All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 19, 2017 - The Ben Shapiro Show
53:27
Trump’s Big Tax Day | Ep. 440
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Republicans are set to pass the enormous tax cut bill, President Trump delivers a new national security strategy, and a major backlash to Me Too begins, brought on by some very weird columns.
I'll tell you all about them.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
All righty, so a lot to get to today.
Of course, the Republicans are set to vote in the House and the Senate today on the revised tax bill.
The tax bill would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% all the way down to 21%.
All the rest of it is important, but not nearly as important as that central premise.
There will be reductions in the individual tax rates, but the heart of this tax bill is the reduction of the corporate tax rate.
I'll tell you all about it and why the media are beside themselves over it.
And does this mean a reevaluation of President Trump's presidency in the first year so far?
We'll talk about all of that, but first I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at the USCCA.
So, gun lovers, listen up.
How would you like to head to the range tomorrow with a brand new gun?
I would, well, I know that my friends at the USCCA would like you to do so as well.
They want to make sure that responsible, gun-owning Americans are able to get their hands on better firearms, and so they are ending 2017 by giving you up to 17 chances to win your new gun Daily.
That's right, a different gun every single day of the week.
It could be a Kimber, it could be a Glock, it could be a Springfield.
All you have to do is go to DefendMyFamilyNow3.com.
That's DefendMyFamilyNow3.com to reveal which gun you could be taking home tomorrow.
Remember, there's not a lot of time to register.
The gun of the day will always disappear at midnight.
And this will be the last time I am telling you the website.
So again, it is DefendMyFamilyNow3.com.
DefendMyFamilyNow3.com to reveal today's gun from the USCCA and enter to win.
You could win a new gun every single day this week, but this is your last chance.
DefendMyFamilyNow3.com.
That is DefendMyFamilyNow3.com.
You should register with the USCCA anyway.
They have a bunch of fantastic services, and they help you with not only background knowledge about how to use a weapon, but what happens if you have to use a weapon and you need legal help.
Today, it now seems that the Republican tax cut is going to sort through conference.
is to win a brand new gun every single day, which is pretty awesome.
So check that out again, defendmyfamilynow3.com.
Okay, so today is the big tax cut day.
Oh yes, today, it now seems that the Republican tax cut is gonna soar through conference.
It is not a popular tax cut.
That is not particularly surprisingly The media have been all over this tax cut from beginning to end.
50% of the American population thinks that their taxes are going to increase because of this bill.
That's patently insane.
80% of individual taxpayers will see a tax decrease because of this bill.
I'm actually in the other 20%.
I would vote for the bill anyway.
The reason I'm in the other 20% is I am a high-income earner in a blue state with high state income taxes.
But the vast majority of Americans are going to see a significant tax decrease.
The average American will see a tax decrease of, or the average tax decrease will be something like $2,000, which is not insignificant.
And in terms of corporate tax rate, Every country that has ever dramatically lowered its corporate tax rate that I am aware of has seen significant fiscal boost immediately afterward.
This was true in Spain.
It was true in Denmark.
It's been true throughout Europe.
It's been true in Germany.
In the United States, we have the highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized country.
We have lower individual tax rates, but higher corporate tax rates.
That's quite foolish.
We should be lowering the corporate tax rate.
That's what this bill does.
I'm sort of astonished that so many Republicans have failed to make the case for lowering the corporate tax rate on a regular basis.
They've been focused solely on the idea that individuals have to have their tax rates reduced.
Maybe it's because Republicans don't have the brains or the moral wherewithal to explain that corporations are really just ways that we organize with each other legally so that we can do business in more efficient fashion.
If you lower the tax rate on those organizations, you're essentially lowering the tax rate on individuals.
I wish that we had the brains to explain that.
Apparently we don't, so it's more unpopular than it is popular.
But people seeing more money in their pocket always ends up being popular.
If you look back at the Reagan tax bill of 1981, that was not particularly popular at the time.
It became very popular shortly thereafter when people realized they were getting more of their own money back.
So even kind of wavering Republicans are now on board.
Senator Tom Cotton had planted in this bill a repeal of the individual mandate under Obamacare.
That's a good thing and it's a bad thing.
It's a very good thing because it is the least popular provision of Obamacare, so it's a political win for President Trump and for the Republicans to get rid of the individual mandate.
Remember, the individual mandate under Obamacare is what forces you to buy health insurance.
The bad news is, that's going to increase prices in the individual market.
Because it was the mandate that was forcing people like me to pay in the individual market, young people to pay in the individual market, that was keeping the prices down for older, sick people in the individual market.
Those are now set to rise pretty dramatically.
Congress is going to have to come in and fill the gap, which apparently they're doing through the Alexander, I believe it's the Alexander Murray Bill, in the United States Senate.
So, weirdly enough, The Republicans, in an attempt to cut government, are shockingly growing government.
But, as an achievement for President Trump, it's pretty great.
He's going to get to claim that he repealed Obamacare, or at least the individual mandate.
He's going to get to claim that he decreased taxes.
And Republicans are betting that the effects of this bill will be positive enough that it will impact them positively in 2018.
And let's see the flip side.
You know, the flip side is they don't pass anything this year.
And this year is basically a total dud as far as legislation, despite Republican control of the Senate, the House, and the White House.
That would be completely unacceptable.
So, even wavering Republicans are on board.
Susan Collins, no conservative.
Halcyon.
She says that she supports the conference agreement that's about to go through.
I rise to express my support for the conference agreement on the Tax Cuts and Job Act, the first major overhaul of our tax code since 1986.
This legislation will provide tax relief to working families, encourage the creation of jobs right here in America, and spur economic growth that will benefit all Americans.
Okay, so, you know, even when Susan Collins is on board, that means that you have a broad consensus of Republicans who are on board.
This is a good thing, obviously, and it's very good for President Trump.
There's a reason the Democrats were trying desperately to stop it.
They might have been smarter to actually embrace parts of this tax plan.
Instead, they're not going to do so.
Bernie Sanders, the socialist, he says that they did everything they could to stop the tax bill.
This looks like it's going to get passed through the Senate and the House and signed by the President, this tax cut bill.
Is there anything more that opponents like you could have done to stop this?
Well, I think we did everything that we could.
But at the end of the day, what you had is people like Mr. Mnuchin, who himself is worth three or four hundred million dollars, the President of the United States, who is worth several billion dollars, as you mentioned, some four or five thousand lobbyists doing everything that they could to write a bill which significantly benefits the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations.
Okay, this is one of my chief irritations about how Democrats play this.
I wish that Republicans would just say the truth.
The reason that you are seeing disproportionate shares of the tax cut go to people at the upper end of the income bracket is because those people are paying a disproportionate share of the taxes.
Okay, the reason that rich people are going to get more of a tax break is because they are paying more of the taxes.
Okay, in terms of net taxes, the amount of tax dollars that rich people are getting in the country, 95% of all federal spending on net is paid for by the top income bracket, the top 20% quintile of the American population.
The top 1% are paying something like 50% of all federal income taxes in the nation.
Of course, they're going to see a disproportionate share of the tax cut.
You can't give a tax cut to people who aren't paying taxes.
It's astonishing to me that the Republicans refuse to say this.
It's astonishing to me that Republicans refuse to make the case for a corporate tax cut.
And there is a very strong case for a corporate tax cut.
But, regardless, the policy is going to pass and we're going to see how it plays out in the Senate.
And this is leading to some recasting of the Trump administration's entire first year.
A lot of people who have been highly skeptical of Trump are now going back and revising their opinion of how his first year went.
Now, do I think that it's been a golden first year?
I don't think it's been a golden first year.
Do I think that President Trump has governed a lot more conservative than we had any right to expect as conservatives from his campaign?
There, the answer is yes.
I think that a lot of people hoped he would govern as conservative as he's governed, but he has governed extremely conservative.
This has been the most conservative first year of an administration, certainly since Ronald Reagan.
It's probably more conservative than George W. Bush's first year, when George W. Bush, if I recall correctly, was already pushing campaign finance reform at this point.
That doesn't mean a lot has gotten done.
There's been a lot of incompetence.
There's been a lot of botchery.
Trump's approval rating is at 35%.
That is by far the lowest approval rating for any president at this point in American history.
At this point, even Ronald Reagan, who was unpopular during his first year, had a 49% approval rating.
But...
There's no question that Trump has governed a lot more conservative than I thought he was going to, right?
I was wrong about Trump on Gorsuch, and I thought that, based on the evidence, there was not a lot of evidence that he was going to govern this conservative once he got into office.
And if you recall, the early indicators are that he was not going to do that, right?
Steve Bannon was pushing the idea of an infrastructure bill first thing out of the gate, and then people were talking about an isolationist foreign policy.
None of that has happened.
Instead, President Trump has basically championed what is a fairly typical Republican tax cut.
He has cut regulations in a way that I love.
He has pursued foreign policy in a way that is much more hawkish than I think his campaign led on.
All of that is very good.
And I'm going to go through all that in a second.
Trump, you know, he – it is a day of good Trump, bad Trump, right?
I mean, we end the first year, and we're getting close to the end of the year here, and it has been a very good Trump, bad Trump year.
It's a construct that I created last year during the election cycle, saying that the problem with Trump is that when he's good, he's really good, and when he's bad, he's really bad.
It's been a very good Trump, bad Trump kind of year.
So in honor of that, I think that we, so in honor of that, we're going to do a little bit of good Trump, bad Trump.
Coming up in just a few minutes here because there's a lot going on right between the tax cuts and his national security announcements There's a lot happening here.
But first I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Skillshare So are you interested in making your resume better if you're interested in earning more if you're interested in having a longer lasting career if you're interested in in broadening and deepening your skill set.
That is what Skillshare is for.
With over 3 million members and more than 17,000 classes, Skillshare is the Netflix for online learning.
Take classes in graphic design, DSLR photography, social media marketing, that's what I'm taking, digital, illustration, much more.
These classes are taught by industry experts that are about 45 minutes long, self-contained.
They're taught by experienced professionals.
They are perfect if you're looking to build your career or start the side hustle of your dreams, You have an obligation to yourself and your family to continue increasing your skills.
We don't live 40 years ago when you could just have the same skill set for 40 years and maintain your job.
That's not the way it works anymore.
Your skill set has to be getting better all the time.
And that is what Skillshare is for.
It's why people at my company are taking Skillshare classes on a regular basis.
Skillshare right now is giving my listeners a one month free trial of unlimited access to over 17,000 classes.
Go to www.skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
That's skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
to start your free month today.
That's Skillshare.com slash Shapiro to start your free month today.
And again, you get that one month free trial, 17,000 classes.
Once you're hooked, you're going to be hooked.
I mean, you're going to want more of those skills added to your resume.
Skillshare.com slash Shapiro, start that free month today.
And it's not all, you know, just skill sets.
It's also fun stuff, you know, hand lettering and calligraphy and watercolor and all sorts of fun stuff that you can get.
So Skillshare.com slash Shapiro, use that slash Shapiro so they know that we sent you.
Okay, so President Trump tweets out today that he's very happy about the tax bill.
Here is what he tweeted.
So he tweeted, quote, stocks and the economy have a long way to go after the tax cut bill is totally understood and appreciated in scope and size.
Immediate expensing will have a big impact.
Biggest tax cuts and reform ever passed.
Enjoy and create many beautiful jobs.
You know, you got to love the guy with the beautiful jobs, all caps.
This is the thing about Trump, and this is what's so puzzling to me about his presidency, is that President Trump's policies, as I say, have been largely conservative.
And when I say largely, I mean almost entirely very conservative.
And yet, hey, he's really unpopular.
And he is the president who, of all presidents, should best understand marketing, right?
I mean, this guy is the marketing guru.
He's the marketing guru of all time.
He transformed what is, by any measure, a dicey real estate empire into television fame and fortune, and then that into the presidency.
And yet, he doesn't seem to know how to wed positive rhetoric and useful rhetoric to an agenda that has been very positive for Americans thus far.
I mean, I was looking at a list of his accomplishments today, and the list is sizable.
I mean, if you look at what they've done in the White House, It's not nothing.
It's not everything.
It's not like they've done tons of stuff through Congress.
They haven't.
This has not been as productive a first year as, for example, Barack Obama's first year.
But if you look at all the things that Trump has actually done, he's done some pretty good things.
I mean, I made a list of these things this morning.
And I've been trying.
I mean, I know that folks who listen to the show know.
I've tried to be as fair to Trump as humanly possible.
So here's just some of the stuff that Trump has done in year one.
So Justice Gorsuch, obviously, big win for President Trump.
The defeat of ISIS, we've talked about on the program.
The media basically ignored it.
ISIS grew under President Obama, who called it the JV Squad.
ISIS has now reverted to being basically a nothing.
ISIS has basically been cut all the way down to size.
In territorial terms, they have been reduced to virtually nothing.
And he's done all of that without having to oust Bashar Assad.
Maybe he should oust Bashar Assad, but that's a different issue, as many of us have been saying for a long time.
The stock market under President Trump has soared 5,000 points this year.
I don't think that's always a great measure of a president.
It soared under Barack Obama, too.
But he does get credit.
He's the one in the White House.
There's been excellent growth, and the unemployment statistics are very strong under President Trump.
I think that's largely due to the market understanding and knowing that Trump is not a threat to their business, that Trump is not somebody who's trying to threaten their business.
He has cut regulations at a 22 to 1 ratio.
For every new regulation added, 22 have been cut.
Curbing the Iran deal, President Trump declared that Iran had been decertified under the deal, which paves the way for new sanctions.
He should be pushing for further sanctions, but he's also been pushing for an anti-Iran alliance that has been extraordinarily powerful and has reshaped the region.
A lot of that is the unintended result of President Obama's attempts to make Iran a regional power.
But Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, they're now in a de facto alliance.
He announced Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Obviously, he's started to open public land.
The federal government has seized vast swaths of the West.
Nearly all of Nevada is federal territory.
A lot of that land ought to be returned to the people for their use.
President Trump is moving along those lines.
He passed new sanctions against North Korea.
Now, listen, he hasn't solved the North Korean problem, but frankly, who could?
I don't see a real solution there, and unless he knows something I don't, the best he's going to be able to do is pass those new sanctions, which he did.
They're going to repeal the individual mandate, as I discussed.
Tax reform, as I discussed.
A record number of appellate court appointments.
He's nominated and approved 12 appellate court judges, which is more than any other president in history in his first year.
He pulled out from the Paris Accords.
The travel ban was finally approved by the courts.
It was botched originally in pretty bad fashion, but it's now been approved by the Supreme Court.
He's unshackled the military.
He's changed the rules of engagement.
He stopped ripping on the police, which is something that President Obama was very fond of, was ripping on the police at every available opportunity.
He's done a lot of very good things, right?
And this is the problem for President Trump.
In the good Trump, bad Trump construct, there's so much good.
There really is.
There's a lot of good.
The question is, why can't it all be good?
Why does there have to be bad Trump?
Because when you look at the bad Trump list, most of the bad Trump list is about things that he's failed to do, picks that he's made in his administration, and stupid stuff that he said.
Well, maybe if he didn't say stupid stuff and pick bad people for his administration, he would be able to get more good stuff done.
A disciplined President Trump is the best President Trump, okay?
President Trump has been more disciplined over the last three weeks.
He has.
Look at his Twitter feed.
It's been a lot less rabid than usual.
We haven't gotten a lot of the random fights with LeVar Ball.
We haven't gotten as much of the, I'm ripping on the NFL now.
If you look at Trump's failures, they've largely been driven by his mouth.
And if you look at Trump's successes, they've largely been driven by his administration.
And if he would just let his administration do their job, I've been saying this literally since the beginning of his administration, he's picked some very good people to do their job.
If he would just shut up and let them do their job, everything would be much better.
So, you know, let's play the Good Trump, Bad Trump song, because this is an ultimate Good Trump, Bad Trump episode.
Do we have that?
Good Trump, Bad Trump, which one will we get today?
So, as you know, I just named a bunch of good Trump, right?
And Trump is pumped about the tax bill.
All of that is very good.
All of the things that Trump is a problem about are things that do make a difference as president.
Now, I know the tendency for conservatives is to just say, OK, you know, the president says what the president says, and who cares?
Just ignore it and be grateful for what you got.
But the problem is that if you look back at the Obama administration, I was there.
The most damaging things that President Obama did were not on policy.
They were tearing Americans apart from one another.
They were destroying American unity through the use of his rhetoric, through the promulgation of his worldview.
That's the stuff that presidents are really remembered for.
You remember a president for maybe two legislative accomplishments, maybe.
What do you remember Ronald Reagan for?
You remember Ronald Reagan for tax cuts, basically, and taking down the Soviet Union.
That's it, right?
That's all that we remember about Ronald Reagan.
Bill Clinton, what do you remember him for?
You really remember him for the tax increases, and then the tax decreases, and then the impeachment, right?
That's pretty much what you remember Bill Clinton for.
And maybe his crime bill.
You remember George W. Bush for his tax cuts and the war in Iraq, right?
Those are basically the things that you remember George W. Bush for.
But what you remember about each of these presidents is how they changed the American culture in deep and abiding ways.
That's how you remember the presidents.
What you really remember about Clinton is not his legislative accomplishments.
What you remember about Bill Clinton is that he was somebody who totally disconnected honor from the office of the presidency.
What you remember about Ronald Reagan was the mourning in American optimism of the Reagan administration.
What you remember about Nixon was Watergate and the idea that the presidency was corrupt.
What you remember about Jimmy Carter was generalized feelings of incompetence in the presidency which led to the rise of Reagan.
What you remember about George W. Bush was the notion of an honorable guy who didn't know how to defend himself if you're a Republican and a liar and a cheat if you're a Democrat.
If you remember Barack Obama, what you see as a Democrat is a guy who finally made America come to terms with racial conflagration.
And if you're on the right, what you see about Barack Obama is a man who deliberately used race as a polarizing issue in America, tearing American from American, fighting class and race war, and making intersectionality a chief plague in the Democratic platform.
Right?
That's what we remember.
So when we say about Trump, look at all the great things he's doing, ignore his rhetoric.
You can't ignore what the president says.
What the president says has a major impact.
So we've talked about all the good Trump.
Now for a little bit of bad Trump, okay?
So here's a perfect example.
Yesterday, there's an Amtrak derailment, right?
And this terrible, terrible story over in Tacoma, Washington.
Over the I-5, there's a bridge.
The Amtrak derails right over the bridge and fell over.
Six people at least have been killed.
Seventy-seven people were wounded, apparently.
And It was a brand new track, right?
The track was brand new.
This was like its first run.
And apparently there was an object on the track and that's what derailed the trade.
Now the real solution here, by the way, is to defund Amtrak, right?
Amtrak is not a profitable thing.
It's a waste of money.
Literally the only profitable part of Amtrak, I believe, is the Acela Corridor.
But put that aside, President Trump's first reaction here should not have been to go to policy.
We didn't like it when Obama did it.
But here's what Trump tweeted out nonetheless, or here's what Trump said nonetheless.
He said that we have to fix infrastructure because of Amtrak.
Let me begin by expressing our deepest sympathies and most heartfelt prayers for the victims of the train derailment in Washington state.
We are closely monitoring the situation and coordinating with local authorities.
It is all the more reason why we must start immediately fixing the infrastructure of the United States.
Right, that's bad, Trump, because the idea that he has to jump immediately to policy poisons the well.
This is a time when Americans should be responding to the tragedy, not calling for infrastructure fixes.
And it turns out we don't need an infrastructure fix.
We literally just built that rail five seconds ago.
And this has been the pattern for Trump, right?
For every Justice Gorsuch, there's a Charlottesville.
For every tax bill, there is a Mike Flynn and Steve Bannon, right?
This is the problem for Trump.
The generalized impression of Trump over the first year is what's damaging Republicans, not his policies.
Now, what Democrats are going to try and do is conflate his policies with this generalized impression of failure.
They're going to say that he's unpopular because of the tax cuts or because of Justice Gorsuch or because he's cutting regulations.
That is not true.
He's unpopular despite those things.
He's unpopular because President Trump says dumb things on a regular basis.
And if you'd stop saying dumb things on a regular basis, if somebody just unplugged his phone, and he couldn't use Twitter for two weeks, his approval rating would go up by 10 points in two weeks.
I promise you, he'd be up in the mid-40s.
Immediately.
If he'd just shut up.
Right?
Because if you look at the list of the big boo-boos that he's made, virtually all of them are rhetorical.
Charlottesville being the most obvious example when he went out there and said both sides were responsible and then he suggested a moral equivalence between the people who were protesting in Charlottesville and the people who were actually the white supremacist instigators.
and suggested that there were good people at Charlottesville.
This is the problem for President Trump.
If you look at the list of his failures, you know, the Mike Flynn, the firing James Comey, the overall rhetoric, the fake news stuff, the LeVar Ball stuff, the fights with the NFL, right?
All of that stuff is stuff that is stoppable.
That's why we are so close to having a dream administration, really.
But that's going to require President Trump to control himself.
And I don't know that his base wants him to control himself.
It seems to me that many in the base are more interested in Trump doing the NFL stuff than passing the tax cuts.
They're more excited about the culture war aspect of Trump than they are about the policy side.
I am precisely the opposite.
Well, in a second, I want to discuss, back to good Trump, what Trump had to say about foreign policy.
Because Trump gave a big speech.
On the new national security strategy that he rolled out yesterday.
And what's funny about Trump's national security strategy, what's really fascinating about this particular national security strategy is something that is common to virtually all of Trump's speeches and all of Trump's rhetoric on foreign policy.
Trump says one thing, and then he implements Bushian foreign policy.
Let's be real about this.
President Trump's foreign policy is very, very similar to George W. Bush's foreign policy.
It's basically neoconservative in a lot of ways.
During the campaign, there was every indicator he looked more like Rand Paul or Ron Paul than he did like George W. Bush.
But in implementation, his foreign policy has looked a lot more like George W. Bush than like Rand or Ron Paul.
The isolationist sentiments that he mailed during the campaign have not materialized in real life.
And so whenever you listen to one of his foreign policy speeches, what you actually see is a disconnect, right?
Kind of preaching the Ron Paul line, or the Rand Paul line, and then when he actually talks policy, him embracing the idea of a powerful, muscular America in the world, making sure that our principles are upheld, and strengthening alliances through greater military firepower.
I mean, basically he's embraced Reagan-esque foreign policy while pretending to be a pappy candidate, which is a really interesting combo.
Not a particularly honest one, but it's interesting.
Throughout our history, the American people have always been the true source of American greatness.
I think it's a dubious premise.
He talks about how the American people are the source of American greatness.
You'll see why he does this in a second.
Throughout our history, the American people have always been the true source of American greatness.
Our people have promoted our culture and promoted our values.
Americans have fought and sacrificed on the battlefields all over the world.
We have liberated captive nations, transformed former enemies into the best of friends, and lifted entire regions of the planet from poverty to prosperity.
Because of our people, America has been among the greatest forces for peace and justice in the history of the world.
and The American people are generous.
You are determined, you are brave, you are strong, and you are wise.
He finishes there by saying, when the American people speak, all of us should listen, and they spoke in November 2016.
They love me, right?
So, I am the American people is basically the message here.
The reason that Trump is doing this is because this is one of those disconnects, right?
Trump doesn't want to say that the American creed is what makes us great.
It is, okay?
It's the American creed.
It's not the American people.
There is a distinction.
The reason that I say this is because the idea that the American people make us great, well, that's like saying the Greek people make us great.
What's different genetically about an American than about a Greek?
Well, not much because a Greek can become an American.
What's genetically different between an Englishman and an American?
The answer is not much.
What makes America great is the central principles that we uphold.
So far as the American people uphold those principles, that makes us great.
But it's not the people themselves, right?
It's not that we're better people than other people around the world.
That's just silly.
But the reason that he's saying that is because as soon as you start talking about greater principles that America holds, then you have to talk about how we promulgate those principles and now we're back in neoconservative land, right?
Now we're back in Bush-Reagan land.
We're no longer in Pat Buchanan land.
So again, this is one of these weird gaps in Trump's kind of thinking.
And you'll see it here, too.
You know, here he talks about, and you'll hear this sort of Buchanan-esque note about isolationism.
He talks about, you know, in the past we've worried about nation-building, but now we're bringing people home.
Our leaders engaged in nation-building abroad while they failed to build up and replenish our nation at home.
They undercut and shortchanged our men and women in uniform with inadequate resources, unstable funding, and unclear missions.
They failed to insist that our often very wealthy allies pay their fair share for defense, putting a massive and unfair burden on the U.S. taxpayer and our great U.S. military. putting a massive and unfair burden on the U.S. taxpayer They neglected a nuclear menace in North Korea, made a disastrous, weak, and incomprehensibly bad deal with Iran,
and allowed terrorists such as ISIS to gain control of vast parts of territory all across the and allowed terrorists such as ISIS to gain control of vast parts Okay, so the first couple sentences here have no bearing on the last couple sentences.
So what he's talking about here in the end is exactly right.
You know, they ignored North Korea, that they allowed Iran to run roughshod over the Middle East, that they allowed ISIS to grow.
All of that's true.
But the only way to fight that is with a more muscular American military.
So he's right about funding the American military, but when he says our leaders engaged in nation-building abroad, but they failed to build up and replenish our nation at home, That statement right there is pure Rand Paul and Rand Paul, and then he proceeds to immediately swivel and say we need to be more involved in foreign policy.
This is something that he says repeatedly.
In other words, the fruits of his foreign policy have been directly opposed to the isolationist sentiments that he espoused on the campaign trail and that he continues to quasi-espouse sometimes during his speeches.
It's not the end of the world, but I just want to point out the inconsistency because what I don't want is for people to attribute the wins of his foreign policy to the isolationist foreign policy that he seems to be espousing publicly sometimes.
The fact is Trump is winning foreign policy victories.
He's just doing it in the name of an ideology that he's not actually upholding in practice.
So Trump is right when he says that he's won a big victory over ISIS in the Middle East.
This is obviously true.
It is worth noting here.
He did continue Obama's foreign policy on ISIS.
He just strengthened it, but he gets credit for doing that.
Following my trip to the Middle East, the Gulf states and other Muslim-majority nations joined together to fight radical Islamist ideology and terrorist financing.
We have dealt ISIS one devastating defeat after another.
The coalition to defeat ISIS has now recaptured almost 100% of the land once held by these terrorists in Iraq, And in Syria.
Great job.
Great job.
Really good.
Really good.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have a great military.
We're now chasing them wherever they flee, and we will not let them into the United States.
Okay, good for Trump, right?
This is the foreign policy that he's pursuing, and I'm glad that there's a disconnect between what he was saying on the campaign trail and what he's doing in practice.
This, I thought, was the best part of his speech.
He talked about what it is.
Here, he really does talk about what his priorities are, and his priorities are quite good, right?
He talks about optimism and confidence.
Optimism has surged.
Confidence has returned.
With this new confidence, we are also bringing back clarity to our thinking.
We are reasserting These fundamental truths.
A nation without borders is not a nation.
A nation that does not protect prosperity at home cannot protect its interests abroad.
A nation that is not prepared to win a war Is a nation not capable of preventing a war.
A nation that is not proud of its history cannot be confident in its future.
And a nation that is not certain of its values cannot summon the will to defend them.
Right, okay.
This is the actual statement of the Trump policy.
And this is what he should focus on.
And this is quite good, right?
The idea that we have to be proud of what America is.
Proud of our history.
Proud of our principles.
That will make America great again.
So, listen.
Trump is a vast difference in kind from the Obama administration on foreign policy.
And for that, he deserves all the credit in the world.
I just want to see more of the rhetoric like the end of the speech and less like the isolationist beginning of the speech.
Okay, so.
Meanwhile, there is a backlash that is building against the MeToo movement.
Backlash.
...has really begun based on the MeToo movement now making clear that there is no standard for even such basic things as consent.
Now, I talked about this a few weeks ago on the show and I got a little bit of flack for it.
I said that one of the problems with left-wing social ideology is that they proclaim that consent is the only value when it comes to sex, but then they refuse to abide by those rules when the chips are on the table.
What I meant by that is that the left doesn't actually believe that yes means yes and no means no.
The left wants to say that consent is the only thing that matters.
Listen, I believe consent is deeply, deeply, deeply important.
But the idea that consent is a clear yes or no line, and there's no malleability to it at all, that is just not practical in terms of human sexual relationships.
No does mean no, but yes doesn't always mean yes.
And what's interesting is that the left is beginning to recognize this, but they don't know how to deal with this.
And they also don't know how to set a standard for what should end a career and what should not.
Matt Damon is being raked over the coals today because he had the temerity to suggest that sexual harassment is not the same as sexual assault.
That saying something mean to a woman is not the same as Harvey Weinstein raping them.
And the left is just going after him hammer and tongs.
Well, how dare he?
They're all bad.
Yes, they're all bad, but a pickpocket doesn't get punished the same way as a mass murderer.
That's just, that's silly.
That's not making light of pickpockets.
Somebody who is a car thief doesn't get treated the same as a serial killer.
And they're both bad, but the left refuses to acknowledge these distinctions.
What's funny is even the left is beginning to realize this now.
Of course, in order for the left to realize this, their ox has to be gored.
A lot of what the left is doing now is largely because Al Franken is on his way out of the Senate, and they're sad about that.
They feel like they wish they hadn't gotten rid of him.
Mika Brzezinski finally sounding off on me too.
And she says, "Guys, we may have gone a little too far here "where any accusation by anyone at any time "can ruin a man's career." Yeah, we've been saying this for a while here, Mika. - I think the process itself is what we need to be talking about before we talk about the men, because the process needs to be, it's gonna be complicated, but I think women feel that they are maligned and mistreated through the process and therefore they're but I think women feel that they are maligned and mistreated through the process So we need to look at the process.
But right now, any woman can say anything, and a man's career is ruined.
Now, A lot of women can say things that are true, and their careers should be ruined.
But the problem is that any woman can say anything, and that's it.
It's over.
Is that how we're running businesses now?
Okay, so she's exactly right.
Matt Damon is being raked over the coals for basically saying the same thing Mika Brzezinski did.
He did an interview with Business Insider, and here's what he said.
We're in this watershed moment, and it's great, but I think one thing that's not being talked about is there are a whole bleep load of guys, the preponderance of men I've worked with, who don't do this kind of thing and whose lives aren't going to be affected.
When he was asked if he'd ever worked with someone who'd been accused of sexual misconduct, he said it would have to be on a case-by-case basis.
He said, that always went into my thinking.
I mean, I wouldn't want to work with somebody who life's too short for that.
But the question of if somebody had allegations against them, you know, it would be a case-by-case basis.
You go, what's the story here?
And then he also said there's a difference between, you know, patting someone on the butt and rape or child molestation, right?
Well, there is.
I mean, I'm sorry to break it to folks, but there is.
They both ought to be punished, but the punishment ought not be the same.
It says both of these behaviors need to be confronted and eradicated without question, but they shouldn't be conflated, right?
Tell me what he's saying wrong here.
I mean, I'm not a Matt Damon defender.
I think Matt Damon is not exactly the brightest egg in the basket, but what?
Like, Rose McGowan said Matt Damon is dense.
Zerlina Maxwell says Matt Damon equals every white man who is used to people taking his opinion seriously, even if he has no idea what the F he's talking about.
I mean, this is just... Like, really?
I love this.
Like, we have gone... Okay, this is insane.
Matt Damon didn't say anything wrong there.
I mean, again, I'm defending Matt Damon here.
Matt Damon didn't do anything wrong here.
And then meanwhile, there is no standard for behavior.
So here is the evidence there's no standard for behavior.
So over the weekend, there's a woman named Jessica Bennett.
Jessica Bennett is the gender editor of the New York Times.
Yes, that's a real thing.
There's a gender editor, which is weird.
I don't know how you would edit a gender.
But in any case, she wrote a piece titled, When Saying Yes Is Easier Than Saying No.
She argued that in many cases, women say yes to sex, but they don't actually want to say yes to sex.
She says, quote, Sometimes yes means no, simply because it is easier to go through with it than explain our way out of the situation.
Sometimes no means yes, because you actually do want to do it, but you know you're supposed to, and you're not supposed to, lest you be labeled a slut.
And if you're a man, that no often means just try hard, because you know persuasion is part of the game.
And it continued, and she argued, that consent is actually societally defined.
That our idea of what we want, of our own desire, is linked to what we think we're supposed to want, is what Bennett writes.
But Bennett offers no clear solution on this, right?
So now she's saying that sometimes yes doesn't actually mean yes, sometimes yes means no, and sometimes no means yes, meaning a woman doesn't want to have sex, or she does want to have sex, but she wants to be persuaded into it, she's playing hard to get.
Okay, this has happened, I'm sure, to thousands of people over the years, millions of people, where a woman says no, and then a guy says, please, and the girl says, okay, sounds great, right?
The idea that no means no permanently, obviously, is not true.
The idea that no means no from minute to minute is not always true.
You have to take no as a no, guys.
But this is when you don't have any societal standards, when sex has been completely delinked from meaning.
It's difficult to redraw these lines.
And this is one of the problems, that in the Me Too moment, we're trying to draw lines in an area where all lines have been obliterated.
Right?
Bennett doesn't offer any clear solutions.
If it's true that women say yes but mean no, are men supposed to read minds?
If a woman says no but a man seduces her until she says yes, is the initial no more important than the final yes?
Now, Bennett doesn't offer any guidance here, but she's not the only one saying this.
There's a woman named Rebecca Reed for The Metro, who said she once participated in a threesome because she didn't want to be rude.
She was over at dinner with a guy and his wife, and they said, come upstairs.
And she was like, well, you know, I had dinner.
I guess I don't want to ruin the dinner.
I go, really?
How are they supposed to know that you're not into it?
I mean, like, I've been at a lot of weird dinner parties, but I would never just say yes to having sex with people out of a desire not to be rude.
Why?
Well, Reid says, such experiences aren't uncommon.
Quote, there are hundreds of reasons why, but they all boil down to the same thing.
We're nice girls.
We've been raised to be nice.
It's so funny how this definition has changed, right?
50 years ago, if you said a girl was a nice girl, that meant she didn't put out, right?
I mean, really, this is what it meant.
If you go back to 1955, and you said that a girl was a nice girl, what this meant, this was a euphemism for, she wants to remain a virgin until she is married.
Now a nice girl means that you're supposed to say yes to any sexual proposition, because otherwise you're being mean.
Sometimes being careful means having sex you don't want.
It leaves you feeling dirty and sad and a bit icky.
It's not rape, it's not abuse, but it's not nice either.
But now we're going to conflate rape, abuse, and not niceness apparently.
In the pages of the New Yorker, there's this short story that went viral.
It's called Cat Person.
The author of this piece has now gotten apparently a million dollar advance because the piece went so viral.
What exactly is the piece?
Well, it's about a woman named Margot who seduces a man.
She sends him all the signals that she wants to have sex with him, but she's internally divided over whether to go through with it.
Quote, she knew that her last chance of enjoying this encounter had disappeared, but she would carry through with it until it was over.
In the end, she has sex with the guy, right?
She goes ahead with it, even though she's sort of repulsed by it.
And it's not really rape, because she says yes the whole way, but then she doesn't like it, and then she breaks up with the guy, like she never contacts him again.
And he's texting with her, and then he says that she's a whore.
And the whole idea of this short story is she's not really a whore because she didn't really want to go through with it, but she went through with it to be nice, and now he's being mean because he's calling her a whore.
And there is this sort of vagary in sexual relationships, and this is painful stuff, I'm sure, for a lot of women, but it does raise a pretty serious question.
What about the guys?
What are men supposed to do?
Because it's men who are on the line here, right?
If these women have a bad sexual experience, that is quite terrible.
It's quite awful.
I feel terrible for them.
But, if the suggestion is that you had a bad sexual experience, and now you get to ruin a guy's career over it, or ruin his life over it, there I am not so cool, right?
We are in the midst of a crusade not to make women feel better about sex, but to punish male aggressors, right?
There is a distinction.
This is not about making women feel better about sex.
The Me Too movement was not supposed to be about just all sexual experiences for women are supposed to be glorious and wonderful, because not all sexual experiences are going to be glorious and wonderful.
I'm married for 10 years.
Not all sexual experiences, even within marriage, are the same.
Right?
Sometimes better than others.
The idea that, as a society, we are now targeting bad men, we have to differentiate between the two goals.
One is, assure that sex for women is better.
The other is, assure that men are not aggressors.
The second one seems to be easier than the first, but we're conflating the two.
If we water consent down to nothingness, if yes sometimes means no and no sometimes means yes, and men are supposed to read minds, and if they don't read minds properly, we ruin their careers, then how can we ever expect there to be any sort of comfortable sex at all?
Because men are not going to engage if they're bright.
Right?
And women are then going to claim that men are denying them, I suppose.
What we have here is a problem of expectations, okay?
All three of these articles that talk about yes not meaning yes and no not meaning no all the time, they're articulating a complaint that women want to fulfill men's expectations.
Basically, they're blaming men for their own confusion over sex, right?
Men expect them to have sex.
They don't want to disappoint the men, so they have sex with them.
Men want them to have sex.
They may or may not want to have sex.
They start it, and then they feel like it's too much of a bother not to move away from sex.
But there's another expectation that's been created here that's not about men at all.
Okay, there's two expectations.
One is that men want to have sex with you all the time.
That's not an expectation, that's a reality.
Okay, men want to have sex with women all the time, at least straight men.
But there's a second expectation that women are fulfilling and this is the one that's actually destroying a lot of the rules.
Okay, that is the expectation that women themselves are supposed to treat sex casually or they are reinforcing the patriarchy.
This is the feminist argument.
That if a woman is an old-fashioned nice girl, that if a woman says, I don't want to have sex until I'm married, because I find that to be a perversion of nature and a movement away from what God intended for us.
This makes her a prude.
It makes her backwards.
Watch any Hollywood movie made for the last 30 years.
The good girl is really the stupid girl.
The good girl is the dimwit who's going to have to loosen up a little bit.
Right?
In Footloose, the good girl is really... She wants to be a bad girl, but she's repressed by John Lithgow.
Right?
This is the society Hollywood has created for us.
The society the feminist movement has created for us.
There are two expectations.
Men always had the expectation or the hope.
Not the expectation.
Let's put it this way.
Men always had the hope that women would randomly have sex with them.
Now men have the expectation that women will randomly have sex with them.
What changed?
It wasn't men.
It wasn't men.
What changed here?
What changed here was that the feminist movement said to women that you have a responsibility to treat sex casually, otherwise you are falling in line with the patriarchal system.
Our consent-only society, in which sexual activity has become a throwaway, and any notion of cherishing it is scoffed as patriarchal.
We laugh at that, as patriarchal.
Men have developed expectations.
Women are moving to meet those expectations.
It's not good for men.
It's not good for women.
It's not good for anyone.
Consent only matters in a system where people are capable of saying no.
And what I'm saying is that society is basically telling women on all sides to say yes, and then they're telling men that it's okay if women say yes, unless women actually meant no.
Okay, that's a mess of its own making.
Okay, well, we're going to have to break there.
Before we go any further, go over and subscribe.
$9.99 a month gets you a subscription to dailywire.com.
When you get that subscription, you get the rest of our show live.
You get the rest of Andrew Klaven's show live.
The rest of Michael Knowles' show live.
You get to be part of our mailbag, where you get to ask me questions and have them answered.
All of this makes your life more awesome.
Plus, if you get the annual subscription, you get the very best in all beverage vessels.
It was so valuable, I couldn't even bring it with me.
Down here to Florida, where I'm at the TPUSA conference.
I couldn't even afford to bring it in my carry-on because I treasure it so much.
My leftist tier is Hot or Cold Tumblr.
You get that for a $99 annual subscription fee.
Plus, the Shapiro store is coming in the new year, and that will be exciting.
You get discounts there.
If you want to just listen to the show later on audio, Look at iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, Stitcher, any of the normal podcasting apps.
Or you can go to our YouTube channel and subscribe over there.
We have a Christmas video that is coming out in the very near future.
I think that's coming out later this week, actually.
So look out for that.
We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast in the nation.
Okay, so time for some things I like, some things I hate, and then we'll deconstruct culture for a hot second.
Okay, so, things that I like.
After last week, you remember I played a clip of Roy Moore riding in on a horse to the song from Blazing Seattles, and that got me thinking.
What are some great movies that have title songs or songs involved that are just hilarious?
The first one that popped to mind is a movie I grew up with when I was a kid.
I loved this movie growing up.
I haven't seen it for probably 25 years, and I'm only 33, so last time I saw it I was probably 8 or 9.
It's Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster in Gunfight at the OK Corral.
Frankie Layne sings the song, same guy who sang the Blazing Saddles song, and it's got this classic, just Western trope of The singer who actually takes you through the story, like he narrates the story.
It's like the ballad of Sweeney Todd and Sweeney Todd.
So the movie is Gunfight at the OK Corral.
It's a really underrated film that actually does hold up really well.
It's directed by the great John Sturges.
Take a look at this Old Western because it's pretty great.
OK.
Kurt Lancaster as the famous Wyatt Earp.
Kurt Douglas as the notorious Doc Holliday.
Two men as different as day and night.
Yet fate linked them together through the violent years.
Get going down the back stairs.
Much obliged, Marshal.
I'll see you in Dodge City and thank you properly.
You can thank me properly by staying out of Dodge City.
Rhonda Fleming as Laura Dembo.
All right, go then.
Clean up Tombstone.
There's a hundred tombstones on the frontier, all crying for the great Wyatt Earp.
Clean them all up.
Jovan Fleet as Cape Fisher.
Well, let me tell you something, Doc Holliday.
All them fancy clothes and that smart talk of yours don't make you no gentleman.
You are dirt, just like me.
John Ireland as Ringo.
I'm not afraid.
Well, have a drink, then.
Now you'll see them as they really were, hot-blooded men in a raw and relentless... Okay, so that's great.
I mean, it's classic Western.
Kirk Douglas apparently, you know, he's trying to play Doc Holliday, who has consumption, and apparently they shot all the scenes out of order.
And so one of the things that he did is he would time his coughs scene to scene so that it looked like he was getting progressively sicker as the film went on, which works in the movie.
It's a good performance by Kirk Douglas, who is... We may have to do a week of Kirk Douglas movies at some point, but worth watching and holds up pretty well.
It's not as good a movie as Tombstone, of course, but it is a good movie.
And it is a classic Western.
Okay, one other thing that I like.
So, you see all these headlines that are constantly coming out from the mainstream media.
IDF, the Israeli Defense Force, is arresting children.
They're arresting these poor, hungry Palestinian urchins.
It's just terrible.
Okay, here's what's actually going on.
The Palestinians put up kids to try and assault Israeli soldiers to get them arrested for the cameras.
Here is some tape of IDF soldiers and what they're actually going through and what they have to do.
What you see here is a bunch of kids walking up to Israeli soldiers, trying to grab them, trying to harass them, trying to push them.
One walks up and slaps an Israeli soldier in the face.
Another punches an Israeli soldier in the face, and the soldiers are just standing there taking it.
Right?
They're just standing there taking it.
These are kids who are probably 11 or 12 years old.
They've been told by their parents that they need to go over and harass the Israeli soldiers, get themselves arrested.
So they walk over and look at the Israeli soldiers trying to ignore them.
Right, the Israeli soldiers trying to stay away from them.
Because they don't want to get in a confrontation with these kids.
And they're literally smacking these Israeli soldiers in the face.
And eventually, the Israeli soldiers are forced to arrest them because you can only slap a law enforcement officer a thousand times before he's going to arrest you.
For all these people who say the Israeli soldiers are out to shoot people, okay, there's not a cop in the United States who would stand for this kind of crap.
There's not a soldier in the American army who would stand for this kind of crap.
Maybe they would in Iraq or Afghanistan, but, you know, the IDF is doing this every day.
The idea that the IDF are the bad guys here is just insane.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate, and then we'll deconstruct culture for a second.
So, things I hate.
Okay, so here is, so Hillary Clinton, The left just can't let her go.
And so the Daily Show did something called the Song for Women.
And Hillary Clinton makes a cameo in the Daily Show's Song for Women.
Yes, this is an actual thing.
Here we go.
Too many men this year acting like stalkers.
It makes me so sad.
I got a daughter.
And that's all the time I got to mansplain.
Time for the hook.
Yo, ladies, hit that refrain.
Uh!
No.
We're not doing that.
Mm-mm.
Get the f*** out of here.
Trying to help, you know?
Hillary Clinton, speaking speaking for all women except for the ones her husband's raped.
The fact that they keep trying to keep Hillary relevant is an amazing thing.
Hillary eventually will become as much of a joke as Al Gore has become.
Every time you see him, you laugh.
There's a reason for that.
Okay, another quick thing that I hate, so...
People are making a very big deal out of this one story that's now going around the internet about apparently an unidentified flying object that appeared in front of a Navy pilot and then jetted off incredibly quickly.
Do we have video of that, actually?
There's a whole fleet of them.
Look on the ASA.
Oh my gosh.
They're all going against the wind.
The wind's 120 knots to the west.
So this is kind of like an oblong shaped what looks like a UFO. - It's not a big thing on a stand.
But if there's a new thing, it's rotating. - And then apparently it flies away at twice the speed of light.
It just moves away really quickly.
And people are saying, well, this means the aliens are here.
OK.
If the aliens were here, either they're prepping for an attack, in which case we should all be scared out of our minds and this should be the top of the news.
Or, uh, there is something that we just don't understand going on, and, uh, it's not aliens.
Because if aliens were to come here, they'd probably make their presence known.
Also, if they have technology that's superior to anything that we have, uh, then presumably, they would move on us, uh, because this has apparently been going on for years.
But, maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe we'll find out later that this was the beginning of the invasion, and I ignored it, and I'm, you know, one of the bad guys.
Okay, time for deconstructing the culture.
So.
There's a song that has now become unpopular, okay?
And they've changed the lyrics to it because it's unpopular.
It was a Christmas favorite, okay?
It was Baby It's Cold Outside.
And we've been informed by the left that this song is rapey.
Oh yes.
The song Baby It's Cold Outside is rapey.
I'm gonna play you a little bit of it, and then I'm gonna play you some modern Top 40, and you tell me which is more rapey.
I really can't stay.
Baby, it's cold outside.
I gotta go away.
Baby, it's cold outside.
This evening has been so very nice.
I'm hoping that you dropped in.
I'll hold your hand.
They're just like mine.
My mother will start to worry.
Beautiful, what's your name?
My father will be pacing the floor.
Okay, so this is a creepy version that Michael Bublé did with Idina Menzel with little kids.
But the original version with, I think it's, uh, there's like Louis Armstrong and I think it's Billie Holiday.
In any case...
The lyric that people go crazy about, uh, is that there is a, uh, there's, the woman is basically protesting that she has to leave, but she doesn't really want to leave, and then she asks at one point, what's in this drink?
Right?
She said, it says, the neighbors might think, say, what's in this drink?
And so it sounds like he's date raping her.
Yeah, that's not what's happening, okay?
The whole point is that she's feeling buzzed, and she's feeling happy, and she's feeling flirty, and she doesn't want to leave, and he's trying to convince her to stay.
Ooh, it's rapey.
No, it's called a rather typical seduction.
You know, assuming that Dean Martin didn't actually roofie anybody.
This is, uh, the idea that this is date rape is ridiculous or that it's a rapey song.
Maybe there's nothing wrong with the song.
Is that possible?
Then nobody who listened to that thought, oh, maybe it's cold outside, means they get to rape chicks.
Maybe that's a thing.
What's hilarious is that all the same people who say that Baby It's Cold Outside is a rapey song are fine with Top 40 music, which is like the most rapey music of all time.
Half the music is about some guy saying, I'm gonna jump on that thang, right?
I'm gonna jump on her and I'm gonna do what I want with her.
And the girl saying, yeah, it's great, you know, that's what I'm into.
Like, first of all, let's put it this way.
If all of the lyrics to Top 40 music were actually applied in real life by men to women, These would not be good pick-up lines.
These would be really rapey pick-up lines.
So there's a song out right now called Havana.
And there's a part where there's a rap interlude which has become a staple of Top 40 music and it's horrifying.
In any case, this is one of the rappers rapping a little bit.
You tell me, which is more rapey?
Maybe it's cold outside or this.
Maybe it's cold outside or this.
What Jeffrey is saying is, quote, Fresh out East Atlanta.
Okay, you can't understand what the hell he's saying, but here's what he is saying, okay?
What Jeffrey is saying is, quote, Now, I missed the part where she said yes to the bumping on her bumper like a traffic jam, but that seems a little rape, you know?
It says, hey, I was quick to pay that girl like Uncle Sam, so now he's paying her for the sex.
Good job.
Back it on me, shawty cravin' on me, get to diggin' on me.
She waited on me, shawty cakin' on me, got the bacon on me.
I don't even know what the hell this means.
This is history in the makin' on me.
Point blank, close range, zappy, if it cost a million, that's me.
I was gettin' mula, man, they feel me.
Yeah, clearly that's not rapey at all.
What's more rapey is a guy saying to a girl, stay inside with me and begging her to stay inside with him and her finally saying yes.
Clearly that's the rapey problem here.
Our society may be screwed up beyond all repair on matters sexual.
At least until there's a return to traditional notions of male and female and what men want and what women want and standards where we can accommodate both.
Okay, so we'll be back here tomorrow.
I'll see you then.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Mathis Glover.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection