Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 27, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show

52:48

Ep. 200 - Another Day, Another Hillary Scandal

The Clinton Foundation is an enormous scam, Donald Trump talks to the black community, and the mailbag! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The future of conservatism depends on reconciliation beginning November 9th.
	With Donald Trump flailing in the polls just under two weeks from the presidential election, open conflict has broken out between many of the Republicans voting for Trump and those who see him as a moral and political bridge too far for conservatives in the Republican Party.
	For most people, that conflict is not based on disagreements about principle.
	Most never-Trumpers despise Hillary Clinton and will not vote for her.
	Most never-Trumpers even feel significant sympathy for the vote for Trump to stop Hillary argument.
	We believe that Trump fails to meet the most basic standard of morality and conservatism, and supporting him damages Republicans politically now and in the future, so we're not going to vote for either candidate.
	By contrast, most Trump voters despise Hillary Clinton and will vote against her.
	Most Trump voters are voting for Trump as the lesser of two evils, not because they support his agenda on trade or trust him as a thoughtful foreign policy sage.
	Most Trump voters are not Laura Ingraham or Bill Mitchell or Sean Hannity.
	That's been true since May.
	Most Trump voters will vote for Trump because they believe the overriding priority is to stop Hillary from entering the White House, and to that end, they're willing to overlook Trump's myriad flaws.
	So, why are the two sides of this debate at each other's throats?
	Mainly it's because they've been projecting bad motives onto the other side.
	On the one hand, some NeverTrumpers have accused Trump voters of being high-handed, kind of sneering at them.
	The most vocal Trump supporters have spent nearly the entirety of the general election cycle focused not on helping Trump win, but on blaming NeverTrumpers if he loses.
	They stated first NeverTrumpers were unimportant to the debate because they're so few and far between.
	Then they stated NeverTrumpers were the only thing standing between Trump and the White House.
	They've argued that all Never Trumpers secretly want Hillary Clinton to be president.
	They can't wait for a Hillary presidency.
	Absurd.
	Or they don't care about her corruption.
	Idiotic.
	Or we're in the pay of nefarious forces.
	Ridiculous.
	The only people, literally the only people in this election cycle, who have benefited monetarily are those who have boosted their careers by kissing Trump's ass.
	These vocal Trump supporters have engaged in the most crass moral preening.
	Those who disagree about Trump are pure evil, saboteurs, sellouts.
	Now, some never-Trumpers have made the mistake of attributing the rhetoric and feelings of the people who make these yucky arguments, the ardent base of Trump support, to people who are voting for Trump reluctantly.
	They feel assaulted, and so many never-Trumpers fail to hear the distinction between intelligent conservatives voting Trump as a last resort to stop Hillary, and Trump cheerleaders who want Trump to be a bludgeon against the cuckservative establishment.
	Meanwhile, On the other hand, a lot of reluctant Trump supporters have accused Never Trumpers of high-handedness.
	They believe Never Trumpers are sneering at them, riding their high horses.
	They refuse to acknowledge decent rationales, either moral or political, for not voting Trump.
	The Pro-Trumpers don't say Never Trumpers are in the pay of international bankers or secretly pray at Hillary shrines, but they claim Never Trumpers are whiners who won't get their hands dirty and simply want a virtue signal by refusing to vote for Trump.
	This misattribution of motives on both sides is really much more likely to spell the death of the Republican Party than Trump himself or Trumpism is.
	After the election, which Trump will probably lose, most Republicans will grieve.
	Never-Trumpers are going to grieve at the lost opportunity to stop Hillary Clinton and at paving her way by nominating a man eminently unfit and pathologically incapable of running even a half-decent campaign that'll lament the damage done to the party by spending months snorting at sexual assault allegations and shrugging at playing footsie with the despicable alt-right.
	Reluctant Trump voters are also going to be grieving.
	They're going to grieve at the Trump loss generally.
	They'll lament both his win in the primaries and his loss in the general, but will generally acknowledge that he failed, and he failed his supporters in doing so.
	Now, that does provide the opportunity for healing, so long as both sides recognize the genuineness of the other side's grief.
	NeverTrumpers have to acknowledge reluctant Trump voters felt they had to do what they did.
	They don't bear the stain of his sins for taking a lesser of two evils path, even if we think that was wrong.
	Reluctant Trump voters have to acknowledge, NeverTrumpers, we felt we had to do what we had to do not out of a misguided attempt to demonstrate moral superiority, but out of a real abiding belief the only way to preserve conservatism and the Republican Party is to disassociate from the political electrical fire Trump represented.
	No conservative or Republican of decency will be celebrating on November 9th.
	No one is going to be popping the cork.
	Both never-Trumpers and reluctant Trump voters should recognize this.
	The only way to rebuild a Republican party based on conservative principle is to acknowledge the good motivations of people who disagree about Trump.
	There is a real possibility such a rapprochement won't happen.
	That's because Trump and his campaign, they actually want the Civil War.
	They want us to fight each other.
	They want reluctant Trump voters to fight with never-Trumpers.
	They want to excise conservatives who wouldn't back Trump.
	They want to co-opt the conservatives who would.
	That's why in the waning days of the campaign, Trump is spending his time ripping on Paul Ryan, a Trump endorser, by the way, and blaming other Republicans for his own failures.
	Trump's team, including political arsonists like former and future Breitbart chairman Steve Bannon, Want the right to burn itself out, making way for a resurgent nationalist populism that dispenses with constitutional conservatism altogether in favor of alt-right nonsense.
	Trump has an active rooting interest in initiating a civil war for both financial and political gain.
	He's planning and promoting that civil war now.
	To that end, Trump himself stokes the absolute lie, and it is a lie, that Republicans who won't vote for him are traitors to conservatism hell-bent on belittling those who vote for Trump.
	The only way to rebuild the Republican Party based on conservative principle is to acknowledge those good motives.
	We all want to stop Hillary Clinton and her vile agenda.
	We all want to reverse decades of democratic policy on immigration and government growth, on social leftism and leftist race-baiting.
	If Trump loses, we'll have to get over our differences about him to do that.
	We all had sincere positions on Trump.
	It wasn't just preening.
	It wasn't unearned moral superiority.
	It wasn't virtue signaling.
	We had serious disagreements, but we still agree on basic principles.
	If we can agree on all of that, there's a future for conservatism.
	If Trump succeeds, though, in his post-election plan to divide conservatives between people who are loyal to him and people who weren't, he'll have told his biggest lie, and on the basis of that, won his greatest victory.
	The conservative movement's collapse will be the final step in the political Armageddon that he and his advisors truly, truly desire.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	All righty.
	Lots to talk about today, including news stories about Hillary Clinton's evil, deep corruption.
	And it is.
	It's horrible.
	That's what she is.
	We'll get to all of that momentarily.
	But first, we have to say hello to our friends at tracker.com.
	So, thetracker.com is where you need to go.
	It's spelled T-H-E and then tracker, like tracker, dot com.
	Enter promo code Ben.
	What the tracker does is it saved my marriage because my wife loses her phone at least three times a day and then asks me where it is.
	And, of course, I have no idea where it is because it's not my phone.
	Thankfully, we have tracker.
	You put the tracker on the phone, and it allows me to call her phone.
	And even if the ringer is off, it turns the ringer on so that she can find her phone.
	You can also put it on your keys.
	You can put it on your wallet.
	You will never lose things again.
	You can find its precise location with the tap of the button.
	And they're finding apparently over a million misplaced items each and every day.
	So you get a free tracker Bravo with any order.
	You get one of these devices with any order that you make.
	As long as you use the promo codes, you go to thetracker, T-H-E, tracker.com.
	Enter promo code Ben.
	And it is awesome.
	As I say, it has alleviated a great stressor in my marriage, which is my wife's tendency to lose things.
	And I'll admit, I lose things on occasion as well, because my brain is filled with too much brilliance to care about where my wallet is.
	But the tracker will solve all of your problems and make your life a better place.
	Okay, so, here we go.
	There's a lot going on in Hillary-land.
	So, there's a memo that broke, and it just demonstrates that the Clinton Foundation is a giant, giant, giant scam.
	Always was a giant, giant, giant scam.
	Okay, so here's the deal.
	Hacked memo from the Clinton Foundation.
	It's from a guy named Doug Band.
	Doug Band is a former Bill Clinton aide.
	He started a group called Tineo with a couple of other former Bill Clinton aides.
	And Tineo, Bill Clinton was being paid like $2 million a year by this firm.
	It was a consulting firm, and basically they were Bill Clinton Inc.
	That's how they described themselves.
	They would go to various corporations, corporate clients, and they would say to them, I want you to give $100 million to the Clinton Foundation while you're at it.
	Would you mind funneling a couple mil into Bill's pocket?
	Really, that's what this memo says.
	It says that Tineo, quote, would ask and encourage our clients to contribute to the foundation.
	Independent of our fundraising and decision-making activities on behalf of the foundation, we have decided ourselves to help the president secure And engage in for-profit activities.
	They called the operation Bill Clinton, Inc.
	They would even solicit in-kind services for the President and his family, and his family includes the Secretary of State, personal travel, hospitality, vacation, and the like.
	Bann talked openly of what the Washington Post now calls a circle of enrichment, in which he raised money for the Clinton Foundation from top-tier corporations like Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola that were clients of his firm, Teneo, while pressuring many of the same donors to provide personal income to the former President.
	And it worked.
	Band raised $8 million for the foundation.
	He created contracts worth $66 million for the Clintons over the next nine years.
	So, as an example, and he used the State Department as sort of the payoff, for example, Tineo brought together Clinton and the chief executive of Dow Chemical, a guy named Andrew Liveris, and he helped facilitate Dow's donation of millions to the Clinton Foundation and tens of millions to Tineo.
	Simultaneously, Hillary Clinton visited Northern Ireland as Secretary of State and thanked Dow for their creation of jobs in the country.
	Right, so that seems like a minor thing, and this is the problem with the story, is that there's no quote-unquote smoking gun.
	Now, the ties between Tineo and the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, they all run really deep.
	As we all know at this point, Cheryl Mills, who's Hillary's top hatchet woman, she's her lawyer, really, really corrupt.
	She worked heavily with the Clinton Foundation while she was at the State Department.
	Huma Abedin worked at the State Department, and she worked for Tineo at the same time.
	She worked to, quote, assure a presidential appointment for a supporter of the Clinton Foundation, according to a chain of emails obtained by Politico.
	Chelsea Clinton was upset enough by Tineo's infiltration of the Clinton Foundation that she ended up ripping on Tineo to John Podesta, who is Hillary's current campaign chair.
	And that led Doug Band, who's the head of Tineo, to call Chelsea, quote, a spoiled rich brat who has nothing to do but create issues to justify what she's doing because she, as she said, has not found her way and has a lack of focus in her life.
	So, all of this is really bad stuff for the Clintons, or would be if the Trump campaign were focused on explaining it.
	Now, there is an advantage for the Clintons.
	The Clintons, number one, know how to run a good scam operation.
	Right?
	Trump Foundation is not a good organization.
	They don't do anything worthwhile.
	The Clinton Foundation is a good scam operation.
	So, Tony Soprano owned a garbage company, right?
	He used to have a waste disposal company.
	They actually disposed of waste.
	So that meant that if you looked at Tony Soprano, you wouldn't see the gangsterism.
	All you would see is a garbage company.
	And then he'd go around saying the Mafia doesn't exist.
	The Clinton Foundation is the same way.
	They distribute a lot of money.
	They take in a lot of money.
	They do some good work because that's a front.
	Just like Genco Olive Oil Company was the front for the Corleones, the Clinton Foundation is the front for Hillary's routine.
	And meanwhile, behind the scenes, it's very complex.
	You have Teneo, which is a private organization, coordinating with the nonprofit, the Clinton Foundation, and both of them coordinating with the State Department to get favors.
	And the thing is that the smoking guns The smoking guns are not huge, and that's part of the problem here, too, is that the favors that Hillary was granting to people are relatively small in the grand scheme of things.
	It's not billion-dollar favors, trillion-dollar favors.
	It's the kind of thing where she thanks Dow Chemical when she visits Northern Ireland, or it's the kind of thing where the Clinton Foundation directs money to rebuilding in Haiti to friends of Hillary Clinton's and Bill Clinton's with the approval of the State Department, and it's like a $10 million contract, and $5 million of it goes into somebody's pocket.
	People don't tend to get too upset about this kind of stuff because they're not smoking guns as much as they are sort of smoking matches.
	That's because Hillary's a pro at this and she knows how to play this game.
	Hillary is a professional criminal.
	Bill is a professional criminal.
	They've been doing this for 20 years.
	And that means that the only way to uncover this is to really prosecute the case, which means that the only person who's going to prosecute the case are the Republicans, right?
	That's the only way that you're going to be able to prosecute In this case, so the media, you know, signal their outrage, but they're not really willing to go all the way in explaining what exactly is happening with these scandals.
	The Washington Post ran this story.
	The Washington Post, you know, did did a full story on it, but it's a long story.
	It's a little bit complex.
	It's a little hard to understand unless you're reading closely.
	So what you end up with is the overall impression that Hillary is corrupt, But then, when you have people like Media Matters' Hilary Schills come out and try to pierce through that fog and say, no, no, no, no, Hilary, she never did anything wrong, people don't know enough to rebut it.
	So, for example, Donald Trump in the second debate, or actually in the third debate, Donald Trump mentioned the Clinton Foundation, and he just said, what they did in Haiti, it's unbelievable, it's just terrible what they did in Haiti.
	He's right, what they did in Haiti is really awful.
	The Haitian people were jacked around by the Clinton Foundation.
	Again, the Clinton Foundation greenlit the use of firms that were friendly to the Clintons, and they built basically corrugated iron shacks that blew over at the first moment's notice.
	People in Haiti hate that.
	But Trump didn't explain what he means by that.
	So most people go, well, I don't know what happened in Haiti.
	And because Trump only reads the headlines, he didn't have the capacity to lay out all of the steps of what actually happened in full living color.
	And that's why the media have focused so much on Trump scandals, not only because they're corrupt, they are, not just because they're leftists, they are, but because it's a lot easier to understand, grab them by the bleep, right, Trump's campaign, Trump's statement to Billy Bush, Then it is to understand the relationship between Teneo, which is run by Clinton Aides and the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, and who did Huma Abedin work for?
	Was it Teneo?
	Was it the Foundation?
	Was it the Department?
	Who is Cheryl Mills working for?
	A lot of bit players, a lot of multiple conflicting threads.
	That's because they're good at this.
	That's because they're hiding their groundwork.
	And that doesn't mean that they're innocent, because they aren't.
	They're super-duper guilty.
	They'll do this with the executive branch, too.
	They did it the first time.
	They were in power.
	But it should be a reminder of just how corrupt they are.
	Now, the media are doing something, and I want you to pay attention to it, because this is where the media—you can tell the media think Trump is going to lose, because they're actually starting to cover Hillary's scandals.
	This is the way that this works.
	When the media think Trump was going to win, all of a sudden the only thing they would cover is Trump.
	Now they think Trump's going to lose, so now they're going to create the impression that they care about Clinton corruption, so later when we say, you never cared about Clinton corruption, they can say, really?
	Look at all the stories we ran!
	Look at all the amazing stories!
	Right?
	I mean, and so, this is what they're doing now.
	Ron Fournier, who, Ron Fournier, I think, works for National Journal, and he is complaining about the circle of enrichment.
	I did that story, the one you're talking about, when this scandal first broke in early 2015, and it was based on a person very close to the Clintons who I'd known for a long time, who'd worked for the Clintons for a long time, who was saying, you know, getting to the motive of why she had the secret server, and it was because Of the circle of enrichment, the phrase that the Washington Post pulled up today, that was clear even then.
	There was already some connections between Doug Band and, you know, shaking down donors at the time.
	And this person was saying this is really about the foundation.
	It's not about the email.
	And more importantly, Joe, you know, for the next 18 months, I wrote story after story basically begging the Clintons to stop taking foreign money, to come clean with this email, to turn over to the Inspector General, the secret server, to stop lying about what went into this.
	And Fournier's coverage, he has, in fairness, covered Hillary better than a lot of these other sources, but what you're seeing is places like CNN, which have basically ignored Hillary's scandals in favor of Trump's all the time, now they're trying to cover their butts by claiming that they're just offended, they can't believe Hillary's corrupt.
	Again, if you can't believe Hillary's corrupt, it's because you haven't been watching closely enough.
	So we will continue along these lines.
	Plus, we have to get to the Trump speech to black America, which has some interesting things and some not so interesting things.
	And I think it's worthwhile talking about it.
	And if you continue on at DailyWire.com, plus today's the mailbag.
	So if you join right now, you become a subscriber today and join at DailyWire.com, eight bucks a month.
	And that means that you can send us live questions.
	We'll be doing some live questions today, right guys?
	We have the technical capacity.
	Yes, live questions today at dailywire.com, so we'll be answering those.
	And you can also get right now, if you sign an annual subscription, then you get a free signed copy of my new book, True Allegiance, which has been doing really, really well.
	It comes out in print November 1st.
	But you get exclusive subscriber signed copies, which you can put on your mantle and treasure forever as the most valuable item you own.
	So, make sure that you go to dailywire.com.
	Or you can alternatively you can sell them on eBay for like 11 bucks.
	In any case, you can go to dailywire.com to check it out and become part of the team that is the biggest conservative podcast in America.
	So the media are trying to cover up for the fact that they don't care about Hillary's corruption by pretending to care about Hillary's corruption.
	CNN's Gloria Borger, she says, yeah, Clinton, she knew her server was wrong.
	She knew the server was bad.
	It does seem to reinforce the narrative that Republicans have been reiterating for months that Hillary Clinton knew her email server was wrong and when she got caught or AIDS, you know, when she got caught, she tried to conceal it or AIDS wanted to conceal it.
	It sure does.
	And it's a bad storyline for her.
	It continues.
	And it hasn't seemed to move the needle at all, Anderson.
	And maybe it's because it's a little bit at this point, at this late in the game, like saying, oh, there's gambling going on here in Casablanca?
	Sure.
	Of course Hillary Clinton plays by a different set of rules.
	And the people who aren't going to vote for her because of the emails have already decided to to dismiss it.
	And so the question is whether more of these revelations will move the needle more in the future.
	I kind of tend to doubt it.
	These issues with Hillary Clinton have been around for a while.
	Donald Trump has trouble sticking to the script, whether it's talking about emails or talking about Obamacare, premium increases.
	How was the stuff already baked in?
	Oh yeah, because you people wouldn't cover it because you were too busy covering whatever stupid thing Donald Trump said earlier in the campaign.
	and this stuff is already baked in. - Well, how did it get a little late in the game?
	How was this stuff already baked in?
	Oh yeah, because you people wouldn't cover it because you were too busy covering whatever stupid thing Donald Trump said earlier in the campaign.
	And as I say, I can complain about the media being corrupt and still complain about Donald Trump sucking at his job.
	I mean, it was Donald Trump's job to avoid stepping in every pile of dog crap that he could possibly find.
	That said, the media obviously are corrupt.
	The media obviously wanted Hillary to win.
	So, that is, excuse me, what it is.
	There's still some Democrats, by the way, who are going to protect Hillary Clinton.
	Al Franken, formerly Stuart Smalley of SNL, he says the WikiLeaks are just run-of-the-mill material.
	They're not damaging.
	How damaging are these, do you think, to Hillary Clinton's overall campaign?
	Gee, I don't think they've been damaging at all.
	I've been through a campaign.
	I've been kind of astounded about how sort of run-of-the-mill these emails have been.
	I think that's why they really haven't made much news.
	You know, within a campaign, you have people having disputes with other people and some of their judgment on certain things, but it doesn't seem like...
	Okay, so if you believe Al Franken, and this is the story, but obviously, if she wins, she's going to enter office as a very weak president because everyone knows how corrupt she is, even if they're not sure precisely why she's corrupt, because the Trump campaign has done a poor job of prosecuting the case against Hillary Clinton.
	Now, meanwhile, Donald Trump is still on the campaign trail.
	The polls, by the way, are tightening somewhat.
	That doesn't mean that Trump is within spitting distance, but he's within shouting distance right now.
	He's down in too many states, I think, for him to come back.
	Right now, the betting markets still have him.
	Far and away trailing, but he is tightening the polls nationally a little bit.
	There's a poll out with Clinton up 6, there's one with Clinton up 7, there's one with Clinton up 5, 3, 2, 2.
	The twos are IBD, TPP tracking polls.
	But the real clear politics poll average right now has Clinton, in a two-way race, has Clinton up 5.7, in a four-way race has Clinton up 5.8.
	That's a pretty big gap going into 11 days out from the election, barring some sort of cataclysmic event Trump is going to lose.
	That said, the polls are tightening in some of these states.
	The polls are getting closer in some of these states.
	So Trump is out there campaigning, and he is.
	I mean, finally he's actually campaigning.
	By the way, just to give you the quick poll update, in the RealClearPolitics poll average for the swing states, Clinton is up in Florida, Pennsylvania by 5, New Hampshire by 6.5, she's up in North Carolina by 2, she's up in Nevada by 2.
	Iowa, Trump is up by 3.7, so he'll win Iowa in all likelihood.
	He's up by 1.1 in Ohio, so that one's basically a toss-up, or he'll win.
	And then she's also up in Michigan heavily, Wisconsin heavily, Colorado heavily, Virginia heavily.
	She's up in Maine, and she's up in Arizona as well.
	So right now, the live betting odds remain 84% for Hillary and 16% for Trump.
	So it would take a pretty massive miracle in order for Trump to pull this off.
	But Trump, as I say, he's still out there campaigning, and that means that We're only gonna get a few chances to use this.
	I mean, so we may as well use it now.
	Should we do a bit of good Trump, bad Trump?
	Let's do it.
	Okay, so, we're drawing to our closing episodes of Good Trump, Bad Trump, if indeed he loses.
	If he wins, we have four more years of Good Trump, Bad Trump, in which we will not pay residuals to Brandon Snipes, who writes this theme.
	So, in any case, one of the things that people like about Trump is that Trump is constantly slapping the media.
	She had been saying literally for years, long before Trump came on the scene, that Republicans ought to be saying to George Stephanopoulos, you do not get to pretend to be an objective journalist when you were Hillary Clinton's chief of staff.
	Donald Trump finally, finally goes after George Stephanopoulos.
	This is good Trump.
	It's a big asset.
	They have to use it right, but it's a big asset.
	She'll tell you when you use it wrong.
	She can give me very good advice, believe me.
	What she's saying is true, though.
	I've seen so many people hurt.
	Badly.
	Not just children.
	I mean, just people are hurt so badly by new social media.
	And she feels very strongly about it.
	She understands it very well.
	New York Times was all the people they say you've insulted.
	Well, that's okay.
	That's okay.
	Were you one of them?
	Actually, I wasn't.
	I was a little surprised at that.
	I'm surprised.
	Let's go check it.
	I can't believe I didn't include you.
	Which is funny, and by the way, he should have included George Stephanopoulos, aka the Keebler Elf.
	We'll get to some more good Trump in his speech to Black America, because there was some good stuff there today, although the new YouGov poll shows him garnering all of 1% in the black community, so his black person liked the speech.
	Here's for a little bit of ad-trump.
	So Donald Trump can't get over the primaries because that was the last time he won.
	And so now he's ripping on Hillary, but he's doing it by ripping on Jeb Bush.
	Why Jeb Bush is relevant at this stage in the campaign is beyond me.
	She's got no energy whatsoever.
	Everyone's talking about the fact that I'll do seven, eight, nine stops.
	I'll make three or four major speeches.
	Like, for instance, right after this, we have thousands and thousands of people in North Carolina coming to another one.
	Last night, 25,000 people.
	I got home at one o'clock in the morning.
	Here's a woman.
	She makes a speech for 15 minutes.
	She goes home, goes to bed.
	Honestly?
	She has less energy than Jeb Bush.
	I admit it.
	What's the purpose of this?
	The purpose of this is to gin up his base who are still thinking about those glorious days during the primaries when it looked like Donald Trump was going to win, other silly things that Donald Trump did.
	Donald Trump has now, he surprised Melania with the idea that she's going to make a bunch of speeches on his behalf, which is just what America's women need.
	I mean, America's women are just dying to hear from Melania Trump.
	By the way, the idea that American women are going to be convinced to vote for Trump by Melania, maybe by Ivanka, who's actually likable, but trotting out the foreign ex-model Who is probably responsible for your own divorce to cater to America's women.
	That's not a strong move.
	But here is Trump giving her the surprise birthday present of, by the way, you're going to be speaking for me.
	And the crowd and the people that are behind him.
	It's unbelievable to see.
	Does it make you want to get out there yourself and help him out the final two weeks?
	We will see.
	My priority is my son Barron, our son Barron.
	And I support him 100%.
	And I'm there for him every time he needs me.
	And I might join him.
	We will see.
	She's actually going to make two or three speeches.
	And I will tell you.
	She's amazing when she speaks.
	She's an amazing public speaker.
	She's agreed to do two or three speeches, and I think it's going to be big speeches, important speeches.
	I think it's going to be great.
	And she's like, wait, what?
	I agree to do what now?
	So, OK, so now I want to talk about Trump.
	All of this is minutiae, obviously, and I want to talk about something that's not minutiae, and that is Trump's speech to black America.
	So one of the things I've praised Trump for during this campaign is the fact that he actually has attempted to draw black voters successfully or unsuccessfully by speaking directly to black voters.
	And I think that that's a worthwhile thing.
	I think that Republicans ought to be speaking to every crowd about their message everywhere they can find a microphone.
	Whoever is in the audience.
	And that's one thing that I appreciate about Trump.
	I do want to point out, though, there are a lot of people saying this was Trump's best speech.
	Well, his speech to black America was his best speech.
	And I want to point out that one of the great lies of this campaign has been that Donald Trump is a conservative.
	Donald Trump's speech to black people yesterday was at least two-thirds leftist policy.
	There's one-third that was great, and there was two-thirds that was leftist policy.
	And so when anybody tells you Donald Trump is a conservative, listen, again, that's not an argument against voting for him.
	You can vote for him to stop Hillary Clinton.
	I understand it.
	It's not logic with which I agree, but I understand what you're doing, okay?
	But when people lie and say he's a conservative, He's not, okay?
	And let's go through some of the policies he's proposed in his speech to Black America.
	So here's Donald Trump talking about how he's going to revitalize the economy for Black Americans.
	At the center of my revitalization plan is the issue of trade.
	Massive, chronic trade deficits have emptied out our jobs.
	Just look at what's happened to Baltimore, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and right here in North Carolina.
	You know that for a fact.
	It's the greatest jobs theft in the history of the world.
	If I'm president and the executives at Ford Motor Company announce they're moving their plants and jobs to Mexico, I will pick up the phone and make a very, very simple call.
	I don't know if it's presidential, but I'd rather do it myself.
	And who cares?
	I will tell those executives that if they move their factories to Mexico, I will put a 35% tax on their product.
	We won't let your jobs be stolen from you anymore.
	Not gonna happen.
	So easy.
	Okay, so we can stop it there.
	This is pure Bernie Sanders leftism.
	He's talking now about the idea that you are owed a job in Detroit no matter what the union contracts are, no matter what the taxes are, and he will punish companies for moving their labor base to places where they can more cheaply produce product.
	Okay, and he's personally going to do that.
	You understand that's economic fascism that he's talking about?
	The President of the United States picking up the phone and threatening companies directly, I am going to tax your imports if you do that.
	First of all, if Ford moves its company, if Ford moves their plants to Mexico, You have to understand, Ford has also moved a lot of its plants down south.
	The only reason there's a labor base for Ford in the United States at all is because the money they've saved from moving to Mexico they can then use to build a labor base in places like Jackson, Mississippi.
	The idea that everything has to remain in Detroit is just absurd.
	Detroit is poorly run.
	That's why business is left.
	If Detroit had been well-run, businesses never would have left.
	But Trump says he's going to blackmail businesses.
	That is a left policy.
	It's a left policy.
	And it is welfare, what he's talking about.
	He's talking about basically threatening companies.
	Imagine, for a second, that you took away the trade aspect of this.
	And he said, you know what?
	We need companies to hire black people.
	Let's get down to the root of what he's saying here.
	We need companies to hire more black people because I want black people's support in this election.
	Therefore, if there's a company located in a heavily black area, and they move out of the heavily black area, I threaten to remove money from them.
	Single-handedly.
	I threaten to take money out of their pocket to force them to hire black people.
	Wouldn't conservatives justifiably go nuts?
	That's what he's talking about right there.
	Okay, that's not right-wing.
	Sean Hannity is wrong when he says that this guy's a right-winger.
	He's not.
	He's not a conservative.
	He's not a constitutional conservative.
	He's not a liberate and limited-governing guy.
	That doesn't mean that he's fully left.
	Here's him making a proposal that's not left on taxes.
	At the same time, my plan to lower the business tax from 35% to 15% will bring thousands of new companies onto our shores.
	You'll have jobs.
	You'll have jobs back.
	It also includes a massive middle-class tax cut, tax-free child care savings accounts, and child care tax deductions and credits, and a total simplification of the tax code.
	I will also propose tax holidays for inner-city investment, a new tax incentive to get foreign companies to relocate in blighted American neighborhoods, and they will do that. a new tax incentive to get foreign companies to relocate It will be worthwhile.
	It's called incentive.
	They will do it.
	So a couple of things here.
	So he mentioned some good policy about lowering taxes, and then he says he's basically going to create tax loopholes that give an incentive for people to locate businesses in areas that are blighted.
	Again, this is Democrat policy.
	It is.
	It's left policy to use government dollars or to use government benefits, which is what he's talking about, to encourage people to put their money in certain areas as opposed to other areas that's government interventionism.
	Then he goes full-scale Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank on the financial sector.
	He says the way he's going to help black people is by restricting the big banks.
	I will also pursue financial reforms to make it easier for young African Americans to get credit to pursue their dreams in business and create jobs in their communities.
	It's going to be beautiful.
	OK, first of all, we don't know.
	I mean, we're going to go to his policy in one second.
	But he says he's going to pursue financial reforms to make it easier for young black people to get credit.
	If you can't get credit right now in the environment, maybe it's because you're not creditworthy.
	Okay?
	It's because we've promoted bad credit to people who couldn't pay back their loans that we've had a subprime mortgage crash.
	It's why we're going to have a student loan crash that's going to happen anytime now.
	Here's his actual policy prescription.
	Such talent.
	There's such a potential talent out there.
	It's so incredible, and it's totally being wasted, wasted by politicians that maybe don't want to see it happen.
	Dodd-Frank has been a disaster, making it harder for small businesses to get the credit they need.
	You folks know that.
	The policies of the Clintons brought us the financial recession through lifting Glass-Steagall, pushing subprime lending, and blocking reforms to Fannie and Freddie.
	Two friendly names, but they're not so friendly.
	It's time for a 21st century Glass-Steagall, and as part of that, a priority on helping African-American businesses get the credit they need.
	Okay, so Glass-Steagall.
	For people who don't know what that is, this has become a buzzword.
	The Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1933.
	It prohibited commercial banks from engaging in the investment business.
	The idea was if they took loans, they could give out your loans to various other businesses as kind of short Short pay, but they couldn't invest the money.
	They couldn't become hedge funds.
	You couldn't combine a bank and a hedge fund.
	If you want to make sure that banks can give more loans, you need to create more profit margin for them, right?
	Here's the way banks work.
	Banks loan out money to you, right?
	And you deposit your money with them.
	The way that they can loan out money, the way that they get money, is by taking the money of their depositors and investing it.
	And then they guarantee you a very small interest rate if you put your money in their bank.
	They take that money and they invest it.
	The more money they make, the more money they have to play with in handing out riskier loans.
	That's the reality of how banks work.
	If you prohibit them from investing because you think that they are incapable of investing, then you're actually preventing them from having the cash flow necessary in order for them to grant loans to people who are on the margins of lendable human beings.
	So this doesn't make any sense.
	Again, this is a Democrat policy.
	So to counter that, here is a conservative policy.
	He says he wants to fight crime.
	I want every poor African-American child to be able to walk down the street in peace and not be scared and not be hurt.
	The problem is not the presence of police, but the absence of police We need really a great group of people to keep you safe, to keep us all safe.
	I will invest in training and funding both local and federal law enforcement operations to remove the gang members, drug dealers and criminal cartels from our neighbors.
	The last thing that he said in the whole speech, right?
	What he says right here is the best thing that he says in the whole speech.
	That actually is conservative.
	But, again, to pretend that he's conservative across the board, even in speeches like this one, is just not real.
	Here's what he had to say about infrastructure investment.
	Infrastructure will be another major goal.
	My contract calls for $1 trillion in infrastructure investment, of which the inner cities will be a major beneficiary.
	We need something done.
	Okay, so he says he's going to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure.
	Okay, you don't make anybody rich by spending money on infrastructure.
	Communist countries have been doing it for centuries.
	It doesn't work.
	Okay, and then he comes back with an actual conservative plan.
	He pushes school choice.
	One thing that doesn't appear, by the way, anywhere in the speech is any talk from Donald Trump about family structure, which Which by the way is the single greatest barrier that is facing a lot of black people living in impoverished communities.
	And by the way, white people living in impoverished communities.
	At no point does he mention that.
	He says he's going to promote the family, but then he doesn't explain what he means by that.
	He doesn't say we're going to encourage social institutions to push family structure.
	We're going to try and reinvigorate a feeling in the United States that a child deserves a mother and a father.
	And I'm going to stand out front right here and say right now, every child deserves a mother and a father and it's immoral for fathers to abandon their children and it's immoral for people to have children out of wedlock because it does not help the child.
	It does not help the child.
	That doesn't mean abortion, that means be responsible with where you put your genitals, gang.
	He's not saying any of the things that need to be said.
	So, the reason I do this, the reason I do this is because all of this is lead up to the fact They've got people like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham who are going nuts already because they know Trump's going to lose.
	And they're already saying, how could you not have embraced this guy who's so, so, so, so, so, so, so conservative?
	He's the most conservative ever.
	You're giving up this and this and that.
	He's so conservative.
	OK, so as we've shown, no, he's not.
	He's not, okay?
	He's not.
	He's a Blue Dog Democrat.
	What he's talking about is basic Blue Dog Democrat policy.
	That is what it is.
	I just thought that it was worthwhile to have a final illustration in objective measures of what he is and what he's not.
	He's not a hardcore leftist, but he's certainly not a constitutional conservative who believes in limited government and individual liberty.
	Okay.
	So, with that said, let's do some things I like and some things I hate, and then we'll do mailbag, because we've had to cut the mailbag short the last couple of times out.
	So, things I like.
	I'm going to continue along the graphic novel theme.
	This one is great.
	This was recommended by the Daily Wire's own managing editor, Jeremy Boring.
	Superman, Red Son.
	This may be my favorite graphic novel ever.
	Mark Millar wrote it.
	Mark Millar is great, by the way.
	Mark Millar is terrific.
	He's also the guy who did Kick-Ass, which is too old for your kids, but really, really funny.
	And he's done a lot of other great comics.
	Superman Red Son is based on the premise that Superman's pod doesn't land in America.
	It lands in Soviet Russia.
	And what the alternative history looks like if Superman lands in Soviet Russia, it's really conservative.
	It's fantastic.
	It's fantastic.
	And as I recall, it's been a little while since I read it, but as I recall, it's appropriate for young teenagers.
	And it's very politically conservative.
	So pick up a copy.
	Really terrific.
	Superman Red Son.
	Okay, let's do A Thing I Hate.
	H.O.S.
	HBO's John Oliver belongs to a class of British people who think that they are smarter than everyone else by dint of their accent.
	They think that because they share an accent with Rex Harrison from My Fair Lady, this makes them geniuses.
	So John Oliver does a political show on American politics.
	He doesn't know much about American politics.
	He doesn't know much about politics generally, but he's been feeded by the media because he's a comedian who's wildly to the left.
	So just like President Obama, Is going to be interviewed by Samantha Bee, who's legitimately the least funny person in human history.
	She and Trevor Noah actually have a cage match next week to determine who's the least funny person in human history.
	Both of them, I believe, beat Stalin for that title a while back, so now we're going to unify the championships.
	So, Obama's going to be on with Samantha Bee, where presumably they will jabber about how much they love each other and why abortion's wonderful.
	John Oliver was ripping on Donald Trump.
	The other day I was at some awards ceremony and because he's British that means we're supposed to pay attention to him even though we fought a revolution so we wouldn't have to pay attention to the Brits.
	Here's John Oliver talking about abortion.
	And in terms of the communication about reproductive rights and the conversation that is so important, we really did potentially hit an idea in the modern era during that third debate, because his discussion of late-term abortions showed no real understanding of how abortions work, no clear understanding of the basic biology of women's bodies, and a very poor sense of grammar as well.
	So I guess We got, in a sense, what we were asking for.
	If you asked Donald Trump to draw a fallopian tube, I cannot imagine what you would get back other than a child's drawing of a cobra.
	Okay, and I would hesitate to ask John Oliver to draw a fallopian tube or describe any of the biology here because he obviously doesn't know.
	Now, look, I criticize Trump for being ignorant about how he describes abortion because he wasn't graphic enough, but let me, for those who missed it, explain what exactly happens in a late-term abortion, which is what he was talking about, okay?
	What happens in a late-term abortion, what happens in a late-term abortion is something completely Awful.
	This is according to AmericanPregnancy.org, okay?
	Not a right-wing pro-life website.
	AmericanPregnancy.org.
	quote, the fetus is rotated.
	Forceps are used to grasp and pull the legs, shoulders, and arms through the birth canal.
	A small incision is made at the base of the skull to allow a suction catheter inside.
	The catheter removes the cerebral material, that would be the brains, until the skull collapses.
	The fetus is then completely removed.
	Okay, that's one procedure that's used That's dilation and extraction.
	In late-term abortions, it's usually one of these two, dilation and evacuation or dilation and extraction.
	Dilation and evacuation, the baby may be given a lethal injection to kill it.
	Sometimes they don't use such injections.
	Then the doctor uses a curette or a forceps to carve up the child's body in the womb and remove it piece by piece.
	So, I guess that Donald Trump could have been more graphic.
	I don't know that John Oliver would have enjoyed that, but he could have been more graphic, I suppose.
	But this is what they do.
	They laugh it off.
	Ah, he can't draw a fallopian tube.
	Okay, John.
	Draw an abortion.
	Really, draw it.
	Let's see it.
	I want to see you get down there with a piece of paper, and I want you to draw me what you think an abortion looks like.
	And it's not waving a magic wand.
	And it's not getting rid of a cluster of cells that mean nothing.
	I want you to sit there and draw what it looks like when a baby is cut into pieces and removed from the womb.
	I would like to see that.
	But of course he'll never do that, other than it might look like a cobra, might look like a cobra, maybe it'll look like a princess waving her fairy magic wand and a unicorn emerges from the vagina.
	The fact that he thinks his accent covers for his basic ignorance of biology and his euphemistic willingness to ignore what amounts to child killing is absolutely ridiculous and despicable.
	Alrighty, on that note, time for some mailbags.
	So, we have a full mailbag this week.
	I know, dude.
	It's an amazing experience waking up and being me.
	It's a wonder I don't walk around with a hand mirror all the time.
	Evan is writing.
	He says, quote, "Hey Ben, I'm a new subscriber "because I couldn't stand not seeing your face "on a daily basis." I know, dude, it's an amazing experience waking up and being me.
	I mean, it's a wonder that I don't walk around with a hand mirror all the time, or do I?
	I was wondering what the economic arguments against immigration are.
	I understand the principal one.
	Coming from a family of immigrants, I understand not liking people circumventing the system.
	But economically, does it not make more sense to leave it be?
	America has recently become more white than blue collar, so don't we want people occupying the unwanted jobs, not having to pay the minimum wage, thereby keeping costs Down.
	So, Evan, as you may have seen on the program, I am fully libertarian when it comes to immigration so long as there are safety checks and no welfare system.
	The downside to immigration happens when there are people who come to the country and then take advantage of the welfare system.
	That's all.
	I believe in free markets.
	If somebody wants to come here and they have the right values and they're not a safety threat and they don't want to sponge off the taxpayer dollar and they want to come legally, which is How we screen for all of this, then I have no problem with immigration.
	I don't think you're owed a job at a wage that you feel that you deserve just because you exist and were born in America.
	I don't think that's true.
	I think we all compete for our jobs with people all over the world.
	And by the way, economically speaking, when you create these kind of False pay scales for people working in the United States, what you end up doing is making American businesses less efficient, and when you open up those businesses to foreign trade, they collapse.
	That's what happened to the American car industry in the 60s and 70s.
	We were the envy of the world in the 40s, 50s, 30s with American vehicles, and then other countries started to compete.
	Because we had these massive union contracts, because we had all these steel tariffs, the cost of creating cars in the United States went up.
	We opened up the borders, people stopped Wanting to pay so much for cars, and then we started buying foreign cars at unbelievable rates, not because we like foreigners better, but because the cars they were making were better and cheaper, and the American car industry collapsed.
	In order to keep something competitive, you actually have to allow competitive pressures to take place.
	So I'm not against immigration on economic grounds, except when it comes to illegal immigration, which I'm against because there are tremendous costs associated with it, ranging from the education of children who come in the country, and their parents are impoverished and don't have enough money to pay for them, And they can't pay for their health care, and we end up absorbing the cost through taxpayer dollars and reallocation of resources.
	Okay, Adam writes, Hey Ben, I grew up hearing my dad tell people, quote, if you didn't vote, you can't complain.
	If you're too lazy to vote, keep your mouth shut.
	I tend to agree with this for the most part, except for the fact these two candidates are absolutely awful.
	With that, thoughts on Evan McMullin, for someone who feels like he has to vote but can't bring himself to vote for either of these two.
	I don't have any problem with voting for Evan McMullin.
	If I were living in Utah, I probably would vote for Evan McMullin.
	I live in California.
	He's not on the ballot here, but he's somebody I'd be comfortable voting for because he much more closely reflects my principles than all the other people who are running.
	By the way, this basic idea, if you didn't vote, you can't complain, I agree if you were too lazy to vote.
	If you didn't vote because you find everybody unpalatable, I think that you've pretty much preserved your right to complain about everybody because you haven't endorsed anyone.
	Michael Chapman says, happy 200th episode.
	Yes, indeed.
	By the way, we have something special planned for Monday because Monday is Halloween.
	That's not a Jewish thing, but it's a fun thing, so we're going to do it.
	So on Monday, we will be here doing a Halloween episode.
	It will be quite spooky and frightening.
	Thanos writes, by the way, awesome name.
	Thanos writes, hey Ben.
	Ta-Nehisi Coates came to my school in Philadelphia yesterday.
	Well, I'm surprised he deigned to, considering he'd come back from Paris to the most racist country on Earth.
	All day I was passing groups of black students and locals raving about his speech and how enlightened they were.
	I could not go because of class, but I wanted to know how you counter his ideas of systemic racism.
	The way I counter his ideas of systemic racism is Ta-Nehisi Coates writes really bad books for lots of money and gets to live in Paris because he's super wealthy by playing off the fears of a bunch of leftists who feel morally superior by reading his crappy books.
	Okay, that doesn't sound like systemic racism to me unless it's reverse racism.
	I counter the ideas of systemic racism on a regular basis.
	That doesn't mean there aren't racists.
	Of course there are racists.
	There are individual racists.
	They exist.
	I've experienced many of them during this election cycle, okay?
	There are individual anti-Semites.
	That doesn't mean America is an anti-Semitic country or there is systemic anti-Semitism.
	The same thing is true for racism.
	If you find me a racist, if you find me a racist act, I am more than happy to rally against that racist act.
	If it is coming from government, I am more than happy to fight that racist law.
	But I'm not going to accuse people of racism without evidence because that's the worst slur you can throw against anybody in the United States.
	That's why I won't even call Donald Trump a racist.
	I just think that he caters to a lot of them for his own political gain.
	But, I think we ought to be very careful about saying things like systemic racism or institutional racism.
	A library is not racist.
	A university is not racist.
	A policy can be racist, but you have to show me the policy.
	An act can be racist, but you have to show me the act.
	Okay.
	Seth writes, Hey Ben, I listened to your book a few weeks ago.
	It's probably the most depressing book ever written, especially the end.
	Great job, though.
	Well, thanks for that pitch.
	You can buy True Allegiance and get furiously depressed at your local bookstore on November 1st, or you can subscribe annually to the podcast at dailywire.com and get a free signed copy.
	Right now, high school students are able to get large loans that can be very harmful to them later in life.
	Would you be in favor of a change to make the amount of student aid you can get be based on grades?
	Thanks, Seth.
	Seth, first of all, I would change it so that all of these loans were private.
	When I went to Harvard Law School, the vast majority of my loans were private.
	And I was able to get those loans easily because I was going to Harvard Law School.
	They knew I was going to make enough money to pay it off.
	Now, that disadvantages the person who wants to major in lesbian dance theory, admittedly, because it turns out not a lot of banks are willing to foot the bill for you to dance around to the to the music of Melissa Etheridge, but that said, the fact is that the market should take care of a lot of these problems, and it's not my job to decide what loan is worthy or what loan isn't.
	It isn't my money.
	Okay, Daniel writes, Hi Ben, can you briefly discuss the viability of the electoral college system in modern times?
	Do you think a straight popular vote for president would be a better alternative Going forward, why or why not?
	So I see arguments on both sides of this.
	I'm not somebody who's a real devotee of the Electoral College.
	The reason being that the original rationale behind the Electoral College was as a check to prevent us from electing bad people.
	It's not been working, gang.
	Sorry to break it to folks, but it's not been great.
	So there's that.
	As far as Straight popular vote.
	The good news about a straight popular vote is it means that my vote would actually count in California.
	The bad news about a straight popular vote is it means that your vote would count slightly less in Texas.
	But there's a case to be made for a straight popular vote.
	And even though it's not something the founders would have approved of, we've broadened the notion of voting pretty broadly from what the founders once approved of.
	And the idea that the Electoral College provides any real sort of check or balance against bad choices I think has obviously been done away with.
	I don't think the electors will do anything.
	Let's see, this does not look like a real question from Paul, but Michael says...
	Hi, Ben.
	For the past couple of weeks, Michael Mowles has sat at your desk for Klavan's cultural segment on Mondays.
	How would you like to slaughter Mr. Knowles' insolent and pretentious life?
	You can A. Cut his heart out with a spoon, B. Force choke him, C. Use a wood chipper like Fargo, D. All of the above.
	Does this appeal to your dark humor, or is it too much?
	No.
	No, it is not too much.
	If you've been watching the show for any amount of time, you know it is far too little.
	It is far too little.
	If only I had known that Michael Knowles was sitting at this desk, I would have beaten him to death with it.
	All right, Joshua writes, as a black man who's not a hardcore leftist, I don't feel I belong anywhere in the political discourse because one side panders to me while doing nothing of substance, the other side has made it clear they don't want me by pandering to alt-right white supremacists.
	I see myself as fiscally conservative, but every time I see this toxic rhetoric it makes me want to vomit.
	What do I do?
	Well first of all, No, that the alt-right represents a very small portion of the Republican base.
	One of the reasons I've lamented the rise of Trump is because the alt-right's prominence and friendliness with the Trump campaign has led to an impression that the alt-right is a vast bulk of Republicans, when it really isn't.
	So, you know, I think that if you follow my show, and you think that, you know, the stuff that I say is right, and obviously I'm virulently anti-racist, I hate racism, if you believe that, then you're a conservative, and don't follow party, follow principle, find people you can vote for, people you can vote for, not parties you can vote for, and make sure that they're people you actually can vote for.
	Trent says, hey Ben, what is your biggest grievance with atheism?
	Look, I understand the arguments for atheism, I do.
	My biggest grievance with atheism is twofold.
	One, atheism fails to explain a moral system whereby human life has unique value.
	Right?
	Atheism has to explain why it is that all human beings are created equal, why we all have equal rights.
	It is not self-evident.
	Atheism has not historically done so.
	Atheism has fallen into collectivism because atheism falls into the idea that you have to have some power that is going to right all of the wrongs of birth and the only one capable of doing it is a vast government bureaucracy.
	So that's my biggest problem with atheism.
	I think that atheists would be wise to acknowledge the impact of religion on a moral Judeo-Christian culture even if they don't personally believe in God.
	I think that would be a wise agreement.
	That doesn't mean, by the way, you have to believe that we're enacting, you know, biblical law in the United States or anything like that.
	I'm just saying that if you want to acknowledge that fundamental human rights that you believe in are based on something more than atheism, that would be accurate.
	Joseph writes, is it not hypocritical on the part of Democrats with what they say about Trump by putting Bill Clinton back in the White House?
	Yes, the Democrats are the bad guys.
	Okay.
	Paul says, Ben, is voting for Trump versus a qualified candidate just so I can say, well, I tried, don't blame me, when Trump loses, a valid argument?
	So let me see if I, the phraseology here is a little awkward.
	Sorry, scroll up for one second.
	Is voting for Trump versus a qualified candidate just so I can, uh, no, I don't think that's a valid argument.
	I think that if you, if you vote for Trump just so that you can say, don't blame me later, I don't think that's a valid argument.
	I think that if you vote for Trump because you don't want Hillary to be president, then that is a valid argument.
	But the kind of don't blame me mentality, it doesn't go very far apparently.
	Let's see.
	Ben writes, hey Ben, I undoubtedly think the Daily Wire is the best $8 I've spent all month.
	Indeed it is.
	But I have trouble getting my fiancé to listen and stay engaged.
	Have you thought about branching out to be more inclusive to women with a female-hosted show?
	I've heard Lindsay is pretty popular.
	All the best.
	Well, yeah, I mean, if we find a person who is of the female persuasion, who does a great show, we're more than happy to hire them and have them do a podcast for us.
	Alternatively, you can tell your fiancé that for purposes of her listening, I identify as a female.
	Seth writes, what are your thoughts on Hillary mentioning that the president only has four minutes to make a decision on launching a nuclear weapon?
	Wouldn't that be considered top-secret information?
	Yes, because she's terrible and reveals all information, so when she says that Trump can't be trusted with national security, the answer is, lady, have you ever seen a mirror?
	Okay, final question.
	Ben, given the increased racial tension that is at a minimum correlated to the election of our first black president, would you care to predict if and what will correlate to the first female president?
	Will we see riots for gender affirmative action in the next four years?
	No, because this country does not have a history of sexual bigotry that is nearly as deep as its history of racial bigotry.
	And people have used that history of racial bigotry as a modern excuse to go out there and rail against the system.
	I just don't think that the argument that America is a sexist country holds as much popular passion.
	I don't think either argument holds water, but I don't think it holds as much popular passion as the argument that America is a racist country and now black people in the inner cities have a right to rebel against the system.
	So, no, I don't expect that Hillary's pitch is going to be as strong as Obama's pitch when it comes to race or sex baiting.
	Okay, that brings us to the end of today's podcast.
	However, tomorrow we do have a special Friday podcast because we have hit every Jewish holiday.
	We are done with the Jewish holidays for this particular year, and we're going to make it up to you by doing a podcast tomorrow, and we'll deconstruct some culture for you, which is always a special Friday treat.
	So be there or be square.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.

▲