Topic: Tucker Carlson: The Left Fears Trumps Wall Because They Know it Will Work? (Read 408 times)

Tucker Carlson vs Chomsky in a debate, Chomsky would lose.

Absolutely. He is a smart man, but his purpose ultimately is to sell a lie, and he even so much as admits it. When I read his work I was a true believer. OFC this was in the context of George Bush Jr., which I still stand by him being net negative and a tool of his father (as other POTUSs were). Luckily I had a strong background in psychology and philosophy so I started to see the contradictions and cognitive tricks played to sell these ideas. Along with a little more life experience, and a rapidly shifting Overton Window, suddenly my once liberal ideologies are now "far right" to some people.

As you state though, that is one of the primary weaknesses of the left. They like to pretend to know about you and your ideas, but they hardly know their own. If you don't cultivate your mind, other people will, and it will not be for your own good. Collectivists love it though... for a while...

Personally I'm indebted to Chomsky, for giving me more understanding of liberal progressive philosophy than 999 of 1000 liberals have.

This kind of understanding is only possible by reading the key documents, and understanding them.

Listening to and/or believing or parroting the current popular politicians simply does not do it.

Of course not. It is just demonstrative of the fact that most leftists don't even scratch the surface of understanding, even of the ideologies they support (or especially those perhaps).

Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, but he likes to pretend this extends to every field. He has openly admitted to being a tool of the elite anyways... and I agree, he is a tool. This however does not invalidate everything he has ever said. Even if every word he ever wrote was verifiably wrong, it still offers insight into specific ideological constructs.

Of course, it's necessary to have a Learned Scholar assist in interpreting the Chomsky model. Times have changed. For example, where Chomsky says this...

"The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings: (I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns."

...we replace (5)b. with "communism and socialism" as a national religion and control mechanism. When Chomsky wrote that paragraph, he was looking at a specific geo-political matrix and from his personal bias.

I'm not certain that m0gliE understood this in the prior discussion, although it should be obvious.

A "propaganda model" is an abstraction. It exists, but differs in various differing cultures. Saudi Arabia obviously has one differing from the current US model, or the classical Communist Russian model, or the current Russian model, etc, etc.

Oh, good thing I have you to tell me what the IMPORTANT part of the reasoning is. I don't know if I could have figured that out without you dictating to me which logic is a valid consideration or not. Read, that's... funny, coming from you. Let me know when you get done with Manufacturing Consent.

I suspect Trump will make progress in this regard.

Neither side has taken action on the topic of illegal immigration likely because this is a topic that 'fires up' both Dem and GOP bases, and is something that is effective in fundraising.

IMO illegal immigration has gotten bad enough so it can no longer be ignored. Although the topic of illegal drugs entering our country is separate from illegal immigration, both enter largely via similar mechanisms, and illegal drugs are killing hundreds of Americans every day, and these are drugs that many take only because of addiction and would love to not have available to them.

Although they gave these concepts lip service, they did not act on them. It's seemed quite reasonable to consider both Repub and Dem as not really in favor of stopping the invasions of the past, or the 10-100x invasions of the future.

It's not clear why this is so.

The constitution specifically requires the president to protect the country against invasion. The various “caravans” and exactly this — an invasion — other illegal immigration is not far from that, if not also an invasion. The caravan is arguably an act of war, and the same for governments failure to do anything to stop it that are in a position to do so.

Tucker is right, a wall will stop both illegal immigration and the flow of illegal drugs that kill tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. The later is harming millions of additional American lives.

Democrats have historically been opposed to illegal immigration and many prominent Democrats in leadership positions have specifically been in favor of a wall in the past. They likely don’t want Trump to have a win, nor an accomplishment.

The important part of my reasoning is to call "Bullshit!" when I see it, and I, along with others, did.

That was a summary of a previous post. Hence less complete because an answer to someone who was supposed to have read the whole thought.

The important part of the reasonning is that I say the two extremes solutions should be most considered because most efficient. Again read my whole posts don't just cherry pick what you need for your argument.

Can't say any better: read. If you can't, learn to.

"I said it and I'll say it again, you want no illegal immegration there are only two solutions:
-Shoot anyone trying to pass
-Accept everyone trying to pass"

Hmmm looks different than "inefficient" to me. Looks exactly like that false choice fallacy I mentioned where you claim it either works or it doesn't.

If you had come to the adult table as an adult we wouldn't be having this particular conversation. Snowflake, that's... original. You ALMOST had a thought of your own for a moment there. It almost made sense too! You were so close! Keep trying.

Did I say it wouldn't produce any result? I said innefficient.
I ask you to read words, all the words not just the ones you chose.

Innefficient. Not "will produce no effect".

Saying the extreme solutions should be the ones considered because they're the most effective is NOT a false choice fallacy.

But again you don't read.

Oh and your whole metaphor is not really sharp as, again, I just came here to congratulate the man quoted in the OP. So I came at the adult table to cheer on someone, saying he had the right method if not the best goal, and got immediately caught by the rest of the "adults" because criticizing the goal is not something allowed here.

You're a special snowflake don't worry <3

Ok, so you aren't here to make an argument, but you in fact made one, a poor one at that, which was quickly refuted. What you are describing is a textbook example of a logical fallacy called a "false choice" where two extremes are presented as the only solutions. The solution doesn't have to be perfect to produce positive results.

You made a poor argument, and people pointed it out. You want some one to kiss your boo boo and tell you its ok your ideas are dumb because you tried? You demand to be treated like an intellectual equal but you bring nothing to the table. You are like a child demanding to sit with the adults, but you still insist on eating your boogers in front of everyone at that table. Then you cry about the food that some one else hunted, cleaned, and prepared for you, and demand to be served a rare albino lobster instead as you pound your fists on the table throwing a fit.

As usual you don't read or don't think or both. I wasn't here to make an argument, I was here to congratulate the initiative presented by OP. You're the ones forcing a debate and all yelling at the fact that someone might slightly disagree with you. It's incredible how you're in fact exact copy-paste of the "offended left" you're all crying about.


Argument was presented already:


Wall will be costly and innefficient. Accept illegal migrants or shoot them. Wall can't stop people determined enough. People are travelling thousands of kilometers by foot in places you would never go to reach Europe. Why would they turn away for a simple wall in Mexico? Makes no sense.

Yes, I am sure all the past interactions I have had with you are not indicative enough of your ideology, and you were just about to introduce a reason based, logical debate to defend your position before you were so rudely interrupted. Get over yourself, or at least actually present the argument instead of crying about how we aren't interested in a debate (as you conveniently avoid one yourself).

You people are incredibly blinded. I've never seen this in my life.

You're in fact not able to have a discussion, you're just plain bots.

You're talking and answering me exactly as if I said that I want the wall to not be built, that I want open borders, that I want to do nothing.

While my VERY FIRST POST is a post of congratulations to this popular initiative, saying that even if I don't think the wall is a good idea, the fact that the people are pushing it this way and actually paying for it is and example of democracy and how things should be.

Yet you're all simply seeing I disagree with the wall idea, hence putting me in the "he wants more refugees" table.


This is incredible, you're not only blinded, you're complete binary. This is the reason why you're called fucking nazis, not because of your immegration concerns, not because of your dubious ideals, but because you have only 2 points of view:
-Someone agrees with everything you say or believe  -> he's a gentleman and an intelligent being
-Someone slightly disagrees with the solution you propose but salutes you for the method and says if you do it this way you have the right to do it and government shouldn't oppose it -> he's a traitor, an idiot and just wants more rapes and crimes

You simply proved you're not able or not willing to have any kind of discussion.

Some time ago, walking through some wild country, I came across the remains of a house and outbuildings perhaps two hundred years old. This was rather interesting, there were a total of perhaps ten buildings. Many had functions that were discernible, such as the shed where animals were slaughtered for meat.

The main house was small by our standards, of course. Some plants still grew where the vegetable gardens had been, onions seem to never die. The gardens were next to the house, and there was a rock wall surrounding them.

Now exactly how would they have done without that wall? There were wild pigs, and deer, rabbits, everything out there. And they're all hungry. Those in the home had dogs, too, who had a job to do both day and night. They had guns, and no doubt ate some of the varmints that crept in.

But without that wall, the garden would have never survived.

However believing that letting millions of impoverished people in to the country will solve poverty is a perfectly acceptable conclusion.

In the real world, there is neither the straw man argument or any need for the rebuttal to it.

You know damn well the solutions has dozens of parts and policies and one essential part is that fucking wall!