one a day.

chicken! that's right, chicken?! candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken!

>> president trump: do we give you quick salad that the first lady will make with the second lady, they will make salads. i said you guys aren't into salads. or do i go out lindsey graham, kim scott, send out for 1,000 hamburgers. big mac. >> that is appalling. it seems like the president will not be happy until there is not one single female republican voteer in the country. it -- voter in the country. it's sexist. we are not here to make salads for men. >> how do you think that is

not sexist? the assumption his wife will make salads for the players? like she is the cook? >> joan walsh, on cnn melting down because the president joked about salads. salads are sexist and the fast foods are racist. what are you allowed to eat? we have a podcast host that is joining us to sort it out. thank you for coming on. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: sexist salads. >> she was upset. she said it was appalling. you wonder what goes on in joan's mind. in the middle of the night does she toss and turn thinking to the ways to be offended? >> why wouldn't the rest of the country take life advice from someone whose own life that is a disaster. and who is unhappy. >> exactly. >> maybe this is why her life is a disaster. she is hunting for something to hurt her feelings and she found it in salad. i want to say that melania

probably does make salads so this probably had nothing to do with her sex whatsoever. she looks like someone who makes a good salad. >> she looks like a salad eater. i say that as someone who should eat them and is not. not a slur. i wonder in the end if the best way to get people to see your way of thinking and bring them to the side is scream at them for telling jokes. >> probably not. but i don't think they are interested in that. [laughter] not with conservatives and certainly not with president trump. they repeat this over and over again. it's racist, sexist, whatever it is. whatever they find in today the poor victim was salad. >> tucker: how long before people say i don't care what you call me anymore? >> that has already happened. don't you think trump has already done that. i do. >> tucker: i don't know about trump but i reached that point. great to see you. >> you as well. >> tucker: you improved the tenor of the city. we're out of time. sadly, tomorrow at 8:00 we'll be back, the show of the sworn enemy of pomposity, smugness

and group think. d.v.r. if you figure it out. i can't. good night from washington. tonight with 18 seconds to go we are going to give a delayed christmas present to our pal sean hannity in new york. >> sean: you made up for all of last year. >> tucker: use the time wisely. >> sean: you can host the show one day. hitting the post. i will tell you all about it. all right. tucker, great show as always. welcome to "hannity." busy news night. we will start with a fox news alert. a suspected terrorist just been arrested after the f.b.i. uncovered a plot to attack the white house and several other buildings in washington, d.c. we will deep -- keep you updated throughout the hour as we learn details about the scary foiled act of terror. we have ground to cover including a preview of the radical field the democrats that want to be your next president. show you unwelcoming reception that the angel moms got when they went to speaker pelosi's office and chuck