All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show
56:34
Ep. 128 - The Most Arrogant Episode of The Ben Shapiro Show Ever

Hillary tries to attack Trump, but it all backfires; Barack Obama stutters; and the vaunted Ben Shapiro Show mailbag! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
In the latest proof that modern feminism harms women, a new poll shows that a broad majority of men say that women should be drafted into the military.
61% of men think women should be drafted.
Only 27% of men say no.
40% of women believe they should be drafted.
So a lot more men than women think women should be drafted.
Presumably, there are more females who identify as feminists than men.
So the question becomes, Why is it that feminism only runs one way?
In favor of special laws favoring women, when it comes to issues like childcare and maternity, but against equality of law with regard to the draft.
Here's the thing.
Men used to understand that one of the main hallmarks of masculinity was the protection and defense of women.
Despite feminist harpies shrieking on like banshees about how women don't need protection, treatment of females around the world demonstrates just how dire life is for women when men are not protecting them, because then I'm victimizing them generally.
Men used to take pride in the idea of protecting women.
They used to think that building a family, protecting your wife and children, that's what made you a man in the first place.
Now, all that makes you a man is your penis.
Well, not even your penis, since the transgender movement has declared that biological women can also be men.
In fact, there's no such thing as manhood in the left's brave new world, other than when you have to blame men for violence or say that we need a female president because men are so terrible.
Of course, all of which contradicts itself.
So, why wouldn't men buy into this brave new world?
In this brave new world, the great beneficiaries are men.
They don't wish to abide by traditional standards of masculinity.
That's boring.
It comes with obligations.
You don't want the burden of raising kids?
Well, good!
The Equality of Sexes says there's no such burden.
Women are independent.
They can get abortions.
They can raise kids on their own.
Men don't want the burden of protecting and defending a wife?
Well, they don't have to.
Marriage is a patriarchal institution.
And women can just be lesbians anyway.
Men don't want the burden of protecting women across society by exempting them from the military draft?
Well, good news!
The left has declared that women should be drafted and then siphoned into combat units, even if that means lowering the physical standards for service.
The left can't complain about men wanting to draft women, so long as they keep proclaiming that equality of the sexes requires sameness of the sexes.
Or worse, if they keep saying, sex itself doesn't exist.
There are plenty of men who are willing to take advantage of that rather convenient argument.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
...tend to demonize people who don't care about your feelings.
So, first things first, you need to go to dailywarrior.com right now and subscribe to this podcast so you can not only see my beautiful face and the magnificent shirts that I wear each day, but also so that you can get your emails in for the mailbag, because the Vaunted Ben Shapiro Show mailbag, the most exclusive mailbag in all the land, is coming up today, and you could be part of it if you so chose.
Also, I know there are people who have actually submitted video mailbag.
There's one I think I was supposed to, I was gonna pull it earlier this week and I just forgot about it, but don't worry, we'll do it next week.
Because I think that it's not time bound, but you can send in video questions if you're a subscriber too, and we are happy to take those as well.
Okay, so, this week has basically been about how this election is terrible.
In fact, this entire election cycle has been about this election being quite awful in every possible way.
Today I want to talk about how this election is awful in every possible way.
So, I want to start with this.
What's happened in our election?
Mostly this is gonna be about Hillary.
So as you all know, I'm not a Donald Trump fan.
Hillary is the worst at everything there is to be bad at.
Like, all the things in humanity that you could be terrible at, from basketball to knitting, Hillary is awful at.
Being a human is one of these things.
Donald Trump is terrible and indefensible, but he becomes defensible when you put him up against the absolute trash heap that is Hillary Clinton.
So, for example, Donald Trump this week... Here's the problem, okay?
People like me, I want to vote against Hillary Clinton.
I do.
Hillary Clinton's awful.
She's awful.
She's a satanic harpy of death.
Okay?
All of this is true.
Also, Donald Trump is absolutely indefensible.
He's just indefensible.
So, we mentioned this yesterday.
Earlier this week, Donald Trump went after the judge in his Trump University case.
Trump University is this scam university Trump used to run.
It was basically an upsell.
It wasn't a pyramid scheme exactly, but it felt like one.
It was a timeshare routine.
You just upsell people on these seminars that don't really exist, and get them to max out their credit cards, and you give them the hard sell and all this.
Well, Trump was very upset because the judge in his case said that he released a bunch of documents in this case to the general public.
Here is Donald Trump going after the judge.
I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump.
A hater.
He's a hater.
His name is Gonzalo Curiel.
The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great.
I think that's fine.
You know what?
I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs.
Okay, so why are you even mentioning that he's Mexican in the first place?
Because you're a racist, okay?
So I've really hesitated to call Donald Trump a racist.
I've said he's pandered to racists.
This is a racist comment.
When you say that somebody opposes you because of their ethnicity, this is a racist comment, okay?
It's racist.
If I say that somebody opposes me just because they're black, as opposed to because they're a leftist who happens to be black, then that makes me a racist.
If I say that someone holds a particular opinion because of their race, not because of their place of origin or their culture, but because of their race or their ethnicity, this judge was born in Indiana, okay?
He's not even Mexican-born.
His parents are of Mexican descent, so...
Trump drops this, and then what this does, this opens the door to the entire left, and this is why Trump is sort of indefensible.
Rachel Maddow, a.k.a.
the female Chris Hayes, you never see Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes in the same place at the same time.
I guess during this particular broadcast, she didn't wear the MSNBC smart-making glasses that all of the other hosts wear, but Rachel Maddow, she goes after Donald Trump, and here's the problem.
I think Rachel Maddow is wrong on everything, but she isn't totally wrong here.
The judge who happens to be, we believe, Mexican.
The judge is not Mexican.
The judge was born in the state of Indiana.
The judge is American.
Donald Trump is more than insinuating that the judge is mishandling this particular case related to Donald Trump because of the sound of this guy's name.
Because maybe we think he's Mexican.
These things used to be at least a little ambiguous.
Not anymore.
Okay, so we can stop it there.
I think that's against the rules.
Why are you antagonizing the judge in that case?
Because I don't care.
Because you know what?
Why are you antagonizing the judge?
Because I don't care.
I have a judge who's very unfair.
Why mention that the judge is Mexican?
Because you know what?
Because I'm a man of principle.
The Republican candidate for president this year is flat out attacking a judge in a case Mr. Trump is involved in, and he's attacking the judge explicitly and unambiguously on the basis of the judge's ethnicity.
He's been doing that for months with this judge.
Even before that judge today released some pretty damning records about Trump University from that legal... Okay, we can stop this here.
We've got what we need.
But that's... She's... Here's the problem.
You can't actually argue with what she's saying because what she's saying is actually true.
Right?
Even when I was on Megyn Kelly with a Trump defender, he was basically admitting that this was basically true.
So Trump says things that are indefensible all the time, and every day there's going to be more that comes out about Trump.
That's almost indefensible.
So here's Trump circa 1994, for example, talking about his first wife and why they broke up.
And he says the reason they broke up is because his wife had the temerity to get a job.
I think that putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing.
I mean, we'll do an educational program here, okay?
If you're in business for yourself, I really think it's a bad idea to put your wife working for you.
I think it's a really bad idea.
I think that was the single greatest cause of what happened to my marriage with Ivana.
Well, okay, I think the single greatest cause is probably nailing other women on the side.
That was probably why things started to fail there, because you're an egomaniac who's nailing women on the side.
By the way, if you want to say working with your spouse is a mistake, that's one thing, but putting your wife to work... In the entire clip, he says, I don't want to sound chauvinistic, but putting your wife to work is a really dangerous thing.
Okay, this is borderline defensible, but it's not all that defensible.
Now, what's funny is that there are people like me.
I want people to go back in the Wayback Machine with me all the way back to October.
So back in October, I spoke at the University of Missouri, and I was specifically asked about voting for Trump.
And I said I would vote for a flaming pile of dog crap over Hillary Clinton.
The flaming pile of dog crap, in this case, being Donald Trump.
And then, over the next few months, his character was exposed, and by March, by early March, I declared I could not vote for him.
I cannot vote for Donald Trump.
David French, who's going to probably run for president as sort of the never-Trump ticket guy.
David French, the columnist from National Review, we talked about at length yesterday.
People in the Trump campaign are trotting around this clip of David French from last November saying basically the same thing that I said in October.
Here's David French talking about whether he'd vote for Trump.
So what do you do if Donald Trump does indeed win the nomination?
What do I do if I vote for Donald Trump?
I'm not one of these Republicans who said, or conservatives who says, well, I'm just going to take my ball and go home.
As much as I don't trust that Donald Trump is going to go into office and advance the conservative values that he claims to have recently embraced, and as many concerns as I have about some of his other positions,
He's not in the same league as Hillary Clinton, who I believe should be indicted before the election for her mishandling of classified information, or Bernie Sanders, a socialist who just proposed one of the largest government expansions and tax increases.
Okay.
So the Trump people are trotting this out as proof that David French really is just, he's incoherent.
He flip-flopped on Trump.
New evidence means you change your mind about people.
Trump has provided a bevy of new evidence every single day and has made people who actually wanted at one point to defend Donald Trump into people who cannot defend Donald Trump.
Look back.
Look at my pieces.
Look at my coverage of Donald Trump at Breitbart, at Daily Wire.
Look at both of them.
I've written many pieces from June, when Trump declared, all the way up through February, where I was defending, and even now, where I defend Trump from charges that I think are false about Donald Trump.
However, however, new evidence means you change your opinion and Donald Trump just says too many things that are indefensible.
Now, Donald Trump has the benefit of running against a woman who's even more indefensible than he is.
So Hillary Clinton has trotted out this week her new strategy for attacking Donald Trump.
And it's the same as her old strategy for attacking Donald Trump.
Her old strategy for attacking Donald Trump was basically I'm going to hit him on policy.
I'm going to say he's incoherent.
The New York Times today runs this piece about Hillary speaking in San Diego today, and they say that she's going to make an argument.
Quote, The argument will include specific criticism of comments Mr. Trump has made about rethinking the U.S.' 's support of NATO, his proposal to allow Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons, his vow to temporarily bar Muslims from entering the United States, and his pledge to advance the use of torture and kill the families of suspected terrorists.
But Mrs. Clinton will also invoke her experiences as Secretary of State, including in 2011, when she supported President Obama's decision to send Navy SEALs on a raid in Pakistan that killed Bin Laden.
And she's going to make the case that Mr. Trump does not have the temperament to make such decisions.
Okay, so here is the problem for Hillary Clinton.
And it's a problem for the media, too.
So, a lot of the critiques she's making of Trump are totally valid.
His comments about NATO are asinine.
His proposal to allow Japan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia to go nuclear is ridiculous.
His proposal about barring Muslims from the United States is ill-grounded, as I have explained before.
Muslims entering the United States should be given a higher level of scrutiny, but to suggest that no Muslim ever should get into the United States assumes a level of incompetence by our authorities that would result in nuclear war no matter what.
But here's the problem for Hillary.
She can't argue any of these things.
She can't argue any of these things.
Hillary is sort of the democratic extension of what I said about the media yesterday.
The media can't argue that Donald Trump is dishonest when they have spent the last...
40 years being wildly dishonest.
Today, for example, CNN ran a chyron about Donald Trump.
Trump said, I never said Japan should have nuclear weapons.
He did say that Japan should have nuclear weapons.
So CNN ran a chyron, and it said, Trump says he'd never wanted Japan to have nuclear weapons.
And then in parentheses, they put, not true, or he did, right?
Well, where exactly was CNN when it was President Obama pledges you can keep your doctor, parentheses, not true, right?
If you're gonna fact check people, you have to fact check everybody.
Trump has played on the fact that the media is so biased in order to destroy the media.
Now it's very easy for him to play this same exact game with Hillary Clinton.
Because Hillary can make all of these well-founded accusations against Trump, but Trump has the easiest comebacks in the world available.
First of all, if Hillary is trying to suggest that Trump wouldn't have pulled the trigger on Bin Laden, that's asinine.
Trump certainly would have pulled the trigger on Bin Laden.
Because anybody with half a brain would have pulled the trigger on Bin Laden.
Obama delayed and shilly-shallied for literally days while we had this guy in the crosshairs.
The fact is, it's not going to be a tough thing to convince Trump to go after Bin Laden.
It's going to be a tough thing to convince Trump from going after Rosie O'Donnell.
And we're not going to have a problem trying to convince Trump not to shoot, to shoot people.
We're going to have a tough time convincing Trump not to shoot people.
But the problem for Hillary Clinton is that Hillary, as I've said before, is bad at everything and also indefensible.
So, for example, she sent out this stream of tweets about Donald Trump and Trump University.
And it's the easiest thing in the world, the easiest thing in the world for Donald Trump to come back at all of these, which is why in a debate between Hillary and Trump, there's no guarantee Hillary does well.
She can't even beat Bernie Sanders in a debate.
So, for example, she tweets, Trump University employed instructors with no experience and lied to sell outrageously expensive packages.
In a word, fraud.
All he has to say back to Hillary Clinton is, Clinton Foundation.
She tweets, It's one thing to sell steaks using a name as a marketing ploy.
Trump's company intentionally put people at risk.
Lady, you went to sleep while four Americans were fighting for their lives on a rooftop in Benghazi, and you intentionally put America's national security at risk so you could keep all your emails on a private server so that nobody could know what you were talking about.
All of these are the easiest comebacks in the world.
Here's another one.
Trump's candidacy is built on his business credibility, but his business record matches his character.
His only concern is his own profit.
Says the lady who took $200,000 from Goldman Sachs to give a speech she won't release to the general public.
And she says, the Trump University cons has a lot about Trump.
If you can't trust him with your personal finances, how can we trust him with our country?
Hey, Hillary, you were broke when you got out of the White House, darling.
And then Terry McAuliffe guaranteed your personal home loans that you could establish fake residency in New York for purposes of running for office.
And then you traded favors at the Clinton Foundation from the Secretary of State position for cash donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Like, again, the easiest thing in the world.
Hillary is so dirty.
She's so dirty.
that basically all Trump has to do is the old third grade routine.
I'm rubber and you're glue.
Everything that you say bounces off me and sticks to you, right?
That's all Trump has to say, and it's totally true.
But Hillary's going to try anyway because she doesn't really have an angle on Trump.
The problem is she's so dirty she has no angle on Trump.
So here's Hillary making the case against Trump, saying that Trump scams America.
And you can see this is going to have no resonance at all.
This is just more evidence that Donald Trump himself is a fraud.
He is trying to scam America the way he scammed all those people at Trump U.
Thank you.
He's gonna scam America.
Hillary, your entire career has been scamming America.
Your entire career has been built off your husband.
Goodness gracious.
I mean, this is weak tea.
And here's the thing.
She's also terrible at just acting like a human.
So Donald Trump is genuine on camera.
He's the most insincere, sincere person you've ever seen, right?
All the things that he says are absolute nonsense, but he's totally sincere when he says them, and it comes off on camera.
Here's Hillary Clinton attempting to impersonate a human.
Hillary Clinton getting off her campaign bus and being greeted by Senator Cory Booker in New Jersey yesterday.
Folks, you really should subscribe just so you can see clips like this.
Here's Hillary Clinton.
impersonating a human woman as she arrives in New Jersey.
And you wonder why?
She's having a tough time.
It's impossible to defend this lady gang.
Impossible.
Here we go.
Secretary Clinton arriving right here.
This is very exciting.
Just putting you on my Snapchat.
Welcome to Jersey!
Oh my God.
You're scaring the children, Hillary.
Don't do that.
It's very frightening.
First, for folks who can't see this, she gets off, she starts waving her arms around and dancing toward the camera, and then she sticks her mug right in the camera, and she goes, I'm here in Jersey!
And it's like the Maw of Hell opening up right in front of the camera.
It's like the scene from... This actually is like the scene from Ghostbusters, where suddenly the Maw of Hell opens up behind Sigourney Weaver.
And this is that.
And that punim, that face, that delightful visage, could be the President of the United States.
People look at this and they go, oh my god.
This crazy old bag lady is gonna be the president of the United States, or we could have the at least amusing crazy real estate guy who used to be a reality TV star.
I mean, she's so vulnerable.
She's so deeply vulnerable.
The more you see of her, the more you think of it, or anybody but Trump, this would be a walk.
You know, Trump is sort of the antidote to Hillary, but she's also the antidote to Trump.
Because the fact is that everything that Trump says about her, she can say about him.
So it works both ways.
Everything she says about him, he can say about her.
Everything she says about him, everything he says about her, she can say about him.
So it works both ways.
They're the equivalents of one another.
But again, they're making the case, in order to make the indefensible defensible for Donald Trump, All you really need, and this is the case that, again, this is the case that's made, vote for Trump over Hillary, all you need is somebody just terrible enough to not be Trump.
Hillary, Obama, that entire administration are so terrible that it makes it very easy for people to look and then pull the trigger for Donald Trump.
So, just to extend this, Hillary Clinton's State Department, you know, she no longer runs the State Department, but the State Department she staffed.
That State Department, you remember we talked about this a few weeks ago, they chopped out a section of a State Department press conference in which a tough question was asked about Iran.
They sliced it out because they didn't want that to be exposed, that they'd lied about Iran.
Now the State Department is thanking, first they said, we didn't cut this out on purpose, it was just a big mistake.
This section that we cut out, we didn't cut it out on purpose, it was just a huge, huge error, oopsies, can't imagine how that happened.
Now they're admitting that it was in fact cut out, it wasn't a mistake, Here it was on Fox News, thanking Fox for uncovering the edit.
Well, we took this seriously, for one.
Actually, before I answer your question, I want to thank James Rosen, your correspondent, for bringing this to my attention.
Because if he hadn't, a couple of weeks ago, I would never have known that this occurred.
So, first of all, kudos to him.
He's a journalist that I have great respect for.
So I thank him for that.
Number two, we took it seriously and we did talk to the technician who was on duty that day and who was asked to make this cut.
And the call that came in to her was actually a call from somebody else passing on a request from another official and that's why it sort of, so it was two removed.
Okay, so he's thanking them now.
Oopsies are bad.
Yeah, you're lying.
You're lying.
I mean, it was cut out on purpose, obviously.
So people look at this and they go, well, at least Trump's honest.
He's not.
But at least he's more honest than these people.
Right?
And then you get President Obama.
Obama's now opening up on Trump too.
And he says he doesn't want to mention Trump's name because Trump is so arrogant.
Here we go.
Why don't you mention Donald Trump by name?
You know, he seems to do a good job mentioning his own name.
So, I figure, you know, I'll let him do his advertising for him.
Okay, he mentions his own name enough.
Says the most arrogant man ever on the planet, forever, for eternity.
Says a man who literally accepted his nomination on a Greek Pantheon stage, surrounded by columns, in a stadium of 60,000 people, and declared himself a blank screen upon which people could project their visions of humanity.
Yeah, that guy's criticizing Donald Trump.
And it's so easy to fall into this trap, folks.
It's so easy to fall into this and say, yeah, God, I mean, these people, they can't, there's no fair criticism of Trump because all these people have blown their own credibility.
They've blown their own credibility.
And so we laugh when they blow their credibility.
We laugh when they make, clearly Trump is under Obama's skin and it's humorous because people have been trying to get under Trump's skin, under Obama's skin for his entire presidency.
And Trump does it effortlessly because he's a troll.
So, for example, here's Obama speaking yesterday.
People are making a big deal out of this because suddenly Obama, this glib, smooth guy on the stump, suddenly he's reduced to a stammering wreck, apparently.
If we turn against each other based on divisions of race or religion, if we fall for, you know, a bunch of okey-doke,
Just because it sounds funny or the tweets are provocative?
then we're not going to build on the progress that we started.
Okay, so number one, I think this is being a little bit exaggerated.
To be fair to Obama, which I never am, but to be fair to President Obama, Obama's always been bad off the teleprompter.
Once he gets off the teleprompter, he's stammered his way through.
I mean, you can find highlight clips of Obama just saying, right, because that's his go-to, is.
You can find clips of this.
But it's true, clearly Trump is under Obama's skin a little bit, and that's enjoyable, because everybody looks at Obama and they say, you're not just a tool, you're an entire tool bag.
I mean, you're the entire Home Depot tool section.
So when someone gets under your skin, we're happy about that.
When Trump gets under the skin of people like Joy Behar over at The View, which is the repository for all stupid on planet Earth, The View, Joy Behar, first of all, this, everyone on this show, you know, I'm, this show is, our show is both visual and audio, and we deserve it because I'm a deeply handsome human, but the, the look on the, the, who chose, I mean, it's, it's,
They've reduced me to Obama-level stuttering here because you look at the people on The View and you think, how did anyone think putting these people in front of a camera would be a good idea for technology and the world?
Here's Joy Behar explaining that Trump is a crackhead.
Can you imagine him, like, offending a judge?
He's like, Your Honor, that dumb robe.
My favorite thing is that North Korea is excited about him being president.
Well, you know what Chris Rock says, crackhead go with crackhead.
Let me just say with the guy from, one of the guys from North Korea.
I love that.
That's Chris Rock.
That's so brilliant.
It's always great coming from you, Joy.
Crackhead going crackhead.
I love it.
Oh, Joy Behar.
What a delight she is.
So if Trump gets under her skin, and if Trump gets under the skin of Raven-Symoné, you think that that bothers Trump one iota?
Trump loves it.
Trump loves it.
As I've said the entire election cycle, Trump's a hammer in search of a nail, and there are nails everywhere.
There are nails everywhere.
The problem is that there is a conflation now, and the conflation is he has the right enemies, therefore he must be saying the right things.
This is not true.
This is not true.
Trump certainly has the right enemies, and it's fun to watch him smack them.
For example, here's Donald Trump going off on President Obama in response to Obama ripping him.
They have no respect for our president.
They think he's a total lightweight.
And now he's going to be campaigning.
And you know what?
He shouldn't campaign.
He should go out and do the job that he's supposed to be doing, not campaigning.
Okay, so you should go out and do it.
And that's right.
That's right.
You know, people look at Trump and they say, that's exactly right.
And Newt Gingrich gives the same sort of critique.
He says, you know, Hillary Clinton is Obama plus corruption.
He's never going to talk about what a great guy Trump is, but he'll talk about how terrible Trump's opposition is.
And he's right.
He's right.
If we go four more years of Obama, which Hillary represents, we'll get the government we deserve.
And it's not going to be good.
We got to take a break, but go ahead.
Final thought.
Hillary is Obama plus corruption.
Wow, that's a good line.
I wish I'd thought of it.
Okay, so he says, I wish I'd thought of it.
Of course, of course.
So in any case, the idea is that Trump has all the right enemies, therefore he must be doing the right things.
And here's where the crucial conflation takes place.
This is the thing that I'm worried about.
Trump does have the right enemies.
A lot of bad people have the right enemies.
You can't conflate he has the right enemies with he's saying the right stuff.
So, to take an example, Milo Yiannopoulos, who started off having the right enemies, and he has a lot of the right enemies.
The feminists don't like him.
Social justice warriors don't like him.
Milo is...
He is not a good guy.
Milo is somebody who panders to the the alt-right neo-nazi clique.
He calls them trolls.
He pretends that anti-semitism and racism are just people cleverly getting off.
And just because he has the right opponents doesn't necessarily mean he's saying the right things.
But because he has the right opponents, and because he has a British accent, people think that he's wise and smart.
So here's Milo talking about the bogus cult of social justice, and what he's saying here is exactly right.
What Milo says here is exactly right, and this is a very Trump thing.
Milo is basically Trump's kind of shadow.
He just imitates Trump in everything from his tweeting to his speech patterns.
Here is Milo doing his best Trump impression, correctly diagnosing the problem of social justice warriors, but offering exactly the wrong solutions very often.
There's no question whatsoever that American College campuses and the American media is infected with a disease.
Social justice.
There's no question about it.
And it may have started on your side, be propagated by people from your side.
I mean, are you responsible for this?
The Young Turks?
Were you ever talking about... Ever on film complaining about sexism?
Ever on film complaining about... Anyway, I think that there's something very wonderful happening.
In politics, I think Trump is doing it.
In media and on campuses, I think I'm doing it.
In media, you're doing it too.
Pushing back against the people who want to control what you say, what you think, what you do, who you read, what video games you play, what language you can use, how you can dress, who you can hang out with.
That's over now.
It's not working.
It's all gone.
Okay, it's all gone.
And all this sounds great.
All this sounds great.
And by the way, it is fun to watch Milo's transformation from a normal-looking fellow into a gay stereotype from 1982.
But when Milo says this stuff, this is exactly right.
I mean, what he's saying is exactly right.
It's fun to watch the social justice warriors get what's coming to them.
We do need a freer, more tolerant society for all types of speech.
All that's true.
Then he says that you're doing some sort of great service if you say things that are actually terrible.
He acts like there's no such thing as a thing that's terrible.
I argue you have a right to say terrible things, but there are terrible things that can be said.
Milo makes the argument there's no such thing as a terrible thing that can be said.
All the terrible things that are said, if you take offense, it's because you're a weakling.
It's because you don't understand what the person's trying to say.
They're just joking.
They're just trolling.
Milo, you know, wouldn't know the difference between an Al-Qaeda tweet and some of his alt-right tweets, but I guess they would both be just wonderful examples of trolling, presumably.
Again, Milo has the right opponents, and he has the wrong solutions.
And this is fairly typical, and we're starting to see this conflation.
This conflation between right opponents, wrong principles.
And this is what I don't like about the Trump movement.
He cites Trump as an example of this.
I've said all along, Trump's political incorrectness, half of it's political incorrectness, half of it is actual jackassery.
It's not political incorrectness when you say, my judge is a Mexican, that's why he dislikes me.
That's you being a piece of work.
It is politically incorrect to say Islam is linked with terrorism.
Politically incorrect, true.
But they don't make this distinction because, again, Trump is pissing off all the right people, so it must be okay.
Rush Limbaugh makes the same mistake.
So Rush was talking about Donald Trump.
And I love Rush.
I've been a huge fan of Rush since birth.
I've only framed one interview that I've ever done in print.
It's my interview with Rush Limbaugh in the Limbaugh Letter in January of this year.
I'm a big Rush Limbaugh fan.
But Rush is wrong here.
So Rush, you know, he says that Trump bashing the media is exactly what the media deserve.
Totally agreed.
But watch as he conflates Trump's dishonesty with Trump bashing the media.
Say what you will about Donald Trump.
How many years have people been begging for a Republican to just once take on the media the way Trump did or.
All the way from the premise to the details, to the motivation.
He took them all on, and the pièce de résistance of some journalists said, Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump!
And by the way, these people in the media, they may hate the guy, but they cannot stop covering.
Okay, they hate them.
They can't stop covering him.
He went through the details.
No, we went through this yesterday.
Trump is actually wrong on this.
He didn't turn over the money until he was pressured to turn over the money and then he claimed everybody was bad.
So again, you're conflating the fact the press sucks and you want people to attack them.
I agree with Donald Trump must be honest.
I disagree.
Okay, and this conflation is going to lead to embracing a lot of bad positions because it's gonna, you watch, we will go from Donald Trump is right to be politically incorrect, but it's uncomfortable that he's targeting Mexican judges, too.
Well, it's okay that he's targeting Mexican judges.
It's just politically incorrect.
Don't we all know that Mexicans are going to be anti-Trump?
Because being from Mexico means that you're anti-Trump, because you're anti-white, and you're La Raza, right?
Well, you watch.
This conflation will happen.
You'll see this slide from the decent to the indecent because people want to fall in love with the person they're backing against the opposition.
They want to ignore all the things that are wrong.
There's a halo effect that exists in human psychology.
The halo effect typically is associated with beauty.
So if you see a good-looking girl, for example, you're going to tend to think that she's smarter than she is.
If you see somebody who is charming, you're going to think that they're also rich.
It is the way that it works.
There's a halo effect that if you like somebody, you tend to whitewash everything they do.
People like Trump because of who he's hitting, and they're whitewashing everything that he does, and it makes it really easy to do that when his opposition is really so terrible on the left side of the aisle.
And they are.
They're so awful, and Hillary Clinton is so awful at this.
And so, it's going to make this conflation ever bigger, and that conflation is going to take over the party.
It's going to take over the conservative movement.
There's a poll today, it shows that Republicans are consolidating behind Trump more than they have consolidated behind any Republican candidate since 1980, except for Mitt Romney in the last election cycle at this point in time.
So this idea that there's a bunch of us, these never-Trumpers, we're going to sink the Trump movement, there aren't that many of us.
There aren't that many of us.
There are some of us who think that principle matters more than just electing somebody who's going to rip away all those principles.
There are a lot of people who are going to jump on the bandwagon and claim that Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
They're not going to fight against the social justice warriors.
They're going to pretend that Trump is their fighter and channels all of their anger.
And it's going to bleed over into... If you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound with Trump is sort of the short story of this.
If you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound.
And so the same Trump who says the stuff about Mexicans is the same Trump who says the stuff about the media.
So you like what he says about the media, unless you're willing to sit there and parse it and point out honestly what he says that's good and what he says that's bad, you're gonna wind up in the same barrel as Donald Trump.
Okay.
And the final note here, you're going to end up doing exactly what this guy does.
There's a video of a Trump Latino supporter, and this of course is big news because we found the one Trump Latino supporter, and he cut this tape that's now gone viral because Trump supporters are very into it.
Watch the glowing, glowing terms in which he speaks of Donald Trump.
This is the Trump cult, right?
You can't just be pro-Trump to stop Hillary.
You will be forced to be enthusiastic about Trump.
You will.
All these people who are sitting on the fence saying that he's just the better of two bad options?
There will be pressure for you to start defending all the crappy things that he does and you'll do it.
You'll do it.
A lot of you will do it.
Here's proof.
My name is Angelo Gomez and I have something very clear to say to the liberal media and Hillary Clinton.
Yes, I'm an American Latino who supports Donald Trump.
Yes, I come from a family rooted with immigrants and I support Donald J. Trump.
To be the next President of the United States.
I support Donald Trump with every ounce of my being.
For the very reasons that this country, that the Constitution That the flag behind me was founded upon, and that's putting the American people first.
That's putting this country first.
For too long, the American people have had a commander-in-chief who has put them last.
We are in the position we are in today because of an incompetent commander-in-chief, because of politically correct politicians who have lied to, who have cheated Americans, and that can no longer happen.
Donald Trump, every single one of his policies is about putting Americans first.
It's about being not politically correct.
It's about telling the truth to Americans.
Donald Trump has a track record of success.
Donald Trump has a track record of not being politically correct, and that is why I support him.
He will bring this country back.
He will bring our jobs back.
He will heal our economy.
He will put Americans first, and that is what matters.
Hillary Clinton is the face of an incompetent politician who has lied to That's enough.
So what he's saying about Hillary and what he's saying about Obama, all of that's totally true.
It's totally true.
But he has to conflate that with Donald Trump is the orange god king who will descend from on high and save us all.
And Trump is, he's going to tell, these people are going to be very disappointed if Trump is elected because he's not going to be able to actually do all the things he's promised he's going to do.
It's a sad fact.
It's a sad fact.
It's just a sad reality.
I'm going to show you two clips now.
Barack Obama in one of these clips is actually right and Trump is wrong.
And that's sad.
Here's Barack Obama talking to a group of industrial workers in one of these kind of hard-hit white areas.
And he says, you're asking me to bring jobs back.
I can't do that.
For those folks who've lost their job right now because a plant went down to Mexico, You know, that isn't going to make you feel better.
And so what we have to do is to make sure that folks are trained for the jobs that are coming in now, because some of those jobs of the past are just not going to come back.
And when somebody says, like the person you just mentioned, who I'm not going to advertise for, that he's going to bring all these jobs back, well, how exactly are you going to do that?
What are you going to do?
There's no answer to it.
He just says, well, I'm going to negotiate a better deal.
Well, how exactly are you going to negotiate that?
What magic wand do you have?
And usually the answer is, He doesn't have an answer.
Okay, what he said there, every word of it is true.
Every word that Obama, this is the first time in his entire career he's not lying, maybe the second time he talked about campus censorship and he was right about that.
He's, everything he says here is true.
Technology is what is killing jobs, it is not outsourcing.
And the fact is that if you want to talk about why this is happening, bringing jobs back to the United States, you could do some of it by getting rid of Obama's regulations, but that's not what Trump is talking about.
Contrast what Obama is saying about the economy with what Trump says he's going to do with the economy.
Let him tell them you're gonna pay a damn tax when you leave this country and you think you're gonna sell product because we're all so stupid.
We have leaders that don't know what they're doing.
We have leaders that are stupid people.
And we have leaders that are corrupt people.
They're controlled by their campaign contributions.
And believe me, if I were in office right now, Carrier would not be leaving Indiana.
That I can tell you.
That I can tell you.
So he says that if he were in office, he'd be basically barring companies from moving their jobs to different locations in or outside the United States.
He's gonna bring all the jobs back.
You can't buy into all of this.
If we've learned nothing over the last 16 years of politics, if we've learned nothing over my lifetime in politics, don't trust politicians, don't trust promises they make you.
The person who promises you least is the person who you can probably trust the most.
Because they can all make promises, but none of them can cash it.
And if you're going to Hit Trump with the bright glowing light of the halo effect because you think that he's right on Obama.
Be careful because you're going to be buying into a lot of really bad policy.
By the way, Trump is actually going to create an economic recession with his trade policies if he carried them out.
They're really, really awful.
Okay.
Time for a thing I like, and then a thing I hate, and then some mailbag.
Okay.
Thing I like.
My wife and I are now obsessed with this show.
It's really bad because we have two children.
Our first child goes to bed.
She's two and a half.
She goes to bed around eight o'clock every night.
And then, if we were smart, we would also go to bed within, like, half an hour.
Because we have a second baby, and the baby boy, he's got his days and his nights mixed up.
So he's been staying up all hours, partying it up till three in the morning, and forcing me to sleep in another room, basically, if I want to get any sleep at all.
And my wife is on the verge of collapse.
Part of the reason for that is because we're stupid.
And so what happens is that The first baby goes to bed, and then we sit there, the second baby sort of falls asleep, which we shouldn't let him do, and we sit there and we watch this show, The Man in the High Castle.
This show is terrific.
We are now six episodes in, and it's a phenomenal show.
I mentioned Turn yesterday.
This is the other show that she and I enjoy watching more.
These are, in my opinion, the two best shows on TV, The Man in the High Castle, and I'll explain why in a second.
Here's what the trailer looked like for season one.
What is this?
Newsreel film.
It shows us winning the war.
We didn't win the war.
So it's showing all these pictures of what New York would look like if they were controlled by the Nazis.
Now we have a better world.
There are those who seek to drag us all backward.
We have arrested suspects smuggling subversive films.
That film shows the world not as it could be, but as it is.
It has to be about something more.
I need answers.
You don't have to show the whole preview, but it's really a good series.
The production values are incredible.
It's a terrific, terrific series.
It's based on a book by Philip K. Dick.
The book is not good.
Here's the thing about Philip K. Dick.
Philip K. Dick is not a good writer.
He has fantastic concepts, and then he has no idea where to go with them.
His concepts are great, and then he has no plot and no character.
There's so many good movies that have been made out of Philip K. Dick stories.
Blade Runner was made out of a Philip K. Dick story called Why Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep, I think.
And then there was another movie called Minority Report that was based on another Philip K. Dick short story.
This one is based on a book called The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick.
It's not a very good book.
I've read it.
But the concept of it is great, and they've taken all the, they basically took the basic concept, stripped out everything else, and replaced it with their own plot.
And it's really good.
It's really interesting.
What's most important about this series, I think it's actually important in one key way, and that is people tend to think, and it's easy to think this way, That the Nazis were just these monsters who existed some time out of history, they were plopped down here by aliens, and human beings have no tendency to be fascistic or tyrannical.
We don't have to guard against the possibility of that from our government, we don't have to guard against the possibility of it in ourselves.
Only a crazy person would end up like this.
The reality is, and what the series shows, is that the Nazis were people too.
They were just very bad people who believed very bad things.
And some of them were good people with families and dogs, who believed truly terrible things.
And so that's what's really fascinating about the series.
And it's hardcore.
I mean, it is a hardcore, dark series.
It's really good.
Okay, time for a couple of things I hate.
Bud Light has a new commercial.
They have this commercial series starring Seth Rogen and Amy Schumer, two of the least funny people on planet Earth.
And they've now cut a commercial for Bud Light.
It's at a wedding, and you'll see what the punchline is.
The Bud Light Party here celebrating Steve and Greg's wedding.
Gay weddings.
They're just like any wedding.
You've got cringeworthy speeches.
Can everybody's attention please?
It's probably the last time you're gonna be seeing me for a while.
Girl who's super ready to settle down.
Get back!
Yes!
And cake!
Bud Light proudly supports everyone's right to marry whoever they want.
To the groom!
And the groom.
Okay, if Bud Light thinks that the people who drink Bud Light are desperate to talk about same-sex marriage, they're out of their damn minds.
Can I understand that they're trying to use their corporate power to push particular points of view?
That just demonstrates to you that it has nothing to do with catering to the market, because the market is not sitting there going, you know what I need?
When I'm drinking a beer and watching the football game, what I really want to be thinking about is Steve and Joe making out.
That's really what I'm thinking about right now.
It just demonstrates that people always say, well, Hollywood's just driven by the dollar.
No, Hollywood's also driven by their social justice ideology, and this is just an example of this.
It's silly in every way, and it's not even funny.
I mean, beyond that, it's just bad quality commercial making, but they have to leverage everything.
Okay, one more thing I hate.
Yale students are now telling English professors that they need to stop teaching English because there are too many dead white male poets that they're reading.
They say that this creates a culture that is hostile to students of color, They say when students are made to feel so alienated they get up and leave the room or get up and leave the major, something is wrong.
It's time for an English major to decolonize, not diversify its course offerings.
We need more different poets relating to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, ability, even engage with critical theory or secondary scholarship.
In other words, stop teaching Shakespeare or Milton and start teaching Shel Silverstein.
I mean, this is the destruction of standards.
When you say that there are no standards of good and bad in art, I've discussed this before, when you say there's no standards of good and bad in art, all that matters is the identity of the creator, art no longer exists.
Because the identity of the creator doesn't matter at all.
At all.
It's the product that actually matters in the end.
You don't have to know anything about Michelangelo's life to appreciate the Sistine Chapel.
You don't have to know anything about Beethoven's life to appreciate Beethoven's music.
You do have to know that Taylor Swift is kind of hot to appreciate Taylor Swift's music because it's terrible.
But that's a modern thing.
The sort of identity in art, that's a modern contraption and it's destroyed the quality of art.
Because, as I've said before, the quality of an idea is not related to the personality of the person who put forward the idea.
And this is actually tying back to Trump.
That's sort of the problem.
The quality of the idea doesn't tie back to the identity of the person.
Just because you like Trump doesn't make his ideas worthwhile.
The same thing is true in art, and that's certainly true in literature.
Okay.
A few entries from the mailbag.
Christopher writes, Do you watch South Park?
Okay, I haven't made a habit of watching South Park, but whenever I've watched it, I've thought it's hysterically funny.
Particularly, the safe space stuff is unbelievable.
The last season, I did watch a couple of episodes, and it is very, very funny and clever.
I've never been an adult cartoon person, but what I've seen is genius, and of course, Team America is a hysterically funny movie that is not safe for work.
Josh writes, Ben, you mentioned liking the values Pinocchio taught back in the 40s in contrast to what kids are taught today.
So what do you think of paleoconservatism and for that matter the Constitution Party who professes to follow that ideology?
Paleoconservatism really has more to do with an isolationist nationalism than it has to do with social conservatism.
So what I was talking about with Pinocchio was not the notion of paleoconservatism.
Pat Buchanan talking about our values have to be preserved by barring immigration to the country, basically.
That's what paleoconservatism basically suggests, at least according to my understanding.
That's what differentiates it from normal Ronald Reagan conservatism.
He wasn't a paleoconservative, but he was a social conservative.
I'm a social conservative.
I'm not a paleoconservative.
Luke writes, Hey Ben, what would you change about the Constitution?
What would you add or subtract?
The one thing I've said about the Constitution, I don't think that the Constitution is going to save us, because I think that you need a population that actually cares about the Constitution.
But, as I've said before, I wrote my third year law paper.
I'm still trying to dig it up, folks.
I know there are a lot of people who email about this.
I'm still trying to dig it up.
Maybe Harvard has a copy.
I don't know how I get a hold of it.
If you have any ideas, let me know.
But I wrote my third-year law paper at Harvard Law School on the proposition that the Supreme Court should not have the power to overrule Congress and the President of the United States when it comes to judicial review on constitutional grounds, because that hands way too much power to the Supreme Court of the United States to pervert the Constitution as they see fit.
They're not elected, they're selected, and they're there for life, so that's a problem.
That would be my main change to the Constitution.
I would also suggest, if you're gonna do a constitutional amendment, I would also suggest that we have a constitutional amendment that no bill can be longer than 10 pages and they all have to be in plain English.
So no omnibus packages.
No, none of this, we're gonna wrap a thousand pages into a package that nobody has ever read, and then, surprise, we'll have to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it.
Daniel writes, My question is, should a conservative be elected, wouldn't it be a better scenario to pay off the pensions of the baby boomers in Generation X who are finishing or in the middle of their careers and inform millennials to start saving and investing wisely for retirement?
Daniel, this is exactly what Paul Ryan has said.
I think Matt Bevin has said the same thing.
Cutting pensions is not necessary for people who are already in the middle of their pensions.
I mean, we're talking about Social Security, for example.
What you have to do is you have to phase it out, because if we keep going in this direction, the country will be bankrupt.
So, people like me, I shouldn't be getting Social Security.
And by the way, neither should anybody my age.
We should just say, no more social security.
Even if you're going to... First of all, I don't think the government has the right to take away my money to protect me from myself.
I don't think they have that right in the first place.
If you were going to suggest that they should do that, the best thing you could do is say, OK, take your money and put it in bonds.
Take your money, put it in a bank account, and it's going to stay there, and it's going to accrue a 3% rate of interest for the rest of your life.
Take it and put it in a diversified portfolio in the stock market.
Right, that would at least be better.
Now, I don't think, again, they have the ability to tell me what to do with my money, so I'm not in favor of that generally, but this sort of privatization of Social Security, which is to say, the government mandates that you take a certain amount out of your paycheck and put it away for retirement, that at least makes more sense than putting it into this Ponzi scheme, where I'm paying my grandmother Social Security.
Like, this is the great lie, is that, you know, is that children no longer pay for their parents.
They do, they just do it through taxes.
You know, the reality is that when my parents get older, you know, hopefully they've saved up enough money for retirement, but I care about my parents more than you do, so I should pay more for my parents than you should.
You know, you care about your parents more than I do.
I don't know your parents.
For all I know, they could be crap.
I don't care.
I mean, like, I'm sure that they're wonderful people.
Maybe they aren't.
Maybe they're terrible people.
I don't know.
But that's the point.
It's your job to take care of your parents, just like it's your job to take care of your kids, and a society that doesn't recognize that ends up living off the backs of the responsible and throwing responsibility off the backs of the irresponsible.
Andrew writes, if you could rewrite the ending to Lost, what would that ending look like?
I would cut the last five minutes.
Just cut it.
Just cut the last five minutes.
The whole, oh, we're in purgatory routine, it's...
Make it so that what they were trying to guarantee was the possibility of this alternative reality that had been appearing since season 4.
And just stick with that.
And happy ending.
Everybody goes home happy.
Instead we get, everybody died.
Yes, we know.
The thing I hate about Lost, two things I hate about Lost.
One, and I was a devoted fan of the series.
A devoted fan of the series.
Like, my family and I sat down every Wednesday night and we watched it all together.
We watched every episode more than once.
I mean, devoted fan of the series.
Two things I hated about the series.
One is, don't give me this cop-out that if you pose all these questions that you just won't answer them because the questions matter more than the answers.
Go... yourself.
Questions matter more than the answers.
The whole point of me watching fiction is I understand life poses unanswerable questions and that we all die at the end.
I get that.
That's why I'm reading fiction, right?
If I wanted to read about death and horror, I could just do my job and tell you about the news, right?
If I want to read about fiction, the idea is that you're imposing a sense of order on reality that I get to engage with, and that's fun, and it's escapism, and it's nice.
Alas didn't do that.
Instead, they basically said, we'll take you along.
Trust us, trust us, trust us.
And at the very end, they ripped the rug out from under you.
And it's really terrible.
So there's the question thing, which is just an intellectual cop-out.
Oh, well, you want the answers to the questions?
That just shows how beneath us you are, that you want answers to the questions that we posed.
Oh, go screw yourself, gang.
And then the second thing was the whole, they're dead at the end.
Too clever by half.
Everybody thought it was purgatory from the very beginning.
Instead, they said, no, it was real, but the real story is purgatory.
Okay, yeah, we understand you're trying to outsmart the audience.
Congratulations, you outsmarted us.
You can also outsmart me by shoving a dog turd in my mailbox, but it isn't great.
It's not something I'm going to enjoy.
Okay.
Ricardo writes, I find the alt-right repulsive.
It disturbs me how much they're influencing the Republican Party.
How do we defeat them?
Do we have to wait for Trump to lose or betray their expectations or hope for the movement to die out?
I think you have to loudly challenge them and you have to point out where people are bad.
And again, don't buy into the Donald Trump alt-right just because he has the right enemies.
That's what the entire show has been about today.
Josh says, Ben, love the show.
Love you in a brotherly way.
I hope I can be as half as good at you as debating at some point in my life.
You can't, but keep trying.
He says, my question to you is, I'm just kidding.
Read my book, 11 Rules for Debating a Leftist, and you can get there pretty quickly.
It says, how do you not talk about politics around your wife?
My wife actually enjoys talking about politics, so this is the nice thing.
In fact, I don't like talking about politics in my off hours.
One of the annoying things, and it's not really annoying because I'm not enough of a celebrity for it to matter, and even if I were, I enjoy talking to people.
But I went to the park the other day with my wife, and legitimately six separate people came up to me because they watched the podcast and wanted to talk about Trump.
And I was like, I'm here with my kids now.
I really don't want to do this.
I did it anyway, but I don't like talking about politics in my off hours because I do it for a living.
Do you like talking about accounting in your off hours?
But if you don't want to talk about politics with your wife because you disagree, then number one, you married the wrong person, and number two, You can just say, we're not going to talk about politics, it causes us to fight for no apparent reason.
And that is my unsolicited dating and marriage tip of the day.
Don't marry somebody who's going to have wildly differing political opinions, because political opinions are a reflection of values, and marriage should be... I'm a fan of no-value intermarriage, right?
Be a married person to people who agree with your values.
Hopefully to one person who agrees with your values, so you're not a polygamist.
Leon writes, Hi Ben, I've been watching recently a lot of speeches of yours regarding businesses, and what I've noticed is whenever you hear a leftist take on issues like minimum wage, you challenge them to take their ideology all the way and argue complete socialism.
I think this is valid, but it's only fair to do so for the right.
Are you really okay with a completely free market?
Would you be okay with monopolies if it is consensual?
What about health regulations, such as expiration dates on milk?
Should these be abolished for a free market?
Yes, I am fine with a free market and all of these things.
Yes, I'm fine with all of that.
And I'll explain, given the two issues that you mentioned.
Monopolies don't exist in a free market, because in a free market you can't pay the government to keep people out of the market.
Microsoft was not a monopoly.
Microsoft's product got markedly worse after the government broke them up as a quote-unquote monopoly.
There's a really good book on antitrust.
It's a little sophisticated, but it's a really good book by Robert Bork on antitrust.
This is what made him famous originally, in which he discusses the fact that antitrust law has basically been a vehicle for breaking up big companies that are successful in making products worse.
As far as the health regulations like expiration dates on milk, let me ask you this.
Let's say you went to the store, and let's say you bought some milk from the store, and it was rotten.
And the next day you went back and you bought some more milk, and it was rotten.
What would you do?
Presumably you would stop shopping at that store, correct?
You'd find someplace else where you'd buy the milk.
And you'd find a different milk provider, maybe.
Competition takes care of a lot of quality control, because it turns out you have the capacity to buy a better product and use your judgment.
I can tell when food is rotten, so can you, right?
The government doesn't need to tell me when food is rotten.
And by the way, the expiration dates on your milk?
Half the time they're wrong, right?
I mean, half the time your milk lives like another three days beyond the expiration date, or goes sour a week before the expiration date.
So that happens a fair bit.
So this idea the government can protect you from yourself is just something we're used to, but it doesn't mean that it's correct.
George writes, Hi Ben, during the fall and winter months you had stated on your podcast multiple times, if you had the choice between winning the election or destroying the media's credibility, you would choose destroying the media's credibility.
Wouldn't this be a solid reason to support Trump?
Because he will have destroyed the media's reputation, paving the way for conservatives in the future.
So, quasi yes.
I mean, this is what I've said the last couple of days.
Yes, destroying the media is a worthwhile goal.
I actually think that what Trump is doing is not destroying it.
I think Trump is actually increasing the credibility of the media because he's actually lying about them.
To destroy the media, you have to tell the truth about the media.
What Trump is doing is he's pointing out that they're corrupt and terrible.
Yes.
Great.
Then he's saying things that actually hand them credibility by lying about his own record and then they fact check him and they're right and he's wrong.
I've had to lend the media more credibility in the last six months than I ever have in the rest of my career because he said they say true things once in a while and Trump lies about it and then I have to defend the media which I don't want to do.
Um, I'm not sure I pronounce his Massey edge.
I think he writes as a lawyer.
What is your opinion on jury nullification?
So during nullification is is a totally legitimate part of law and the idea that a jury looks at a Defendant and wants the defendant to get off and so they decide they're just not going to apply the law properly But I have to admit, I'm not a fan of the jury system as a general rule.
I'm a fan of the way that they actually... This is one area where I think Europe does this better.
They have judges who are professionals who sit on criminal trials and their job is to actually determine guilt and innocence as opposed to the 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
Because let's be real, people who have jobs don't want to be at jury duty getting paid $5 a day to sit in jury duty.
They'd rather be working.
I've never served on a jury.
I'd be a really good juror because I know law and I know facts and I'm relatively smart.
Let's not underestimate it.
I'm really smart.
But if I were on a jury, I can never be on a jury because people know who I am, right?
So I'll never be on a jury specifically because of all of those things.
The first thing, if you're a lawyer, the first thing you do if you're a defense lawyer is you knock out anybody who's smart and anybody who's a professional, right?
This is the first thing you do when you start selecting the jury.
Final question.
Jack says, do facts care about your feelings?
I've been getting some mixed signals.
No, facts do not care about my feelings in the slightest.
Facts do not care about my feelings in the slightest.
Facts seem to care a lot about the feelings of my enemies, who for some reason get very upset when I say bad things about Donald Trump that are true.
So, and by the way, people who say, oh well, you're not paying attention to the facts, you're not paying attention to the facts, When it comes to Donald Trump and you're saying about third parties, make no mistake, I don't think David French is gonna be president of the United States.
I don't think he's gonna win 5% of the vote.
I'm still gonna vote for him because I have principles and a lot of the people who are backing Trump are willing to sacrifice those principles because they like Donald Trump's opposition.
Okay, so we've reached the end of the week.
There'll be much more where that came from next week and make sure you subscribe to Daily Wire so you too can be a part of the vaunted Ben Shapiro Show Mailbag.
Have a wonderful weekend.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
▲
Export Selection