I am doing an experiment where I go through various political pundits/journalists and their viewpoints on certain political issues. I give my opinion throughout whatever video and/or article he or she posts. One thing that is unique is that I didn't have much interest and knowledge about politics before this. So I'm going to be using my wits and common sense to start with, but I'll apply what I've learned from previous ones on the way. At the point in time of me writing this, I've done 80 critiques, so I know they do get more entertaining and informed along the way. One goal of this project is to show growth over time. If I find out I made an uninformed mistake on a previous critique, I wouldn't go back to change it, because it would defy the purpose. So to put it simply for each individual critique, I post the original content, write out my thoughts throughout it in red text, and write a small summary at the end giving my thoughts. The first 39 critiques main focus is Donald Trump's proposed border wall. The 8 political pundits/journalists I study for these are Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Juan Williams, David Frum, and Paul Krugman. Note: I previously posted links to these critiques, but I removed them and formatted them into the forum. That's why there's comments pertaining to links. 1st Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative pundit Glenn Beck's remarks on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for all of you and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I typed out some of the original dialogue from the audio. Finally, my comments are in red text and the dialogue is in black text. Link to audio, 4/20/17 – Hidden Costs Of Border Wall?? Audio titled, 4/20/17 – Hidden Costs Of Border Wall?? Audio starts, Audio starts by playing an animal expert talking about how the wall will destroy habitat and certain endangered animals. Glenn Beck is obviously not on the expert's side. Glenn Beck: Argues animals don't have passports. Birds can migrate over the wall. Just argues with examples like this. My Response: 1st Impression: Agreeing with Glenn- This isn’t an argument for building a wall. For a new city, yes. Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold on November 26, 2017.
2nd Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for all of you and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I typed out some of the dialogue throughout the whole video. My commentary is in red text and the dialogue is in black text. Link to the original video Jorge Ramos: He thinks wall is racist and will not do much to stop illegal immigration anyway. He also mentioned people aren’t coming here to vacation, they need to. Tucker Carlson: Argues 55% don’t come by airplane. Explains that the wall will cut down the illegal immigrants from coming in. Provides an example that a wall helped Israel and America helped pay for it. Jorge Ramos: Argues that the undocumented population has remained stable for about 5 years. Says more Mexicans are leaving the country than coming. So whatever we’re doing now is working. Some of the safest communities in the US are at the border. Doesn’t think the wall will help and we’re not at war with Mexico. Says there’s no way Mexicans will pay for the wall no matter what Trump says. Tucker Carlson: Asks the guy if he has locks on the doors in his home. Jorge Ramos: Says, “I do.” Tucker Carlson: “Are you at war with your neighbors?” Jorge Ramos: “I’m very civil with my neighbors.” Tucker Carlson: “Why do you have locks on your doors?” Jorge Ramos: Says he agrees with him and every country has the right to protect its borders, however immigration is a very complex situation. States we are complacent with immigrants and immigrants are here because of us. Tucker Carlson: Tucker asks why he locks his doors. Jorge Ramos: “What you’re suggesting is that we have to be fearful of immigrants because they’re criminals and if you listen to Trump, there are gang members, drug traffickers, and rapists.” Tucker Carlson: “This is nothing about Trump. I’m just asking you why you lock your doors.” Jorge Ramos: “Just to be secure, but again if you are trying to imply by accepting refugees and immigrants means that they are criminals, rapists, etc, that is not true.” Tucker Carlson: Says you want to be selective to who you bring into your home and you don’t want someone in you didn’t invite. Jorge Ramos: Says we need them here for various jobs. Tucker Carlson: “Who’s we? I don’t remember sending that invitation.” Jorge Ramos: Gives examples of things we use immigrants make and they pay taxes. Tucker Carlson: He eats swiss cheese at his desk. Jorge Ramos: Says we need them. Tucker Carlson: “Arguing a parallel argument. Not saying they don’t do useful work, not they’re bad people, etc. A country has a right to decide who comes in, not big corporations who are profiting from it. Not Walmart, etc. Voters want a wall, so why would you deny them that? Jorge Ramos: Says voters want illegal immigrants that are here to have the opportunity to legalize their situation. Tucker Carlson: Says it’s a very different point. Says your argument is because some big company benefits from cheap labor don’t have the right to stop people at the border and ask who they are. Jorge Ramos: Says the immigration system doesn’t work. Tucker Carlson: “Obviously” Jorge Ramos: “We just have to find a better way. The best way, instead of having ½ million people coming in illegally every year, they could come in legally.” Tucker Carlson: Says he’s saying exactly what the big businesses want him to say. Jorge Ramos: “They Come here because of us,” he says. Tucker Carlson: “Who’s us? I don’t employ anyone here illegally.” Jorge Ramos: Goes on about when we pay a bill, it helps the person who is cleaning or whatever. Says illegal immigration is already so linked to the system, that it is almost impossible to take them away. Compares the movie “A Day Without Mexicans” would be like a day without immigrants. Tucker Carlson: Explains nobody is attacking the nobility and decency of the overwhelming majority of immigrants who come here legally or illegally. Most are great people, but it doesn’t change the fact they are breaking American law, laws voted on by representatives we voted for messing up democracy as a result. Jorge Ramos: “They’re breaking the law because of us,” he says. My Response, 1st impression: Agreeing with Tucker- basically it’s logic vs emotion here. The opponent, though having a few decent points like some of the safest US cities are at the border and Trump won’t pay for the wall, can’t even produce any decent argument to back up why it’s good for illegal immigrants to be let in. Argues the fact that America is built on immigrants, while also saying every country should have borders. Probably my favorite Tucker point is that America is a democracy, we voted to keep illegal immigrants out, and we need better security.
3rd Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I typed out some of the dialogue throughout the whole video. My commentary is in red text and the dialogue is in black text. Link to the original video, Tucker Carlson: Mentions people describe wall as immoral. Asks opponent if he thinks so John Yarmuth: “I think it’s wrong in a lot of ways. My biggest objection is it doesn’t make any sense. Too many people debate border security with physical obstruction and that’s not the reality of the situation. I’ve been to the border and talked to the border patrol officers and they say walls or obstructions makes sense in heavily populated areas, but don’t make sense in remote areas. The only benefit of a wall is it delays person from getting over the wall. If you get in certain areas, the border patrol has 30 seconds to get you. If you’re somewhere remote, they have 24-48 hours before you get to a good place. Financially and logistically it doesn’t make sense to build a 2,000 mile wall.” Tucker Carlson: Asks if he has a moral problem with it. I don’t see why he goes back to this question. Seems irrelevant, especially since he has a very logical argument for why he opposes the wall. I think Tucker realizes it’s logical. John Yarmuth: “Not sure if morality enters into it. Everyone wants to have secure borders, but factoring in property rights and environmental issues. Just a question to if it makes sense.” Tucker Carlson: Gives example of wall in Israel that it’s 440 miles long and it’s not all in urban area. Says it’s been wildly effective and the US has supported it from the beginning. It ended terrorism there. Says there’s another wall between Egypt and Israel and has been similarly effective. Says it reduced immigration illegally around 99% and a wall near eastern Europe has been successful and it’s 100s of miles long, so asks why those walls worked. John Yarmuth: “Depends on where you are and what kind of dynamic you’re involved with. We have 700 miles of barriers right now of ⅓ of the southern border already. In certain places they’re effective. I’ve been to (says few cities) and there’s layers of fences and it takes a while for someone to get over the obstructions. They get over them just as they would get over a 30 ft wall, 20ft wall, or 50ft wall or under it. The question is, what happens after they get over the wall? That’s what we ought to be focused on. We have the technology available. I was apart of the 'Gang of 8' house that worked on comprehensive immigration reform in 2013 and dealt with all those issues." Tucker Carlson: “Congress didn’t deal with those issues because we have 100s of thousand of people coming in illegally and the bulk of the heroin comes through that border and it’s devastated your state, KY, and Jefferson county has the highest overdose rate. What we’re doing isn’t working. How does it help your constituents to oppose this wall, which idk, it’s different, it might work. It’s not working now.” ”It’s not working now,” like the wall is the only solution in this technologically innovative society we live in now. It appears Tucker is avoiding the point the opponent brought up about it doesn’t matter if there’s a structure and using emotion (drugs) to fuel his argument. John Yarmuth: “Workers at the border says that is not the issue. It won’t keep all of criminals or illegals out of the country. The reality is, if you look at the stats, we’ve actually had improvement over the border crossing, border patrols are doing pretty good jobs, technology we can deploy” Tucker Carlson: “So what you’re saying it’s kind of working even though heroin is killing all these people from your state and hundreds of thousands of people coming illegally. Doesn’t seem like it’s working.” John Yarmuth: Mentions we’re at a 40 year low Tucker Carlson: Says numbers are wrong. “There were a massive surge of immigrants coming in. A lot of them arrested, but a lot not." John Yarmuth: “You’re numbers are different than mine. We have a ‘negative immigration thing’ and more people are going back to Mexico than are coming in.” Tucker Carlson: “That’s central america.” That appeared deceptive for the 1st time from opponent. John Yarmuth: “We’re now at 1 million undocumented, less than 11 million undocumented (confused by this) which is a long time low. Mexico is not the only source of illegal drugs. “ Tucker Carlson: “Not saying it is, but it’s the biggest source.” Says we’re out of time. He says he doesn’t think opponent’s number are right, but still thinks it’s a problem. At least he’s honest, but when it comes to stats, they really need to be on the same page here. My Response: 1st impression: Disagreeing with Tucker- It does seem ridiculous in every kind of way to build a 2,000 foot wall, especially with the technological boom we’re living in now. In 20 years there will probably be something that will be nearly as useful without all of the problems a wall will create. Tucker kept trying to sway the argument from factual to emotional. Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTsold November 26, 2017.
4th Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I typed out a word for word transcript of the whole video so I could be more detailed in my critique. My commentary is in red text and the dialogue is in black text. Original video, Tucker Carlson: Sheriff is not a fan of the proposed border wall. He says it’s a medieval solution to a modern problem.' Says instead of giving money to the wall, they should give money to policing to help secure the border. Thanks for coming on. You says it’s a medieval solution to a modern problem, but it seems to be a medieval problem. People sweeping across your borders, actually the Romans dealt with it 2000 years ago and the solution then was a wall and the Chinese built a wall, English built Hadrian’s wall, Israelis just built a wall, and they work. Why wouldn’t it work in Arizona? John Yarmuth: There are many good reasons. 1 is cost. For 10,000 years mankind’s been building walls around things and one would think in 2017 with a robust of technological options we have, human resources, and other things I think we could come up with a better solution. I am absolutely a proponent of securing the border. My fear is that we’re continuing this dialogue of a wall, a wall, a wall, to many of us doesn’t seem credible and in that discourse, we’re losing more serious discussions on how to better secure our border at lower cost point, perhaps more effectively and that’s my real concern. The poor nature of our border is a national security problem, a public safety problem, a human rights problem. All manor of transnational crime threats coming in, drug and human trafficking. About 150 people a year die in the deserts of western (Puna?) County. I might be one of the only sheriffs who has a industrial refrigerator outside one of my district stations, which only purpose is to store human remains. Tucker Carlson: I believe it, I’ve been down there, I’ve seen it and it’s awful and I agree with everything you said, but here’s what you may not know. Nobody in Washington wants to secure the border. That’s why we haven’t done it. Because there’s a lot of political pressure. Democratic party wants more voters, republican party wants cheaper workers. The political pressure is a good point, especially giving both sides (Tucker continued) It’s never happened, so the beauty of a wall, it’s permanent, or as permanent as things get. Why don’t you just try to do that if you really think it’s a cost for illegal immigrants to come in. Nothing else has worked. John Yarmuth: There are many reasons. 1 is that there isn’t even infrastructure near the ports of the border that we would want to construct a wall that we could transport the things and workforce we’ll need to secure a wall in a traditional sense. I would much rather that we change the discourse to looking at a wall as an analogist term, of an impenetrable barrier that might be in places, technology, might be in fixed barriers in other places, it might be human resources or a blend of all of the above in other places, but there is land use things, typography, we have a native american reservation here that transcends the international border and there’s just real problems. There’s environmental issues also. Tucker Carlson: Right now I understand all that and it will be expensive and difficult, but can you kinda see why voters like the idea of a wall, because they don’t believe you or anyone in Washington. Nobody wants to deal with the problem. They say they do, but they really don’t. They think it’s racist to keep people out of the country. They just want concrete evidence that somebody is taking this seriously Why isn’t Tucker acknowledging his incredibly valid points? John Yarmuth: Moreover, it’s an easy sound bite. It’s easy to digest when you start talking about the fact that there are 380 miles of international border in (instay?) I’m responsible for about 125 miles of that. It’s easy to talk about a wall. When you start talking about mountains and rivers that flow through tribal reservations, this is a very complex issue and perhaps that’s why we’re still dealing with it. Tucker Carlson: You know what’s an easy sound bite? With respect, that this is a medieval solution to a modern problem. That maybe is the most easy of all things I’ve heard on it and the truth is, people don’t think you take it seriously and I’m not saying you particularly, but our elected official don’t. You sound like a sincere person, but nothing we’ve done in the past 50 years has worked, so what’s the guarantee that your solution will be different and work? The Sheriff obviously just wants to use alternative options. If they did decide to build a wall, what makes that any better than promising to use technology to help the issue. He’s totally missing the point. John Yarmuth: Other than holding a county sheriff responsible, let’s hold the people in D.C. responsible Tucker Carlson: I agree John Yarmuth: We’ve been kicking this can down the road for decades. This is my home. I’ve lived with these problems everyday Tucker Carlson: You’re also asking for federal money. Yeah for people who actively secure the border. (Tucker continued) You say we don’t want to spend all this money. You have deep concerns with the federal budget apparently. We don’t want to spend all this money on the wall. You say I want money for my department, which is fine, but how do you know that’s gonna work when it hasn’t worked in the last 5 decades? Building a wall doesn’t also build trust. If the future of border security is weak, underfunded technology, understaffed patrol officers, and outdated fences, that’s a shame, but let’s say we do build a wall. The same people will be behind that project. It will be a crappy wall. John Yarmuth: We have to have that commitment. We have to change the discourse on this and hold the people in Washington DC responsible. I’m struggling to buy cars for my deputies that were responsible for patrolling 9,200 square miles of my county, so there is no where in this discourse is any discussion about helping border sheriffs and border communities that deal with this problem everyday because Washington has failed us under many different administrations. It’s not a new problem and I’ve been living with this problem Tucker Carlson: It’s not just your county, the whole country has been transformed by illegal immigration. North Carolina, not even near the border, completely different state, so all of us have a stake in this. The sheriff said it. Hold the people at Washington responsible. My Response: 1st Impression: Disagree with Tucker- He uses every opportunity to bash the consistency of failure from the promises of Washington in furthering border security, but the cons strongly outweigh the pros it seems on building a wall (not a wall just in certain areas). The same crooks are going to be behind building a wall over 2,000 miles and that sounds like a disaster within itself not even mentioning all of the other issues. Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold on November 26, 2017.
5th Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I typed out a word for word transcript of the whole video so I could be more detailed in my critique. My commentary is in red text and the dialogue is in black text. Original video Tucker Carlson: This country’s minors failed in the congress, because too many democrats opposed it, seems like a long time ago. Now many republicans are lining up to say they wanting to finish the job. Some are willing to reinstate daca unconditionally, others are suggesting a possible deal along these lines. Amnesty to daca in return for a border wall on the Mexican border. Congressman Eric Swallow isn’t interested in that deal. He said, “It would give you a pass to be a slight racist on Mondays so you can be fully racist on Tuesday.” He joins us tonight to explain. So daca, if you’re opposed to it, that makes you a racist? Eric Swalwell: Just wanted to update your viewers, I am working with republicans on the stranded Americans in the Caribbean right now. It’s not just the people who are going to be hit in Florida. We have thousands who are in the Caribbean and other countries, so just an update that we are working with the state department on that. So I do want to say that Trump’s wall and the premise for his wall is racist. Having border security is a responsibility we have, but these dreamers are a part of our country, and whether you follow the Bible and believe that we don’t punish the children for what their parents did or do you think it’s our county’s obligation to make sure law abiding kids who came here by no fault of their own, have a pathway to be apart of our community. So how’s the security at the border not racist if the wall is? (Eric Swalwell continued) We should make this happen ASAP. Tucker Carlson: Do you have any problem with the law itself? With the idea itself? With a president that if he doesn’t like a law, he can just invalidate it? Could Trump do that with taxes? “I’m not prosecuting anyone who’s not paying certain kinds of taxes. That’s my tax reform.” Does that bother you at all? Eric Swalwell: I actually agree with the president that congress should put this into law and we actually tried, and it was a majority of the senate and 59 senators and every democrat in almost a majority, and actually, the majority of the house passed this, so it was hundreds of republicans who voted against this. President Obama sought to save these children, but we should pass in congress, but Tucker, what the president could do though, because he’s creating ambiguity, is just say, “put the dream act on my desk and I’ll sign it,” but he’s not saying that, what he’s saying is congress should do it. Tucker Carlson: But here’s part of the thing, yeah congress should figure it out, and your adults, and you never will, but here’s my question though. Everyone recognizes this is a tough spot for some of these kids, now adults. You know, they were brought here when they were really little and, it’s a complicated deal. The concern is though, that if you allow them to become citizens, it’s an inducement to the world to come here with kids in tow, because then they can’t be deported. What’s the limit? How many people should we let in with minor children? What’s the number? Eric Swalwell: The dream act doesn’t actually allow them to become citizens, it allows them to work here. I have constituents who…. Tucker Carlson: But they’re never gonna be deported. It’s the same thing. They’re never going to be deported, and you and democrats are going to be pushing for them to have voting rights soon. But the point is that it’s the same thing. Eric Swalwell: I believe that they should be able to apply for citizenship, sure Tucker Carlson: Okay, so it’s the same thing, so how many get to do that? There are a billion people who want to move here tomorrow. Are they all allowed to move here now? What’s the number? Eric Swalwell: Sure, you’re presenting a theoretical challenge Tucker Carlson: It’s not theoretical at all. Yeah, if it is though, why can’t he get the number from someone who studies it. Either bad preparation or he doesn’t want to say it. Probably doesn’t want to say it. Eric Swalwell: I’m presenting the 800,000 people who are here, and they have faces and they’re contributing to our military and to our police forces and they’re doing a lot of good, so let’s solve that issue and then have the comprehensive immigration reform and take on the larger, valid question you’re asking. Illegally. Tucker Carlson: Let’s talk about it now, because you’re setting up a precedent. What you’re saying to the world is, as long as you get here illegally with a kid under 16, you can’t be deported, so that’s a massive inducement for people to come here illegally, as you well know. You’re from Cali. The state has been totally changed by illegal immigration, as you know, since you grew up there and I did too. Eric Swalwell: Largely for the better Tucker Carlson: What’s the number? Really? Because the poverty rate in Cali has risen dramatically since I left there in 1983. It was 11% in 1983. It’s now over 16%. That’s because of immigration. It hasn’t made that state richer, it’s made it poorer, so why wouldn’t we be concerned about that in the rest of the country? I’m sure there’s a lot of other factors that are in play due to the poverty rate going up. Eric Swalwell: What we should do in congress is take on comprehensive immigration reform. 68 senators, republicans and democrats, had a pathway to citizenship that didn’t have the undocumented cut the line on the people who were already waiting. It would have a more, I believe, a more functioning system with order in it and allowed people to be apart of this great American country. Tucker Carlson: Yeah, but what are the rules? I show up here illegally. Under what circumstances should I be deported? Let’s say I show up, I don’t commit a felony. Can I be deported under any circumstances do you think? Eric Swalwell: I think you should come forward, go through the process. If you’re not committing crimes and you’re contributing to our economy, you shouldn’t be removed. We want you to be a part of this country in a orderly way So we’re going to try to stop you on your way in, but when you’re in, you’ve made it. Tucker Carlson: So that’s open borders. So what you’re saying is, nobody can be deported unless you commit a felony. Eric Swalwell: No, no… Tucker Carlson: So you’re just saying borders are meaningless. I can sneak in, and as long as I don’t commit a felony, I can’t be deported. Why is that different from open borders? It’s not, it’s the same thing. Eric Swalwell: Because we have a broken immigration system right now. People are coming in that way. I think if you fix the immigration system, have certainty that you won’t see what you’re describing. Tucker Carlson: So what’s the certainty? That’s my question. What’s the rule? That you will like to see become law. So after the Comprehensive Immigration reform, no one who comes in illegally can stay. Everybody is deported who comes here illegally after this law passes. Is that what you’re saying? I doubt that’s what you’re saying. Eric Swalwell: What I’m saying is that the senate passed a bill that increased border patrol agents, so that we would limit the people who were coming across the border. I welcome enhanced border security, I just don’t think a wall is the best way to do it or… Tucker Carlson: What I’m saying is once they get here, under your scenario, can you be deported, because if you can’t be deported, you have open borders right Eric Swalwell: We should have a system that has order and removes people that follow that system. Right now we have disorder. It doesn’t help families, it doesn’t help our security and so we should fix that. Tucker Carlson: I agree, so what you’re saying is anyone that comes here illegally should be deported after this blahs past. Is that what you’re saying? I just want to get you on the record. Eric Swalwell: We should create an orderly immigration system. Right now, these kids who’s said the same pledge of allegiance as the kids born in the US are going to be removed. That’s not right. Using emotion and avoiding questions. Can’t trust this guy. Tucker Carlson: My concern is for Americans first. That’s maybe the difference. Eric Swalwell: Mine too. My Response: 1st Impression: Agreeing with Tucker- So the opponent wants to heighten border security, but as an illegal, once you’re in, you’re in. The guy is obviously a puppet. The curtain was removed by Tucker and doesn't help the argument against the wall. Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold on November 26, 2017.
6th Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I typed out a word for word transcript of 0:00-6:40 of the video so I could be more detailed in my critique. My commentary is in red text and the dialogue is in black text. Original video, Tucker Carlson: Well the federal government is on pace for a possible shutdown tomorrow night with congress feuding over what to include in a spending bill that must pass. One of the biggest obstacles so far is the president’s border wall, the one he ran on. Democrats have signaled they’re willing to shut down the government to block it. The big obstacle is is whether to fund the hiring of additional to new border agents. Added opposition to border security this important worth closing the government over. Congressman Henry Cuellar, represents the 28th district of Texas. It’s on the border. He joins us tonight. Thanks for coming on. It is so anti-democracy to act like that. Henry Cuellar: It’s a pleasure Tucker Carlson: I keep hearing this argument, no offense I don’t take seriously from democrats. It costs too much. It’s a waste. The same people totally willing to assess like head start on effective decided. What is it really about the wall that makes democrats mad enough to shut down the government over? I really wish Tucker would explain more in depth to why the wall’s cost is a stupid argument. Henry Cuellar: I can’t speak for everybody, but I’ll say what affects me for somebody that living on the border all my life. First of all, we believe in homeland security, but we want a homeland security that really works. A wall or a fence can’t provide some tactical assistance. No ifs, no buts. Especially like areas like Arizona. We can step from one place to the other place, but we have a river. A river? Really? Surely there’s innovative solutions to this. And suggesting the wall has no tactical assistance is absurd, do to the fact, to be tactical, the more you have to use, the more tactical you can be. And a wall would do that. (Henry Cuellar continued) We have cliffs in West Texas, and the thing is, we can secure the border by having technology, aerostats with those 24 hour sensors, cameras. More personnel and border patrol, so we gotta know how to secure the border, because after all, we do spend about 18 billion dollars a year on total border security. It just seems like the argument is wall or no wall. Why not a wall in the most places that makes sense? Tucker Carlson: Here’s what I’m confused by. I’ve spent a lot of time, probably in your district, right on the border hunting and there’s a lot of border security. You always see border patrol police going by. There are blimps in the air to provide aerial surveillance, and yet you talk to the land owners there and they’re finding dead people. Immigrants on their property over time. There’s no stopping people from coming across. It’s not working, so why would we expect it to work under your plan? Why would we expect a wall to work? Henry Cuellar: If you equate a border to border security. If you have a wall and that’s what you think is your only means of security, then we’re going to have some differences, and I’ll tell you why I think the wall has some problems. This is just the photo-negative copy of what Tucker is saying. (Henry Cuellar continued) First of all, we’ll talk about private property rights, but the other thing is, let’s say you build the best wall. Homeland security will tell you over 40% of the people we have here, 11-12 million undocumented came in through legal permit or visa so that means that if you put the wall up, they’re going to fly over, they’re going to go on a ship, they’re going to drive over a bridge, and a wall isn’t going to stop them, so we gotta do enforcement also, so we have to look at a comprehensive way of security. Tucker Carlson: I don’t think anyone’s suggesting the wall is a panacea. It doesn’t solve every problem that you have. Tucker’s right, it will help. I’m glad he finally addressed this. (Tucker Carlson continued) I guess here’s my point, this has been going on for generations. We don’t actually know how many people are here illegally. Everyone says 10-12. It could be 50. We don’t know. That’s absurd. At least acknowledge there is a general estimate. (Tucker Carlson continued) We can only guess and congress has done nothing about it and a lot of people believe it’s because employers doesn’t want congress to do anything about it because they want cheap labor. Why do any voter have to trust that you guys are going to actually secure it after failing to do so for decades? Henry Cuellar: Sounds like you’re pushing for immigration reform. You know actually if you look at immigration reform without getting into the details. 3 parts Tucker Carlson: The one that employers looking for cheap labor support. Henry Cuellar: Yeah, well let me go over this. Got ‘em. This dude is a bad liar. (Henry Cuellar continued) First, border security is one factor. Second, you need a guest worker plan that works. And third, what do you do about the 11-12 million undocumented persons that you have. Let me go back to the guest worker plan. Senator Jeff (something), for example, we’re on the same page on this. If people that come in and work and they come back. A lot of people just want to come in and work. You can provide those jobs for the people where Americans don’t want to do that job and if border patrol wouldn’t have to worry about those people that are looking for a job, because they’re going to go back on a guest worker plan, then they focus on the bad people that are trying to hurt us. So we should just assume those people just want a job? How do we know who the bad people are? And let’s say you can know, it still doesn’t give them the right to come here illegally. Tucker Carlson: Okay, but with respect, we’ve been through this conversation literally on the immigration reform, which is I think most people support in theory. It’s the practice that scares everybody. Congress is unwilling to secure the border. It’s a really simple ask from the public to the law makers. Tell us who’s coming in and out. Account for the people already here. Secure the border, and yet it has never been done and I don’t understand why. The only explanation is you don’t want it to be done. Henry Cuellar: Well you know, look, remember, when I first started here, the republicans had the presidency, just like they do right now. As president Bush, it was a republican, congress, both senate. They had the opportunity to do that. He’s really trying to dismantle Tucker’s argument by saying the republicans are also responsible. What a joke. Tucker Carlson: They didn’t want to do it because their donors didn’t want them to, as you know. I’m not here to flag for the Republican party. That’s true Henry Cuellar: No, but what I’m saying is, we’ve got to find a way to do this in a bipartisan way. If we talk about immigration reform. But there will be people who disagree. What I’m taking from this is he wants to silence people and hold some kind of political leverage over them if they disagree. That’s the only way this issue will be bipartisan. (Henry Cuellar continued) Now border security, this is what we need to look at in my opinion. Let’s listen to the men and women on the border. I’m talking about border patrol. They will tell you this is where you can have sensors and cameras. There might be some places and I say this very, very diplomatically. There might be some places where you might have some tactical fencing, and border patrol will tell you that, and I understand that, but to come in and say you have to build this beautiful wall, all from shining sea to shining sea, it’s not going to happen. Tucker Carlson: Last question, you say they need to listen to the border patrol. They have a union right? Henry Cuellar: Yeah. Tucker Carlson: Who do they endorse, Hillary? Henry Cuellar: No. Tucker Carlson: Who do they endorse? Henry Cuellar: They endorse me Tucker Carlson: They also endorse Trump. Henry Cuellar: Well yeah that’s true. Tucker Carlson: What did he run on? He ran on build a wall and Mexico pays for it, so if we’re going to listen to them, why aren’t we building a big wall that they desire. Henry Cuellar: Hey, but if you listen to border patrol, and I work with them, and Tucker Carlson: And I did listen since last election Henry Cuellar: And I just honored 31 border patrol in my area that have done a lot to secure the border, and if you talk to them, a lot of time they want overtime, so they can do their job, number 1, number 2 they want equipment, you’re laughing, but it’s true Okay, he’s trying to use jobs as a reason now. He just can’t stop. Tucker Carlson: They just endorsed Trump who ran on the wall. Henry Cuellar: Yeah, but… Tucker Carlson: And you say you should listen to them, I’m confused. Henry Cuellar: The wall is a medieval, 14th century solution to a 21st century problem. He just lied for 7 minutes straight. Tucker Carlson: All I’m doing is following your advice, and listening to the border patrol, who clearly want a wall, so you just talked to them about this. Henry Cuellar: I have talked to them. I have talked to them. (they both laugh) they did again support me. He owes an apology for this. Tucker Carlson: Who could resist supporting you, but you’re wrong on this. My Response: 1st Impression: Agree with Tucker- I’m glad that Tucker exposed this guy for having an agenda for the corporations that benefit from illegal immigration. It sheds a new light on the wall. I’ve seen Tucker time and time again, dismiss arguments about the cost of the wall, but on this, it does help the argument. Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold on November 26, 2017.
7th Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I typed out some of the dialogue throughout the whole video so I could be more detailed in my critique. My commentary is in red text and the dialogue is in black text. Original video, Tucker Carlson: Suggests opponent who climbed the ranks in Goldman Sachs that is in America Illegally is using an illegal social security number. Asks whose it was. Julissa Arce: Says she was forced to and a lot of other young people are as well. Tucker Carlson: Brings up a fact that it is a felony what she did. Julissa Arce: “Depends on what state. Didn’t commit identity theft. Social I used was fake.” Wishes she didn’t have to do that. Came to US at 11. Only choice. So she was in a state for it not to be a felony? She was only 11, so that changes things for the defense on her part. Tucker Carlson: “Only choice was to work at Goldman Sachs and congrats on success. Would think you’d be a little more grateful for the opportunities offered and sounds like she’s blaming the country for laws you don’t like. You had to violate laws because they were unjust laws?” Did he forget she was only 11? Or did she wait until she was a legal adult? Julissa Arce: “There are laws that are unjust, but no blaming anybody for the circumstances I was in and I’m grateful to the country and one of the best days of my life is when I became an american citizen. Now I’m trying to make that opportunity open to more people who work very hard and give their talents to make this country the beautiful country it is, which is why I live here.” I don’t think it’s fair to say she is being ungrateful. Tucker Carlson: “I do admire their work ethic and drive and to leave the countries, but Americans should also have a voice in this. Also found your characterization of Trump’s border wall as a symbol of ‘hate,’ not an indication of gratitude, it suggests America doesn’t have the right to protect its borders and that’s a very odd attitude from someone like you.” Julissa Arce: “I don’t think that makes me ungrateful, that makes me a citizen of the country, who also gets to have a voice and my voice might be different from your voice, but we both get to voice our opinions.” Tucker Carlson: “I’m not challenging the right for you to say what you think, I would defend it, however, how is a country wanting to protect its country a symbol of hate?” Julissa Arce: “My point is, the wall isn’t the best way to protect our borders, listen, I live here. I want this country to be safe. My children is going to grow up as American citizens born here, but building a wall that is going to cost billions of $ in American taxpayers.” Tucker Carlson: “I don’t have any patients for that argument. That’s not a real argument. So you’re saying it’s too expensive, but you know that’s not what you said, you said it was an expression of hate and I just want to get to the bottom of that. What is the reason for that considering a lot of Americans are for it, most in some surveys. Why is it related to hate?” Tucker seems to pull back every time someone makes a point on paying for the wall or anything that doesn’t involve moral decisions for the wall and also against it. She needs to press him more on why this isn’t a valid argument, because it’s at least a better argument than what he’s trying to make. I do also understand she avoided his question, but it’s also a consistent action from him. Julissa Arce: “It is a hateful symbol. It’s a symbol of hate against immigrants and Mexican immigrants, which the president ran his campaign on, so I do still view the wall as hate.” Tucker Carlson: “What you’re doing is throwing around language that’s having an effect on people’s attitudes, because it’s very heavy duty, because it presumes motives that you can’t know. You don’t know the people who support the wall hate Mexican immigrants. A lot of those people that come across aren’t from Mexico, but Central Americans. Is it morally legitimate for an American to say, I want control of people who come in my country and we don’t have that, but a wall will re establish that control. You denouncing that as hate seems a little much.” I agree with the morals of this here. You can look at anything as something hateful, but it’s also important you also see how it can be good as well. Julissa Arce: “And I would absolutely welcome a conversation about how do we create a system by which people can come here legally that will benefit Americans. That will increase tax revenue, that will increase economic activity, so we should have that conversation.” Tucker Carlson: “We’re having that conversation now and you’re not answering my question.” Julissa Arce: “I can have the opinion that the wall symbolizes to me a symbol of hate.” Tucker Carlson: “I’m merely asking you to explain your opinion.” I just don’t see much of the relevance of arguing this point other than to make her look stupid. I do believe it’s possible that she believes she thought she’s stated why enough. I just don’t know why she keeps avoiding the question after making the statement in the first place. Viewing the wall as immoral and a symbol of hate is something I strongly disagree with, but shouldn’t the argument be about if the wall is necessary and will significantly help the problem? This seems like a waste of time to me. I believe Tucker knows he has a strong moral argument with it, but not a strong logical one. (Tucker Carlson continued) “I’m not challenging your right to have one, but I have the right to ask you what you’re talking about and you can’t explain it, so let’s move on to the next question, which is really simple. How many people should we allow in this country illegally every year? Let’s be precise since you do this for a living. How many people should we allow in illegally every year? “ Better topic. Julissa Arce: “I don’t think we should allow people in the country illegally. I think we should create a pathway, so people can come into the country legally. I came here on a tourist visa, so I don’t know what it’s like to risk your life to come here. Many people do die to try to come into our country.” Tucker Carlson: “They sure do.” Julissa Arce: “So I want to have a way so that people who want to come work in this country can come in this country legally.” Tucker Carlson: “So how many? There are 320 million people in the country. You do this for a living. This is not something that you haven’t thought about presumably. How many people should we let in every year? We let in about 1.5 million legally. What should that number be?” Julissa Arce: “We need to have a deeper conversation to come up with a number that makes sense, but the number right now, for example, when we talk about high skilled worker visa’s, h-1B visa’s. We only have 85,000 visa’s that we give out every year through a lottery. That number hasn’t changed in decades. We haven’t looked at our immigration system. Both the legal immigration system and how do we create a pathway to citizenship for the people here undocumented.” I think what she’s saying is that we need to discuss more on the subject before they give out a number, but her being on tv talking about this, she should have a ballpark number off the cuff. I know she does give one, but I’m confused why she needs the questions beat out of her, when it doesn’t really seem like she’s hiding an agenda. Tucker Carlson: “Look, I’m trying to be respectful and I do respect your achievements and I do think you’re clearly a talented person, but I think if you advocate for policy changes, I think you should be able to define what they are and then defend them.” Good move on Tucker when he does give praise to his debaters before bouncing back with a strong defensive statement or rebuttal. (Tucker Carlson continued) “And you can’t. And many people in your position can’t. I just want specifics. That’s it. I’m not trying to be mean, but you can’t provide them and I’m disappointed. I’m sorry, we’re out of time.” Julissa Arce: “I can provide you with the specifics.” Tucker Carlson: “I’ve asked you 5 times. What’s the number? Real quickly, how many people should we let in every year. What’s the ideal number of legal immigrants, either H-1B programs or through various other programs that bring people in legally. How many people should we bring in a year?” Julissa Arce: “That cap of 85,000 visa should at least be doubled that number to meet the demands of our country and of our economy, so if you’re talking about H-1B visa, I think the number at the very least should be doubled and when it comes to policy, we can’t have the conversation about changing the immigration policies of this country without including the pathway to citizenship to the 11 million people who are here undocumented currently.” Tucker Carlson: “I don’t know, maybe we can. That’s kind of up to American citizens and not up to people here illegally.” Julissa Arce: “As an immigrant American citizen, it is also up to me.” Tucker Carlson: “I get it. Thanks for that number. I appreciate it.” Jeez, I’m glad we at least got a number. My Response: 1st Impression: Disagreeing with Tucker- Now I agree on his moral stance, but he kept avoiding the real issue about the wall. And that’s if it makes sense, and so far he hasn’t came up with anything with real structure. Only why it’s not wrong morally. It seems like it’s there as a curtain of right wing moral logic and no bullcrap to hide the fact that the wall doesn’t really make sense in a lot of ways, but it’s what Trump suggests, so it’s what Fox News promotes. It is also interesting to note that Tucker didn’t defend a possibility of raising the number of legal immigrants that come in. It is a harder to see Tucker’s strategy compared to someone on the left, but he’s doing practically the same thing. The really bad thing is that, it is even more deceptive, because I’m at an even when I notice he obviously has an agenda and right after he says something extremely logical, compared to the left who obviously has an agenda and right after says something I disagree with. Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold on November 26, 2017.
8th Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I typed out a word for word transcript of the video so I could be more detailed in my critique. My commentary is in red text and the dialogue is in black text. Original video Tucker Carlson: While Germany struggles with the long-term effect of the immigration, the American congress can’t agree on how to control our borders, despite republicans controlling congress, they are widely expected to leave out funding for Trump’s proposed border wall in a spending bill that has to pass this week to keep the government from shutting down. If this isn’t passed, what is next for immigration? We have on (name) who represents North Carolina who opposes the wall and try to hammer out an immigration plan he hopes can get bi-partison support. Thanks for coming on. Thom Tillis: BTW, I don’t oppose the wall. I oppose putting a 30 ft structure on top of a 33,000 foot cliff. I oppose taking down 2 fences that are separated with a all weather row (idk) that border patrol patrols in california that’s working. I oppose things that people on the ground think are not in their best interest and those are the folks that go out and put on the bulletproof vest everyday and have to protect the border, that tell me that the wall in certain places makes sense, but intelligence, reconnaissance, and others makes sense elsewhere, so it’s such a common sense way of securing the border. Tucker Carlson: I admire them, but the border patrols doesn’t get to make the policies, you do and you’re elected to do that. Yeah, but their opinion definitely should be taken into huge consideration. Opponent never claimed they did. Thom Tillis: And consultation of the homeland secretary general Kelly who was head of southern command who also says we need a people technology infrastructure approach to securing the border. Securing the border like countries like Israel who I think most people would agree that they have some really bad actors on the other side of not just the wall, but fences, walls where it’s appropriate and a combination of structures where it makes most sense for the people who have the job of protecting The border. Tucker Carlson: But the people voted for a wall and Trump and a lot of votes in your state, a million more votes than you got in 2016 than you got in 2014, a different cycle, but people endorsed the wall. He says yes to where the wall makes sense. Why isn’t he acknowledging this? Thom Tillis: But what sense would it make to take down a structure that’s working and replace it with something that the people on the ground think wouldn’t. Tucker Carlson: What percentage of the southern border do you think should have a wall? Thom Tillis: Depends on the geography. Whether or not you put a wall on the (reagrande?) would depend on a number of factors, not the least of which, we may do it, but it would take decades because all the property rights and condemnations we would have to do to accomplish it. There are a lot of private property owners there. So does it make sense there? In some cases, yes. If you go around the (reogrande?) valley there are clearly places where a wall structure that would create pinch points and other technologies can be used. Tucker Carlson: What percentage? I think it’s fair to the voters, I voted for this guy, he promised a big wall, so how much are we getting? Thom Tillis: The border is about 2,000 miles. The California sector seems to be working the way it is. There’s probably a probably a combination that will go in Arizona, and the West Texas, New Mexico sector. The exact number I was asked for, where did the geography and migration patterns make sense? Does it make sense to put a large structure in a place where it is badlands, where ISR would be a better way to do it. I’m guessing not a large percentage. Tucker Carlson: So you don’t want any border wall in california? Thom Tillis: If it makes sense, but the fence is working. The problem we have there is a problem a wall won’t fix and that’s tunnels, so are we going to use a different technology to find out how they’ve gotten around it. The other things are sightlines, this is a very important point, if I remove all the sightlines, I can’t see when the bad actors are coming. If I have a 30 ft structure and don’t have intelligence and reconnaissance, then I literally might have a 2-3 foot section between a bad actor and a border patrol person that can’t see what they’re about to do. Tucker Carlson: The question is, why can’t you do both? Thom Tillis: You can. I don’t think they’re on the same page here. I’m guessing Tucker means why can’t you do both as in placing a border patrol officer somewhere where he will have line of site and the opponent is taking doing both as in having a wall and patrol officers, but not together. Most likely they’re just trying to confuse each other to get the upper-hand. Tucker Carlson: And the long-term question is there’s going to be a democratic congress at some point and border patrols that are easy to pull back like personnel for example, can be pulled back pretty quickly by new administrations or new congresses, so why not build something permanent and provide security for generations? Thom Tillis: In part, because I don’t know it’s the most productive use of the money we are gonna have. We also have to understand that the legal border crossings right now and I was in (arado?) one of the bridges there, the border patrol agent said that seized 30g of meth in every 48 hrs, that’s 800k of meth and say they’re interdicting 10-15% of all the drugs that are coming across. I’d rather spending the money now on helping them seize more of those drugs and secure the border and we have to fight the political fight and I think if we secure the border, I think the American people will be behind keeping that in place. Tucker Carlson: But why would we give amnesty to anybody before we do that. Thom Tillis: I don’t think we should do that. Tucker Carlson: According to the WSJ, you’re proposing a temporary legal status brought to this country illegally by their parents before completing the border. (confused about last part) Thom Tillis: Ronald Reagan is someone I know you have a lot of respect for. He had a catastrophic failure on providing amnesty in 1986 to 3 million people. Amnesty is proven not to work. It grows the problem. What we’re trying to do is how you figure out how to stabilize the problem. Secure the border so the problem can’t grow anymore, stabilize the problem by giving some kind of temporary protective status that doesn’t provide a path to citizenship while we solve the problem, otherwise they’re gonna be here anyway. Tucker Carlson: But why would you do that? Why wouldn’t the priority be to make certain that we control our borders, which we don’t Thom Tillis: That should be the priority. Tucker Carlson: But why would you before you e-verify, which is a pretty quick way to stop people from hiring illegals. Thom Tillis: Those are words I didn’t write, I actually passely verify the speaker of the house, I (passely verify?) mandate about 4-5 years ago (e-verify?) needs to be the law of the land in the US and across… Tucker Carlson: Before any kind of amnesty? Thom Tillis: Absolutely, they have to go in tanima. Imagine there are a lot of people who are abusing the visa systems we have today. We need to make an example out of the people who are abusing it, because it’s at the expense of people who have a legit need to the (workforce?) Tucker Carlson: Why would we provide amnesty to anybody before forcing those laws? I think that’s what you don’t understand. It’s like 2 different conversations. Thom Tillis: I think it’s a matter of how do you stabilize things and come up with strategies for dealing with the illegally present. People who think that we can all of the sudden round up 11-14 million and mass support them, I don’t think that’s what Okay, he’s getting his agenda out there a little more. Tucker Carlson: I don’t think anybody’s suggesting that. You could say that we’re gonna punish people who employ them. Period. Thom Tillis: I agree. That’s the whole point in passing e-verify on a national basis so that you have a basis for enforcing that with employers who hire the illegal. Tucker Carlson: I still don’t understand why you would do that in tandem with giving people amnesty. Thom Tillis: Because we have to solve the problem. The biggest problem is that republicans and democrats have been talking about solving this problem for 40 years and they all failed, so they… Okay, so it seems the biggest disagreement is nothing to do with the wall, but whether or not to provide amnesty to the people who are here illegal now and just having the law in place for future illegals. Tucker Carlson: Doesn’t seem like they want to solve it to me. Thom Tillis: I think the thing we haven’t done is paired up things that would get support from the other side of the aisle with law enforcement measures: e-verify, increased enforcement for bad actors who are abusing visa policies. These sorts of things, so there is a consequence following a reform process that I think can work, it’s not perfect, and I think people that think I proposed something, have read a bill I haven’t written yet, but I am proposing actually being a congress and a party that solves a problem vs a generation of people who promise and never deliver. My Response: First Impression: Disagreeing with Tucker- I believe this congressman is doing the best he can do in a bad situation. Most of what he said made sense. Giving amnesty to illegals sounds like a complex situation and doesn’t seem like it would be worth it to go back and prosecute those individuals. Building a wall in places where it would seem highly effective in balance with everything they have to go through to build it just seems like common sense to me. Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold on November 26, 2017.
9th Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I typed out a word for word dialogue for 1:06-3:20 of the video so I could be more detailed in my critique. My commentary is in red text and the dialogue is in black text. Original video Brian Kilmeade: I guess one of these topics this week is the border wall. Will the president say shut down the government if he doesn’t get the money and they gotta make their case that it makes us safer. Are they doing it effectively? Tucker Carlson: Well they’ve made the case so effectively, nobody wants to pass it. The main problem with the border wall is it works and that’s what his opponents fear. They’re not offering any kind of a principled opposition to it. It costs too much? Really? From people who don’t care what anything costs? That’s not the real argument. The real problem with it is, it will stop the flow of cheap labor and democratic voters into the country. Brian Kilmeade: I think the bigger story is they want to stop Trump. They don’t want to give him a victory one something that means so much to him. Tucker Carlson: But why do they dislike Trump so much in the first place, which is interesting. There is things to criticize Trump for, but if you’re a democrat, Trump is the most politically moderate republican in the history of the country, so what you really hate is the immigration stuff. That’s what drives them insane, because it’s a threat to their governing majority, it’s a threat to their power. Virtually, everyone who comes in here illegally, if he stays long enough, will become a democratic voter. They know it’s the future of their party. That’s why their back is up against the wall and they’re so against this. This is a fantastic point and seems very plausible. I can’t really imagine an illegal immigrant after 5 years turning into a republican. Plus the democrats are more for socialism and equality, so the illegals can be doing the harder work. Steve Doocy: You gotta wonder, who’s gonna make the argument, look ever since president Trump has been president Trump, illegal immigration has gone down at our southern border what, 40-50-60-70%, The point is that it went down, but really? Throwing out numbers that range 30%? (Steve Doocy continued) why do we need the wall? Does seem like 2 different issues. Building the wall should be debated on more of a logical view, rather than a moral debate, which is what Tucker is good at doing. Tucker Carlson: It’s a very complicated argument for democrats to make, but if we could just agree on the principle, things will be a lot better and the principle is, the US has to right to determine who comes in and who doesn’t. They can’t agree on that. They are very, very close to democratic leadership to making an explicit argument in favor of open borders. Wow, think about that. What would happen actually to the country. To its labor markets, to its environment, to its culture, language, security if that happened and yet they are arguing for it. Ainsley Earhardt: The attorney general said they’re arguing that they can’t afford it, but he said they can’t not afford it, because we’re going to save so much money in the long run if we just work it out and build the wall. My Response: 1st Impression: Agreeing with Tucker- He’s making good arguments and points about immigration itself and how illegal immigration benefits the democrats. It’s just so simple though. “A wall. A big freakin’ wall. Stretching 2,000 miles across all land.” Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold on November 26, 2017.
10th Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist, and lawyer Ann Coulter's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I copied and pasted the article, which includes pictures, about Ann Coulter and gave my opinion throughout. My commentary is in red text and the article is in black text. Original article link: Ann Coulter slammed President Trump over DACA and his proposed border wall Article starts, ANN COULTER SLAMS PRESIDENT TRUMP OVER DACA AND BORDER WALL BY HARRIET SINCLAIR ON 9/5/17 AT 6:26 PM Conservative political commentator and author Ann Coulter discusses her 'Adios, America! The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole' on June 17, 2015, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/GETTY Ann Coulter appears to be upset with the White House after President Donald Trump’s decision to scrap the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), but not for the same reasons as the president's liberal critics. The controversial commentator shared a number of tweets on the subject on Tuesday, following the announcement by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that the White House is rescinding the policy and a subsequent press conference on the topic. “That's great. Sarah Huckabee Sanders says Trump wants COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM! Exactly what he used to denounce,” she wrote of Sanders’ Tuesday press conference. 2nd thing Trump pulled back on in this article alone, unless the wall is just very postponed. During the press briefing, Sanders said of Trump’s decision on DACA: “He wants to be able to make a decision with compassion but at the same time you can’t allow emotion to govern. The president wrestled with this decision all through the weekend.” But her comments appeared to anger Coulter, who suggested the administration should not be concerned with placating DACA recipients. “Trump's landmark, election-winning immigration speech, 8/31/16: ENFORCEMENT 1ST! We can't even discuss amnesty until we have a wall!” That definitely makes sense. Need to stop the problem from continuing, because focusing on the people in the US isn’t the long-term solution. Coulter added, sharing a speech from Trump in which he said that the first focus should be on tackling illegal immigration and building a wall on the U.S. southern border. Tweet by Ann Coulter that reads, Trump's landmark, election-winning immigration speech, 8/31/16: ENFORCEMENT 1ST! We can't even discuss amnesty until we have a wall! The only conversation? Article continues, “Weird how Huckabee Sanders obsessively attacks congress. Trump's not going to get out of betraying voters on the wall by blaming congress,” she wrote. But while Coulter expressed her concerns that Trump was not going far enough on immigration and wondering where the promised wall on the U.S. southern border was, recipients of DACA were facing up to an uncertain future. Trump’s decision has left 800,000 successful DACA applicants facing an uncertain future and prompted a backlash from immigration charities, DACA recipients and politicians, including former President Barack Obama and even some within the Republican party. Obama, who brought in the DACA initiative in 2012, said on Tuesday the decision to rescind it was “cruel.” "Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn't threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us,” Obama wrote on Facebook shortly after Trump’s decision was announced. My Response: 1st Impression: Agree with Coulter- I don’t really agree with Obama’s statement, but it’s really not right for the DACA people being told they’re legal, and that being revoked. The wall should be built, in the right places, so we can stop this trend. It just seems Trump was talking out of his ass. Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold
11th Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist, and lawyer Ann Coulter's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I copied and pasted the article, which includes pictures, about Ann Coulter and gave my opinion throughout. My commentary is in red text and the article is in black text. Original article link:Coulter: If we’re not getting the wall, we may as well have an attractive dignified president Article starts, Coulter: If we’re not getting the wall, we may as well have an attractive dignified president BY JOSH DELK - 09/20/17 04:45 PM EDT © Getty Ann Coulter on Wednesday slammed President Trump as less "attractive" and "dignified" than Vice President Pence and doubled down on her recent harsh criticism of the president by advocating replacing him with his second in command. "If we're not getting a wall, we may as well have an attractive, dignified Republican there. We'll get better Supreme Court justices under Pence," the prominent conservative pundit said on Newsmax TV's Howie Carr show. Maybe she’s only exaggerating, but it seems a little much to impeach Trump for this. I’m sure every president ever has unfulfilled promises. Coulter, who was a fervent advocate of Trump as a candidate and authored the book "In Trump We Trust," has since become a critic of Trump due to inaction on campaign promises, especially his pledge to have Mexico pay for a border wall with the U.S. Even before I got interested in politics, I remember thinking when Trump spoke about the wall and having Mexico pay for it, “Well that’s probably not going to happen.” I didn’t think that because of propaganda, I thought that because he didn’t tell us how he was going to and the delivery was ridiculous. Carr brought up a recent tweet in which Coulter said "who doesn't want Trump impeached?" and asked if she still held the same position. This is the same woman who wrote the book, “In Trump We Trust.” Wow. "There's no modification of that," Coulter said. "What faction would be against that now? I mean, if we're not getting the wall, obviously Mike Pence would be better. It's not like we weren't aware of the massive personal baggage of Donald Trump." Coulter was one of several high-profile Trump supporters who blasted the president for couching his decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to allow for Congress to pass legislation protecting people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Trump recently sought to make a deal with top Democrats in exchange for their commitment to increasing border security, but reports indicated Trump agreed to not link border wall funding to DACA legislation. "What did they chant at every rally for 18 months? 'Build the wall!' We thought he understood the urgency of this, but maybe we were wrong, maybe he doesn't seem to understand that," Coulter said. She’s not dumb. She just liked what he was saying, but I don’t believe she believed him. My Response: 1st Impression: Disagreeing with Coulter- This woman couldn’t have actually not seen this coming. No analysis from different points of view, it went from in Trump we trust to impeach the man! He’s not worthy of impeaching, she just knows it’s a better decision to make this move so she doesn’t have to answer to the people saying, “But what about the wall Trump was all about? Do you support liars Ms. Coulter?” Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold.
12th Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist, and lawyer Ann Coulter's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I copied and pasted the article about Ann Coulter and gave my opinion throughout. My commentary is in red text and the article is in black text. Original article link: Ann Coulter rips Trump for focusing on taxes instead of wall Article starts, Ann Coulter rips Trump for focusing on taxes instead of wall by Sean Langille | Aug 30, 2017, 3:20 PM Conservative commentator Ann Coulter ripped President Trump on Wednesday for focusing on tax reform instead of the border wall on the U.S. Mexico border during his speech in Missouri. "WTF! Why is @realDonaldTrump back to tax cuts? His election was NOT about tax cuts. Has he been talking to @SpeakerRyan again?," Coulter tweeted. So he can’t talk about tax cuts at all? Coulter has been a vocal supporter of Trump's immigration policies but has been critical of him of late for not pushing more forcefully for his promised border wall. "This isn't a 'once in a lifetime' shot at tax cuts! EVERY GOP cuts taxes! This is 'once in a lifetime' shot to save US: Wall & deportations!," Coulter said in another tweet. She continued her criticism of Trump and Republican leadership in a flurry of tweets. Ann Coulter tweets, This isn't a "once in a lifetime" shot at tax cuts! EVERY GOP cuts taxes! This is "once in a lifetime" shot to save US: Wall & deportations! Another Tweet by Ann, It's so obvious Trump's only getting polite applause for tax cuts. Want to get the crowd hollering, @realDonaldTrump? Talk about THE WALL! So he always has to talk about controversial topics? Another one, It's like Night of the Living Dead watching our beloved @realDonaldTrump go to DC & start babbling the same old GOP nonsense on tax cuts. Sounds mandatory. Another one, Tax cuts are a 2d term issue. 1st term: BUILD THE WALL, End DACA, Deport Illegals, No Refugees, No Muslims, Immigrn Moratorium. SAVE USA! Why did she have to mention Muslims? Really? Another one, Cutting taxes doesn't do a damn thing for wages if you allow businesses to keep bringing in cheap foreign labor! So it won’t help at all? It’s not businesses fault illegals are getting in, so yeah, the wall. Another one, This speech could have been given by Jeb! -- except even he wouldn't have talked about the govt helping yuppie women with child care costs. Another one, (DJ Khaled!) This is the worst, most tone-deaf speech @realDonaldTrump has ever given. Jeb! had better ideas. At least she doesn’t hold back on the insults. Like Trump. My Response: 1st Impression: Disagree with Coulter- She’s just going in on him so she doesn’t get accused of being a Trump loving hypocrite. She wants businesses to be required to test people to make sure they’re not illegals, which I think it’s not the business's responsibility whatsoever. The wall should be built, but she’s just trying to get controversial, because that’s what she’s known for. Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold.
13th Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist, and lawyer Ann Coulter's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I copied and pasted the whole written article and typed out most the dialogue from 0:00-4:19 of the video within the article about Ann Coulter and gave my opinion throughout. My commentary is in red text and the written article and video dialogue is in black text. Original article link: Ann Coulter Unleashes on Trump for 'Zero' Progress on Border Wall Article starts, Ann Coulter Unleashes on Trump for 'Zero' Progress on Border Wall Video titled, Coulter on Trump and his agenda (typed out dialogue 0:00-4:19) Jun 16, 2017 // 3:21pm by Fox News Insider Marco Rubio: I don’t understand why people are that shocked. This president ran a very unconventional campaign. You’re not surprised because Trump seemed to be the most honest during the campaign? (Marco Rubio continued) I was there for a big part in the beginning, alongside one of his competitors and that’s what the American people voted for, and in essence, this White House isn’t much different from the campaign. That is just totally contradictory from what this issue is. Stuart Varney: Welcome “In Trump We Trust,” Ann Coulter. Lately, you’ve been down on Trump, and I believe you’re saying, is the haters were right. Did she or didn’t she? Because at the bottom of the article, it said she did , the Fox News guy assumed it, but she’s saying not quite. (Stuart Varney continued) Make your case. Ann Coulter: Not quite and the attacks on Trump keep bringing me back to defend him every time I want to be mad at him. Stop it with that anti-liberal crap. Just make your case. (Ann Coulter continued) What senator Rubio said is preposterous, that isn’t what people voted for. She’s right about what Rubio said. The word fits perfectly. (Ann Coulter continued) We voted for a wall, for enforcement of our immigration laws, for not being the world’s policeman, for ending NAFTA, unfortunately we’re not getting what we voted for, but secondly, it’s preposterous because to blame the “chaos” on Trump himself. No, he’s being viciously, violently attacked because he took on both political parties. She didn’t phrase that very well. It makes Trump look even more badass. Stuart Varney: Do you think to blame president Trump himself for some of the tweets he’s put out, for some of the things he said, almost off the cuff. You’re critical of that I take it. Ann Coulter: No, I love the tweets. Almost everything everyone else dislikes about Trump, or what I consider his strong points, I love his tweets. It’s how he defends himself. I love that he had steak, he brought his own steak to Saudi Arabia. Why would people be mad over that? If anything, hopefully because it’s irrelevant. (Ann Coulter continued) Everything else others attack him for. What I’m concerned with, I mean we had no choice. What were we going to do, vote for Rubio? No, both political parties for years and years have been pushing what the Wall Street and the elites want. Trump was the only candidate who was going to put Americans first. I just want to get back to his campaign promises, but I love his 3AM tweets. I think they’re hilarious. Stuart Varney: The media is trying to get the conversation back to political turmoil and political trouble. Back home. I don’t think the media will ever give him a break. Do you think though, that the media, at this point, is winning? Ann Coulter: I don’t think they have as much power as they did when they took out president Nixon, so part of their rage is that they’re losing their power, because of the internet, God bless the internet. (Ann Coulter continued) but no, I don’t think they will ever stop and I hope Trump notices that. You mean, I’m sure Trump notices that. (Ann Coulter continued) If he doesn’t keep his promises, republicans will be wiped out in the midterm elections. Democrats will have the House of Representatives, and they absolutely will impeach him. It doesn’t matter. He could be purer than Caesar's wife. They will impeach him. The left-wing base is just obsessed with that, so Trump better keep his promises. Stuart Varney: Is your criticism of Mr. Trump or is it of a divided GOP, which cannot deliver on the promises that Mr. Trump made That should be discussed more often. Ann Coulter: Well of course I blame republicans and congress the most, but we always knew that. If you blame them the most, why aren’t you including them in your argument? They’re apart of the problem aren’t they? (Ann Coulter continued) I knew they were traitors. Again, working for the lobbyists, the Chamber of Commerce, and Wall Street, and not for the American people and we knew Trump would have a tough road (a ho?), but he was supposed to go down and be a bull in a China shop and we’re still waiting for a bull in a China shop. He’s not a god. (Ann Coulter continued) There’s obviously still time. There’s only been a few months now, but so far, I mean that budget deal. It was like a George Soros practical jokes. 18 million dollars to study misogyny in the marines. That sounds ridiculous. (Ann Coulter continued) Funding for a wall, specifically prohibited. Funding for planned parenthood, no this isn’t what we voted for and I do think Trump meant what he said. This list made the argument more valid. (Ann Coulter continued) He didn’t go through what he went through for 18 months for being attacked by both political parties, the entire media, the Washington Bureaucracy. It is tough what he’s up against, but that’s what he promised and that’s what we want. So why is she pounding her fists this early into the election? Start of written article, Ann Coulter was a big supporter of then-candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, but so far she's been underwhelmed by the Trump presidency. On Friday, Coulter unleashed a series of tweets, ripping Trump for his lack of progress on building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, addressing illegal immigration and halting the flow of Middle Eastern refugees into our country. Maybe she knows his ego is so out of whack or he actually cares for what’s best for this country, that she’s just trying to fire him up to get things done faster. Coulter tweets, If @VP Pence were smart, starting making noises about how he'd LOVE to build a wall. He'd be sworn in as president about 2 weeks. Coulter tweets, I thought w/ Trump we'd finally have a president helping OUR country. So far: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Italy, China, N Kor. Today: Cuba! Coulter tweets, At least Cuba's in our hemisphere. How long can it be before Trump gets to America? Ann Coulter on Twitter … I just realized, she knows this what pushes him. She knows, that coming from someone like her, it shines through all the hate of the left and he listens. Back to article, Coulter had previously warned that if Trump fails to keep his campaign promises, the Democrats will win big in the 2018 election. That’s what she’s scared of. She doesn’t want him to lose. She also said she fears that "the Trump-haters were right," Did she really say that though? and she's prepared to jump ship if things don't change. Watch Coulter's recent appearance on Fox Business Network above, and share your reaction in the comments. My Response: 1st Impression: Agreeing with Ann- At first, I was totally against what she was about regarding Trump. She just seemed like a hypocrite who liked to stir things up. But then I realized, she’s not aiming to do any of that. She just really doesn’t want to see Trump go down the same road most of the other president’s went down on. She wants to hold him accountable, and you know especially for Trump, he listens to someone like that. But for all we know Trump was led to believe he would have more power than reality. Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold.
14th Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist, and lawyer Ann Coulter's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I copied and pasted the written article and pictures within the article about Ann Coulter and gave my opinion throughout. My commentary is in red text and the written article is in black text. Original article link: Ann Coulter: Hold 'On-the-Record Votes' of Trump's Immigration Proposals to Decide Which Republicans to Primary - Breitbart Article starts, Ann Coulter: Hold ‘On-the-Record Votes’ of Trump’s Immigration Proposals to Decide Which Republicans to Primary by JOHN BINDER9 Oct 2017 New York City, NY Populist conservative author Ann Coulter says Congress should hold “on-the-record votes” on President Trump’s 70-point immigration priority list to decide which Senate and House Republicans the populist-economic nationalist movement should be primarying in 2018. Coulter, via Twitter, said Trump’s latest push to cut legal immigration, reduce the number of illegal alien children crossing the border, build a U.S.-Mexico border wall, and end family-based chain migration in exchange for allowing potentially millions of illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. “isn’t what Ann wants, but it would get 80% agreement from voters.” Coulter said Congress should be holding votes on the immigration proposals in order to more readily decipher which House and Senate Republicans support pro-American immigration reforms like mandatory E-Verify, which prevent illegal aliens from taking U.S. jobs, and which Republicans oppose those reforms. E-Verify, or a system like such, seems to be common sense that it is mandatory, but I don’t think it’s a business’ responsibility and requirement to make people take this if a person is wanting employment. In some cases, Coulter praised Trump’s immigration priorities, including one that demands an end to the diversity visa lottery, where foreign nationals are randomly chosen to enter the U.S. Should be the first one shaved off, especially since it’s apparently a problem. Coulter, in another post, applauded an initiative by the Trump administration to make E-Verify mandatory in order to prevent American workers from being replaced, as well as a plan to cut off all benefits to illegal aliens who are accused of or convicted of being gang members, and the construction of a border wall. Nobody would fight that specifically. What’s her problem? Coulter tweets, NYT calls a proposal to cut govt benefits to illegal alien gang members a "hard-right proposal." http://nyti.ms/2xrYKzg Coulter tweets, No. 1 most important item in @realDonaldTrump's immigration plan: Complete construction of the southern border wall. http://bit.ly/2zaC7N6 Back to article, Coulter said the Trump administration’s desire to pay for the U.S.-Mexico border wall by billing illegal aliens who are taking federal benefits was a “nice touch,” There’s not 2 words together that could describe this any better. as was current legal immigration policy, which brings foreign nationals to the U.S. who need federal aid. Coulter tweets, Nice touch: Trump's wall will be paid for with fees on immigrant benefits. Yes, America, we're bringing in ppl who IMMEDIATELY GO ON WELFARE I like that she has no filter, and it is totally true. It doesn’t seem realistic that that money alone will pay for a 2,000 mile long wall, though. Coulter tweets, It would be as if the Yankees were required to hire players who immediately go on the injured list. That's our immigration policy! twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/917434582991097857 … That’s just dehumanizing. This doesn’t help people on the opposed side to relate to your politics. Back to article, Coulter’s assertion that current immigration policy brings foreign nationals to the U.S. who end up costing American taxpayers billions in federal dollars has most recently been backed up by a study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which found that illegal aliens, alone, cost the taxpayers $116 billion every year. Under Trump’s immigration priorities, pro-American reforms would be enacted while 800,000 illegal aliens shielded from federal law by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program would be allowed to remain in the U.S., while not being allowed to obtain U.S. citizenship, as Breitbart News reported. A study by Harvard scholar Roberto Gonzales by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), as Breitbart News reported, shows that 73 percent of illegal aliens covered by DACA are living in low-income households, qualifying for free lunch at American public high schools, as well as other federal welfare benefits. Really credits what Trump said about the people coming here illegally are mostly not good people. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. My Response: 1st Impression: Agreeing with Coulter- She speaks the truth, I just believe she can go overboard with looking at people as numbers and only thinking 100% logically, because we can’t forget the humanity in the situation. I think heightening border security, specifically the wall where it makes the most sense, is what we should be focusing on. The visa lotto and programs like that helps tremendously when terminated. Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold.
Im a Republican but i hate her, she acts like if the border wall doesnt happen then Trump is a failure. Fuck her I could care less about the wall taxes and regulations are way more important to me. Its dumb cunts like her that make other Republicans look bad. Fuck Ann Coulter and the bs that comes out her mouth.
Yeah, I completely understand how you feel. I don't think she's actually stupid, she just keeps it VERY straight forward and simple to cater to an audience. And I'm not saying that's a good thing.
15th Critique In this critique, I focus on conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist, and lawyer Ann Coulter's views on Donald Trump's proposed border wall. These critiques are for you all and myself to learn from and to better understand multiple perspectives over time, but be warned, some of my comments can be offensive. I typed a word for word transcript from 0:16-1:23 of the video and gave my opinion throughout. My commentary is in red text and the dialogue is in black text. (typed out dialogue 0:16-1:23) Mark Simone: Hi, you sound happy today. Is this because…. Ann Coulter: Yes, it’s because your candidate lost and Trumpism prevails Mark Simone: My candidate? I didn’t have a candidate. Ann Coulter: Your president. Haha Mark Simone: Hey, I don’t know anything about Alabama senate candidates. They look like 2 Andy Griffith Show. Ann Coulter: Yeah, you know about Trump and Trump is not been following Trumpism. We now see there are 2 different things. Trumpism 1. Trump 0. Mark Simone: But you should be happy, because yesterday, construction began on the first prototype of the wall Ann Coulter: What are they painting the rickety fences they have? She’s continuing this brilliant political game to push Trump forward. Mark Simone: No! Ann Coulter: No, I’m sorry, until they bring in the Israeli engineers and we get a nice border just like Israel has, I am not going to be satisfied Mark Simone: But they have a bunch of prototypes, and there’s a part in Cali where they’re each going to build a section of prototype and the first one began construction yesterday Ann Coulter: Okay, we’ll see. In a small way, giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. Mark Simone: What does it take to make you happy? Ann Coulter: A wall. Have I been unclear on that point? Perhaps I need to tweet about it more. My Response: 1st Impression: Agreeing with Coulter- I’m glad she doesn’t just kiss Trumps ass like Fox does. It does seem bipolar, but she’s doing this to help move Trump at a faster rate before 2018 hits. I wish she would talk more in depth about how exactly she wants it to be, but I don’t think that’s her specialty. Here specialty is to push Trump to secure the border with a solid structure as fast as possible. Critique by Jacob Taylor aka LTSold.