Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 23, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

47:38

The Worst Arguments | Ep. 523

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	A shooting at a Waffle House prompts some of the worst arguments for gun control ever.
	Americans cannot take a joke about anything.
	And Kanye 2020 is launching, and I could not be more excited.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	So, on rare occasions, there's an event that happens in American public life that unleashes all of the stupid.
	And yesterday, indeed, it turns out was that event.
	There was a shooting at a Waffle House, and there's a guy who's incredibly heroic.
	We're going to talk about all of it, as well as the left's reaction to it, because the left's reaction is just fully crazy.
	Like, fully stupid and crazy.
	But before I get to any of that, first, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Stamps.com.
	So, these days you can get practically everything on demand.
	This podcast you can get on demand, you can get Movies on demand?
	Well, there's a reason you should be able to also get postage on demand with Stamps.com.
	With Stamps.com, you can access all of the amazing services of the post office right from your desk, 24-7 when it's convenient for you.
	We use Stamps.com here at The Daily Wire offices on a regular basis because we don't have time to send folks down to the post office.
	Instead, they can sit at their desk, they can...
	Print exact postage, they can stick it on the packages, and they are good to go.
	You buy and print official U.S.
	postage for any letter, any package, using your own computer and printer, and the mail carrier picks it up.
	Just clink, print, mail, and you are done.
	Again, we use it here at the offices, and we do so for a reason.
	Right now, use Shapiro when you go to stamps.com, and you get a special offer.
	$55 a free postage, a digital scale, and a four-week trial.
	So a pretty solid deal just for using our promo code Shapiro with a special offer over at stamps.com.
	Again, go to stamps.com.
	Before you do anything else, click on the radio microphone at the top of the homepage and type in Shapiro.
	That's stamps.com.
	Enter promo code Shapiro for that special deal.
	There is a reason why so many businesses use stamps.com, including we here at The Daily Wire.
	So check it out.
	Stamps.com.
	Promo code Shapiro.
	All righty.
	The big news yesterday is that there was an awful shooting at a Waffle House in Nashville, Tennessee.
	Chris Enslow over at The Blaze reports on it.
	He says, "Local and federal law enforcement, "turns out, knew the man who opened fire "in a Tennessee Waffle House early Sunday morning, "killing four and injuring at least seven others.
	"They knew him so well that he was arrested last year "and had his firearms confiscated." So, you might ask, why was this person walking naked into a Waffle House and shooting people?
	How did he get his firearms?
	Well, I have the answer for you.
	The Secret Service said Sunday its agents arrested the killer in July 2016 after he was found in a restricted area near the White House, according to the Tennessean.
	So it wasn't just that he was arrested.
	He was arrested by the Secret Service near the White House because what the hell?
	Okay, Secret Service Representative Todd Hudson said he wanted to set up a meeting with the president.
	Which it turns out is not the way to set up a meeting with the president.
	Like, really.
	I know how to set up a meeting with the president.
	You don't do it by walking up to the White House and saying you want to set a meeting with the president.
	That hasn't been true since, like, 1860.
	The killer, who is reportedly from Illinois, was revoked of his ability to possess firearms following his arrest in Washington.
	Illinois police also confiscated four firearms from his possession, including the AR-15 he used in Sunday's killing, a spokesman for the Nashville police said.
	Tazewell County Sheriff Robert Huston explained at a news conference that when the sheriff's deputies came to confiscate the killer's firearms last August, his dad was present and asked the officers if he could take possession of the firearms instead.
	Tazewell said the father was legally able to possess weapons in the state of Illinois, so they turned the weapons over to him, which it turns out was a terrible decision because daddy then gave the guns back to son.
	So he should go to prison for criminal negligence, no question about it.
	Authorities say the killer's father later returned the firearms to his son.
	However, it was not immediately known if there was a Tennessee law that prohibited the killer from possessing the firearms.
	Really.
	The cops knew about him.
	They took his gun away.
	And then they returned his guns to the father.
	And the father gave the guns to the son.
	I don't know what law on the books would prevent any of this.
	Really, because it's criminal negligence for the father to have given the guns to the son.
	And the son was already not only barred from having the gun, but had had his guns taken away from him.
	Now, what's amazing about this is that there is an amazing American here named James Shaw Jr., who is present at the Waffle House.
	And as the shooting went on, he decided to charge the shooter.
	The shooter had an AR-15.
	He charged the shooter anyway.
	So here is James Shaw, Jr.
	speaking about this publicly.
	When he proceeded to come in, I actually went behind this like a push door, a swivel door.
	He shot through that door, I'm pretty sure, and I'm pretty sure he grazed my arm.
	And it was at that time that I kind of made up my mind, because there's no way to lock that door, that if it was going to come down to it, he was going to have to work to work to kill me.
	So at the time that he was either reloading or the gun jammed or whatever happened, Is when I ran through the swivel door, I hit him with the swivel door and then the gun was kind of jammed up and it was pushed down.
	So we were scuffling and I managed to get him with one hand on the gun and then I grabbed it from him and I threw it over the countertop.
	And then after that I was trying to get out the door and I think he was pretty much in the entrance way.
	So I just took him out with me out of the entrance and all the way outside.
	Now, that dude's an American hero.
	I mean, that is an incredible thing, right?
	To charge a guy with the AR-15, take the gun away from him, and stop the shooting is an amazing thing.
	Obviously, he's wearing the bandages on his hands because he burned his hands because he grabbed the red hot barrel of the AR-15, which had been firing.
	He also, I believe, was grazed by a bullet in the arm, is what it looked like.
	And he's fine.
	Then he went afterward with his family to church to pray.
	So, amazing, amazing dude.
	You might say, well, this is a story of an American hero stopping a person when he had no resources to do so, because this guy is just a hero.
	And you might say, you know what would have been even better?
	Is if this guy had had a gun on him.
	Because then, presumably, this guy would have walked in with the AR-15, taken the first shot, and you know this guy, this hero right here, would have done something about it, right?
	This is the kind of guy who would have pulled out his gun and shot the bad guy, maybe even saved a couple more lives.
	You might think that it would have been better if this fellow, James Shaw, had actually had a gun.
	You would be wrong, according to the left.
	So the left comes up with, legitimately, the stupidest possible arguments I have ever seen.
	Like, an insane number of stupid arguments have arisen from this, because now the left is making the claim that because James Shaw Jr.
	was not armed, that now we should expect people to disarm people with guns.
	Now, this is a little bit different from the argument that was being made just a few weeks ago with regard to AR-15s.
	They can't expect an armed school security officer to charge a person with a gun.
	That if you have a pistol, that you shouldn't be able to shoot somebody with an AR-15, right?
	They were saying the AR-15 is so wildly powerful, That you shouldn't be able to take down that shooter, even if you have a gun.
	Now they're saying that everyone should be unarmed to take down the shooter or something.
	OK, I'm going to show you a series of some of the dumbest arguments you have ever seen.
	I mean, this is really insane.
	Even folks on the left who are in favor of gun control should recognize how stupid these arguments are and stay away from them as much as possible if you actually want to win the argument.
	So here is David Axelrod.
	David Axelrod was, of course, one of the lead advisors, campaign advisors, to President Trump.
	And then he was in the White House as, was he chief of staff?
	A chief strategist for the White House under President Obama.
	And here's what he tweeted out, quote, So this is a really, really bad argument.
	"Let us give full recognition to Colt, the manufacturer of the AR semi-automatic rifle used in this massacre, for designing such an efficient weapon for mass destruction for commercial use." So, this is a really, really bad argument.
	So, the argument that he's making here is that the manufacturer is somehow responsible for the person using the gun to kill people.
	Which is weird, because I tweeted back to David Axelrod, "Full props to the makers of the M4 for generating the firearms used to kill Osama Bin Laden." No props to President Obama, right?
	President Obama made the call, and all we heard about in 2012 was that Osama bin Laden is dead and Detroit is alive.
	And they took credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden.
	According to David Axelrod, it's the gun manufacturer who really gets the credit for the killing of anyone, right?
	If anyone is killed, it's the gun manufacturer who's responsible for that.
	So presumably, it's the gun manufacturer that gets to take credit for the Osama bin Laden kill, and not Barack Obama.
	I assume David Axelrod would not agree with that logic, but instead, he is saying such stupid things about gun manufacturers.
	This is why, you know, you hear this myth that's put out there by the left, that there is some sort of loophole for gun manufacturers when it comes to liability.
	That if someone gets shot, you can't sue the gun manufacturer, that there's some sort of legal No.
	Products liability is a well-developed area of Anglo-American common law, and products liability suggests that there are a few types of liability.
	One is, if you design a product that is inherently dangerous, and then that product goes off in the inherently dangerous way, then you are responsible for its danger.
	But rifles are designed to do what they do, and people buy them to do what they do, so there is no Failure in design.
	There's no design flaw when it comes to product manufacturing in an AR-15.
	And there's also no manufacturing flaw, which would be like you buy a product and then it breaks on you, right?
	There's no manufacturing flaw.
	So when people say that a gun, that gun manufacturers should be able to be sued, they are able to be sued.
	If you bought a gun and the gun were to backfire on you and hurt you, for example, you could sue the gun manufacturer for a product manufacturing claim.
	Or if the gun were so inherently dangerous that it had a hair trigger and you pick up the gun and it just goes off because that's the way it was designed, then you have a design flaw and you get to sue the gun company for that.
	But you can't sue the gun company for making a gun that is perfectly manufactured to specification any more than you can sue a knife company for making a knife that is perfectly manufactured to specification.
	You can't sue the Ginsu knife company because it cuts things.
	That's not the way that this works.
	But again, blaming gun manufacturers for the evil of individual human beings, it makes no more sense than failing to credit heroes for the individual heroism of human beings.
	One thing that we should all learn from James Shaw, by the way, this is what folks say in law enforcement, is that if you are in a mass shooting scenario, Then charging the shooter sometimes is the best thing that you can do.
	Obviously, not everybody is given that kind of courage, either by God or has developed it themselves.
	James Shaw Jr.
	is one of the people who has developed it.
	Good for him.
	So other stupid arguments.
	A bunch of the students from Parkland started making the same argument, and this was an intensely, intensely stupid argument.
	Emanuel Gonzalez tweeted out, the local police say a man at the scene wrestled his gun away.
	Looks like you don't need to arm a teacher or a resource officer to stop a shooting.
	There goes the sales pitch for Smith Wesson.
	Um, no?
	So, the argument, I guess, is that if you have a guy who's super brave and who runs into the face of fire and grabs a gun from someone else, no one needs a gun, so I guess we should disarm the police?
	Matt Walsh had a great reply to this.
	He said, "I saw a man eating spaghetti with his hands the other day.
	That means that no one should have a fork." Like, what is this?
	So I guess the solution is that law-abiding people should not have guns, but non-law-abiding people who have guns, we should stop them because we should run in there with our magical bulletproof chests and somehow stop them.
	This line of argument was repeated ad infinitum yesterday.
	It was crazy.
	I mean, I was seeing it all over the internet yesterday.
	It wasn't just Emma Gonzalez.
	David Hogg also tweeted this out, the insufferable Parkland survivor who says that everyone who disagrees with him is an evil pig.
	He says, so only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun?
	And then he tweeted at the NRA, this had 56,000 likes.
	56,000 likes.
	No one said only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
	Okay, what we did say is that there is a much better shot that you are going to stop a bad guy with a gun with a gun than you are charging the guy.
	I would like to see, statistically speaking, how many people who have actually tried to charge a shooter ended up being shot.
	I'll bet you the number's pretty high.
	I'll bet you the number is pretty high.
	And then it didn't stop with him.
	Seth MacFarlane, the dope who makes Family Guy, he tweeted out, Again, I don't know what you're trying to argue here.
	Are you trying to argue that it's bad for good people to have guns?
	Because I promise you, if James Shaw had a gun, he would have used it in far better fashion than he was even able to use his body.
	This is such a dumb argument.
	We'll talk a little bit more about the dumb arguments of the left on gun control in just a second, but first, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at PolicyGenius.
	So, 71% of human beings say they need life insurance, but only 59% of Americans have coverage, which means at least 12% of Americans are procrastinating.
	And procrastinating normally is a bad thing.
	It's really bad when if you drop dead, you leave your family bereft, right?
	We actually know somebody that's happened to.
	PolicyGenius is the easiest way to prevent that from happening.
	You go online, you compare life insurance prices, you can compare quotes in just five minutes.
	When it's that easy, putting it off becomes a lot harder.
	You can compare quotes while sitting on the couch watching TV.
	You can compare quotes while listening to this podcast.
	Policy Genius has helped over 4 million people shop for insurance and placed over $20 billion in coverage.
	And I've been very focused on getting life insurance for myself.
	My wife has life insurance as well.
	If you are an adult, if you have a family, there's no excuse for you not to have life insurance.
	And when it's this easy, there certainly is no excuse.
	Go over to policygenius.com.
	Again, I know it's morbid to think about your own death.
	It's even more morbid to think what happens to your family if, God forbid, something happens to you.
	Go to policygenius.com.
	And, by the way, they don't just do life insurance, they also do disability insurance and renter's insurance and health insurance.
	If you care about it, they can cover it.
	Policygenius.com.
	When it's this easy to compare life insurance, why put it off?
	Policygenius.com.
	Go and check it out.
	You really owe it to your family to do so.
	One of the parts about the gun debate that is so annoying is that whenever there's an incident, people, instead of looking at the facts of the incident and then drawing conclusions, they immediately rush to their various sides of the aisle to back up whatever narrative they think is supported by all of this.
	So, the right looks at this story and what the right says is, okay, I'm going to look at the facts of the case.
	Here are the facts of the case.
	The facts of the case are that this shooter had his guns taken away and then got his guns back.
	So don't blame us.
	Blame law enforcement.
	Don't blame law-abiding citizens like me, who have a 9mm handgun and I have a shotgun.
	You're going to take away my guns because the police couldn't take away somebody else's?
	How is that even logical?
	So the police couldn't protect me, but I need to be disarmed?
	How does that work?
	And then beyond that, we look at the case with James Strachan.
	We say, listen, that guy's a hero, but you know what would be better?
	It would be better to lower the burden of entry for heroism.
	So what I mean by that is that there are certain obstacles to being a heroic person, right?
	One of those obstacles is risk.
	So to be a heroic person means to undergo a certain level of risk in order to do something good.
	But people are willing to undergo lower levels of risk and higher levels of risk.
	James Shaw was somebody who was willing to go undergo ultimate risk in order to do something that needed to be done, disarming the shooter in this particular case.
	Most people might be cowering in the back hoping the shooter would leave.
	But that's because the burden is really high, right?
	Charging a guy with a gun is a pretty high burden.
	And this is true in military service, too, right?
	Asking people to do pickets charge is a different thing from asking them to go into a well-planned operation.
	It requires a different level of risk assessment and willingness to undergo risk in order to follow a particular order.
	Well, that's why the best planners in the military spend their time trying to figure out ways where people have to undergo less risk.
	You are lowering the threshold of entry for heroism.
	Well, one of the things that lowers the threshold for entry for heroism is lowering the risk, and one of the things that lowers the risk is having a gun to shoot a bad guy.
	Then how many folks in that diner were willing to charge the guy?
	Probably lower than the number of people in the diner who, if they had guns, would have been willing to shoot the guy.
	I assume everybody in there would have figured, okay, the risk to me of pulling out my gun and shooting this guy is pretty low, right, because now I have a gun and he has a gun.
	It's certainly a lot lower than the risk of me charging the guy.
	But the left wants the risks to be as high as possible, apparently, when faced with a mass shooter.
	And this is a serious problem.
	It's a serious problem.
	And it's also one of the reasons why so many Americans look at the left and they say, you guys just want to take our guns.
	And so people on the left are constantly saying, no, we don't want to take your guns.
	What are you even talking about?
	We're not interested in taking your guns.
	Like, why would we do that?
	Where's the evidence?
	The evidence is that you think that the ultimate great situation is what happened to James Shaw, as opposed to this is an outlier situation where a hero was able to charge a guy with a gun and succeed.
	And I don't want everybody to have to charge a guy with a gun.
	I would prefer very much for those people to be able to shoot that guy.
	That does not seem unreasonable to me.
	But speaking of unreasonable, I now want to turn to the fact that everyone in America has apparently lost their mind with regard to the capacity to take even mild criticism or joking.
	It's a pretty amazing thing.
	It really is pretty amazing.
	So this is so speaking of people who can't take a joke about guns, Jay Feeley is a I believe a kicker, right?
	I think he was a kicker in the NFL for the Philadelphia Eagles for years.
	And he was.
	Yeah, he was a kicker.
	That's right.
	And Jay Feeley tweeted out this photo.
	OK, he tweeted out a photo of himself With his daughter, right, who's apparently a beautiful blonde girl, and her date to the prom, right, who's just a, you know, a normal-looking dude who looks like a couple of former employees here.
	And he is, and Jay Philly is standing between them with his arm around his daughter and a, what looks like a Glock in the other hand.
	He's got a pistol in the other hand.
	And then it says, wishing my beautiful daughter and her date a great time at prom.
	Hashtag bad boys.
	Has had 133,000 likes.
	This is the oldest joke in America.
	It's the oldest joke.
	This joke has been done a thousand times.
	I remember when I was in law school, there was a Halloween party and a couple showed up as a shotgun wedding.
	The oldest joke is that if you hurt my daughter, I will hurt you.
	And yet, people lost their minds over this.
	People went crazy over this.
	How dare Jay Feeley?
	How could Jay Feeley do something like that?
	Look at him.
	He's threatening that man with a gun.
	First of all, if you look at the picture, it's pretty clear that this kid is not really feeling very threatened, right?
	He's smiling.
	Second of all, it's a joke!
	My goodness.
	My favorite response to this was from the feminist Lauren Duca, who can always be counted on for the hottest feminist take.
	She said, Oh good, another picture of a man showing that he thinks his daughter is his property.
	So, number one, my daughter does not have free reign over her own life until she becomes an adult and is capable of making adult decisions.
	But, that's really not what this photo is showing.
	Right now, my daughter is, effectively speaking, my property because she is four.
	What I mean by that is I get to control her life.
	She does not have all the freedom that she would have if she were an adult, grown human being.
	In this case, the daughter is 17, probably.
	16 or 17 years old.
	But that's not what the joke is, you idiots.
	The joke is, if you hurt my daughter, they will never find the body.
	That's the joke here.
	But men acting like men is now being seen as something wildly toxic, even when men are just joking about acting like men.
	I found a great insight about this yesterday.
	It was from a guy named Neon Taster.
	He said, you know, the entire left talks about the evils of rape culture.
	So they say, oh, rape culture.
	So people saying that rape is OK.
	So evil.
	Father tweets out photo saying, if you hurt my daughter, I'll kill you.
	Father is the bad guy.
	Again, folks, we need more fathers who are like this, not fewer.
	Okay, we need more fathers who are joking, half-joking, about the fact that if you hurt their daughters, they will do something really, really nasty to you.
	It is good for men to protect women.
	Does anyone really think Jay Feeley is gonna, like, go shoot this guy?
	Like, if his daughter and this guy go have consensual sex, that Jay Feeley's gonna break in the room, guns a-blazin'?
	Is that really what anybody thinks?
	Of course nobody thinks that.
	Of course nobody thinks that.
	But the left has to think that, because the idea from the left is that the gun inherently makes Jay Feeley a bad guy.
	They don't know Jay Feeley from Adam.
	But they figure that if Jay Feeley is holding a gun, then he must be one of those grunting Neanderthals who thinks that his daughter is his property.
	Which is, of course, insane.
	There's a certain level of cultural anger that exists on the left toward people who are culturally on the right.
	I'm not even talking about people who are politically on the right.
	I'm talking about people who, for example, own a gun.
	If you own a gun, there are a lot of — I've spent my entire life living in Los Angeles and Cambridge, Massachusetts, being surrounded by people on the left.
	If you say that you own a gun around people on the left in Los Angeles or in Cambridge, Massachusetts, they look at you as though you are the kind of person who goes hunting for boar with a spear and then roasts it over an open flame before taking your wife, Og, back to your cave.
	Owning a gun is that sort of cultural hallmark to a lot of people on the left.
	And that's all this is.
	That's all this is.
	Because if the guy had been standing there, right, if Jay Feeley had been standing there with, say, for example, a noose, Right?
	And basically suggesting that he was going to come after this kid if something happened to his daughter.
	Nobody would have cared.
	Everybody thought, okay, funny joke.
	He's carrying a gun, though.
	And so the idea is that the gun makes him super aggressive and super scary and super terrible.
	How dare Jay Feeley, that scary, scary, scary man.
	Guns are not inherently scary, except if you train kids that guns are inherently scary.
	Now, it's possible to train kids that guns are inherently dangerous, which they are.
	But it is also possible to train kids that guns are a tool in the hands of the people who wield them.
	But the left doesn't see it that way.
	The gun in Jay Feeley's hand made Jay Feeley evil.
	The gun in the hands of the guy in Tennessee made the guy in Tennessee evil.
	It's not that the guy in Tennessee is evil and had a gun, or the guy in Tennessee was mentally ill and had a gun, and that Jay Feeley is a fine law-abiding citizen and he had a gun, and so it's a completely different story.
	And meanwhile, speaking of cultural intolerance, so Shania Twain has been raked over the coals because Shania Twain had made the awful, awful, awful mistake of suggesting that she might actually, that she might actually go ahead and vote, she's Canadian, that she might have voted for Trump.
	I'll explain to you in just a second, but first, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Helix Sleep.
	So, there's nobody on the planet who is just like you, which is a good thing, because I mean, like, come on.
	But, why would you buy a mattress suited to somebody else?
	Can you want to sleep well at night?
	You need Helix Sleep mattresses.
	I'm not saying that it's going to relieve all your sleep problems, but I am going to say that whatever sleep problems you are having with a mattress, Helix Sleep will go a long way toward resolving those.
	Working with the world's leading sleep experts, Helix Sleep has developed a mattress that is customized to your specific height, weight, and sleep preferences, so you can have the best sleep of your life at an unbeatable price.
	Here's how it works.
	You go to HelixSleep.com, you fill out their two-minute sleep quiz, and they will design your custom mattress that can even customize each side for you and a partner.
	In 2018, Helix Sleep has even taken customized sleep to the next level with the Helix pillow.
	The only pillows are fully adjustable so you can achieve perfect comfort regardless of sleep position or body type.
	Helix Sleep has thousands of five-star reviews.
	Plus, you get 100 nights to try that.
	It's really cool.
	It comes in the mail.
	You unpack it.
	Inflates right in front of you because it's foam.
	We took a more expensive mattress in our room and moved it out of our room and substituted a Helix Sleep mattress because our Helix Sleep mattress is so good.
	Go to helixsleep.com slash ben right now and get up to $125 toward your mattress order.
	That's helixsleep.com slash ben for up to $125 off your mattress order.
	Helixsleep.com slash ben.
	And again, that is up to $125 off your mattress order.
	Check it out.
	There's a reason that Helix Sleep is such a fast-growing company, and there's a reason we use Helix Sleep in our home, not just because they're advertisers.
	All right.
	Meanwhile, speaking of people who cannot take a joke, this is an insane thing.
	So, Shania Twain was in an interview, right?
	She was in an interview, and here's what she said, right?
	It was an interview with The Guardian.
	She said, quote, I would have voted for him because even though he was offensive, he seemed honest.
	Do you want straight or polite?
	Not that you shouldn't be able to have both.
	If I were voting, I just don't want BS.
	I would have voted for a feeling that it was transparent.
	And politics has a reputation of not being that, right?
	Okay, so basically she said what everyone in the United States felt, which is that President Trump was more authentic than Hillary Clinton.
	Now, vote for Hillary Clinton or vote for Donald Trump.
	You know, there are a lot of questions about how to vote in that last election cycle, but It is not really in question that Trump is a more authentic human than Hillary Clinton, because it's difficult to find a less authentic human than Hillary Clinton.
	There are legitimately mannequins that are more authentic than Hillary Clinton.
	There are robots on TV that are significantly more authentic than Hillary Clinton.
	And I'm not even talking about the robots from, you know, from Westworld.
	I'm talking about, like, actual Rosie robots, like from the Jetsons, are more authentic than Hillary Clinton.
	So this is not a particularly controversial statement, but she then had to tweet out a four-part apology.
	Okay, here's what she tweeted, quote, So, number one, first of all, she is Canadian.
	Why is anybody, like, upset with how a Canadian would vote?
	with the Guardian relating to the American president.
	The question caught me off guard.
	As a Canadian, I regret answering this unexpected question without giving my response more context.
	So, number one, first of all, she is Canadian.
	Why is anybody like upset with how a Canadian would vote?
	She can't even vote.
	Who cares?
	Second of all, it is the most Canadian thing in the history of Canada that you are Canadian, cannot vote in an American election, you're asked about voting in the election, then you apologize to Canadians about how you would have voted in an election that's not in Canada.
	Pretty Canadian stuff, eh?
	Well, here's what she said.
	I would like to apologize to anybody I have offended in a recent interview.
	And she continued by saying, I am passionately against discrimination of any kind and hope it's clear from the choices I have made and the people I stand with that I do not hold any common moral beliefs with the current president.
	Okay, and then she continued along these lines, and she said, I was trying to explain in response to a question about the election that my limited understanding was that the president talked to a portion of America like an accessible person they could relate to as he was not a politician.
	And she concluded, my answer was awkward, but certainly should not be taken as representative nor does it mean I endorse him.
	I make music to bring people together.
	My path will always be one of inclusivity, as my history shows.
	So, again, I'm not sure what's divisive about her saying he was more authentic than Hillary Clinton, so I would have voted for him.
	She's from Canada.
	She is from Canada.
	But this is the world we now live in, where every controversy has to be about President Trump.
	Everything in the world is about President Trump.
	And it's a point of high irritation to me, because my view about President Trump is that President Trump is not that important a human being.
	Right?
	He's important because he's President of the United States.
	But as a person, you know, worrying about every little thing Trump does or says, like, I think a lot of the stuff that he's said and done is, I think, mostly said.
	I think a lot of the stuff he's done is great.
	I think a lot of the stuff he's said is excorable.
	But, so what?
	You know he's the president.
	I think that about every president.
	The idea that everything has to be about Trump is just an amazing, amazing thing.
	And the fact that we take the word of celebrities so seriously is pretty crazy.
	Now, I will point this out.
	You know, the entire left, they went insane when Laura Ingraham on Fox News suggested that LeBron James should shut up and dribble, right?
	Even though she wrote a book called Shut Up and Sing about the Dixie Chicks in 2004.
	They went nuts over Laura Ingraham.
	How could Laura Ingraham say such a thing to LeBron James?
	Shut up and dribble.
	I said at the time, listen, I think it's kind of a, you know, he can say whatever he wants.
	Is he an expert on politics?
	Not really.
	That's really what Laura was saying, I think.
	But the entire left said to Shania Twain, shut up and sing.
	I don't know how you can hold those two thoughts in mind at the same time.
	You can't say to LeBron James, shut up and dribble, but you can say to Shania Twain, shut up and sing.
	Very weird and demonstrative again of the fact that when it comes to the left, it's the silencing that is more important than the reality.
	Now, I will say this.
	The fact that we grant our celebrities any sort of credibility on politics in the first place is bizarre and also the reason why we now have celebrity politicians.
	Not only President Trump, but Hillary Clinton, let's face it, was a celebrity politician.
	Hillary Clinton may have had more of a legal background than President Trump, but when she ran for Senator of New York, she'd only been First Lady of the United States.
	That was not an elected position.
	She never held elected office, and she went directly to being Senator, and then she went directly from that to running for President.
	So, Hillary Clinton was a celebrity politician, too.
	She was.
	George W. Bush was a celebrity politician.
	Because, yes, he was governor of Texas, but the only reason he was governor of Texas is because his last name was Bush.
	Now, I think Bush was a much better president than Hillary Clinton would have been, obviously.
	I think Donald Trump is doing stuff that I never thought a conservative would do in office, and that's great.
	But the obsession of Americans with celebrity is pretty gross, and it's not exclusive to the left.
	So the right likes to think about the left, that the left is really obsessed with celebrity.
	And they are.
	There's no question that folks on the left think that folks in Hollywood have some sort of greater window on the human condition than anywhere else.
	It's the reason why they take so seriously all of the people from Hollywood, and it's the reason why all these Democratic politicians want to have Lena Dunham speaking at the DNC, even though Lena Dunham is one of the most off-putting human beings on God's green Earth.
	But the right is not immune to this.
	There is something to the human condition that when someone is famous or someone is rich, that we somehow grant them a halo effect.
	It's an actual psychological thing called the halo effect.
	You grant them the credibility of believing that they are good at everything.
	So if somebody is super wealthy, then we assume that they are super smart also.
	Or if someone is super beautiful, we assume that they are also Worth listening to on politics.
	If someone is really good with, for example, astrophysics, like Stephen Hawking, this means he must have important things to say about politics and religion.
	If you're Einstein, this means that you are good at politics.
	So Einstein was a socialist.
	You'll see people on the left say this all the time.
	Einstein, one of the great geniuses of all time, who's also socialist in his economic leanings.
	So, he was good at science.
	Nobody said he was good at economics.
	Right?
	And I assume that you wouldn't have, I assume you wouldn't have Frederick Hayek do your physics for you.
	But, because people are famous, we then grant them a certain level of credibility on other issues.
	So, the latest example of this is Kanye West.
	So, believe it or not, the right is now resonating to Kanye West.
	So, Kanye, I will not say, like, can we remember back to 2005, when after Hurricane Katrina, Kanye West went out there and said that George W. Bush had purposely targeted black people with a hurricane?
	That guy?
	Like the guy who jumped on stage with Taylor Swift and said, I'ma let you finish?
	That one?
	So now he's tweeting out deep thoughts, and the right is so excited.
	They're so excited because Kanye West is tweeting out things that sound kind of right-wing, like he tweeted out that he supports Candace Owens.
	Candace Owens, nice gal.
	I'm friendly with Candace.
	Candace is, she works with Charlie Kirk over at Turning Point USA.
	She's a black conservative.
	And Kanye West tweeted out that he likes how she thinks.
	And now he tweets out, we have freedom of speech, but not freedom of thought.
	And then he also tweeted this one out.
	OK, that's true, I think.
	And then he tweeted out that thought police want to suppress freedom of thought.
	Also true.
	And then he also tweeted out at one point that self-victimization is a disease.
	Agree.
	Agree with all of these things.
	And I'm looking forward to Kanye West tweeting out, facts don't care about your feelings.
	Like, I think it'll be great.
	But the right responded to Kanye West as though it was an earth-shattering thing that a big celebrity like Kanye West was saying things that were remotely conservative.
	It just demonstrates the right's desperation to be taken seriously in the sphere of pop culture.
	I think that the Roseanne ratings are another evidence of this.
	I think that the right wants to be taken seriously.
	They don't want to be seen as bad, evil people.
	And the pop culture decides who's seen as bad and evil.
	Pop culture tells you stories.
	And the folks in pop culture decide who gets to be portrayed as the villain and who gets to be portrayed as the hero.
	So every time somebody on the right is portrayed as not the villain, the right is willing to take it.
	So if Roseanne voted for Trump, even if she is pro-crossdressing and pro-gay marriage and pro-promiscuity and pro-abortion, we'll go, well, you know what?
	At least she's treating us well, so we like Roseanne now.
	We're doing the same thing with Kanye West.
	But I would just warn folks on the right.
	You know, you can be happy that Kanye West said something that seems to be conservative, but let's not pretend that Kanye West is some sort of genius, okay?
	I will use every opportunity ever to play this clip.
	This is from Jimmy Kimmel's show back when Jimmy Kimmel's show was not garbage.
	He had on Josh Groban, and Josh Groban the singer, and Josh Groban sang some of the best Kanye West tweets.
	Here's what that sounds like.
	like.
	You'll get all of your favorites.
	These are all his tweets.
	In bike stores.
	Okay, so, I would play the whole video, because I love it so much, but Kanye West is not, like, a super intelligent human being, and he is certainly not politically intelligent, and so the right resonating to anything anyone in pop culture says, because, look, that guy's famous.
	Okay, Kanye West tweeted out, he tweeted out the other day, self-victimization is a disease.
	He has also in the past tweeted out, quote, I hate when I'm on a flight and I wake up with a water bottle next to me, like, oh great, now I gotta be responsible for this water bottle.
	Okay.
	This is a guy who tweeted, quote, Or this one.
	I specifically ordered Persian rugs with my cherub imagery.
	What do I have to do to get a simple Persian rug with cherub imagery?
	Or this one.
	Man, ninjas are kind of cool.
	I just don't know any personally.
	How about this one?
	Sometimes I push the door close button on people running toward the elevator.
	I just need my own elevator sometimes.
	My sanctuary.
	I will say, dude, it's funny.
	But should he be deciding tax policy?
	Probably not.
	Don't you hate when people clap too loud in the car?
	It's like, yo, this is a closed area.
	Your clapping is way too loud.
	Like, I love this.
	This is an entire tweet storm.
	My favorite unit of measurement is a bleep load.
	Like when people ask how many shoes I got, I tell them I got a bleep load of shoes.
	How much is a bleep load?
	I'm assuming it's much more than a piss load.
	Kanye West, man.
	What a genius.
	I just threw some kazoo on this B-word.
	This is the guy you're going to?
	For your guidance in politics?
	Really?
	Really, folks?
	And then we wonder why our politics is so stupid?
	Because we are stupid, okay?
	The answer is because we're dumb.
	It'll cut right to the chase.
	We're all stupid.
	Okay, so.
	More on our stupidity in just a second.
	But first, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to dailywire.com.
	When you do, you get the rest of this show live.
	You also get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live, the rest of Michael Knowles' show live.
	We have all sorts of awesome goodies that are coming up for you.
	I don't want to spoil who I just did an interview with last week, but it's pretty awesome, and we're going to start doing some long-form interviews with extras attached, so those will be available if you're a subscriber.
	So go over right now and subscribe.
	We have so many goodies coming, I can't even tell you.
	And I'm not fibbing this time.
	It's actually true.
	So check it out.
	Also get the annual subscription for $99 and you get this, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.
	It will revivify you and refresh you.
	You'll become younger.
	It is the fountain of intellectual youth.
	The Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.
	Get that right now or listen for free later at iTunes or YouTube.
	Please subscribe.
	Please leave us a review.
	It always helps.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	Okay, now speaking of insane stupidity, I have to move on to this story from GQ.
	So, nobody reads GQ anymore, because why would you read GQ, right?
	Like, I'm not sure it had that many subscribers in the first place.
	They have a full list, by the editors of GQ, of 21 books that you should not read.
	21 books you should not read.
	So, that's exciting, because there are lots of books that I think that you should not read, but the books that they suggest Like, this is so stupid.
	It's basically the SJW guide to books you should burn.
	And it's pretty incredible.
	So number one on their list is Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry.
	Okay, Larry McMurtry is not on the right.
	Okay, Larry McMurtry, I believe, is the same guy.
	Didn't he write Brokeback Mountain?
	Larry McMurtry?
	I believe that's right.
	I believe that he wrote... Yeah, that's right.
	He wrote the screenplay to Brokeback Mountain.
	So Larry McMurtry is not exactly a right-wing dude.
	They say you shouldn't read Lonesome Dove, which is just a story about two friends on the prairie, basically.
	And it says, quote, I actually love Lonesome Dove, but I'm convinced that the cowboy mythos, with its rigid, masculine, emotional landscape, glorification of guns and destruction, and misogynistic gender roles, is a major factor in the degradation of America.
	Rather than perpetuate this myth, I'd love for everyone, but particularly American men, to read The Mountain Lion by Gene Stafford.
	It's a wicked, brilliant, dark book set largely on a ranch in Colorado, but it acts in many ways as a strong rebuttal to all the old toxic Western stereotypes we need to explode.
	You mean the Western stereotypes about people pioneering out into an area where they had no protection?
	In order to build the rest of the United States?
	You mean that Western ethos?
	You mean the ethos of men protecting women?
	That ethos?
	Not everything that happened in the Old West was good.
	There's plenty that was bad.
	Later this week, I'm going to recommend a movie that's about a lot of the bad stuff that happened in the West, but Lonesome Dove is not about those things, and you're stupid.
	Bottom line, GQ editors, you are incredibly stupid.
	They say you shouldn't read The Catcher in the Rye by J.D.
	Salinger, and what they say is that instead of reading The Catcher in the Rye, you should read a book called Olivia, the story of a British teenage girl who's sent to a boarding school in France, who falls in love with a female teacher, and it's basically Lolita, but with lesbians.
	Okay, and the guy who writes it, this saying that you shouldn't read Catcher in the Rye, is the guy who wrote Call Me by Your Name, which is again, Lolita for gay guys.
	So, just very, very exciting stuff from GQ.
	They say you shouldn't read Goodbye to All That by Robert Graves, which is a book about Graves' time in the trenches during World War I. It's a great book.
	They say it's incredibly racist because he includes samples of near-unintelligible essays produced by three of his students, Mahmoud Mohamed, Mahmoud Mohamed, Mahmoud Mohamed, and Mahmoud Mohamed, from his post-war stint as an English instructor in Cairo.
	So, basically, you should definitely not read this book about World War I because it was written by a guy who lived during World War I, and during World War I, people were more racist, so we shouldn't read anything from them.
	So don't read any old literature, guys, because if you read old literature, you might learn that old people had bad racial stereotypes, and then you might want to fight against those racial stereotypes by reading old books.
	That's bad.
	They also say don't read The Old Man and The Sea.
	They say that you should not read, let's see, A Farewell to Arms.
	They really hate Hemingway.
	They're really angry with Hemingway.
	They say you shouldn't read Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy.
	I actually think Blood Meridian is overrated, but Cormac McCarthy is a very good writer.
	They say you should not read John Adams by David McCulloch.
	Do not read John Adams.
	Do not do.
	Do not do it.
	Instead, you should read a history about the assassination of President Garfield.
	OK.
	Sure.
	And then they say, 9 and 10, do not read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain.
	So they really, really hate Twain.
	Why?
	The worst crime committed by Adventures of Huckleberry Twin is that it makes first-time Twain readers think Twain wrote tedious, meandering stories.
	He did, as is evidenced by this, his book of tedious, meandering stories.
	But he also wrote a lot of richly entertaining, meandering stories that are not constrained by the ham-fisted narration of a fictional backcountry child or suffused with his sweaty imitation of a slave talking.
	Sweaty imitation of a slave talking?
	What the hell are you even talking about?
	Okay, the adventures of Huckleberry Finn is one of the great works of American literature, and it is an anti-slavery tome, you morons!
	But again, history means nothing here.
	I want to go through the rest of this list in just a second.
	So, here are some of the other things on the list.
	I have to finish what they say here about Huckleberry Finn.
	They say, First of all, I've recommended Frederick Douglass, but you don't have to ignore Huckleberry Finn.
	I love this.
	They say Mark Twain was a racist.
	Just read Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
	The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is determined not to be a racist book.
	The whole point of the book is that black slavery is an evil, you idiots.
	There are a couple books they recommend that are pretty good, like The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shriver, which I've recommended on the show.
	But I love this.
	Number 12 on their list of books you definitely should not read is the Bible.
	You definitely should not read the Bible.
	They say the Holy Bible is rated very highly by all the people who supposedly live by it, but who in actuality have not read it.
	So I agree, not enough people have actually read the Bible.
	But they say those who have read it know there are some good parts, but overall it is certainly not the finest thing that man has ever produced.
	Oh, you mean the basis for all of Western civilization is not the finest thing that man has ever produced?
	There's no way to read Shakespeare without knowing the Bible.
	There's no way to read the Declaration of Independence without knowing the Bible.
	There's no way to read any modern literature without knowing biblical references.
	There's no way to read anything that Westerners have written that has any importance.
	You can't read Dostoevsky.
	You cannot read Tolstoy.
	You cannot read any great Western literature without reading the Bible, even the stuff that is directed against the Bible.
	You even can't read stuff that I think is stupid crap at the left legs, like The Handmaid's Tale, without understanding the Bible.
	He says those, I love this, it is repetitive, self-contradictory, sententious, foolish, and even at times ill-intentioned.
	Okay, editors of GQ, I'm sure that you know more than the rest of human history combined.
	Instead, they recommend that you read a book called The Notebook.
	No, not the one about, like, the two youngsters who have sex, but they're actually old.
	Not that one.
	Something called Agoda Christoph, a marvelous tale of two brothers who have to get along when things get rough.
	Okay, then?
	Alright.
	They say you shouldn't read Lord of the Rings.
	Lord of the Rings is really bad.
	Because if you read Lord of the Rings, then you might know about things like virtue.
	That would be bad.
	in the throat and into the brain of the rower.
	Okay, then?
	All right.
	They say you shouldn't read Lord of the Rings.
	Lord of the Rings is really bad because if you read Lord of the Rings, then you might know about things like virtue.
	That would be bad.
	Also, don't read Dracula because Dracula is boring.
	This is not true, by the way.
	Dracula is actually very not boring.
	It's a really good book.
	It's anti-Semitic, right?
	It doesn't cut in favor of my folks, but it is not a bad book.
	Catch-22 they say you shouldn't read.
	I love this.
	I could never get into Catch-22.
	It fails to capture the absurdities and impossible conflicts of war.
	What in the world are you talking about?
	The entire book is about the absurdity of war.
	The title of the book is Catch-22.
	The Catch-22 is that if you fly too many missions, right, if you're capable of flying a lot of missions, then they put you up in the air, even if you've already fulfilled your quota.
	And if you don't fly enough missions, they won't let you out, so they make you fill more missions.
	That's what Catch-22 is.
	The whole thing is about the absurdity of war, you numbskulls.
	They say that you should not read Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon.
	You should instead read Inherent Vice by Thomas Pynchon.
	Okay, Gravity's Rainbow is unreadable, there is no question.
	But, Inherent Vice is not a good book, okay?
	So, if you're gonna read Pynchon, go read Crying of Lot 49.
	They say you shouldn't read Slaughterhouse-Five by Vonnegut.
	You shouldn't read Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift.
	You definitely should not read that.
	So, some of the great Westerns, some of the great literature of the Western canon you should definitely not read, but you should read these obscure SJW books that they are recommending for you from GQ.
	So, well done GQ, demonstrating once and for all the intellectual scorn in which you hold the great works of Western literature is fully justified by the fact that you write for a magazine nobody reads.
	But this does go to sort of the shallowness of modern American culture, is that people believe that because they were born now, they are smarter than people who were born 200 years ago.
	I promise you, you weren't smarter than the people who were born 200 years ago.
	You're standing on their achievements.
	You're running on the fumes of their value system.
	You're living in a free country because of stuff that they did.
	But don't, you know, you weren't born on third base, okay?
	I mean, you didn't hit a triple.
	You were born on third base here.
	Civilizationally speaking, everyone in this civilization seems to think that they hit a triple when they were born on third base.
	You live in a free, relatively crime-free, relatively egalitarian society because of the sacrifices made by legitimately millions of people over the course of 3,000 years of human history, and many of those people were smarter than you.
	There's this weird belief that because you have more information than they did in some areas of life, this means that you are smarter on everything.
	You're not smarter on human nature, which has not changed in several thousand years, simply because you know more about how the Hubble telescope works.
	It's just an idiotic argument.
	Knowing more science doesn't mean knowing more about how human beings operate and what makes human beings human beings, or knowing what great literature is.
	Insight into human nature is as old as time and as deep as the thought of people who lived long before you did.
	Okay, so, time for a couple of things that I like and then we'll do some things that I hate.
	So...
	things that I like.
	There's a book that I read over the weekend that I really enjoyed.
	It's a book called Two Wings, Integrating Faith and Reason from Ignatius Press.
	Ignatius Press is a Catholic press, and they print a lot of really interesting stuff.
	I really like what they do.
	It's by Brian Clayton and Douglas Crease.
	I believe that Clayton just was on Andrew Klavan's show, so he just did an interview with Drew, so you should go check that out over at Drew's channel on the Andrew Klavan Show.
	But the book is obviously titled well.
	It's about integrating faith and reason, and it really is kind of good, simple, logical arguments for what faith is about, what reason is about, where there's crossover, where there's not crossover, and it's intellectually honest.
	I mean, it will say where there is no crossover between faith and reason, or where religion makes assumptions that reason simply cannot justify, or...
	Or where reason makes assumptions that reason can't justify.
	It's, I think, a really good beginner's guide to the conflict between faith and reason and where they unify.
	And it's a good attempt to put the pieces back together a little bit.
	So check that out.
	Two Wings Integrating Faith and Reason.
	Pretty easy read.
	It's about 240 pages.
	And well worth taking a look at.
	So you should go and check that out as well.
	Okay, time for some things that I hate.
	So one of the things that makes me absolutely nuts about the state of modern politics is, again, everything revolves around President Trump.
	Even though, in reality, President Trump is a guy in the Oval Office who's trying to do a job.
	Sometimes he does it well, sometimes he doesn't do it so well.
	But because of Trump, everybody has now been forced to take a position on the world as though Trump is the prism from which all light refracts.
	And one of those people is Bob Corker.
	Bob Corker is the senator from Tennessee.
	He's a lifelong Republican.
	And Bob Corker is now Essentially refusing to endorse his successor, Marsha Blackburn, in Tennessee.
	Which means the Republicans could lose the Senate if she loses that seat in Tennessee.
	But he can't find a way to say something nice about Marsha Blackburn because Marsha Blackburn has been friendly to Trump.
	Let's be real about this.
	Most Republicans are pretty friendly with Trump because he's the president of the United States.
	Bob Corker has a lot of distaste for Trump.
	That's fine.
	That's his prerogative.
	But to not endorse the priorities that you've spent your entire career supposedly fighting for, Bob Corker, because you don't like Trump, is definitely cutting off your nose to spite your face.
	Here's Bob Corker failing to defend Marsha Blackburn.
	Dana, the rest of the story wasn't written during the interview I had with the Christian Science Monitor.
	Senator, that's not a ringing endorsement of Marsha Blackburn to say that she should be elected just because she's going to vote for Mitch McConnell.
	Well, Dana, you know, I'm supporting the nominee.
	I've worked with the nominee for some time, and I don't know what else to say.
	So much, so much, you know, so much virtue signaling because he knows he's talking to Dana Bash on CNN as opposed to being on Fox News.
	And this is one of the things that you can always notice about politicians.
	They do say different things on different networks.
	Okay, speaking of people who are refracting things through the prism of Trump, Elizabeth Warren is an amazing thing.
	So, Elizabeth Warren.
	Trump has said that she has Native American blood.
	She has Native American ancestry.
	There's no evidence to this effect.
	None.
	Zero.
	Zip.
	Zilch.
	Her best defense is that her grandmother apparently had high cheekbones.
	I am not joking.
	This is what she has said.
	And that she once wrote a recipe for a cookbook called Pow Wow Chow.
	Again, not kidding.
	That's a thing she's actually said.
	Trump, making fun of her, has called her Pocahontas.
	That's not a rip on Native Americans.
	That's a rip on her for pretending to be a Native American in the same way that people rip on Sean King because they think that Sean King has no evidence of actually being black.
	Because on his birth certificate, his father is white and his mother is white.
	Okay, so making fun of Sean King is not racist.
	Making fun of Sean King is making fun of Sean King because Sean King may not, in fact, be a black person, right?
	According to people who think this.
	Okay, Elizabeth Warren is not a Native American person by any evidence whatsoever.
	And in Elizabeth Warren, because she is refracting everything back through that lens of Trump, she gets to claim that Trump's Pocahontas insult is racist.
	So, she's not a racist for claiming that she's Native American.
	Trump is racist for calling her out on claiming that she's Native American.
	You know, look, and he's been told over and over and over by tribal leaders, cut this out, stop this, this is racist because it's a racist intent.
	He's not doing this to pay a compliment.
	He's doing it to get out there and boy, just get everybody, us against them, us against them, us against them in every possible way.
	OK, so again, this is just the pandering is so high.
	You know, it's highbrow pandering here.
	And again, because it's all about Trump.
	And that means that we have to ignore all of the crimes of everybody else.
	Now, listen, this is not whataboutism.
	I think that, again, Trump has said some stuff that I've been very, very critical on him about.
	His tweets are insanely stupid a large percentage of the time.
	But him calling her Pocahontas is not racist.
	Her claiming to be Native American without any evidence in order to get ahead politically and in order to get a job at Harvard Law School, that seems to me a lot more like hijacking somebody else's culture than anything that President Trump has done.
	Finally, the final stupid thing is Tom Perez, who is the head of the DNC.
	He says that we've seen a mountain of evidence on Trump-Russia collusion again.
	He can say this about Trump because people are angry at Trump, but there's no evidence.
	I mean really there's very little evidence whatsoever on this.
	I believe in doing your homework, and over the course of the last year, we have seen, I think, a mountain of evidence of collusion between the campaign and the Russians to basically affect our democracy.
	Okay, so again, if you have that evidence, you can show it anytime, but it just demonstrates that the Democrats, because they believe that all of life revolves around Trump, they will attempt to impeach him if they do win back the House, even if they have no evidence to support it, because they will just claim evidence and then hope enough people hate Trump that they'll get away with it.
	Okay, so, we ran out of time to do a Federalist paper, we'll do one tomorrow, but we'll be back here then.

▲