All Episodes
Previous Next
May 9, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show
52:18
Ep. 114 - Trump 2016: Making Depressions Great Again

Trump says the Republican Party isn't conservative, Trump supporters say you're not conservative if you don't vote for him; plus, there's a new Baby Shapiro! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, well hi there.
Many Americans look at the pathological lies of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, and we wonder quietly how we reached this point.
Two words, Barack Obama.
On Thursday, the New York Times ran a puff piece on White House National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.
He was the man in charge of selling the terrible Iran nuclear deal to the public and the Congress.
Rhodes, whom the Times characterizes as a, quote, aspiring novelist who ended up running Barack Obama's foreign policy.
He apparently brags openly about manipulating the press to lie for the administration.
He spins fiction for the left.
The Times notes, quote, his lack of conventional real world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations like military or diplomatic service or even a master's degree in international relations rather than creative writing is still startling.
But why should it be?
Creative fiction is the name of the game in the Obama administration.
As the Times states, quote, When I asked Jon Favreau, Obama's lead speechwriter in the 2008 campaign and a close friend of Ben Rhodes, whether he or Rhodes or the president had ever thought of their individual speeches and bits of policymaking as part of some larger restructuring of the American narrative, he replied, quote, Entire job, not telling the truth, not crafting decent policy for the United States, writing lies for the left.
And Ben Rhodes has help.
The Times reports that Rhodes and his lackeys have, quote, become adept at ventriloquizing many people at once, turning them into their dummies.
According to the Times, the entire administration narrative, their whole story, About the creation and content of the Iran deal, it was constructed from whole cloth.
The fiction went something like this.
The Iranians selected a moderate, Hassan Rouhani, over the hardliners.
Rouhani wanted to make a deal to put aside a nuclear weapons plan and a historic deal was struck.
Only one problem.
This was utter BS from the get-go.
As the Times reports, quote, The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration.
had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the so-called moderates were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration.
That's the New York Times reporting.
Now, what's truly incredible about all of this is not that the Obama administration lied, and lied repeatedly, and activated shills like Jeffrey Goldberg to market their lies, and watched as the media parroted those lies over and over and over again.
What's astonishing is how brazen they are about this.
I mean, they're openly telling the media about it.
Richard Nixon lied about Watergate.
Turns out, he should have just switched party registrations, bragged about Watergate to all the friendly leftist outlets, and then let them do all of his dirty work.
All of this bears Trumpian and Clintonian fruit.
When nobody can be trusted to tell the truth, the truth no longer matters.
When the media prays you for lying, the truth no longer matters.
We have now entered the world of knights and knaves, knights who promise they are not knaves, knaves who lie that they are not knaves.
So everybody's a knight, except some are knaves.
When you can't tell the difference, lying becomes a simple mode of communication.
And then the only question is, which person will lie the best for you?
Barack Obama perfected this world of lies.
Now he brags about it to the very people he played for fools.
And they're happy to report all of it, knowing that their own readers will continue to buy whatever line they choose to sell.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show. - Tend to demonize people 'cause they don't care about your feelings. - So, good news over the weekend.
As I mentioned at the end of last week's broadcast on Thursday, there was a good shot that there would be, indeed, another Shapiro child to add to my burgeoning empire.
And indeed, there is another Shapiro child to add to the burgeoning empire.
And we'll announce his name later, because Jewish tradition suggests you're not supposed to do it until after the circumcision, which is supposed to take place this Saturday.
But he's a beautiful kid, and thank God.
I'll talk more about it later in the program, because it was interesting and fun.
And it's very exciting.
So we'll talk about more of that.
First, all of the depressing things.
Yay!
That's what we do here!
In case you were wondering if I was going to take time off from depression to be happy about my child.
You don't know me that well, do you?
Well, okay, so let's start today.
There's an editorial by Bobby Jindal.
In the Wall Street Journal.
And the editorial by Bobby Jindal in the Wall Street Journal basically says that he's going to support Donald Trump.
What's amazing about this editorial by Bobby Jindal is that he actually, at the very beginning of it, he sort of gets the story right.
He says that the Never Trump movement, they're trying to, quote, preserve a remnant of the conservative movement and its credibility, which can then serve as a foundation for renewal.
And he says that he's sympathetic to this aim.
He feels sympathetic to this.
But he says the priorities are just too high.
He has to back the lying, charlatan Donald Trump.
Who, by the way, he called a madman in the primaries.
So now he's saying that madman must be elected for the good of the country.
And there are a bunch of people out there who are making the case that, essentially, you have to vote for Stalin to stop Hitler.
First of all, nobody voted for Stalin to stop Hitler, just historically speaking.
Second of all, to pretend that Trump would be Stalin in this scenario, and Hillary would be Hitler in this scenario, assumes a knowledge that is not in evidence.
In reality, this is much more like 1933, when everybody knew the Communists were bad.
Really, really bad.
But they didn't know quite how bad Hitler was gonna be, and so they backed Hitler in order to stop the Communists.
Right?
That's actually a better historical parallel.
That's not saying that Trump is going to be Hitler, only to say that you're assuming knowledge not in evidence about the nature of Donald Trump.
It's also ignoring the fact that Stalin and Hitler were allies.
For most of the time, and then only after Hitler attacked Stalin, did open war break out between the two.
But before that, they'd been allies.
So, if they're allies, were you really comfortable backing either of them?
The truth is, the West was relatively split on the Hitler question all the way up until the time he attacked Poland, because they saw Hitler So these historical analogies fail most of the time.
But this argument is gaining credibility nonetheless.
So many people saying that anybody who opposes Trump, anybody who's not willing to get behind Donald Trump, it's because they're not conservative enough.
Clearly they don't want to stop Hillary enough.
Quick note.
The argument that a vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary is a stupid argument.
I'll tell you why in two sentences, okay?
You ready for this?
It is not the same as voting for Hillary not to vote for Trump because it is not the same thing as voting for Trump not to vote for Hillary.
Am I voting for Hillary if I don't vote for Trump?
I'm not voting for Hillary either.
Does that mean that's a vote for Trump?
It doesn't work that way.
A vote not for Trump is a vote not for Trump.
A vote not for Hillary is a vote not for Hillary.
I'm not voting for either of them because I think they're both terrible.
Okay, but this is insufficient.
And one of the things that's that's maddening about this political debate Is that now, you know, true conservatives.
There's two sides to this debate.
The honest side and the dishonest side.
The honest side is people who are actually conservative arguing with each other over whether it is worthwhile to vote for Donald Trump as a short-term expedient, but acknowledging that Donald Trump is not actually conservative.
Right?
It's sort of what Bobby Jindal did today.
And I respect him for that.
You know, Bobby Jindal comes out and he says, yeah, you know, I get he's not conservative, but we sort of have to do what we have to do to stop Hillary.
Okay.
Respectable argument.
Then there's the argument you're a bad conservative.
We don't even understand you.
You're a bad conservative if you don't vote for Donald Trump.
And here's why this argument is stupid.
We'll start off with, I think it's Kylie McElhaney, who is a Trump supporter on CNN with Brian Stelter yesterday, and she makes exactly this argument.
You're not properly conservative if you don't support Donald Trump in this election.
Here's the thing, Brian.
You are not a conservative if you do not support Donald Trump.
And it's crazy to me that I hear Ben and I hear Matt using conservatism as a shield.
They're now all of a sudden concerned about conservative values.
Well, where were they with John McCain, who was for cap-and-trade, who was against the Bush tax cuts?
Where was the Never-McCain movement?
Where were they with Mitt Romney, who laid out the blueprint for Obamacare?
Where were they leading the Never-Romney movement?
The fact are, those movements didn't exist.
What you have going on here is an establishment and a ...establishment that is rejecting their voters, that says we know better than our voters.
We see that embodied in Paul Ryan, and we see the courage of leaders like John McCain and Mitch McConnell to come over and say, you know what?
My voters aren't agreeing with where I stand, and therefore it's time for the party to change rather than kicking out our voters.
This party would not exist absent its voters, and it's really irresponsible.
It's not conservative, this Never Trump movement.
Okay, so there are a couple arguments that she's making there.
The first argument she's making is that there was no movement against McCain, there was no movement against Romney.
I wrote about this back at, very early in this election cycle, when National Review, Jonah Goldberg at National Review, who's a friend and somebody who I think is a really good writer, Jonah wrote a piece talking about how he didn't want to be part of any movement that Trump was a part of, on the basis of Trump is not a conservative, Trump is, for all the reasons that I'm now on that side.
And what I said was, my only problem with this argument was not what Jonah was saying, it's that there was no similar argument about Romney.
Now, I made that argument in 2012 about Romney.
I wrote a column called, No on Mitt Romney.
In which I specifically said, it's okay to be part of the Romney movement if you're going to call out Romney for not being conservative enough and say he's the lesser of two evils.
Which, by the way, is an argument that I make today.
Although, I will say, the difference between Trump and Romney, if that's not evident to anyone, then I don't know what world you're living in.
Both in character terms and in terms of conservative policy.
Everybody who's, I mean, you have Kylie McElhaney there ripping on Mitt Romney for Romney care.
Donald Trump has come out in favor of single payer healthcare, right?
I mean, then he walks it back and walks it back forward again.
Donald, she's ripping on John McCain for not embracing the Bush tax cuts.
Yesterday, Donald Trump came out, we'll talk about this.
He came out and he reversed himself on tax cuts.
He says he now wants tax increases, right?
There is no world in which Donald Trump is more conservative than John McCain and Mitt Romney.
So you can't make the argument that purity goes out the window Just for your guy, meaning that if the idea that the purity, you weren't pure enough when you were when you were for McCain and Romney and therefore you have to stick by Trump.
That's like saying that there's no such thing as grades in school, right?
Nobody got an A, therefore everybody got an F. That's not true.
Okay, John McCain was not conservative enough.
I agree.
Neither was Mitt Romney.
I agree.
Trump is leagues less conservative than either of them.
By far.
On virtually every issue, he's less conservative than either of them.
So this argument fails on those grounds.
Then you get the populist argument, which is they're ignoring the will of the people.
Again, 42% of Republicans voted for Donald Trump.
58% voted not for Donald Trump.
If we're going to talk about ignoring the will of the people, it's the Trump supporters who are saying to all the conservatives, jump on border, get out.
We're not even going to try and make overtures to you.
So here's the irony.
So you have this Trump supporter saying, you're not conservative if you don't support a Democrat for the Republican nomination.
You're not conservative enough.
Their own guy, their own guy says that he's not conservative.
Here's Donald Trump yesterday.
I have to stay true to my principles also.
And I'm a conservative.
But don't forget, this is called the Republican Party.
It's not called the Conservative Party.
You know, there are conservative parties.
This is called the Republican Party.
I am a conservative.
No, you're not.
No, you're not.
The one thing that he said that's honest there is when he says, I'm a Republican, but there's a Republican Party, but it's not a conservative party.
That's the whole argument right now.
That is the entire argument.
Will it be a conservative party or will it not?
And the fact that he's calling himself a conservative demonstrates the kind of damage he's going to do to conservatism.
Like, if Trump came out and he said, look, I'm not a conservative.
I'm an ad hoc populist.
You know, I'm just like Dwight Eisenhower, who is not particularly conservative.
I'm just a guy who makes policy based on what I think is right.
I'm not conservative.
Not a conservative party.
Even that I could respect more.
But the damage he's going to do to conservatives based on him saying he's a conservative is really, really problematic.
And when he says, again, it's the irony of a Trump supporter saying, you're not conservative if you don't support Trump.
And then Trump saying, we're not a conservative party.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't use an ideological litmus test for me not being conservative enough when your guy is out there saying we're not a conservative party.
And by the way, you don't get to claim that I'm ideologically unable to write Trump off when he did this over the weekend.
So here is Donald Trump, and again, he's unacceptable as a conservative.
He's unacceptable as a president.
Here is Donald Trump talking about taxes over the weekend.
I make deals.
I negotiate.
I put in a plan that has a massive, massive task, bigger than any other candidate.
We have to negotiate with Congress.
You know, I'm not going to be able to say, like President Obama, let's do an executive order, okay?
It would be wonderful, it would be a lot easier, but you just can't do it.
Or you're not supposed to do it.
He may do something.
And what he's done will probably many, much of it will be overturned by the courts.
What I'm doing is I'm putting in a plan, and that's my maximum plan.
That's what I want.
Bottom line, do you want taxes on the wealthy to go up or down?
They will go up a little bit, and they may go up, you know... But they're going down in your plan.
No, no, in my plan they're going down, but by the time it's negotiated, they'll go up.
What's amazing about this is Donald Trump is the guy who says he wants to be unpredictable.
He wants to be the guy who takes a negotiating position.
If I were to negotiate with an employer, and I were to say, look, I'm going to give you a number.
I'm going to give you a number.
My real number is like $35,000, $40,000 below that.
But I'm going to give you a number, just out publicly.
Here's my number.
My number is $150,000, but I'm really willing to do it for $100,000.
What do you think the counteroffer is going to be?
Do you think the counteroffer is going to be $100,000, or is the counteroffer going to be $50,000?
Because they know my real number is $100,000.
Right?
The idea that he's going out there and he's already pre-negotiating the deal for Democrats, right?
He's negotiating against himself, supposedly, unless he's really not negotiating against himself, unless what he really believes is that taxes should go up on the wealthy.
This is the guy that I'm not a real conservative if I don't support?
If a real conservative would support this guy?
Here's Donald Trump on minimum wage yesterday.
I have seen what's going on, and I don't know how people make it on $7.25 an hour.
Now, with that being said, I would like to see an increase of some magnitude, but I'd rather leave it to the states.
Let the states decide, because don't forget, the states have to compete with each other.
But should the federal government set a floor?
AND THEN YOU LET THE STATES -- NO, I WOULD -- NO, I'D RATHER HAVE THE STATES GO OUT AND DO WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO.
AND THE STATES COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER, NOT ONLY OTHER COUNTRIES, BUT THEY COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER, CHUCK.
SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF LET THE STATES DECIDE.
BUT I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD GET MORE.
I THINK THEY'RE OUT THERE, THEY'RE WORKING.
IT IS A VERY LOW NUMBER.
YOU KNOW, WITH WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THE ECONOMY, WITH WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THE COST, I MEAN, IT'S JUST -- I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU LIVE ON $7.25 AN HOUR.
BUT I WOULD SAY LET THE STATES DECIDE.
THIS IS SO INCOHERENT.
So it's super incoherent.
It's like saying, you know, I really think that partial birth abortion should be banned across the country, and there's already laws on the books dealing with this.
And I don't know how anybody could believe otherwise.
We'll let the states decide.
Donald Trump, if you were an ideologically committed Federalist, like Rick Perry was or Ted Cruz, that's one thing.
But Donald Trump is not an ideologically committed Federalist.
You gotta be kidding me.
Donald Trump is not a federalist in any sense.
Donald Trump is—he goes federalist when it's convenient for him not to get in trouble for his big government's ideas, but the fact is that, you know, there would be pressure—does that sound like a man who would veto a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $10 an hour?
Does that sound- because he's not going to initiate the bill, but does that sound like someone who'd veto it?
It would come on his desk and he'd say, no, we're leaving it to the states.
It has to remain at $7.25.
Does anybody- really?
Really?
Does anyone believe that?
That was not his only economic illiterate moment of the weekend.
Here's Donald Trump, the man we must vote for because he is a conservative, we've heard.
You know, it's not conservative not to vote for him.
Here's Donald Trump talking about our national debt, which now stands at $19 trillion.
Here's Donald Trump.
People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt.
These people are crazy.
This is the United States government.
First of all, you never have to default because you print the money.
I hate to tell you, okay?
So there's never a default.
But the point is, it was reported in the New York Times incorrectly.
That you said you would go to creditors and make them take less.
It was reported in the failing New York Times and other places that I wanted Default on debt.
You know, I'm the king of debt.
I understand debt better than probably anybody.
I know how to deal with debt very well.
I love debt.
But, you know, debt is tricky and it's dangerous.
You have to be careful.
You have to know what you're doing.
But let me just tell you, if there's a chance to buy back debt at a discount, you are set.
In other words, interest rates go up and the bonds go down and you can buy debt.
That's what I'm talking about.
People had it.
The Times and others wrote, oh, Trump wants to go and see creditors and buy debt at a discount.
Now, there could even be a time when somebody comes in, but with the government, they're never going to walk in and say, do me a favor, would you buy my debt at a discount?
In business, that happens all the time.
I bought mortgages back when the market went bad.
I bought mortgages back at tremendous discounts.
And I love doing that.
I mean, there's nothing like it.
Actually, it gives me a great thrill.
But in the United States, with bonds, That won't happen because, you know, in theory the market doesn't go down so that you default on debt.
And that's what happens.
So here's the story.
I'm sorry, he's saying nonsense.
He's speaking nonsense language.
What he's talking about, for people who are not financial experts, is the way that this works is let's say that you default on a loan.
Let's say that you can't pay the IRS a certain amount.
They come in and they negotiate with you to take as much money as you have, right?
As much money as you can pay them.
What he's saying, and what he's been saying, is, well, if there are countries that we owe massive debt, and we don't want to pay them back, we'll go to them and we'll say to them, we may owe you $100, but we're going to give you $80.
So you take it or you leave it.
Because maybe we'll go bankrupt and you'll be paid nothing.
Or maybe we'll inflate our way out of it and we'll pay less.
Right, and then he says, oh no, I never said that.
I said what I really mean is that we can always just inflate our way out of it.
Which is a way of paying back discounted debt.
If you print dollars, if I owe you a hundred dollars, and I say to you, okay, here's two choices.
You're either gonna take eighty dollars, or I'm gonna go in my back room, I'm gonna print out a stack of money, and I'm gonna hand it to you.
It's not worth anything, but I'm gonna hand it to you, and it'll say a hundred on it.
Right?
That's a way of negotiating down your debt.
He does want to negotiate down the debt, or he wants to inflate our way out of it.
The idea, we're going to inflate our way out of a $19 trillion debt.
If you like what's happening in Venezuela, where nobody has any money, where life savings are now worth zero, if you like what happened in the Weimar Republic, where people are pushing around wheelbarrows full of cash money in order to get loaves of bread, then you'll love Donald Trump's economic plan.
This is such utter insane idiocy.
I mean, really is nuts stuff.
We should default on our current, we should default on our debt, we should inflate our currency.
I mean, this is economic illiteracy at its finest.
There are a lot of people who believe that it was inflation, it was our sort of inflationary monetary policy that led to the Great Depression, and then tariffs that exacerbated it, and higher taxes.
Trump wants to do all three of those things.
He wants to inflate the currency, He wants to increase the tariffs and he wants to make sure that the rich are paying more in taxes.
So, Donald Trump, making depressions great again.
This is his new campaign slogan.
But remember, if we don't vote for Donald Trump, we're not sufficiently conservative.
Now, the question becomes, who do we blame for Donald Trump?
Do we blame Trump?
Do we blame the media?
And I think there's a lot of people who have a lot of blame.
But there was an interesting argument made by Matthew Dowd.
I don't normally like Matthew Dowd.
He's on ABC News.
And he's a commentator, kind of a left-leaning Republican commentator.
And he says that the real problem, when you get right down to it, is Trump's voters.
In the end, people did vote for him, and you have to blame the voters for some of the stuff.
And this is an argument that I want to talk about for just a moment.
Here's Matthew Dowd making that case on ABC News yesterday.
Well I think actually the breach isn't between fundamentally between some levels of the GOP elite and Donald Trump.
The breach is between various members of the elite and the GOP voters.
be healed?
Does it have to be healed?
Well, I think actually the breach isn't fundamentally between some levels of the GOP elite and Donald Trump.
The breach is between various members of the elite and the GOP voters.
I think the problem for the GOP elite right now is the GOP voters have basically spoken and that Donald Trump represents their party.
And I think Paul Ryan and others in the party have to decide if the Republican Party as it is today, represented by Donald Trump, is their party anymore.
Donald Trump isn't the problem for the GOP elite.
The Republican voters are the problem for the GOP elite.
Okay, so he says that the voters in the end are the ones who are responsible for this.
First of all, 42% of the voters are.
But what's fascinating is that I've been hearing from all sides, all sides.
You see people like Ross Douthat has said this over at the New York Times.
Andrew Klavan has said this on his show.
Kurt Schlichter says that a lot of people saying this.
This is the new popular line.
Peggy Noonan has said this.
The Republican Party ignored its white working class base.
The Republican Party ignored its white working class base.
So this leads me to a question.
What should they have been doing that they didn't do?
What should they have been doing that they didn't do?
So I hear, you know, Mitt Romney, he just talked about globalization, but he never talked about the impact of globalization on these impoverished communities in Ohio and Pennsylvania, these kind of white impoverished manufacturing communities.
What is he supposed to do?
Really, like this is the main question and I hear job training.
The government has never had a good job training program.
There's never been anybody who was trained for a job by the government and then went out and just got that job in the private sector.
The truth is most people, almost everyone, was hired either with or without a skill set and learns the job on the job.
That's usually how people learn how to do jobs.
So this idea the government has some sort of magical training program somewhere to turn some guy who does rivets into a computer engineer It's absolute nonsense.
It's just not true.
And if you offer some 55-year-old guy who's been working at a car factory his entire life, oh, now we're going to send you to Seattle and you're going to learn how to work at Microsoft, he's going to look at you like you're nuts.
Which you are, because that's silly.
Okay, so what are Republicans supposed to do?
Presumably, they're supposed to lie to people.
Presumably, they're supposed to tell them that government is the solution, that they can do something for them, the way that Democrats do.
They should treat white working-class voters the same way that Democrats treat black working-class and unemployed voters, and say, we're going to either give you money, or we're going to create tariffs that bring your industry back, which will not happen, by the way, or we're going to somehow help you specifically.
I'm going to do for you what we do for the ethanol guys in Iowa, with the farmers in Iowa.
And this to me is dishonest.
Republicans can lie.
They can.
We can lie to white working class voters.
We can tell them that free trade is bad and that we need to protect these industries and that your job is going to come back if we somehow keep out world competition and if we impoverish consumers in the United States.
We can tell you those lies.
We can do that.
Or we can recognize that this three-legged stool that so many Republicans are throwing out, that was the reason white working-class voters voted Republican in the first place.
So let's take a quick trip through history.
So the idea is that white working-class voters, they abandoned the Republican Party when Republicans started going in favor of free trade.
That it was NAFTA that really did it.
That it was NAFTA and all of the outsourcing and a free world economy that was free, even though NAFTA and a freer world economy led to massively increased standards of living.
Okay, that's the argument, that the Republicans lost those votes.
The reality is that white working class voters always, always could get more stuff from the government if they voted for Democrats.
So why did they vote for Republicans?
Everybody gets more stuff, more free stuff, unless you're an earner, if you vote for Democrats.
So why did these people vote for Republicans?
There's a book by a guy named Thomas Frank, who's a leftist, called What's the Matter with Kansas?
And this was sort of the question.
Why is it that Kansas is Republican when it has so many downtrodden white voters who could get more from the government?
What's driving them?
And what he found is what's driving these people are two other issues that have nothing to do with economics.
One is foreign policy.
Who are the bad guys and how are we going to fight them?
And two is social policy.
I don't want my daughter having to shower with a boy.
I don't think that my shop should be forced to perform a gay marriage or participate in a same-sex wedding.
I don't think it's okay for a mother to murder her baby at nine months.
Or for a doctor to go in and murder the baby for the mother at nine months.
Right?
It was social issues.
It was priorities other than the government is going to save my job that led to these white working-class voters embracing the Republican Party.
Now look at Trumpism for a second.
Trumpism is being a Democrat.
He's now going to these people.
He's saying, we're not going to talk social policy ever.
Social policy is off the table.
Donald Trump is not a pro-life guy.
He doesn't know anything about the pro-life position.
He's certainly not ardently pro-life, and he doesn't talk about it.
He's certainly not anti-same-sex marriage, even though he says he is.
Everybody knows that he's lying about it the same way Obama did.
When he talks about men going into women's bathrooms, he said that it's silly for people not to allow this, and he said he would allow it at Trump Tower.
Right, so Donald Trump has taken the social issues off the table, just the way the establishment wings of the coast say that we should.
They've taken these issues off the table, just like the Romney campaign.
The Romney campaign boiled down to economics, and he lost by 5 million votes, and all these white working-class voters stayed home.
They didn't like him, right?
Talking about the very economic issues people on the coast said that they loved.
Donald Trump also takes foreign policy off the table.
So he says, yeah, ISIS is bad.
We'll bomb the hell out of them.
But I don't really have a plan for them.
And anyways, our resources are being expended in the Middle East.
Let's just bring all that stuff home.
So he takes foreign policy off the table and social policy off the table.
All that leaves is economics.
And if it comes down to economics, these white working-class voters want to be lied to, right?
Because everybody wants to be lied to in the end.
It's not unique to white working-class voters.
It's true for everyone.
Everyone who wants stuff from the government wants to be lied to that mommy and daddy are the government and they're going to take care of us and they're gonna fix all of our problems.
The Reagan stool was a bargain.
It was a bargain position.
And those of us who are quote-unquote true cons, right?
The true conservatives.
The people who believe that there are standards for conservatism.
The rare ones who agree with all three planks of the stool, all three legs of the stool.
I'm a social conservative, I believe in a strong hawkish foreign policy, and I believe in a free economy, right?
I'm one of the rarities who believes these three things.
The reasons Republicans were able to win was not because most people believed in all three of these things.
It's because most of these people believed in two of the three.
Most of the people believed in two of the three.
Right?
So there were people on the coast who didn't believe in Republican social policy, but they agreed hawkish foreign policy and decent free economics.
There were people in the middle of the country who believed hawkish foreign policy and social conservative.
Right?
There were people who believed...
And so those were the options, right?
They believed two of the three.
They believed two of the three.
The people who ignored social conservatism, there were the people who ignored the foreign policy conservatism, there were the libertarians or the religious conservatives who didn't like what's going on in foreign policy, but they like free economics and they also like the social policy.
Those people are a little bit rarer, the kind of isolationists.
Those are rarer.
So the idea was, That basically bargains are cut by finding people who believe in most of your platform, but not all of your platform.
When you remove planks from your platform, folks, when you take legs off of the stool, there's no place for coalition politics anymore.
There's no place for it.
So Donald Trump is building a new coalition.
The new coalition is people who are for big government involvement in the economy, people who don't care about social policy, and people who are isolationist on foreign policy.
So basically the only difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, on policy anyway, is that Donald Trump is more isolationist on foreign policy than she is.
And that she will be more active in some of these other spheres than he will, but they basically believe the same things.
He's just more isolationist and he's gonna run from her left.
Right?
So that's sort of the idea here.
Does that sound like enough to build a winning coalition?
Does that sound like a conservative coalition to you?
So this is why when people say, oh, the Republicans need to reach out to the white working class voters, I agree.
But not on the basis of handouts.
On the basis of there's still principles worth conserving in your community, your church, your family.
There's still enemies to fight abroad.
It's not just about isolationism, bring our boys home stuff.
And if you dump all that, then you're gonna end up with a pretty small coalition indeed.
And the only way to appeal to these swing voters is to hand them stuff from the government.
You might as well run a Democrat.
Okay.
All of this said, Donald Trump continues his battle in the media, and he continues his battle versus Hillary Clinton.
So...
Donald Trump, as I've said for a long time, he's really good at a couple of things.
One of the things he's good at is manipulating the media.
He's very, very good at manipulating the media.
But I think it's important for his followers to note that when he's picking fights with people, he's doing it... I don't fully believe him here.
I think that Donald Trump, in the end, says he's an entertainer.
I think Donald Trump is personally offended, and then he hides behind, I'm an entertainer, in order to cover his personal offense.
Just the way that Jon Stewart is a leftist, and then he uses comedy as his sort of clown nose on routine.
Oh, I was just joking.
That's what I do around here.
Stephen Colbert does the same thing.
Trump does that with being an entertainer.
When he says something rude or something terrible, he says, oh, I'm just being an entertainer.
That's what I do.
I'm just an entertainer, guys.
And then when it comes to policy, then he says, well, the media is out to get me.
So here's Donald Trump going after CNN.
Well, this is a nice way to start off the interview.
First of all, you should congratulate me for having won the race.
I thought, you know, at least it'd be a small congratulations, but I'm not surprised with CNN because that's the way they treat Trump.
It's the, you know, they call it the Clinton Network, and I believe that.
So, you know, let's... Wait, hold on, hold on.
Mr. Trump, I did congratulate you the last time we spoke.
I said congratulations on winning the big race.
Thank you very much.
What are you going to do going forward?
So warm and so well felt.
But you made the... No, no, no, no.
Hold on, hold on.
Let's get this off on the right foot.
I'm trying to address what you're putting out as a headline.
Well, you started off with a question.
We haven't spoken.
Last week, toward the end, I was the... essentially the nominee of the party.
And you start off with this question, which is not surprising because I understand CNN perhaps a lot better than you do.
Okay, okay.
You know what?
You're right.
Sometimes it's good to restart.
Here's the restart.
Okay, and then he goes along with it, which is ridiculous.
I mean, how does he go along with that?
It's so pathetic.
So Trump does this routine, and his followers go, yeah, he's hitting CNN!
They are the Clinton News Network!
And they are.
And they are.
Does Trump actually believe this, or is he just faking it?
Is he just doing this for the entertainment value?
Is he doing it to appear strong?
He does appear stronger than Cuomo here, because he won't let go of it.
What Cuomo should have said is, look, I'm the guy who asks the questions.
You don't get to tell me what to ask, and if you don't like it, right, then just hang up on him.
And see what he does about it.
Right?
There's no reason... He doesn't have to offer him congratulations.
What does he... This is Neil before Zod kind of stuff, right?
It really is.
And he doesn't have to kneel before Zod.
I think it's funny.
I think most people who are conservative think it's funny because CNN deserves everything it gets at the hands of Donald Trump.
Although the truth is that Fox News does too at this point.
Donald Trump was... He obviously had a major battle with Megyn Kelly.
And so Megyn Kelly has now revealed a little bit of her interview with Donald Trump.
This will be a clip 10.
And she says that, and you'll see what they say to each other.
It's kind of interesting.
You seem to stay angry for months.
Yeah.
Was that real or was that strategy?
Well, I'm a real person.
I don't say, oh, gee, I'm angry tonight, but tomorrow you're my best friend.
See, I do have a theory that, you know, when somebody does it, and this could happen again with us.
I mean, it could be.
Uh, even doing this particular interview.
I have great respect for you that you were able to call me and say, let's get together and let's talk.
To me, I would not have done that.
The Orange God King speaks.
Trump of orange.
And, uh, and I love this.
He says he would go on in that same interview, by the way, to talk about, well, actually you'll see, you'll see.
So he says, so right there, you see him.
He's such a liar.
He says, he says, I'm not the kind of guy who says I'm angry in the, at night.
And then in the morning I say, you're terrific.
Okay, cut to Donald Trump talking about how Megyn Kelly is terrific.
Here we go.
You know, Hillary Clinton, the only thing she's got going, she plays the woman card 100%.
I saw her in a speech.
Well, Donald Trump spoke a little bit harshly to Megyn Kelly.
Well, Megyn Kelly was really terrific.
She called me and came up to my office.
She wanted to make peace.
We did.
We did.
I mean, it was very nice.
Some of the stuff is said as, you know, an entertainer because I have The Apprentice, or some of it was said in fun with certain shows like Howard Stern, who's a friend of mine.
And I'll tell you what... So you're not worried about the tapes of that coming back?
It comes back.
I mean, look, what am I going to do?
Everyone else thinks it.
Everybody else thinks it.
Everything that he said about women being flat-chested, not being tens, and women should be treated like crap, and Megyn Kelly bleeding from her wherever.
Everybody thinks this stuff.
He's just the only one who says it.
And he's an entertainer, so you can't blame him.
I mean, he's an entertainer.
Come on, guys.
He's an entertainer.
But this is the beauty of being Trump.
When it comes to the media, which is an entertainment business, he can hide behind the I'm an entertainment spiel, I'm an entertainer spiel, to say really quite terrible things, and even get away with stupidities like this.
So, there's an evangelical leader named Russell Moore, and Russell Moore has come out very, very strong against Donald Trump.
And Russell Moore had tweeted that he didn't think that Trump was a good candidate, and Donald Trump tweeted back at him.
This is a major evangelical leader.
Russell Moore is a truly terrible representative of evangelicals.
Really, this is what he tweeted.
A nasty guy with no heart.
He's talking about Russell Moore.
representative of evangelicals and of all the good they stand for, a nasty guy with no heart.
A nasty guy with no heart.
He's talking about Russell Moore.
Russell Moore, by the way, has spent most of his career talking about the decency of interracial adoption.
But he's a nasty guy with no heart.
So, he tweeted back, sad, right, and then Instagrammed to the caption, 1 Kings 18, 17 to 19.
Kings 18, 17 to 19.
And what that says is, quote, when he saw Elijah, he said to him, is that you, you troubler of Israel?
The verse reads, I have not made trouble for Israel, Elijah replied, but you and your father's family have.
You have abandoned the Lord's commands and have followed the balls.
Russell Moore tweeted back to Donald Trump, is it just entertainment or is it real?
You know, you can play this game as much as you want, guys.
Is this entertainment or is it real?
When he's the President of the United States.
You're not going to get a chance to play that game anymore because he has the power of the presidency behind him.
It's all fun and games with this entertainer schtick until it turns out that he's not actually being entertaining, he's being real.
And it turns out that he's going to go after members of the media he disagrees with and target them.
And that he's going to try and change the law of the First Amendment to allow him to personally sue people with whom he disagrees.
It's all fun and games until he actually has power.
Right now he's just a candidate.
He's got no power.
He can say whatever he wants.
But this whole, whenever I say anything that's unpleasant, I'm an entertainer.
And whenever I say anything that's not unpleasant, that's me being presidential.
And it's not gonna wash when he has power.
All of that said, Trump could still beat Hillary because Hillary is so terrible at all of this.
Hillary is, she doesn't know how to handle Trump in any way.
So here is Hillary trying to fly above all of this.
Donald Trump just doesn't understand how government works.
And you combine that with a lot of what he has said about foreign policy, and then recently economic policy, when he said he'd renegotiate the national debt.
Maybe he just doesn't understand that running our government is not the same as making real estate deals, that putting the full faith and credit of the United States of America at risk would be a horrible outcome and it would raise interest rates, it would wipe away savings, it would cause a financial global meltdown.
People need to be pressing him and I don't think people get, especially in the media at least so far, into other than just the response which then is not followed up on.
Okay, so she says that no one ever follows up with him, all of what he's saying is nonsense.
All of this is true.
All of this is true.
Right?
And it makes her look reasonable.
Except that she's terrible at this.
First of all, folks, you should subscribe so you can see all of these clips because when I comment on what people look like, I just want you to know how accurate I'm being.
I don't know who did her makeup here.
She looks like she died four days ago.
And now they've made her up.
They did some injections in her face and they made her up.
And she looks like what a person looks like when they're in the coffin and people are walking by and going, Oh, she just, she looks so beautiful.
She looks like she's asleep.
And she's and she's been dead for three days.
I mean, she's got on the full pancake makeup here.
She doesn't look good.
And so she's doing this kind of robotic Trump doesn't understand government routine, which is true.
And then here is Donald Trump responding to Hillary Clinton.
And it's just this is how he responds.
You took a small amount of the speech and you build it up like it's the biggest thing in the world.
But it is a big thing.
Hey, look, he was the worst abuser of women.
You just said I'm making too much of it.
Now you say it's a big thing.
Excuse me.
As a politician in the history of our country, he was impeached.
He was impeached.
And then he lied about it.
He said nothing happened with Monica Lewinsky.
And then he said, sorry, folks, it actually did happen.
And the guy was impeached for lying.
Okay, so you got Hillary Clinton saying he's bad at government and he comes back with, your husband was impeached for lying.
Okay, which one do you think is going to make the headlines?
Which one do you think is going to earn the media coverage?
Which one do you think is going to actually work with the public?
Again, this was always the prediction with Trump.
The one good thing about Trump as a candidate is he's so out of the box that he can hit her with anything.
I don't know that I've told this story on the air before, but I can tell it because this is basically this campaign.
When I was at Harvard Law School, we used to play poker.
And we'd have a poker night.
And one of the fellows who came and played poker was a very weird dude.
A very weird guy.
I won't give his name because this is probably criminal.
And he would talk about how he dropped acid.
Very, very weird dude.
And so we're sitting there and we're talking one day.
And he talks about how he's been meeting girls on Craigslist.
Now, for folks who have kids in the car, you might want to pause it here, and we'll pick it up again in two minutes.
So, he says, he's been meeting girls on Craigslist.
And, uh, and, so, somebody said, oh, what's that like?
He says, well, you got some weird people.
You know, there's one girl, she came over to my place, and we were going at it, and she started saying to me, I want you to hit me.
And he said, I didn't know what to do, and I didn't know what to do, and she just kept saying, hit me.
And he said, I didn't know what to do, and she just kept saying, hit me.
And so I just grabbed a toaster and hit her with it.
That's the Donald Trump campaign right there.
I mean, Hillary Clinton's there saying, hit me, basically, and he's grabbing a toaster and he's clocking.
And it's really, you know, it's maybe it'll work.
Maybe it won't.
But but it sure is entertaining.
No one ever said the end of the world was going to was going to be boring.
So, okay, Hillary Clinton, by the way, still saying that Republicans are reaching out to her campaign.
I don't believe there are very many Republicans reaching out to her campaign.
And this is a good place to point out once again, being anti-Trump does not mean being pro-Hillary.
As I've said before, in a race between Satan and the Antichrist, I vote neither.
And so that's the way it is.
Okay, let's talk about one other aspect of the Hillary versus Trump race.
And this is, I think, a disturbing point in American politics.
Lady Gaga, Has now come out, and she has tweeted this.
She tweeted this for Mother's Day.
So, no, the country does not need a mother.
No, the country does not need daddy.
It doesn't need a father.
And all of you Trumpists who are going around proclaiming that Trump is your father, you're a sad little person if you believe that you need a politician to be your daddy.
You know, if your daddy abandoned you and now you're looking for a father and a guy who has created and abandoned many of his own children, I don't think that you're looking in the right place for love.
You want to know where fascism comes from?
You don't want to know where Der Fuehrer kind of language comes from?
It comes from a group of people who don't believe in family values, who don't actually have parents.
This idea that you need a mother in the form of Hillary Clinton because you didn't have a mother of your own?
I don't need a father, politician.
I have a dad.
I don't need a mother, politician.
I have a mom.
And this is where the disturbing kind of fascistic American political system is going.
Okay, final note here.
One of the reasons that Trump is seeing so much success Is that the Obama administration has sort of created Trump.
I mentioned this up top, that the Obama administration's lies and their prevarications, they've created Trumpism.
More evidence of that over the weekend.
John Kerry, the Secretary of State, he says that in his commencement address, he says it's time to prepare for a world without borders.
There are no walls big enough to stop people from anywhere tens of thousands of miles away who are determined to take their own lives while they target others.
Not in a clash of civilizations, but in an assault, a raw assault on civilization itself.
So I think that everything that we've lived and learned tells us that we will never come out on top if we accept advice from soundbite salesmen and carnival barkers.
Who pretend the most powerful country on earth can remain great by looking inward and hiding behind walls at a time that technology has made that impossible to do and unwise to even attempt.
The future demands from us... Okay, so the idea of a borderless world, this one world notion pushed by the left, is wrong and scary.
What is also wrong and scary is the idea that America should be completely insular, that we should have no trade with other countries, that we shouldn't have commerce with other countries, that we can be non-involved in the world and that we can remove ourselves from the international sphere and things will be okay.
That is also wrong and scary.
You've got the extreme manifestations on this score, right?
You've got the European far right saying nobody gets in, nobody gets out, and you've got people on the extreme far left saying everybody gets in, And basically, everybody gets in and no one gets out, is sort of the extreme far-left statement, because if everybody gets in, there's no place for anybody else to be.
So, Kerryism creates the reaction of Trumpism.
So, Trumpism isn't coming from nowhere, but it certainly isn't coming from a conservative place, to come full circle on this topic.
It's not coming from a place of, true conservatives have to side behind Trump, because he's a conservative guy.
It's coming from a reactionary thing to the left, and them saying, okay, well we're still reacting against the left, why don't you side with us?
And the answer is, because a lot of what you represent is still the left, and a lot of what you represent is still bad.
Just because you're anti- The friend of my friend is not necessarily- The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is also another enemy.
It's possible the enemy of your enemy can also be another enemy.
There's more than two sides in this particular political debate.
When it comes to the Constitution, the Constitution has two enemies running for higher office at this point.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I like and then a couple of things that I hate really quickly.
Things that I like.
I've just started a book by a historian named Mary Beard.
It's called SPQR, A History of Ancient Rome.
And I had a little light reading to do while my wife was taking a nap from being in labor.
So I started this one.
I thought the labor was going to be a little longer than it was, to be honest with you.
And so this is like a 600 page book.
And I overprepare when I when I go for these things, so I brought like five books.
Thank God it was a short labor, or relatively short labor, and my wife's water broke like 1230 at night.
We go into the hospital and and then nothing was happening so they had to give her some Pitocin to push it forward and from there it moved very quickly and baby was born, all healthy, great.
I have to tell you that Not only do I love the new baby, the first kid, my daughter, is just the greatest kid who ever was.
She is so sweet and she is so wonderful.
And my parents brought her to visit us in the hospital because we were staying over, obviously, with the new baby.
And my parents brought her to visit.
And we'd been preparing her for a while that the new baby was coming.
And so when she came in, we did what they say are supposed to do.
We sort of put the new baby in the bassinet and we let her interact with us as though nothing were going on and let her kind of express her own interest as to the new baby instead of making her feel kind of left out.
Here's the new baby and we're really excited about it.
So she comes in and she sits on the bed and we're reading books to her.
And she says, where's the baby?
Because my parents had told her there was a new baby and she's really little.
She's like 2.
She's 2 years and maybe 3 months and January 28th, 2014.
So whatever that is and she and she and so she says, where's the baby?
And so we pick her up.
And she looks at the baby, and she gets the most contemplative, sad look on her face.
Like, everything just changed, and you can see the wheels turning, and it was just... She gets very quiet, and just stares at him, kind of taking it in.
My wife started crying, it was really sad.
It's like, it is... When you have a new baby, it's really... Especially a second baby.
I mean, these are things I'm just learning, because they're happening to me now.
But when you have a second baby, And it's obviously very happy, but it's also a little sad because you're moving beyond a certain life point, just the same way that it's probably sad.
I didn't really feel very sad when we had our first kid, but there is a feeling like you're moving beyond your single days, and now life is going to change.
And when you have the one child and all your focus is on the one child and now you're moving to two, it's hard not to feel like you're abandoning the first one a little bit.
But you're not.
And so the next day we brought the baby home, or later that afternoon actually, yesterday afternoon we brought the baby home.
And by that point, she walks out and she got curious about the baby, and now she's just walking around the house kind of...
Strutting around the house going, he's little.
I'm big.
I'm a big sister.
He's my little brother.
It's just adorable.
It's too much.
It's too much fun.
Also, note, my wife is awesome.
She's awesome at this and awesome at everything.
She's terrific.
And the funniest thing ever, I was wearing, you know, this happened the middle of the night, so I'm just wearing like a t-shirt.
And when we go into the hospital, and I was wearing a t-shirt, a Batman t-shirt.
It's like a comic Batman graphic t-shirt.
And so it shows him kind of like making a muscular... and he's screaming.
He's like full-out screaming.
He's like a big scream.
And so my wife, halfway through the labor, she says, this is the greatest labor shirt ever.
Like she was using it as the focal point when she was going through labor and going through the contractions.
It's like a personal trainer.
Like she's looking at Batman, yelling at her to toughen up.
And just do it.
Like, he's going through what I'm going through.
He's just like me.
Me and Batman.
Very funny.
So, thank God everybody is doing really well.
The bris, the Brit Mila, the circumcision will take place on Saturday and we're very excited about all of that.
Okay.
Quick thing that I hate.
So, the federal government is now going after the state of North Carolina because they think that boys should be able to pee next to girls and the men should be able to pee next to women.
And one of the stupider arguments that I've heard is the argument you're about to hear right here from Chris Wallace at Fox News.
This is to the North Carolina governor.
All of this is happening, of course, in North Carolina.
Pat McCrory is the name of the governor.
And he's the one who signed into law the statewide bill that says that local municipalities cannot force businesses to let transgender men, men who think they're women, into women's bathrooms.
And here's Chris Wallace grilling him on it.
How many cases, how many cases have you had in North Carolina in the last year where people have been convicted of using transgender protections to commit crimes in bathrooms?
This wasn't a problem.
That's the point I'm making.
This is the Democratic Party in the left wing of the Democratic Party.
Have there been any cases of this?
Not that I'm aware of.
Have there been any cases in the last five years?
Why did the Democratic Party in Houston, Texas But I guess the question is, forgive me if I may, sir, why not just then let it go if there's not a case of transgender people going in and molesting little girls?
I haven't used that at all.
This is an issue of expectation.
Well, you did say a boy who thinks he's a girl going into a girl's bathroom.
That's where there's an expectation of privacy.
When you go into a restroom, or your wife goes into a restroom, you assume the Other people going to that restroom or shower facility is going to be a person of the same gender.
That's been an expectation of privacy that all of us have had for years.
But if there's no problem, then why pass the law in the first place?
There can be a problem because the liberal Democrats are the ones pushing for bathroom laws and now President Obama And one of my successors is Mayor Charlotte wants government to have bathroom rules.
I'm not interested in that.
We did not start this on the right.
Who started it was the political left in Houston, Texas, then Charlotte, North Carolina, and now, frankly, in Washington, D.C.
Okay, so, here's the part of this that's so stupid.
You've got all these people on the left there saying, when's the last time a transgender man went into a women's restroom and harassed a woman?
The answer is, not often, because men are not allowed in women's bathrooms.
Right?
You see how this works?
If there's a law against beating puppies to death, it turns out that if you remove that law from the books, and then you say, well, have we had a lot of cases?
Have we had a lot of cases of people beating puppies to death with tire irons?
Have you seen a lot of that?
Why don't you just get rid of the law?
Why don't you just get rid of it?
I mean, come on!
Right, because we have a law that you're not supposed to do that, so we can punish you for doing that.
Right?
You see how this works?
It's amazing.
Right?
Dealing drugs.
When's the last time you saw somebody deal drugs to a child?
Like, right in your neighborhood.
When's the last time?
So get rid of the policing!
Get rid of the policing, because it doesn't happen in your neighborhood.
Because there's policing.
Right?
When's the last time someone was murdered in your neighborhood?
So get rid of the laws on murder, because it never happens.
Come on!
Right, because there's a law against murder.
I mean, this is the stupidest, it's legitimately the stupidest argument ever.
This argument, like, it doesn't happen often, therefore there shouldn't be a law against it.
Maybe it's not happening because men don't go into women's bathrooms, because if that happened, someone would report them to the police.
Whereas now, we're going to add this to the new regime of political correctness, where a man walks into a bathroom, and my wife has to consider, am I gonna be socially sanctioned if I go outside and I say to the police officer, there's a man in the bathroom?
And then he comes out and says, no, I'm a woman.
I'm a woman, let me tell you.
Right?
Now she's a bigot.
It turns out that I don't need my wife to be molested by a man to know that I don't want a man in the bathroom with her.
Okay?
This is ridiculous.
This is all ridiculous.
If you go back historically, by the way, one of the original arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment, which was there was an attempt to make a constitutional amendment that said that men and women, there can't be any discrimination on the basis of sex, not in employment, but just generally.
No law can treat men and women differently.
And Phyllis Schlafly, who was at that time the leader of the anti-ERA movement, the Equal Rights Amendment movement, she said what's going to happen is they're going to get rid of separate genders.
In the bathrooms.
In the bathrooms.
This is what was her case.
No, we'll never do that!
No!
We'll never...
Yep, they're liars.
They're liars.
And here's my final parting question on this.
Why am I supposed to feel safer with a mentally ill man in the bathroom with my wife than with a mentally whole man in the bathroom with my wife?
There's a guy in there who's dressed in a dress.
He's got a mustache.
Am I supposed to feel safer now that he's wearing a dress in the bathroom with my wife?
Then if he was wearing pants?
Like, why?
And what kind of clothes suffice?
What if he's wearing a women's pantsuit?
What then?
The whole thing is ridiculous.
But for the left, the idea is the destruction of sex and gender in order so they can create their more equal world where no categories exist.
Well, the categories do exist.
It turns out, quick note on the transgenderism issue, I watched my wife push a baby out of her 36 hours ago.
Yeah, women are different than men.
Yeah, they are.
And you're all stupid.
You're all real dumb.
Okay?
You people are out of your damn minds.
Not the transgender folks who actually have mental illness, but you people who are pushing the idea that men and women are the same.
You are so stupid.
I mean, just...
Baseline level room temperature IQ is stupid.
Wow.
Wow.
Don't tell me Caitlyn Jenner is like my wife.
He's not like my wife.
Okay, this is silly talk.
And it turns out when the baby comes out, there are only two boxes on that chart.
Male or female.
Pick one and stick with it, gang.
Anyway, we'll be back with more of the destruction of the world tomorrow.
But, you know, finding smiles in times of sadness.
That's what we do here.
And then Clavin makes you feel better about everything.
Anyway, he'll tell you that everything will be okay.
He's wrong, but go over and enjoy his show as well.
Subscribe at dailywire.com to our podcast.
We'll see you tomorrow.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
▲
Export Selection