Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 20, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show

55:07

Ep. 197 - Final Debate: The Apocalypse Approacheth

Trump attacks, Trump blows himself up, Hillary's awful and corrupt, and the vaunted mailbag! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	There's no question this election cycle has seen a bevy of radical media double standards.
	Donald Trump's sexual harassment and assault accusers, they've been treated as headline news.
	Allegations about intimidation of sexual harassment and assault victims by Hillary Clinton, those have been utterly ignored.
	Trumpian bigotry against a so-called Mexican judge dominated the news cycle for weeks.
	Clinton-connected bigotry against Catholics went completely unnoticed.
	We've heard for a full week about a Miss Universe contestant Trump allegedly called Miss Piggy back in 1997 when I was 13 years old.
	We've heard very little about Hillary Clinton's perverse dealings with the media and the FBI.
	We've heard for months about Trump's toxic impact on politics.
	We've had precious few headlines about the firebombing of a GOP campaign headquarters in North Carolina, or shattered windows at other GOP operations, or the repeated violent attempts to disrupt Trump rallies or hurt Trump fans.
	Part of this is the allure of novelty.
	Trump's a new figure in politics.
	Every bit of information now hitting the newsstand seems fresh.
	Meanwhile, Hillary's been in the politics for decades, which means every allegation of corruption and nastiness merely reinforces general perceptions about her.
	But there's something else afoot here.
	Most Americans simply expect Democrats to act like Hillary Clinton and to get away with it.
	Take, for example, the new allegations by James O'Keefe that Clinton-associated parties are involved in promoting voter fraud and violence at Trump rallies.
	O'Keefe's Project Veritas went undercover with a Democratic operative who openly admitted to encouraging people to rent cars in order to drive to precincts and vote illegally.
	You use shells, said the operative.
	You use shell companies.
	Cars come in from one company.
	The paychecks come from another.
	There's no bus involved, so you can't prove it's en masse so it doesn't tip people off," unquote.
	The operative also admitted to attempting to provoke violence at Trump events, quote, you put people in the line at the front of the line, which means they have to get there at six in the morning because they have to get in front of the rally.
	So when Trump comes down the rope line, they're the ones asking him the question in front of the reporter because they're pre placed there.
	The activist admitted a 69 year old woman supposedly beaten up by a Trump supporter was actually working for him.
	That event generated major national headlines at the time.
	Quote, arrest warrant issued in assault of 69-year-old female protester at North Carolina Trump rally, blared the Washington Post.
	69-year-old says she was cold cocked by Trump supporters during protests, said Mediaite.
	Video shows aftermath of a 69-year-old woman punched at a Trump rally, reported the LA Times.
	None of this seems to rate national attention, however.
	Has that 69-year-old woman, Shirley Teeter, appeared on national news any time this week after these revelations?
	Apparently not.
	Now, some of this is due to the media's leftism, but a good deal of it is due to the fact that corruption, regularized over time, simply becomes background noise.
	Nobody expects anything from Democrats.
	Americans have accepted the Democratic Party as the party of voter fraud and political violence since the 1960s.
	They've accepted Hillary Clinton as the candidate of manipulation and corruption since the 1990s.
	Democratic evils are normal.
	Republican evils are an ever-present source of news and interest, which is terrible for the country.
	All corruption should be shocking.
	The fact it isn't helps explain why the 2016 election has become a competition in pursuing new lows.
	The old lows just don't seem to register anymore.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	OK, tons to get to here on The Ben Shapiro Show, but first, we have to say hello to our friends over at Lyft.
	Lyft is a car ride app, and my wife uses Lyft all the time.
	They make sure that everybody who works for Lyft has a car that's brand new.
	Everything has to be, I think, within the last five or six years.
	All of their drivers are really vetted for safety concerns, which is really important to me.
	My wife is a doctor, which means she comes home late at night.
	And when she comes home late at night and she's too tired to drive herself, I always urge her to use Lyft in order so she can get home safely.
	And she does, and it's always been a great experience, which is different from some of the other car ride apps, which she's had some weirdos up front.
	Lyft makes sure that you don't have the weirdos.
	You can also tip in the app, which leads to happier drivers.
	People like driving for Lyft, which means that you get better drivers and happier drivers.
	And they're rated after every ride, so only the best people stick around, so creepy dudes are dropped by Lyft.
	Right now, Lyft is offering our listeners a special deal.
	You get three free rides, up to $10 each, a $30 value.
	If you go to their website and you enter promo code SHAPIRO or use their Lyft app, the free Lyft app today, enter that promo code SHAPIRO in the payment section, and you get three free rides, up to $10 each, which is a great deal.
	That's a $30 value.
	Promo code SHAPIRO.
	That allows them to know that you are helping us out by working with our advertisers, but it also gives you that $30 deal, which is just fantastic.
	Lyft, it's the best rideshare app on the market.
	I highly recommend it.
	So does my wife.
	And because safety and cleanliness are my chief concerns when I use a rideshare app, Lyft is the one that I use.
	Last night was the third and final debate.
	The apocalypse is finally coming close to an end.
	We're approaching the end of this routine.
	And here are some basic overall thoughts on the debate.
	Number one, everybody sort of gets graded on their own terms, as I've said.
	Trump gets graded along Trumpian terms.
	Hillary gets graded along Hillary terms.
	If we were to have an objective standard of quality, Trump sucked and so did Hillary.
	Any objective standard, they were both garbage.
	Hillary's a liar.
	Hillary is robotic.
	Every so often, Hillary breaks into her evil clown from the woods grin, which means that you know that she's lying.
	Trump implodes on a frequent basis because he's a ticking time bomb.
	He's sort of like a piece of aluminum you put in the microwave, and every so often, the thing just fries.
	That's Trump in debate.
	He doesn't know what he's talking about.
	Hillary also doesn't know what she's talking about, but she is sort of mechanical in the way she doesn't know what she's talking about.
	So it's a fight between two awful, awful human beings.
	I would say that Trump won the first third of the debate.
	Second third of the debate, Trump sort of collapsed over Putin.
	And final third of the debate, the only thing that matters is the controversy that's dominating the headlines today.
	This is totally driven by Trump.
	It's Trump's own fault.
	All of the headlines last night and this morning are about Trump saying that he's not going to accept the results of the election, or that he may not accept the results of the election.
	The only reason that was even asked to him is because he spent the last week talking about how the election is rigged.
	And the reason he spent the last week talking about how the election is rigged is because he knows he's going to lose at this point, and he's trying to convince people the reason he's going to lose is because of the media, and it's because of voter fraud, and it's because of NeverTrump.
	And so, therefore, in order to fight all those people, he'll need $10 a month from you for Trump TV.
	And we'll get to the fact.
	The debate itself, I was slightly surprised by the debate.
	Number one, I thought Trump performed better than I expected him to.
	That's number one.
	I thought that he actually had some good points to make.
	He always makes them awkwardly, but he made some good points.
	I thought that he had a couple attacks on Hillary Clinton that were effective.
	I thought Chris Wallace, the moderator, was spectacular.
	I thought most of the effective attacks on Hillary Clinton were actually pushed by Chris Wallace, and then Trump followed in his wake because Chris Wallace was asking decent, significant questions of both candidates.
	Surprising me that Trump didn't completely blow up.
	I was expecting him, as you know from yesterday's podcast, to turn in a debate performance where he dropped Bill Clinton's illegitimate kid, or alleged illegitimate kid, and went after Hillary Clinton with National Enquirer rumors.
	That may still happen as we enter the last couple weeks of the election cycle.
	But he didn't do it last night.
	And that helps shore up the sort of fading Republican base that is not enthused about him.
	So that's smart of him.
	I don't think it won him any new voters.
	I don't think it won her any new voters.
	But it's worthy of examination.
	Because whenever we look at these debates, it's worthy of examining what should have been said, what could have been said, and where people are fibbing, because I think that the truth and facts still matter, even though we're living in a post-truth, post-factual era.
	So, let's begin.
	It starts off last night, and Hillary Clinton says that—she's asked about the Supreme Court, and here is Hillary Clinton's awful, awful evil take on what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.
	We stand up and basically say the Supreme Court should represent all of us.
	That's how I see the court and the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of Okay, this perspective on the court is actually evil.
	The judicial branch is not designed to quote unquote stand up to the powerful.
	It's not designed to be in the great tradition of representing all Americans.
	It's not a representative body.
	That's the point of having people appointed for life.
	The idea for the Supreme Court is it represents the Constitution, not the people.
	You want a representative body?
	You look to Congress.
	You want a representative of the people?
	You look to these two crap shows on your screen.
	But if you actually want a group of people who are supposed to stand up for the Constitution, that's what the Supreme Court theoretically was for.
	I wrote a whole paper.
	I've been trying to dig it up, folks.
	I get a lot of questions about this.
	I've been trying to dig up my paper from law school where I talked about why Marbury v. Madison was a perversion of the Constitutional structure.
	You know, the idea, at least in theory, is the Supreme Court is supposed to stand up for the text of the Constitution.
	It's actually, what she's saying here, when I say it's evil, when she says that the courts are supposed to be sort of a super moral legislature standing above us and dictating what's good and bad, that's nasty and it's evil.
	And when she says that the job of the courts is to stand up to the powerful, that's actually immoral.
	Okay?
	The job of the courts is to do justice.
	It's not to slap down people because they're powerful.
	Sometimes powerful people are right.
	Sometimes they're wrong.
	It's not their job to be Marxist redistributors of justice.
	So what she's saying here is really quite terrible.
	Trump gives a pretty good answer by contrast on the Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court, it's what it's all about.
	Our country is so, so, it's just so imperative that we have the right justices.
	Something happened recently where Justice Ginsburg made some very, very inappropriate statements toward me and toward a tremendous number of people, many, many millions of people that I represent, and she was forced to apologize, and apologize she did.
	But these were statements We need a Supreme Court that, in my opinion, is going to uphold the Second Amendment, and all amendments, but the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege.
	So eventually he got around to saying that he would appoint somebody who would actually interpret the Constitution according to the founder's meaning, which is the proper answer, but not until he gets off his chest that he's mad at Ruth Bader Ginsburg for saying mean things about him.
	I mean, because this is who our candidates are, because This entire campaign has just been a series of Groundhog Day suicide attempts by the American people.
	I mean, it's just like we're all jumping in the bathtub and lighting that toaster and tossing it in.
	Okay, so Hillary Clinton is a congenital liar, so she's decided to lie about the Second Amendment at that point.
	Here's what she said about the Heller versus D.C.
	decision.
	You mentioned the Heller decision and what I was saying that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case.
	Because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns.
	And so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.
	And the court Didn't accept that reasonable regulation, but they've accepted many others.
	So I see no conflict between saving people's lives and defending the Second Amendment.
	Okay, fact check, a bunch of crap.
	It's a 110 page decision, the Heller v. D.C.
	decision.
	It never once mentions toddlers.
	The entire decision is about the idea that individuals do have the right to keep and bear arms.
	And that you can't force somebody to lock up a gun in their own home.
	And the person who actually filed the lawsuit in DC vs. Heller was a 66-year-old retired policeman, not a guy with a toddler.
	So, she's just making things up now because it's convenient for her politically.
	Now, what would have been nice is if we had a nominee who knew that.
	Unfortunately, we have a nominee who barely knows how to spell his own name.
	So, here was Donald Trump's rebuttal of this.
	Well, the D.C.
	v. Heller decision was very strongly, and she was extremely angry about it.
	I watched.
	I mean, she was very, very angry, went upheld.
	And Justice Scalia was so involved, and it was a well-crafted decision.
	Okay, so he just says upset and angry over and over and over and we're supposed to think that's a wonderful response.
	Amendment and believe in it very strongly, were very upset with what she had to say.
	Okay, so he's just as upset and angry over and over and over, and we're supposed to think that's a wonderful response.
	This is the problem.
	It was really depressing.
	It was really depressing.
	If we had a candidate who could string together a paragraph that made sense, Hillary would have been not only on the ropes, she would have been knocked clean through the ropes in all three of these debates.
	If we had a candidate who could string together a paragraph that made sense, Hillary would have been not only on the ropes, she would have been knocked clean through the ropes in all three of these debates.
	She can't defend herself.
	She can't defend herself.
	Every attack on her is a good attack.
	Every attack on her is a good attack.
	And you'll see, I mean, at a certain point in this debate, you'll see that she starts grinning like a crazy person, and that's her tell.
	And you'll see, I mean, at a certain point in this debate, you'll see that she starts grinning like a crazy person, and that's her tell.
	Her tell is when she starts grinning like the evil clown who's emerging from the woods to kill a small child and eat it.
	Her tell is when she starts grinning like the evil clown who's emerging from the woods to kill a small child and eat it.
	That's when you know that she's being hit with something that's accurate.
	That's when you know that she's being hit with something that's accurate.
	But, I mean, that death glare that she's got on her face right here, that was her other look of the evening.
	So, they move on from guns.
	And the next thing they do is they start talking about abortion.
	So, first, Chris Wallace has to bully Trump into saying that he'll overturn Roe v. Wade.
	Now, a lot of people today are saying that Trump's answers on abortion were just the high point of this debate.
	They're the high point of Trump's candidacy.
	I didn't think so.
	The reason I didn't think so is because I actually care about the issue of abortion an awful lot, as you may have noticed.
	And never, at any time that I can remember, has a moderator ever asked a Democrat about partial birth abortion crimes?
	Chris Wallace actually did, and Trump didn't do a very good job of slamming her over it.
	It was pretty weak tea.
	It also doesn't help that Donald Trump has a very weak pro-life record over the last 15 years.
	He went from, yes, partial birth abortion should be legal, to we should punish women for abortion.
	He doesn't know anything about the issue, and that was obvious here.
	Even his answer here was very weak on abortion.
	Here's Chris Wallace talking about Roe v. Wade.
	Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes, in fact states, a woman's right to abortion?
	Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states.
	But I'm asking you specifically, would you like— If they overturned it, it'll go back to the states.
	But what I'm asking you, sir, is, do you want to see the court overturn?
	You just said you want to see the court protect the Second Amendment.
	Do you want to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade?
	Another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be, that will happen.
	And that'll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court.
	I will say this, it will go back to the states and the states will then make a determination.
	Okay, for people who actually care about things like pro-life, it'll go back to the states is not a good answer, okay?
	I don't want states green-lighting late-term abortion either.
	He's right, that's what Roe v. Wade does, but that's not the question.
	Alright, the proper answer here is Roe v. Wade is a moral and legal abomination.
	I will appoint justices who will overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution never guarantees anybody's right to kill a child in the womb.
	End of story.
	End of story.
	But that wasn't Trump's answer.
	We'll get to Hillary's answer in just a minute.
	But first, we have a new advertiser.
	Hint Water is fantastic stuff.
	So, Hint Water, if you are somebody who despises the taste of water—I have a two-and-a-half-year-old daughter.
	She really, really doesn't like water.
	It bores her.
	It bores most people.
	For a long time, we were using sparkling water.
	That didn't do it.
	Hint Water is great.
	It has kind of this taste of other tastes.
	They infuse natural flavors into the water.
	It's not sugar.
	It's additional flavor.
	They have pineapple and watermelon, crisp apple and blackberry.
	I've tried it.
	It's fantastic.
	It tastes great.
	We down pints of the stuff.
	It's very healthy, and it's really good for you.
	Right now, if you go to hint.com, H-I-N-T.com slash Ben, you get a variety pack shipped directly to your door.
	That's three bottles of each of those four Those are the most popular, pineapple, watermelon, crisp apple, and blackberry.
	Normally, that's $24.
	Now, it's just $15 at drinkhint.com slash Ben.
	It's drinkhint.com slash Ben.
	Make sure you use the slash Ben so that you get that extra deal.
	I can tell you, the water tastes great.
	Hint Water is really phenomenal stuff.
	It's healthy.
	As I say, I only put the best food and drink into my kids.
	I wouldn't give her Hint if I didn't think that it was both great for her and great tasting.
	She loves it.
	She loves Hint Water.
	It's drinkhint.com.
	By the way, Health & Self magazines have named it the best flavored water that's on the market.
	I can attest to that.
	I've tried pretty much all of them.
	Hint Water is the best.
	Okay, so Hillary Clinton was asked about partial birth abortion.
	Here's Hillary Clinton saying something deeply wrong and evil because she's a Democrat and that's what a lot of Democrats do.
	You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights.
	You also voted against a ban on late-term partial birth abortions.
	Why?
	Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account.
	And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case.
	The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make.
	She goes along these lines talking about, these are heartbreaking, painful decisions.
	I'm sorry, but when you kill a baby at term, that is not a heartbreaking, painful decision.
	That is an act of moral cowardice and evil.
	You can't define away babies.
	I've seen two of them born at term.
	I've seen both my kids.
	And it is a miracle, and those are babies.
	I mean, they come out, and those are human beings.
	And that's what Trump should say.
	Instead, what Trump says is something that's just—it doesn't mean anything.
	Like, it's evocative language, but it doesn't mean anything, because he doesn't know enough to say it.
	People were praising this last night.
	If you have one opportunity to make the pro-life argument on late-term abortion, and this is the best you can do, it's not a good answer, because of what Hillary Clinton replies.
	I mean, this is—here it is.
	Mr. Trump, your reaction, and particularly on this issue of late-term partial birth.
	Well, I think it's terrible.
	If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother, just prior to the birth of the baby.
	Now, you can say that that's OK, and Hillary can say that that's OK, but it's not OK with me.
	Because based on what she's saying and based on where she's going and where she's been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day.
	And that's not acceptable.
	And then Hillary responds this way.
	Well, that is not what happens in these cases.
	And using that kind of That scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate.
	You should meet with some of the women that I've met with, women I've known over the course of my life.
	This is one of the worst possible choices that any woman and her family has to make.
	And I do not believe the government should be making it.
	Okay, again, this is—the fact that Trump was not able to make the moral case here in stronger language, actually, it makes my stomach hurt.
	It's—I mean, she's making a moral argument that this is a difficult decision for women, the government shouldn't be involved.
	How can he not say at any time, this is a fully formed child, and you're talking about redefining it as not human, simply so that you can kill it?
	That's not about making a difficult decision.
	That's about denying the reality of a human being's life for whatever reason you seek.
	And it doesn't matter what your reasons are.
	Once you're talking about taking a baby and pulling it by the feet into the birth canal, this is what partial birth abortion is, and then jabbing a scissors into its skull, jabbing a hole up there, and then sucking its brains out because you want to pretend that that's not a child.
	And we know that that is a child.
	If you want to do that and say that that's okay, that is an act of deep moral evil.
	It's disgusting.
	And for you to sit there and pretend that there's a right in the Constitution of the United States to do that simply because you're a woman, or simply because you feel like it, is denying the humanity of the other.
	And you say that you want to protect people?
	Why don't you start with the most innocent people there are?
	Babies that are in the womb.
	Why don't you start there?
	For him not to be able to say that, again, that's not a complex argument.
	That's something I think that he could say.
	Instead, he talks about the graphic nature.
	Take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb.
	He's not even talking about killing the baby, right?
	I mean, you know, like, when he says, take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb, he could be talking about a c-section, for God's sake.
	It's just, it's, it's stupid language.
	And again, it's, it's a blown opportunity.
	And I feel like this entire election is a blown opportunity.
	It's really, it's really just, it makes you a little bit, it makes me very upset.
	I mean, if this had been a debate with anybody, With the capacity to make these arguments, Hillary would have been toast, and it wasn't.
	It's very upsetting.
	But that was not the high point or the low point for Trump.
	We will get back to that.
	Trump had some good points, he had some not-so-good points, and we'll get to the real headline of the day over at dailywire.com.
	Subscribe now, and you get a free copy of my book, True Allegiance.
	Signed.
	And you also get to watch the rest of this live.
	You get to be part of the mailbag today.
	We're doing the mailbag today, taking live questions at dailywire.com, which is all very exciting.
	And you get Andrew Klavan's podcast live, as well.
	You get to be part of his mailbag.
	So, lots going on at dailywire.com.
	New services being added all the time for the subscribers.
	Treat yourself.
	Become a subscriber to dailywire.com so you can continue listening and watching to The Ben Shapiro Show right here.
	Okay, so after the abortion issue, which again, that really upset me because I think a lot of people thought, well, you know, Trump did a wonderful job.
	Trump did a wonderful job with the abortion question.
	I thought it was a really—I mean, you get that opportunity once every 30 years to make that argument in front of 70 million people.
	That's how many people watched.
	And instead, you just say, rip the baby out of the womb, and then she makes the argument that this is the hardest decision anyone has to make.
	Not describing the humanity of the child is such a—it's such a simple point, and it's just—it's pathetic.
	Okay.
	Then they move on to an area where Trump is more comfortable, and that is on immigration.
	So Trump—you can tell where he's more comfortable.
	He gets more enthusiastic.
	He's not comfortable on abortion.
	He's comfortable on immigration.
	Here's Trump talking about amnesty.
	Well, first of all, she wants to give amnesty, which is a disaster and very unfair to all of the people that are waiting in line for many, many years.
	We need strong borders.
	In the audience tonight, we have four mothers of — I mean, these are unbelievable people that I've gotten to know over a period of years whose children have been killed, brutally killed, by people that came into the country illegally.
	You have thousands of mothers and fathers and relatives all over the country.
	Okay, so he says that he does this routine well.
	Then, Chris Wallace does the job that Trump should be doing.
	He starts attacking Hillary Clinton.
	on the fact that she likes open borders.
	So here's Chris Wallace, the moderator, asking Hillary Clinton about a speech that was uncovered by WikiLeaks that she has refused to reveal, in which she said that she wanted essentially a world without borders.
	Secretary Clinton, I want to clear up your position on this issue because in a speech you gave to a Brazilian bank for which you were paid $225,000, we've learned from the WikiLeaks that you said this, and I want to quote, My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and So, that's the question.
	That's the question.
	Please quiet, everybody.
	Is that your dream?
	Okay, why can't Trump just shut it?
	Like, really, why doesn't he just shut up there?
	He finally gets a question that helps him dramatically, and he says thank you to the moderator, which makes it appear as though the moderator is now biased in favor of Trump.
	It's just, it's just, he can't control himself.
	But here's Hillary Clinton's really terrible and lying answer, and she lies here.
	I mean, this is a lie.
	Well, if you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy.
	You know, we trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined.
	And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders.
	I think that would be a great benefit to us.
	But you are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks, and what's really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government Putin has engaged in espionage against Americans.
	They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions.
	Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet.
	This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly from Putin himself, in an effort as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.
	So I actually think the most important question of this evening, Chris, is finally, Finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn that the Russians are doing this and make it clear that he will not have the help of Putin in this election?
	That he rejects Russian espionage against Americans, which he actually encouraged in the past?
	Those are the questions we need answered.
	We've never had anything like this happen in any of our elections before.
	That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders, okay?
	How did we get onto Putin?
	Hold on.
	Okay, that's a great line by Trump, and of course it's exactly true.
	Hillary's asked about open borders, and suddenly she's talking about WikiLeaks and the Russians.
	Now, this would be a perfect opportunity for Donald Trump to respond by going back to open borders, which he does for a little while, and then saying, you know, Hillary seems deeply concerned about WikiLeaks and their hacking of American institutions.
	And I'm concerned as well.
	I think that it's bad when foreign powers are capable of hacking our institutions.
	Right?
	I think that's bad.
	Which is why I think it's ridiculous that Hillary Clinton had a private server that made her emails possible to hack, where she put classified information, allowing our enemies the capacity to get a hold of information.
	And we know that WikiLeaks hacked all of her friends.
	There's no reason to think that her server wasn't hacked as well.
	The FBI said they don't know whether it was hacked.
	She'll tell you that the FBI didn't say it was, but the FBI actually said they don't know whether it was hacked or not.
	And we may never know whether it was hacked or not, but Hillary pretending that she cares about Cyber security is insane, given what she was willing to do to compromise America's cyber security, right?
	That's the proper answer here.
	Instead, Trump talks about open borders for a minute, and then he blows himself up.
	And the way he blows himself up is he feels the necessity to defend his good friend Vladimir Putin.
	And it's just—I mean, this is truly off-the-rails stuff from Trump.
	This got overlooked in the aftermath of this debate because everybody's focused on whether he'll accept the results of the election.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	But here is the moment that I thought was the worst moment for Trump.
	Here is Donald Trump defending the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, who is legitimately one of the worst people on planet Earth.
	She wants open borders, now we can talk about Putin.
	I don't know Putin.
	He said nice things about me.
	If we got along well, that would be good.
	If Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS, that would be good.
	He has no respect for her.
	He has no respect for our president.
	And I'll tell you what, we're in very serious trouble.
	Because we have a country with tremendous numbers of nuclear warheads.
	1,800, by the way, where they expanded and we didn't.
	1,800 nuclear warheads, and she's playing chicken.
	Look, Putin, from everything I see, has no respect for this person.
	Well, that's because he'd rather have a puppet as president of the United States.
	It's pretty clear you won't admit that the Russians have engaged in cyber attacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him because he has a very clear favorite in this race.
	So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation.
	So she continues to hit him on this, and here's Donald Trump continuing to defend Vladimir Putin.
	I never met Putin.
	This is not my best friend.
	But if the United States got along with Russia, wouldn't be so bad.
	Let me tell you, Putin has outsmarted her and Obama at every single step of the way, whether it's Syria, you name it, missiles.
	Take a look at the startup that they signed.
	The Russians have said, according to many, many reports, I can't believe they allowed us to do this.
	They create warheads, and we can't.
	The Russians can't believe it.
	She has been outsmarted by Putin, and all you have to do is look at the Middle East.
	They've taken over.
	We've spent $6 trillion.
	They've taken over the Middle East.
	She has been outsmarted and outplayed worse than anybody I've ever seen in any government whatsoever.
	Okay, and so there he is, and he says, you know, again, defending Putin, and then he levies an attack on her, right?
	That we've spent $6 billion and they've taken over the Middle East, and then he says that the State Department wasted a lot of money.
	And Trump kept—one of the things that Trump did—first of all, she's giving the death grin, right?
	Here's the deathhead's grin that I've talked about before, where she's very upset because he's criticizing her rightly, and they have been outsmarted by Putin, he's correct on this.
	Two things can happen at once.
	One, he can pathologically defend Vladimir Putin because he thinks Vladimir Putin is his friend.
	And second, Hillary Clinton can have a terrible Russia policy because she does have a terrible Russia policy.
	But one of the things that's so frustrating about this is Donald Trump was nominated because people thought he was going to attack, right?
	Attack, attack, attack.
	He fights.
	He fights.
	It's all we heard during the primaries.
	He fights.
	The problem with Trump is that Trump doesn't have the knowledge at his disposal to launch a sustained attack on Hillary Clinton.
	So instead, what he did throughout this debate is he sort of jabbed her here and jabbed her there.
	And then, as soon as that was over, he would move on, because he doesn't have the capacity to launch an attack where he forces her to the mat, where he continues to just drill OK, Hillary, well, if that's true, then why this?
	If that's true, then why this?
	If that's true, then will you disown this?
	He doesn't know how to go on the offense and sustain the attack.
	So instead, it's a punch and then a counterpunch, and a punch and a counterpunch.
	And so everything looks like it's kind of evenly staked because he's incapable of doing anything beyond the 15-second sound bite.
	And when you have a long debate like this, a long-form 90-minute debate, and I do them all the time, when you have a long-form debate, the best thing that you can do is go on the attack and stay on the attack and prosecute the case.
	Trump's not a prosecutor.
	He's a counterpuncher, and that really showed.
	Okay.
	Well, one thing that's true about Hillary Clinton is she obviously has no idea why she wants to be president or what she's going to do when she is president.
	Chris Wallace asked her about her economic plans as Clip 15, and she's got nothing.
	Now, you told me in July when we spoke that the problem is that President Obama didn't get to do enough in what he was trying to do with his stimulus.
	So is your plan basically more, even more of the Obama stimulus?
	Well, it's a combination, Chris.
	And let me say that when you inherit the level of economic catastrophe that President Obama inherited, It was a real touch and go situation.
	I was in the Senate before I became Secretary of State.
	I've never seen people as physically distraught as the Bush administration team was because of what was happening to the economy.
	I personally believe that the steps that President Obama took Because if it is, I should win easily.
	It was so bad.
	The report was so bad.
	Look, our country is stagnant.
	We've lost our jobs.
	and she gives a long spiel about how she doesn't.
	She has nothing different from Obama.
	Meanwhile, Trump doesn't have any real economic plans either.
	His economic plan is on his website, but when he's asked to detail what about his economic plans will be so great, he immediately launches into free trade.
	Because if it is, I should win easily.
	It was so bad.
	The report was so bad.
	Look, our country is stagnant.
	We've lost our jobs.
	We've lost our businesses.
	We're not making things anymore, relatively speaking.
	Our product is pouring in from China, pouring in from Vietnam, pouring in from all over the world.
	I've visited so many communities.
	This has been such an incredible education for me, Chris.
	I've gotten to know so many.
	I've developed so many friends over the last year.
	And they cry when they see what's happened.
	I passed factories that were thriving 20, 25 years ago.
	And because of the bill that her husband signed, and she blessed 100 percent, It is just horrible what's happened to these people in these communities.
	Now, she can say that her husband did well, but boy, did they suffer as NAFTA kicked in, because it didn't really kick in very much.
	Okay, so he talks about free trade, and that's the only thing he cares about when it comes to the economy.
	Now, all of this is sort of typical policy talk, except that Trump doesn't know what he's talking about, and Hillary only has warmed over leftism to propose, so that's why it's such a terrible debate.
	But the part that's actually going to hurt Trump coming out of this debate is, first off, the talk about all of these women.
	So, let's go to clip 19.
	This is where Donald Trump is asked specifically about the sexual assault allegations, and here is his not very good answer.
	Well first of all, those stories have been largely debunked.
	Those people, I don't know those people.
	I have a feeling how they came.
	I believe it was her campaign that did it.
	Just like if you look at what came out today on the clips, where I was wondering what happened with my rally in Chicago and other rallies where we had such violence.
	She's the one in Obama that caused the violence.
	They hired people, they paid them $1,500, and they're on tape saying, be violent, cause fights, do bad things.
	I would say the only way, because those stories are all totally false.
	I have to say that.
	And I didn't even apologize to my wife, who's sitting right here, because I didn't do anything.
	I didn't know any of these women.
	I didn't see these women.
	These women, the woman on the plane, the woman... I think they want either fame or her campaign did it.
	And I think it's her campaign.
	Because what I saw, what they did, which is a criminal act, by the way, where they're telling people to go out and start fistfights and start violence.
	And I'll tell you what.
	In particular, in Chicago, people were hurt and people could have been killed in that riot.
	Okay, if you can follow what he's saying here, you're beyond me.
	I mean, really, he's all over the place.
	He's trying to conflate the James O'Keefe tapes in which surrogates for Hillary Clinton, people associated with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, admitted to being involved in spurring and attempting to create violence at Donald Trump rallies in order to grant the image to the media that Donald Trump was the violent one, and Hillary Clinton still hasn't announced any of those people.
	Yeah, he's trying to conflate that with the sex assault allegations.
	Now, these are two separate issues, number one.
	Conflating them does nobody any good.
	And all this does is because, I mean, like, when he says things like this, and this is a direct quote, I believe it was her campaign that did it, just like if you look at what came out today on the clips, where I was wondering what happened with my rally in Chicago and other rallies where we had such violence, period.
	Does that mean anything?
	What is on the clips?
	Is that a source?
	The problem for Trump, and my managing editor at Daily Wire, Jeremy Boring, said this the other day, and he's totally right.
	Trump speaks in headlines.
	He speaks in political shorthands.
	He just throws out things, and he assumes you know the rest.
	So I know the rest of the James O'Keefe story.
	You know the rest of the James O'Keefe story, because you've been watching the podcast and listening to the news.
	But for most Americans, they have no idea what he's talking about.
	It just sounds like ranting and raving.
	You started the violence at my rallies.
	You set up all these women to come after me.
	And I know so because I saw the clips.
	What are the clips?
	We don't know.
	Trump doesn't say.
	Right?
	This is why it's incompetent.
	So instead, Hillary Clinton gets her shining moment in the sun.
	Hillary's been wanting this entire election cycle.
	She wants the moment where you get the music swelling in the background, right?
	If all election cycles are a movie, she wants that movie moment where you get the rich John Williams score in the background with the chimes and everything and the backlit shot of her as she ascends to the podium and she gives this speech about why women have it rough.
	Here's Hillary Clinton talking in response to all of this.
	Well, at the last debate, we heard Donald talking about what he did to women.
	And after that, a number of women have come forward saying that's exactly what he did to them.
	Now, what was his response?
	Well, he held a number of big rallies where he said that he could not possibly have done those things to those women because they were not attractive enough for them to be assaulted.
	I did not say that.
	I did not say that.
	In fact, he went on to say... Her two minutes, sir.
	Her two minutes.
	But did not say that.
	It's her two minutes.
	He went on to say, look at her, I don't think so, about another woman.
	He said, that wouldn't be my first choice.
	He attacked the woman reporter writing the story, called her disgusting as he has called a number of women during this campaign.
	Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger.
	He goes after their dignity, their self-worth, and I don't think there is a woman anywhere who doesn't know what that feels like.
	Cut it off there.
	End of campaign commercial, right?
	That's the campaign commercial right there.
	That's what she wants.
	And Donald Trump handed it to her.
	Now, Chris Wallace, what was amazing about this is Chris Wallace asked a question where he basically told Trump what to say.
	He said, the question that preceded this was, Mr. Trump, there have been sexual assault allegations about you and there have been allegations that Hillary Clinton intimidated sexual assault survivors.
	Right?
	So that's the opening.
	So what Trump should say here is he should say, these stories are false.
	I don't know where they're coming from.
	I have to admit, I'm as bewildered as you are that these allegations are being made.
	What I can tell you is that allegations have been made about Hillary Clinton intimidating her husband's sexual assault victims.
	And those allegations are very real.
	And I've sat next to those women and see how they've suffered, right?
	I mean, that's how you play the game.
	But Trump is so busy being defensive and being crazy that he doesn't know what to do.
	And instead, he grants Hillary this big moment where she gets to pretend that she represents all women, which, by the way, she doesn't.
	She's a heretic.
	I mean, Hillary Clinton is an awful, awful human being.
	She does indeed, at least according to allegations, attack her husband's sexual assault and harassment victims.
	She belittles them.
	Everything that she's saying about Trump is true of Hillary Clinton, but she gets to play the wronged woman here, which is all that she wants in life.
	That's all that she wants in life.
	And it's clear, I mean, this is what's so frustrating, it's so clear from this debate that Hillary could have been had.
	It's so clear from this debate that Hillary, you know, has nothing, that she can't defend herself.
	Look at clip 22.
	Okay, Chris Wallace takes her apart with literally, with literally 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 words.
	We have 10 words Chris Wallace takes Hillary Clinton apart.
	Here it is.
	Why isn't it what Mr. Trump calls pay to play?
	Well, everything I did as Secretary of State was in furtherance of our country's interests and our values.
	The State Department has said that.
	I think that's been proven.
	But I am happy.
	In fact, I am thrilled to talk about the Clinton Foundation, because it is a world-renowned charity.
	And I am so proud of the work that it does.
	You know, I could talk for the rest of the debate.
	I know I don't have the time to do that.
	But just briefly, The Clinton Foundation made it possible for 11 million people around the world with HIV AIDS to afford treatment and that's about half of all the people in the world who are getting treatment in partnership with the American Health Association.
	And then Wallace follows up and then Trump hits her with this.
	This was the best moment of the debate for Trump.
	I mean people were saying a lot about it.
	This was the best moment of the debate for Trump.
	Trump's response on the Clinton Foundation.
	It's a criminal enterprise, Saudi Arabia giving $25 million, Qatar, all of these countries.
	You talk about women and women's rights?
	So, these are people that push gays off business, off buildings.
	These are people that kill women and treat women horribly, and yet you take their money.
	So I'd like to ask you right now, why don't you give back the money that you've taken from certain countries that treat certain groups of people So horribly.
	Why don't you give back the money?
	I think it would be a great gesture.
	Because she takes a tremendous amount of money, and you take a look at the people of Haiti.
	I was in a little Haiti the other day in Florida, and I want to tell you, they hate the Clintons.
	Because what's happened in Haiti with the Clinton Foundation is a disgrace.
	And you know it, and they know it, and everybody knows it.
	Okay, and he's totally right, and you can see her giving again that crazy clown grin because she knows that she's Minhat.
	Okay, so all of this leading up to this is all the preface.
	Then we finally get to the only point that matters.
	There's a lot of other stuff in this debate.
	People discussing policy badly, not knowing what they're talking about.
	But here's the one that's making all the headlines.
	Here's Donald Trump talking specifically.
	He's asked now, will you accept the results of the election?
	And Donald Trump on national TV in front of 70 million people essentially says no.
	I will look at it at the time.
	I'm not looking at anything now.
	I'll look at it at the time.
	What I've seen, what I've seen is so bad.
	First of all, the media is so dishonest and so corrupt and the pylon is so amazing.
	The New York Times actually wrote an article about it that they don't even care.
	It's so dishonest, and they've poisoned the minds of the voters.
	But unfortunately for them, I think the voters are seeing through it.
	I think they're going to see through it.
	We'll find out on November 8th, but I think they're going to see through it.
	But sir, there's a... If you look, excuse me Chris, if you look at your voter rolls, you will see millions of people that are registered to vote.
	Millions.
	This isn't coming from me.
	This is coming from Pew Report and other places.
	Millions of people that are registered to vote that shouldn't be registered to vote.
	Let me just give you one other thing.
	I talk about the corrupt media.
	I talk about the millions of people.
	I'll tell you one other thing.
	She shouldn't be allowed to run.
	She's guilty of a very, very serious crime.
	She should not be allowed to run.
	And just in that respect, I say it's rigged.
	Because she should never have been allowed to run for the presidency based on what she did with emails and so many other things.
	But, sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the prides of this country, is the peaceful transition of power, and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner.
	Not saying that you're necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner, and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country.
	Are you saying you're not prepared now to commit to that principle?
	What I'm saying is that I will tell you at the time.
	I'll keep you in suspense.
	Well, Chris.
	I'll keep you in suspense.
	This destroys him.
	I mean, it really does, because his whole attempt here is to paint himself as a stable counterpart to Hillary Clinton, who can't be trusted.
	And he says he keeps us in suspense as to whether he's going to not accept the results of a due election.
	Now, there's a way to answer this question if you're really concerned about voter fraud.
	And that is, Chris, if it's a very close election, we've seen the Democrats are willing to cheat in close elections, like Al Franken's election in Minnesota, or the election of Christine Gregoire, as we discussed yesterday on the program, in Washington State, or even in 1960 in the Nixon-Kennedy election.
	We've seen Democrats are willing to use voter fraud in order to defeat Republicans in close elections.
	If something happens like that, No, I'm not willing to concede without a full investigation.
	However, if we're talking about a normal election where none of that activity takes place, of course I'm happy to concede, because that's the reality, is that if you lose, you lose, right?
	I mean, that's the proper answer here.
	That's not the answer Donald Trump gives.
	Instead, he says he's going to keep you in suspense.
	He followed that up today, by the way, with this supposed laugh line, this clip 39, where he's at a rally, and here's the line he drops.
	Ladies and gentlemen, I want to make a major announcement today.
	I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election if I win.
	Right, and there's his joke.
	He won't accept it if he loses, right, is the implication.
	Then he comes out later and he sort of clarifies, well, maybe I'll accept the results of the election.
	Okay, the reason that he's playing this game, folks, has nothing to do with winning or losing the election.
	What it has to do with is now he's again trying to portray himself as the victim of rigging.
	Not just political rigging, but media rigging.
	And the only solution, it turns out, after he loses the election, which he probably will, it would take a near miracle politically for him to survive, The thing that he's looking forward to is fixing the rigged system.
	How's he going to fix this media rigged system?
	Well, you'll have to spend $10 a month at Trump TV to find out.
	So, this is in the things I hate section, but it is real.
	Here's Donald Trump talking about, this is right before the debate, he actually launches, I think this is on his Facebook feed, he launches what is an early iteration of Trump TV, hair and unbalanced.
	Total home runs for him.
	I think this was really the performance that Donald Trump needed to grab that momentum going toward election day.
	We just got a few weeks left here.
	Tonight was a performance that we were all hoping for.
	Right.
	The atmosphere in the- Electric, electric, electric.
	I can only imagine what it was like in the room.
	But I'm telling you, you go point by point, he knocked it out of the park.
	What did you see tonight that really stuck out to you?
	She prosecuted the case against Hillary Clinton perfectly.
	The criminal enterprise of the Clintons.
	Okay, well it was like this the whole night, right?
	So does this look like a TV channel to you?
	It looks like a TV channel to me.
	This is Trump's big plan.
	So he says it's rigged, it's rigged, it's rigged, it's rigged.
	The election happens, he loses.
	He says the media rigged it against me.
	What do we need?
	We need a new media outlet that will only cost you $10 a month.
	I mean, it's the greatest snake oil pitch in history.
	So that's what Trump is up to here.
	For Democrats to whine about the idea that Trump won't accept the election results, it's just kind of absurd given the fact that Democrats still don't accept the 2000 election results.
	All the talk about Al Gore accepted defeat.
	No, he didn't.
	He spent 36 days trying to uncertify a certified election.
	He was not able to get one recount where he was winning in Florida.
	Didn't matter.
	Here's Hillary Clinton at a rally.
	This is this year.
	This is like two weeks ago, right, where Al Gore is speaking and the crowd starts chanting that Hillary Clinton, that Al Gore was duly elected.
	Watch Hillary Clinton in the background.
	Your vote really, really, really counts.
	A lot.
	You can consider me as an exhibit A of that truth.
	Now, for those of you younger, for those of you who are younger than 25, you might not remember the election of 2000 and what happened here in Florida and across the country.
	For those of you older than 25, I heard you murmuring just now, but take it from me, it was a very close election.
	Elections.
	You won!
	Okay, so they're chanting "You won!" and there's Hillary Clinton wearing her grandmother's old carpet, and she's nodding along.
	Yes, Al Gore won.
	Okay, so don't tell me about not accepting elections.
	Democrats haven't accepted the legitimacy of the 2000 election ever.
	In 2002, Hillary Clinton said that George W. Bush was selected, not elected.
	So, you don't get to play this double standard game.
	That said, Trump shouldn't have raised the issue.
	It's a stupid thing.
	The only reason he's doing it is because he's trying to generate enthusiasm for his new world-beating campaign over at Trump TV.
	OK, so time for some things I like, and then a quick thing I hate, and then the mailbag.
	So, things I like.
	There was a book on baseball.
	It's the baseball playoffs.
	I'm still hopeful the Cubs will lose.
	As a White Sox fan, I know.
	Everybody wants the Cubs to win.
	But as a White Sox fan, I'm duly empowered to tell you that God will never allow the Cubs to win the World Series.
	But there's a good baseball book called The Arm, Inside the Billion Dollar Mystery of the Most Valuable Commodity in Sports.
	It's all about Tommy John surgery and how to preserve the arms of pitchers.
	A good book by Jeff Passan.
	Very, very well-written and interesting book, The Arm.
	OK, things that I hate.
	Let's do it.
	. - So Donna Brazile is a joke.
	Donna Brazile is the head of the DNC.
	And Donna Brazile was on with Megyn Kelly last night, and it led to one of the more entertaining exchanges in modern TV history.
	Here we go.
	But now I have you.
	I don't play dodgeball, honey.
	I play basketball.
	And I'm just telling you, he tried to score on misinformation.
	He's trying to score on misinformation that was obtained illegally.
	You say that, Dolly.
	You say that you play straight up.
	I have to ask you, because you were accused of receiving a debate question before a CNN town hall where they partnered with TV One, and that you had this question on March 12th, that verbatim was provided by Roland Martin to CNN the next day.
	How did you get that question, Donna?
	Well, Kelly, since I play straight up and I'll play straight up with you, I did not receive any questions from CNN.
	Let's just be very clear.
	Where did you get it?
	First of all, what information are you providing to me that will allow me to see what you're talking about?
	You got the WikiLeaks released a March 12th Podesta email showing you messaging the Clinton campaign with the exact wording of a question asked at the March 13th CNN-TV One town hall debate.
	Where did you get it?
	You know, as a Christian woman, I understand persecution, but I will not sit here and be persecuted because... Okay, so she says, I'm being persecuted.
	She's not persecuted.
	She did funnel questions to Hillary Clinton.
	It just demonstrates how willing Democrats are to go on national TV and lie repeatedly, even though they know better.
	Of course, she funneled questions to Hillary Clinton.
	Megan Kelly does a wonderful job in that interview.
	You should watch the whole clip.
	It's amusing.
	Okay, we have time for a short session of the mailbag, so let's do it.
	Yeah, I don't despise Mike Pence.
	I think that Mike Pence was a mediocre governor of Indiana.
	I didn't like how he acted on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
	I had already started to pull away from my kind of liking of Mike Pence after that debacle.
	He should have stood by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
	I think he's humiliated himself a little bit in this election cycle.
	But that said, I don't think he's non-viable, I just think that he said a lot of stupid things in defense of his man.
	Zachary writes, Trump TV for $10 a month isn't as good of a deal as Daily Wire for $8 a month.
	Well, I appreciate it.
	You certainly will get more facts here than you will there.
	Ethan writes, hey Ben, what do you think of Evan McMullin pulling ahead in Utah?
	Well, I think it shows that Utahans are smarter than the rest of the country, apparently, if they think that both of these candidates are unfathomably bad, and they'll pick Evan McMullin instead.
	McMullin winning Utah would be the—he'd be the first—he would be the first third-party candidate to win a state since 1968, which is an amazing thing.
	Alexander writes, Hello, Ben.
	I'm a huge fan.
	Really love your show.
	I wonder what your thoughts are on the Dakota Pipeline protests.
	I have the same thoughts on the Dakota Pipeline protests as I do on all pipeline protests.
	They're dumb.
	Nathan writes, As someone who is anti-abortion, What is your stance on the death penalty?
	Is there any other justification other than the criminals being executed had a choice as to their actions?
	Love your podcast.
	Keep it up.
	Well, I mean, that is the answer.
	I mean, the answer is that the death penalty should be applied to people who commit murder because they forfeited their right to life by ending the life of somebody else.
	And as a society, Our punishment of the death penalty fulfills two functions.
	One is the simple justice function of you kill somebody and you're punished in turn with the same punishment.
	And the second is that if you kill somebody, then society has an interest in preventing the sort of tribal warfare that goes on between peoples when the death penalty isn't carried out.
	When somebody murders somebody in a tribal society, somebody from the opposing tribe comes and murders one of yours, that tribe comes and murders another, and you end up with these spiraling wars like the Hatfields and the McCoys.
	That's why society instead calls it a crime against the people when somebody is murdered, and then imposes justice from above, including the death penalty.
	That doesn't mean, by the way, that the way that the death penalty is administered is fair and decent.
	It isn't.
	The appeals process is far too long.
	It's ridiculous that you have people sitting on death row for 17 years for charges that are really egregious, and it's not consistently applied.
	But that's an argument against the application, not against the death penalty in concept.
	Emmanuel is writing currently, how should conservative student organizations deal with left-wing students showing up in mass to their meetings?
	Uh, they should tape it, and they should get it to me at Daily Wire, and then we cover it, and then we make mockeries of the left-wing students and of the administrations that allow it.
	Sean writes, which is the greater foe, apathy or conviction?
	It depends.
	Apathy is, is definitely, uh, a, a, I think apathy is the more broad foe.
	I think conviction is the more dangerous foe.
	So, people who are convinced that they're right but they're wrong tend to be more dangerous than the apathetic.
	The apathetic tend to be more enabling.
	I mean, it's sort of like the question I was asked, who's more dangerous, ISIS or the American left?
	And the answer is ISIS is more dangerous, obviously, because they murder people.
	The American left is more enabling because they have the power to ensure that ISIS is able to do its dirty work in the Middle East and elsewhere.
	Tyler writes, as someone who grew up a conservative Christian, I have always had one question I could not answer.
	How is it so many people can be misled into beliefs that are contradictory to moral values that we in the West hold so dear?
	I hear the devil argument a lot, but I can't seem to wrap my head around the prodigious extent of the radical Islamist culture.
	Well, the answer is that the idea that human beings are capable, inherently, of coming to the right moral answers, I don't think that that's true.
	I think it takes training in civilization.
	This is why there are civilizational differences.
	This is why it's important what you teach your kids.
	It's why it's important what your leaders do.
	It's why it's important what your community does.
	There are certain basics that I think all human civilizations have in common, but what raises human civilization is the acknowledgment that values are universal, not tribal.
	And the tribalism that you see in the radical Islamist world, the idea that, yes, I won't murder anyone in my tribe, but I'll murder someone in the outside of the tribe, that sort of tribalism leads to violence and chaos.
	And only civilizations that recognize universal values are civilizations that are going to be able to survive and promulgate those values.
	It's sort of a lefty idea that the human soul is—not the human soul.
	Human beings are inherently good, and if we just brought them up in a Marxist system, everything would be okay.
	No, human beings are not inherently good.
	Meet a child one time.
	They're innocent.
	They're not good.
	And you have to train kids to be adults, and good adults.
	Okay, so, you know what?
	We had to shorten the mailbag this week.
	Maybe we'll do a little bit more mailbag tomorrow, because we had to cut it short because of the debate.
	We have tomorrow's show, so we'll do a second mailbag, an extra mailbag just for you.
	If you're a subscriber at dailywire.com, you get to participate in it live.
	I should be on Megyn Kelly's show tonight.

▲