All Episodes
Previous Next
July 19, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
48:21
Being Nice Is Against The Rules | Ep. 584
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
An actor praises me and gets destroyed for it, President Trump suffers through Putin fallout, and should Americans defend Montenegro?
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
I got to admit, I'm kind of in a mood today, and you're going to feel the benefits or the downsides of that mood in just a minute, But first, I want to remind you that we are taking The Ben Shapiro Show live this August to audiences in Dallas and Phoenix.
You should know we've now sold out of all of our general admission tickets for Dallas.
We're opening up the very last 800 seats available.
We're almost sold out of our events in Phoenix.
If you haven't gotten your tickets yet, you should get them now, or you could miss out on the event entirely.
It's dailywired.com slash events.
Dailywired.com slash events to get those tickets.
The events are going to be great.
I'll remind you that if you don't want anyone peeking over your shoulder when you're on the internet, you don't want anybody gathering your data, you don't want anyone tracking you online, you need a VPN.
And the people you should be using for your VPN are ExpressVPN.
ExpressVPN has easy-to-use apps that run seamlessly in the background of my computer, phone, and tablet.
Turning on ExpressVPN protection only takes one click.
ExpressVPN secures and anonymizes your internet browsing by encrypting your data and hiding your public IP address.
In protecting yourself with ExpressVPN, it costs less than $7 a month.
ExpressVPN is rated the number one VPN service by TechRadar, comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee.
So if you ever use public Wi-Fi and you want to keep hackers and spies from seeing your data, ExpressVPN is the solution.
If you don't want to hand over your online history to your internet provider or data resellers, ExpressVPN is indeed your answer.
So protect your online activity today.
I do.
I mean, there are a lot of folks I know who are targeting me online.
That's why I use ExpressVPN.
Protect your online activity today.
Find out how you can get three months for free at expressvpn.comslashben.
That's expressvpn.comslashben for three months free with a one-year package.
That's expressvpn.comslashben.
To learn more, go check it out at expressvpn.comslashben for that three months free with the one-year package.
Okay.
So, one of the reasons that I'm in a mood today, aside from the fact that I had an allergic reaction to fish last night and spent half the night in the hospital, aside from that, the reason that I am in a mood today is because there's a guy who I thought was a very nice guy named Mark Duplass.
Mark Duplass, you probably recognize his face.
He's one of these sort of face guys from TV, or if you see him walking around on the street, you go, yeah, I recognize that guy from TV.
But he's not like a top line star where you would know his name.
He's apparently very big and sort of the indie director.
I don't agree with him on much, but he's a genuine person who wants help me for no other reason than to be nice.
He doesn't bend the truth.
Well, yesterday he tweeted something out.
And what he tweeted out was this.
He tweeted out, fellow liberals, if you're interested at all in crossing the aisle, you should consider following Ben Shapiro.
I don't agree with him on much, but he's a genuine person who once helped me for no other reason than to be nice.
He doesn't bend the truth.
His intentions are good, which is much appreciated.
I mean, that's a nice thing for him to say, right?
And I'll tell you what the nice thing that I did for Mark Duplass was.
The nice thing I did for Mark Duplass is he emailed me, like a lot of folks do, and he said, I'm doing a show that has to do with a narrative.
There's a narrative in there about guns and gun control and gun use.
And I wanted to get a perspective on the right side of the aisle because I don't get to hear that all that often.
And I thought, well, that's a nice thing.
I'm glad somebody from Hollywood actually cares enough.
To want to hear from people who are pro-Second Amendment folks.
People who actually care about gun rights.
So, he came into the office, and I kept it on the down low, because there's a basic rule that I have here.
We actually do have a fairly large number of active Hollywood stars who come into the office, who are pretty big fans of the show, or they enjoy what I do, and I have a rule with them, which is no one gets to take pictures, basically.
We try to keep it on the down low as much as possible, because Hollywood is a one-party Stalinist town.
Hollywood is the kind of place where if it gets out that you once took a picture with me, they will crush you.
If they find out that you are friendly with me, or we once had dinner, we went out to lunch or something, then they will come after you with a vengeance.
And I knew this.
So I knew this about Mark Duplass also.
So Mark Duplass comes in, and I spent Probably an hour and a half, just talking over gun rights with him, trying to explain the various points of view, trying to explain where I thought the flaws were in the pro-Second Amendment position and how you counter those, where the flaws are in the pro-gun control position, how you counter those.
I tried to be sort of as honest about the argument as I possibly could.
And then we shook hands and he took off.
And I said, if you need any other contacts, you need anybody who you need to talk to on either side of the aisle, I know some folks on both sides of the aisle who have different opinions on this issue.
I'm happy to facilitate.
I'm glad that you're actually trying to take into account views that may not be your own on this issue.
Right, very nice.
Everything's fine.
And then, I didn't ask him to do anything, because I literally have not spoken with him since this day, which was what, maybe a couple of months ago, guys?
It was a couple of months ago.
And so he leaves, and then he tweets that out, right?
That very nice thing.
And that's fine.
And then he gets ratioed.
So being ratioed on Twitter is where you get more comments than retweets on the message.
More comments than likes on the message.
People on the left start bringing up tweets out of context from 10 years ago.
They start picking up columns I wrote when I was 19 that I disowned when I was 27.
And they start trying to show him that the person who he had just endorsed as a genuine fellow is actually an evil racist sexist bigot.
And remember, that original tweet didn't say he endorses my political point of view.
It doesn't say that he agrees with nearly anything that I have to say.
It just says that I'm a nice, genuine person.
That's it.
Okay, which is really, really innocuous stuff.
But no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
And so they showed up, and they started going after Mark, and Mark, predictably enough, deleted the tweet.
Which is his prerogative.
That's his prerogative.
I didn't ask him to tweet it.
I didn't ask him to delete it.
That's all fine and dandy.
And so I texted him and I just said, listen, dude, I understand you're in Hollywood.
I get why you felt you had to delete the tweet.
You know, I have no hard feelings.
Like I totally, totally get it.
It happens in Hollywood all the time.
I appreciate the original sentiment to the tweet.
Okay, this morning, Mark Duplass puts out an actual apology for his original tweet.
So after all of this happens, he actually apologizes for the original tweet.
And not only does he apologize, he now suggests that I, in fact, endorse hatred, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, or another form of intolerance.
Here's his entire response.
Quote.
So that tweet was a disaster on many levels.
A disaster.
A disaster.
I mean, like a tsunami or an earthquake.
That tweet was a disaster.
Tweeting that I was a nice guy who was genuine and I tried to be honest about the issues.
That was a disaster on many levels.
Not just one level, many levels.
Like all the way down to Dante's seventh circle of hell.
It's a disaster on every level.
He says, so that tweet was a disaster on many levels.
I want to be clear that I in no way endorse hatred, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other such form of intolerance.
Right, because neither do I. Like, so?
And then he says, My goal has always been to spread unity, understanding, and kindness, but I'm going to make mistakes along the way.
Sometimes I move too quickly when I get excited or fail to do enough research or I don't communicate myself clearly.
I'm really sorry.
I now understand that I need to be more diligent and careful.
I'm working on that, but I do believe deeply in bipartisan understanding, and I will continue to do my best to promote peace and decency in this world right now.
That said, I hear you.
And I want to say thank you to those who reached out with constructive criticism.
I've genuinely learned so much and wish everyone all the best.
And he signs it with his name, Mark Duplass.
OK, again, free country.
You can say what you want.
I'm not even going to go into critiquing whether I think that he did the right thing here, because I think that it's obvious from what I'm saying that I think that this is a mistake, a strategic mistake, that if you're trying to reach across the aisle and you get criticism for reaching across the aisle, maybe it's the people doing the critiquing who are the problem.
Maybe it's not you.
Maybe Mark Duplass wasn't wrong to send that tweet.
Maybe it's all the people who decided that any attempt to reach across the aisle was wrong.
And let's be clear about something.
This has almost nothing to do with me.
Mark Duplass could have tweeted this about Guy Benson.
He could have tweeted this about Charles Krauthammer.
He could have tweeted this about Ann Coulter.
He could have tweeted this about any person on the right.
Any person.
It would not matter.
He could have tweeted this about any friend.
Probably half the left he could have tweeted this about.
And there was a group of people, this SJW mob that exists on Twitter, solely to cudgel people into line.
And those are the people who help run Hollywood, by the way.
A lot of those folks are people who are living in these massive mansions off of Sunset Boulevard and decrying capitalism.
I promise, it wasn't just the Twitter.
It wasn't just the people on Twitter, the randos on Twitter who spend all of their days in their mommy's basement and are tweeting out nasty things about me to Mark Z. Blass.
I promise you what happened is that his wife probably came to him and said, I got calls from my friends.
His brother, who I guess is his business partner, probably came to him and said, listen, we're getting blowback for this.
Other directors with whom he has friends, I'm sure, came out and said, why would you possibly have done this?
My favorite along these lines, by the way, was Tom Arnold.
So Tom Arnold, to be clear, is another person we've been nice to here at this office.
Tom Arnold came in and actually did a show with Michael Mowles, and we were kind enough to let him in with his camera crew into the office.
And here's what he tweeted out.
Now, remember, I said nothing publicly about anything Duplass said here.
Nothing.
Until he actually put out that statement, at which point I just said, you know, it's sad that this is what the discourse has come to.
Here's what Tom Arnold, a crazy person, tweeted this morning.
So that's Tom Arnold, right?
I'm sure that a lot of Mark's friends were coming after him for all of this.
Honestly, I feel bad for Mark.
purposes of brawl and all the kicks headed toward his teeth and face, he shall be deemed all man.
And this is after Tom Arnold had suggested, how dare I exist?
Because Mark Duplass got in trouble for having texted or tweeted something about me.
So that's Tom Arnold, right?
I'm sure that a lot of Mark's friends were coming after him for all of this.
Honestly, I feel bad for Mark.
I feel bad for Mark because Mark, I think, was originally trying to do the right thing.
And I think that Hollywood has a vested interest in making sure that everyone who disagrees with them, in any small, minute amount, is portrayed as the worst person on Earth.
I don't want to say this is why you got Trump, but this is one of the reasons that they got Trump.
When you lump everybody together, when you say that everybody who disagrees with you is a racist, sexist, homophobic, bitter clinger who just wants guns and God, when you say that that's what those people are and you cannot even speak to them, how dare you try to have an honest conversation with one of them?
Then this is the predictable result, which is that you can bully anybody with just a few tweets.
And unfortunately, I think this has become endemic.
It's become endemic.
You know, there's a lot of talk these days about the so-called intellectual dark web.
So for folks who don't know what the intellectual dark web is, it's this group of people who are right and left.
I believe I'm the only registered Republican on the list.
Who have conversations with each other about a wide variety of issues.
You've seen some members of the IDW appear on my Sunday special.
So this would be people like Sam Harris, with whom I disagree about everything.
And people like Eric Weinstein, who's going to be on on Sunday.
It's a bunch of... Eric is a Democrat.
He's never voted Republican.
Sam is a Democrat.
He's never voted Republican.
It's people ranging from Jordan Peterson to Dave Rubin to Christina Hoff Summers.
I believe I'm the only registered Republican on that list.
And the reason that exists, the reason this IDW exists, is because it's a bunch of people who are honestly trying to reach answers by having conversations with one another.
And we don't want to engage with the worst versions of the arguments.
We're not interested in engaging with the stupidest version the other side has to present, and we're not interested in the sort of mudslinging that goes on on Twitter.
And this has all become very, very popular.
The reason it has become popular, the reason it is important, is because the left has become so deeply intolerant of anything remotely resembling an honest conversation.
Because let me be clear about this.
If Mark had come into this office and Mark had filmed us talking for an hour and a half in cordial fashion, he would have got hit the exact same way.
He wouldn't have even had to tweet out that people should follow me on Twitter if they want an honest conservative take.
He wouldn't have even had to do that.
All that he would have had to do is set foot in the studio and treat me like a human being.
That would have been enough to earn the ire of the left.
That would have been enough.
How do I know?
Because when Bill Maher had me on his show and treated me like a human being, and by the way, it was pretty far left when he talked about Trump and Russia, he got blowback from the left for even having me on.
Because that's how this works now.
The goal here is to shut that Overton window tight, to make sure that no one who exists outside that Overton window, that area of authentic, decent discourse, that no one outside that area of accepted opinion, that area of accepted left-wing opinion, is allowed to talk or have a conversation with one another.
And if you had a problem with something I've said in the past, I have a great solution for this.
Why don't you ask me about it?
Because it turns out that if you did half a second of research, you would realize that people change their opinions over time, that people make mistakes.
You might realize that you're misconstruing something someone said, normally that's happening on purpose.
Instead, it's a lot easier to run for the safe space and pretend that everyone who disagrees with you, and that's the real problem here, is that in the end, I'm sure Mark and I disagree on all these issues, and that really is the problem.
Because if I were on the left, I don't think that Mark, number one, would have gotten the blowback, and number two, I doubt that he would have apologized, because Hollywood doesn't care.
You can be friends with Tom Arnold.
You can openly endorse Tom Arnold, who is a legit crazy person.
And that's totally fine.
But if you endorse anybody who disagrees with you, then you must be taken out to the woodshed and caned.
Okay, I have a little bit more on this.
First, I want to talk about weight loss.
So everything that we have been taught about weight loss is actually making us unhealthy.
The supplements that we actually use when we are losing weight very often are packed with sugar and artificial ingredients and processed foods.
Well, if you're looking for healthy supplements that are packed with nutrients that promote weight loss, you need to look at 310 Nutrition.
Nutrition is the brand you can trust to help you lose weight and live out a healthy lifestyle with the help of a variety of terrific products.
310 Nutrition is the maker of the 310 Meal Replacement Shake that's packed with top quality plant-based proteins, vitamins, minerals, superfoods, probiotics.
310 Lemonade Water Enhancer is great for people who don't like to drink water because water doesn't taste like anything.
Instead, 310 Lemonade helps make water taste better.
There are a bunch of people in the office.
I know Senya's been using 310 Nutrition.
She says it's just awesome and that all of the food tastes great and has been a real aid in weight loss.
Join the 310 Nutrition community for free by going to 310family.com.
That's 310family.com.
And in addition to the great community of people you'll be joining, 310 Nutrition is offering my listeners their 310 Starter Nutrition Kit for just $14.
You'll receive an assortment of 310 meal replacement shakes, a meal plan e-book, e-card, gift card, and many other products.
Don't miss out on the great offer and join the free community.
Joining 310 Nutrition is a great way to engage with thousands of like-minded individuals who are trying to lose weight and become healthier, and doing it in the healthiest possible way.
Check it out, 310family.com.
That's 310family.com, 310family.com.
Great products, and you'll really enjoy it, and it'll help you be a healthier Human being.
OK, so here is the real question.
Is it good for the left to continually cave to this mob?
My answer is it is not good for the left.
It's probably good for the right that the left continually caves to this mob.
Here's the truth in pure partisan breakdown.
The more the left caves to its most extreme radicals and says we're not going to have a conversation across the other side of the aisle, the more they are likely to engage in an echo chamber where they move further and further and further to the left.
And that is further and further and further away from the American people.
The way that you end up in an intersectional bubble of your own making, where you're not allowed to talk about politics unless you have the right skin color, or the right background, or the right ethnicity.
The way you end up in that bubble is by excising everyone who doesn't count in your little group.
And again, this is the way that it works in Hollywood.
Hollywood morality has now been expanded out across America, but it is particularly predominant in Hollywood.
You know, my business partner, Jeremy Boring, he was the executive director of the least secret secret organization in the history of man.
It was on the front page of the New York Times.
That organization was called Friends of Abe.
Friends of Abe was a group of literally thousands, thousands upon thousands of Hollywood conservatives Grips.
Writers.
Producers.
Actors.
Directors.
And they all had to be part of a secret group because they know what kind of blowback you face for even saying that you voted for George W. Bush, or you didn't oppose the war in Iraq, or you thought about voting for Donald Trump.
That kind of stuff gets you excised in Hollywood.
It gets you destroyed.
I wrote an entire book on this.
I wrote a book called Primetime Propaganda, all about leftist bias in Hollywood, in which a bunch of top-name Hollywood producers admitted openly to me On tape, that they discriminated against conservatives in their work.
So I understand what Mark Duplass was going up against here.
I understand it better than anybody.
I literally wrote the book on it.
I wrote a 400-page book on it.
I get it.
All I can say is that that mentality has now extended out across America.
Unfortunately, I think it exists for some folks on the right side of the aisle as well.
I think there's a small sliver of the right that says that if you talk with somebody across the aisle, then that is to be condemned in the worst possible fashion.
But it's certainly not as extreme.
It is a mainstream thing on the left now.
It's a mainstream thing.
You cannot find a single conservative, outside of maybe David Frum, who's no longer conservative.
You can't find a single conservative the left thinks it's okay to talk to.
The only ones they'll let you talk to are Max Boot and David Frum, because Max Boot has decided you should vote Democrat, and so has David Frum.
And maybe George Will now, because George Will says you should vote Democrat.
There's not a single person in America who says vote Republican that the left would not have attacked with equal vigor.
Over an actor saying that you maybe ought to follow my stuff.
It really is amazing.
And the lack of knowledge is pretty amazing, too.
James Gunn, who's the director of Guardians of the Galaxy and Guardians of the Galaxy 2, got into the act.
He said that it was wrong that Duplass had been attacked.
And then he said, but I would never tell anyone to follow Ben Shapiro.
I wouldn't tell his own mother to follow him.
He's a bleephole.
You don't know anything about me, dude, but I understand you have to virtue signal for your friends so you feel better at the cocktail parties.
Okay, so this is the way the left has decided to operate.
Unfortunately, it is having some broader implications for not governmental-oriented free speech, but for the attitude of free speech that we have in the country.
So the latest example of this is Mark Zuckerberg.
is now under serious fire because he has defended the rights of Facebook users to publish Holocaust denial posts.
He said he didn't think that they're intentionally getting it wrong.
This is according to The Guardian, which means it's a biased source to the left.
In an interview with Recode, published on Wednesday, the CEO also explained Facebook's decision to allow the far-right conspiracy theory website InfoWars to continue using the platform, saying the social network would, quote, try to reduce the distribution of that content, but would not censor the page.
Zuckerberg's comments came the same day Facebook announced a new policy pledging to remove misinformation used to incite physical harm.
And people jumped all over Zuckerberg for this.
Now, am I an InfoWars fan?
If you didn't get from my myriad impersonations of Alex Jones, TURN ME IN THE FRONT TODAY, the answer is no.
I am not an InfoWars fan.
And Alex Jones is not my fan.
Last time he talked about me on his show, I believe, he said that Satan should get behind him, and that I was actually an atheist sent to convert to Christians.
Congratulations, guys.
You've been suckered.
But when all of this happened, Here's my view.
Facebook is a platform.
Facebook is not actually a publisher.
And that means that it's not Facebook's job to prevent any sort of speech except for speech that is open incitement to violence.
But the left believes that anything bad ought to be shut down.
Now, they actually believe that when it comes to publishers like Facebook, they should be shut down by the government.
The government should actually intervene and violate free speech laws and shut down hate speech, right?
This is what the left believes.
But even in normal everyday conversation, the idea is That stuff that's not nearly as extreme as Infowars, or nearly as extreme as Holocaust denial, that stuff should not be allowed into the public debate.
Here's the thing.
I think there are three categories.
There's speech that is allowed, which I think is nearly everything.
There's speech that is good, which I think is not very much.
And then there's speech that is reasonable to debate with.
And that's a broader group, right?
So you have the smallest circle, which is the speech I agree with and like.
And then there's the broader circle, which is speech that I don't agree with, don't necessarily like it all that much, but I think is worthy of engagement.
And then there's this broad, broad, broad circle, which is speech that should be allowed, some of which I think is just vile and disgusting.
Okay, for the left, what the left has done is they have now collapsed a couple of these circles into themselves.
So that first circle, which is stuff that I like and that I agree with, that circle has become the second circle, stuff that I'm willing to engage with.
Right?
The only stuff they're willing to engage with is stuff they agree with.
If you disagree with somebody, you're not allowed to have a conversation about it, because that just shows that they're wrong, and secretly, secretly, they're racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes, and we have the proof, because we have old tweets ten years ago taken out of context deliberately.
We have the proof.
This is what the left is attempting to do right now, and it creates this sense of frustration on the right.
It creates a sense like, well, if anybody is willing to shatter this entire matrix that has been created by the left with regard to speech, go!
Do it!
Trump's popularity is very much tied to this.
Trump's popularity is tied to the idea that the dude takes a hammer to the politically correct matrix.
Now, I've said many times, I don't always like how he does it.
I think that President Trump says things that are not just politically incorrect, but that are flat out wrong.
I think that happens, but the drive on the right to listen to President Trump when he says outrageous things is driven by the fact that the left has ruled everything into the outrageous category.
Every single thing is now in the outrageous category.
So, I am President Trump, is Charles Krauthammer, is George Will.
They're all the same, according to the left.
All these people are the same.
Now, if you have any brains, or you take half a moment of self-reflection, you realize there's a pretty wide diversity of viewpoints between all of the people that I just mentioned.
But if you're on the left, then all these people must be cast into the outer darkness.
The left has basically become the little boy in the Twilight Zone episode who wishes people into the corn.
And everybody who wants to have a reasonable conversation, they're just sitting in the room with the little boy, hoping that he doesn't wish them into the corn, too.
Right?
Because if they get wished into the corn, they have to hang out with all those deplorables.
So, eventually, something's gonna happen, right?
And what's happened here is that the left, being this little boy who wishes people into the cornfield, You know, if you offend him too much, he wishes people into the cornfield.
The left, being that little boy, eventually that little boy will be the only one left in the town.
And that little boy can't take care of himself.
That little boy is not capable of feeding himself, or governing, or having a conversation.
That little boy is capable of nothing.
The tyrannical nature of the left with regard to having decent conversation is utterly asinine.
I'm willing to converse with pretty much everyone outside of, you know, open Holocaust deniers, and even those people I don't think ought to be banned.
I don't think there should be laws against them.
I just am not willing to listen to that point of view because I think it's so obviously a-factual.
But there are plenty of people on the left I talk to on a frequent basis.
And you know what polls show?
Polls show that conservatives talk to people on the left far more than leftists talk to conservatives.
Far, far more.
Because it turns out that conservatives are willing to actually engage in argument and discussion, and people on the left believe that they are so morally righteous because politics is their religion, that all the blasphemers must be burned at the stake.
And anyone who harbors blasphemers, like Mark Duplass, those people must also be burned at the stake as well.
Just really, really delightful folks.
Really delightful folks.
Okay, so in just a second, I want to get to President Trump, who continues to get himself in hot water over Vladimir Putin and Russia.
First, let's talk about your sleep quality.
So, you didn't sleep well last night.
I know you didn't, right?
You're sitting there right now, and your eyes are closing, and you're thinking, oh god, I'm so glad I have this podcast to listen to, otherwise my head would hit this keyboard where I am at work.
Well, that is why you need Helix Sleep, because 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.
So here's how it works.
Go to helixsleep.com, fill out their 2-minute sleep quiz, they'll design your custom mattress, they can even customize each side for you and a partner.
In 2018, Helix Sleep has taken customized sleep to the next level with the Helix Pillow.
The all-new pillows are fully adjustable so you can achieve perfect comfort regardless of sleep position or body type.
Personally, I was so impressed with my Helix Sleep mattress that I actually gave a gift to my sister for her wedding.
I gave this mattress to my sister as a wedding present.
She was able to go through the process on the website and get a customized mattress that worked for her and for her husband.
And she's just really, I mean, she's so excited to have it arrived.
I'll be honest with you.
It wasn't that I have such great ideas for gifts.
My sister said, I heard about the Helix Sleep mattress.
Can you get that for us?
And that's how she ended up with the Helix Sleep mattress.
It's really great.
HelixSleep.com slash Ben, you get up to 125 bucks toward your mattress order.
That's HelixSleep.com slash Ben for up to 125 bucks toward that mattress order.
Again, HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
OK, so meanwhile, more hubbub breaking out over President Trump and his meeting with Vladimir Putin.
President Trump tweeted this morning that he thinks that there should be a second meeting with Vladimir Putin, which made his entire national security team shudder to their core.
The polls show that Republicans are pretty much OK with Trump's meeting with Putin, which is not A real surprise, because Republicans take every poll question on President Trump as a referendum on Trump as a whole.
So if you ask Republicans, President Trump took a dump on the front lawn of the White House, approve or disapprove?
Most Republicans see that as the media attempting to get Trump, and they will say approve.
Really, like 6 in 10 Republicans, 7 in 10 Republicans, they always see poll questions as an attempt to paint Trump in a bad light and say they'll defend him no matter what.
And that's not unique to Republicans.
This happens to Democrats too.
Jimmy Kimmel does this routine where he will actually go out and ask people about particular policies that were Trump policies that are not Obama policies, but he'll say that they were Obama policies and Democrats will suddenly embrace the policy.
So this is just something people do.
As a general rule, people tend to fall toward confirmation bias, and they tend to fall toward this kind of tribal siding with particular political figures.
But suffice it to say, Trump's move on Monday with Russia was not popular across the country.
60% of Americans did not like his press conference with Vladimir Putin.
And now there's a new report out from the New York Times That is not particularly good for the President of the United States because Trump has basically been suggesting for a while that he doesn't believe his intelligence community when it comes to their assessment, all 17 intelligence agencies, that the Russians were trying to monkey with our election through information breaches and hacks and release of that information.
Trump, apparently according to the New York Times, was told two weeks before his inauguration that there was classified intelligence, highly classified intelligence, indicating that Putin had personally ordered complex cyber attacks to sway the 2016 American election.
The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top secret source close to Mr. Putin who described to the CIA how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation.
Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing.
But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on January 6th, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed.
So is that President Trump not believing his own intelligence?
I don't think so.
I think that's President Trump looking at the data and not liking the data, and so the data becomes false because he doesn't like it.
President Trump has an unfortunate tendency to do that.
So, for example, yesterday, he was asked at the end of a press conference that was happening in one of the cabinet rooms, he was asked whether Russia is still attempting to interfere In our political system, and here was his answer.
Okay, so he went on to talk about all the harsh measures he's taken against Russia, and a lot of that is true.
But when he says no, when he says no, now the White House says he wasn't using no to something else.
We're doing very well, probably as well as anybody has ever done with Russia.
OK, so he went on to talk about all the harsh measures he's taken against Russia.
And a lot of that is true.
But when he says no, when he says no, now the White House says he wasn't saying no to something else.
People in the room say that's not true.
Assume for a second that he said no, that Russia was not monkeying with the is not monkeying now with the election.
That obviously is counter what his intelligence officials are saying as in right now.
So here's FBI Director Chris Wray explaining, no, actually the Russians are sort of attempting to meddle.
The intelligence community's assessment has not changed.
My view has not changed, which is that Russia attempted to interfere with the last election and that it continues to engage in malign influence operations to this day.
Okay, and that of course is, I think, the general consensus of the intelligence community.
DNI Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, he said three days before Trump said that Russia wasn't monkeying with us, that the lights are now blinking red when it comes to cyber security threats directly from Russia.
It was in the months prior to September 2001 when, according to then CIA Director George Tenet, the system was blinking red.
And here we are two decades, nearly two decades later, And I'm here to say the warning lights are blinking red.
OK, so the White House tried to walk this back a little bit.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders came out.
She said Trump wasn't denying Russian interference.
That's fine.
You know, I'm glad that she said that.
President Trump himself on CBS says that he holds Putin directly responsible for the meddling.
This is the sort of language that you need consistently from the president of the United States.
This is good Trump, right?
We've seen some bad Trump.
Here's some good Trump on CBS Evening News last night.
You haven't condemned Putin specifically.
Do you hold him personally responsible?
Well, I would, because he's in charge of the country, just like I consider myself to be responsible for things that happen in this country.
So, certainly, as the leader of a country, you would have to hold him responsible, yes.
Okay, so that is exactly the right answer, and I would hope that President Trump would continue to say that over and over and over, because the reality is that Putin, according to the intelligence community, and they have better information than I do, or you do, right, is saying that the Russians were attempting to interfere in the election, not necessarily to make Trump win, per se, but to ensure that President Trump and Hillary Clinton were locked in this acrimonious debate over Russia specifically.
That's what Putin wants.
Putin wants us yelling at each other, and he's sure got it.
If President Trump, President Trump can, I think a lot of this, again, is just an ego problem.
I think that if President Trump could just say, listen, I didn't collude with Russia.
Russia did attempt to intervene in the election.
There's no evidence that that swung the election finale, that the outcome of the election was not based on Russian interference.
But we don't want Russia screwing with us.
If he had said that, I'm on board.
That's exactly right.
That's exactly right from all the evidence that I can see.
Instead, he continues to signal and his administration continues to signal confusion over what are fairly clear issues, right?
There are only a couple of issues here.
Did he collude?
Yes or no?
The answer, according to Trump, and I believe this, is no.
Did Russia interfere in the election?
The answer, according to all of our intelligence agencies, is yes.
One and two don't have to be the same thing, right?
You can say no to collusion and yes to interference.
Not the same thing.
And question three.
Did that interference actually swing the election to Trump?
And you can say, I don't see the evidence for that.
That's fine with me as well.
I think that Hillary Clinton lost that election.
End of story.
So, all of this is actually quite simple, but the administration seems to be struggling over it because Trump is at war with himself.
His head is saying all the things that I'm telling you right now, and his heart is saying, I don't like anything the intelligence community tells me, so I'm just going to reject all of it outright.
Well, this ends up putting the administration itself in a very odd and kind of ugly position.
So Sarah Huckabee Sanders, White House press secretary, yesterday she was specifically asked about an offer that Vladimir Putin made to Donald Trump in Helsinki.
And that offer was, Putin had said, he said, we're happy to bring Americans like Bob Mueller over to Russia to watch us investigate all of these supposed Russian bad actors.
But in return, we want you to work on the arrest and shipment to Russia of Michael McFaul, the former US ambassador to Russia, as well as Bill Browder, a British citizen who is largely responsible for the passing of Magnitsky Act, which is essentially a set of sanctions that was put in place in 2012.
OK, now the normal answer to that is no.
We have no evidence these people broke the law.
If you want to provide evidence these people broke the law and have Interpol arrest them, you can try that.
They've tried it with Bill Browder in Spain most recently.
It failed.
He was released.
But even countenancing the idea that we are going to essentially trade American citizens like Michael McFaul, who had the temerity to pass a sanctions bill against Russia, for, like, basically we're going to take a political prisoner, ship him to Russia, to Putin, and in exchange we are going to receive back these 12 hackers.
It's asinine, but Sarah Huckabee Sanders couldn't quite disown it yesterday.
Here's what it looked like.
The President's going to meet with his team, and we'll let you know when we have an announcement on that.
Let me just follow up for a second.
Is that a topic that came up in their conversation?
Did President Putin raise this with President Trump?
There was some conversation about it, but there wasn't a commitment made on behalf of the United States, and the President will work with his team, and we'll let you know if there's an announcement on that front.
Okay, that is the wrong answer.
The right answer is there was discussion and Trump laughed at it.
Because we're not going to start arresting American citizens and sending them to Russia just because Vladimir Putin wants to quote-unquote make an offer.
That's an absurdity.
It's an absurdity.
Now, do I think that Sarah Huckabee Sanders is actually going to be interested in shipping Bill Browder and Michael McFaul back to Russia?
No, I don't think that at all.
Do I think Trump is either?
No.
I think what happened here is there's a disconnect at the White House, and this is a real problem with how Trump governs.
That disconnect is pretty simple.
The disconnect is that President Trump usually comes to the right conclusion, but only on his own.
If he feels that people are pushing him in a particular direction, he tends to push back against them.
So the normal response by any press secretary, even not having asked the president, would have been, no, of course he wouldn't consider such a thing, knowing that they have the faith of the president and that the president would never consider such a thing.
For Sarah Huckabee Sanders and other people in the White House, I think there's a tendency to say, we'll consider it, because they figure, okay, then they'll go back, they'll ask Trump, Trump will say no, and then they'll come back the next day and they'll say, of course, we're not gonna do any of that.
I think this is actually more of a personality issue than an issues issue, but it does grant a certain amount of aid to Putin in his attempt to portray Trump as a lack of his, and that's what Putin wants more than anything.
Makes perfect sense that Ambassador McFaul, under Obama, again, not a big fan of Ambassador McFaul, but He's not wrong here.
He says that he is flabbergasted that the White House would not defend him against Putin.
I was totally flabbergasted by was that the White House would not defend me.
I'm an American citizen.
I worked for the government for five years.
And it would have been so easy to bat it back.
OK, and that's that's right.
I mean, and they should bat it back.
Again, this is not a time for uncertainty.
This is a time for looking strong in the face of Vladimir Putin's aggression.
Otherwise, you might get more Vladimir Putin aggression.
I'll talk a little bit more about that in just a second.
First, I want to tell you about iTarget Pro.
So, according to Gallup, about 42% of all American households have a firearm, with about 3 in 5 receiving formal firearms training, which means that a very small percentage of Americans actually even know how to use their firearm properly.
An even smaller percentage regularly practice with the weapon they would use in a self-defense situation because it's too expensive or you live too far from the gun range.
You're busy, the ammo's expensive.
Listen, I get all of that, but that's why there's iTarget Pro.
They're revolutionizing home firearm training.
It's really fun.
iTarget uses your actual gun, so you can become proficient with the firearm you're actually going to use in real life.
You can use your smartphone, their proprietary app uses a laser in place of the bullet, and it'll detect exactly where your shots are landing.
It's really cool.
You set it up, you put this little bullet-like device in the chamber of the gun, And then you aim toward a paper target, and you set up your phone in such a way that it sort of films the target, and the phone picks up where the laser is going, the app picks up where the laser is going, and that shows you how you score on the eye-targeting mark.
It's pretty awesome.
You can practice home defense where it matters most in your home.
You can even test different angles in your house.
So let's say that you want to test, like, how you'd shoot around a corner, you can actually set up the system so that it can test that for you.
You can maximize your tactical advantage, and most importantly, you do it using your own personal firearm.
I've used it before.
Candice, who's our tour manager over here, she uses iTarget all the time.
She's told me that when she's home with her husband, that basically she'll go looking for the gun and then she'll realize that he's out playing with it with the iTarget because he's just trying to perfect his abilities with it.
I got an iTarget for another member of the production crew over here as well.
It's really fantastic.
Right now, save 10% with the offer code Shapiro when you purchase the iTarget Pro system.
Save money, time, take your skills to the next level safely and effectively.
That's the letter I, targetpro.com.
Itargetpro.com, offer promo code SHAPIRO and get 10% off with that promo code SHAPIRO.
Go check it out right now.
Okay, well we have a lot more coming up, but first you're gonna have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
For $9.99 a month, you too can get a subscription to Daily Wire.
When you do, you get the rest of this show live, the rest of the Andrew Clavin show live, the rest of the Michael Molls show live.
Lots and lots of good stuff comes to you.
Plus, you get to be part of the mailbag, which we'll be doing tomorrow, asking me questions when we have episodes of The Conversation.
You get to ask questions.
Let's be honest about this.
I'm only going to answer your question if you pay me.
I mean, that's basically how this works.
So, if you want to be a person who gets your questions answered and not one of the sad folks sending in questions that don't get answered, all you have to do is toss a little money at the Daily Wire, guys.
Not that tough.
99 bucks a year gets you the annual subscription, including this, the very greatest in beverage vessels, the leftist tears, hot or cold tumbler.
Go check it out right now.
And make sure also that you subscribe at YouTube and at iTunes.
We have a great Sunday special coming up.
It is with my good friend, Eric Weinstein.
Who I like to talk with because he's across the aisle and is a Democrat, but we can have conversations because I'm not a jackhole.
Okay, so go check that out and subscribe.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
Okay, so good stuff happening here.
Just all sorts of good stuff happening here.
Let's talk a little bit about the implications that are being put forward by some of Trump's bigger defenders right now.
So, some of Trump's bigger defenders are defending his activity with regard to Russia by saying that we just need to change direction.
I don't like that argument very much because Bush thought the same thing and so did Obama.
The question is in what direction we move.
There is an ideological tendency on the part of some people on the right toward isolationism.
We talked about this a little bit with regard to Tucker Carlson yesterday.
So Tucker doubled down on it last night.
I think Tucker, again, is a very smart guy and he's a deeply talented dude for sure.
Last night he was talking and he suggested that we don't really have to defend Montenegro.
He stood by his criticism of NATO.
There's no reason for us to defend Montenegro.
Do we really want our boys dying in Montenegro?
So membership in NATO obligates the members to defend any other member that's attacked.
So let's say Montenegro, which joined last year, is attacked.
Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack?
I understand what you're saying.
I've asked the same question.
I understand that, but that's the way it was set up.
Presidents are supposed to wonder about things like that.
Serious countries ought to have debates like that.
The U.S.
has to defend Montenegro?
Really?
Why is that?
Is there a good reason?
Let's hear it.
That's the conversation we should be having.
Okay, so let's have that conversation.
Should we be defending Montenegro?
Okay, so first of all, let's be clear about what NATO is.
President Trump suggested Montenegro could get very aggressive with the Russians, and then we'd have to jump in on their aggressive side.
I said yesterday, Montenegro is not attacking Russia.
Montenegro is this big, and Russia is this big, okay?
That's not a thing that's going to happen.
But also, Russia has nuclear weapons, so yeah, good luck with that.
But beyond that, the NATO charter does not mandate that we actually get into wars where a member of NATO is the aggressor.
It's a defensive pact.
A defensive pact is a good pact.
The problem with all of the pacts that existed in the lead-up to World War I is that those were not defensive pacts.
Those were actually offensive pacts.
It was any group at any time could attack any other group, and it led people to believe that there was going to be a winnable war.
Also, the alliances that had been formed were relatively equal.
The United States is the world hegemon.
You combine that with the other members of NATO, and no one can stand up to that sort of power.
Nobody can stand up to that sort of power, obviously.
That's the whole purpose of NATO.
The whole purpose of NATO is that we are stronger together than we would be apart.
Now, do we actually want our troops in Montenegro?
Of course!
No one wants our troops in Montenegro.
I don't want my troops in France.
I don't want our troops in France or Germany or South Korea or anyplace else.
I would prefer that everybody be home and everything be hunky-dory.
But our military exists to protect the safety and security of Western civilization and, more importantly, of the United States.
And the way that you make sure that we never have to put troops in Montenegro is you don't act weak around dictators.
This idea that you could make exactly the same argument.
You could make exactly the same argument.
Do we really want American troops to die for Czechoslovakia?
Do we really want American troops to die for the Sudetenland?
Do you really want American troops to die for, for that matter, France or Britain?
Which list of countries, I really would like to know this actually, which list of countries does Tucker Carlson think that it would be okay for American troops to fight?
Are there any?
And if so, why?
Why is France significantly better than Montenegro, for example?
Why is that deeply important?
Is French territory better?
Are the French better people?
Like, why is it that they deserve defense, as opposed to just the entire alliance that gets together and helps us out after 9-11?
Remember, after 9-11, we invoked the NATO Charter.
That is the only time the NATO Charter has ever been invoked.
The only time.
Montenegro had active duty soldiers in Afghanistan because we invoked the NATO Charter.
The whole point here, Is that no one wants to defend Montenegro, but you're not going to have to defend Montenegro if you say you cross that line and we bust you up.
This is this is true in every this is basic Reagan foreign policy.
Peace through strength was the idea, not just that we're going to build up our military capacity, but that if you cross that line, we are going to break you.
But if you make this move, we will fight you to the ends of the earth.
Usually, the way the United States gets drawn into conflict is by not doing that.
Usually, the way the United States gets drawn into conflict is by acting isolationist up to the point where an unspoken red line is crossed, at which point we have to jump into the war.
And that's exactly what happened, for example, with World War II, where the United States, by the time of World War II, had the 19th largest military in the world, smaller than the army of the Philippines.
Okay, and we had signaled that we were going to be isolationists.
And that led our enemies to become more and more aggressive to the point where they actually attacked us, and then we had to fight a horrible, bloody war.
Same thing happened in World War I, where the United States literally pledged not to get into the war, and then was drawn gradually into the war, and lots and lots of people died.
If you don't want war, make sure that the other side knows that if you do go to war, you're going to break them.
They're going to bust them up.
They're going to knock out their teeth.
That is why we ought to defend Montenegro.
Okay, we gotta defend Montenegro so that we never have to defend Montenegro.
That is the point.
Okay, now let's talk about some more extremism by some leaders on the left.
Now, it's always funny.
When I talk about extremism on either political side, there are a lot of folks who suggest, well, you're just cherry picking.
You're just picking the worst examples of everybody.
You're taking things out of context.
You're picking all the worst.
Well, not really.
Keith Ellison is the deputy head of the DNC.
He was almost the head of Democratic National Committee.
He said yesterday that if you don't allow people to freely cross the border for any reason, If you don't allow us to just open up our borders, this creates injustice.
This is the direction in which the left moves when they cut themselves off from the American people and any debate involving the American people.
Here's what Keith Ellison, again, deputy chair of the DNC, had to say.
Corporations, certain people who get certain rights, can go back and forth across the border seeking out the lowest wages.
But people, regular people, cannot go back and forth across the border seeking out the highest wages.
So what it creates is an imbalance.
It creates an injustice.
And it creates the need for something like a global Marshall Plan.
A global Marshall Plan.
So we need a global Marshall Plan and we need to get rid of all of the various borders that we have.
So this is a mainstream position on the left now.
Keith Ellison is a mainstream actor just like Jeremy Corbyn is the mainstream position on the left in Britain.
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
Got her name sort of right there.
I'm really having trouble with this one.
She is now the mainstream of the left.
They've moved far to the left.
And one of the reasons they've moved far to the left is because they're no longer having conversations that are worthwhile.
The last election cycle saw Donald Trump say a few things that I think were credible.
Right?
I think he exaggerated the case, but he said a few things that were basically true, and a lot of people on the left refused to accept them.
He said that there is a problem with regard to radical Islamic terror.
And he said that over and over and over.
Radical Islamic terror.
And then Hillary Clinton would come out and say, there is nothing wrong with Islam.
And if she just polled the American public, what you'd find is that most Americans don't think that all Muslims are terrorists.
Most Americans do think that radical Islamic terror is a problem.
But because she was so convinced that everybody on the right is a rube and a hick, she decided, I can just safely ignore those people and I can label everyone a deplorable and it'll be fine for me.
The same thing happened with regard to immigration.
Trump ran on a hardline immigration platform.
Probably the hardest line immigration platform we've ever seen.
And Trump won because of that.
Why?
Not because people actually agree with every element of that hardline immigration platform.
In fact, polls show people don't even necessarily agree with the wall, right?
But what it does show is that there is a seething problem That is bubbling under the surface in this country with regard to immigration, where people are looking at illegal immigration and they're saying there are a lot of people coming here, and they're coming here for the benefits, and there are a lot of people who are coming here who are criminals, and there are a lot of people who are coming here who are just not being integrated into our culture.
And that doesn't mean we're anti-immigrant.
It means go to the border and cross legally.
It means we have to vet the people who come into the country.
And Trump took that to its ultimate extreme.
He basically said, illegal immigrants are disproportionately all of these things, all these bad things, which is not true.
But it is true that this was a problem that Americans were seeing and the left was simply saying, like Keith Ellison, open up all the borders.
This is the danger of an echo chamber.
So when you rule out viewpoints from the other side, particularly reasonable viewpoints from the other side, because everybody's a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, all you end up doing is isolating yourself.
All you end up doing is destroying your own credibility with your own people.
And this has become, I think, the case of the left.
This is why the left keeps winning the culture and they keep losing the political wars.
It's really fascinating to watch.
What's happening right now in the country is if you look at Hollywood, Hollywood continues to move left, left, left, left, left, as far left as they possibly could go.
And then if you look at politics, politics keeps moving to the right.
Republicans have won the presidential election.
They won the last 1, 2, 3, 4 congressional elections.
They've been in power since 2010.
And before that, they were in power from 1994 all the way till 2006.
So they had 22 years of power.
Sorry, 12 years of power, and then they've had an uninterrupted run of eight years of power in Congress.
In the Senate, the Republicans have taken back the Senate.
They've taken 12 governor's houses since Obama took office.
They've taken 35 state legislatures, something like that.
All of that's happening because the left has so So the culture, where you're not allowed to talk to people across the aisle, that culture has created this bubble mentality among leftist politicians, and that's why they're losing elections.
So I think it's safe to say that Hollywood and DC, which are very much interconnected on the Democratic side of the aisle, they've created this self-reinforcing radicalism that is causing the left to lose elections.
It's also destroying the country as a whole because we can't have good conversations with one another, but it is certainly causing the left to become more and more and more radical, which is a serious, serious problem for the future of the country.
Okay, so let's get to some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
There's a great sports book by a guy named Carlo Rotella.
It's called Cut Time.
Carlo Rotella is an Ivy Leaguer who just got into boxing and followed it around for a while.
It's called Cut Time and Education at the Fights.
About halfway through it, it's really fun if you're into boxing, if you're into MMA, if you're into Any sort of sports at all.
It's really great writing.
He followed around Larry Holmes, who's one of the great sort of unsung heavyweight champions of all time and talked to him.
He talked to various people who are losers in fights.
Boxing books.
I've recommended a bunch of boxing books on the show before.
I think boxing has an innate drama to it that lends itself really well to literature.
This, of course, is nonfiction, but it's worth checking out.
It was, I think, on the Sports Illustrated 2003 list of best books.
It's one of the better sports books I've read in a very long time.
Go check it out.
Cut Time and Education of the Fights by Carlo Rotella.
Okay, other things that I like.
So this was pretty hilarious.
Sacha Baron Cohen has been going around trying to punk people.
He's been going around trying to do the Ashton Kutcher.
He dresses up in these weird costumes.
He dressed up as like a Mossad agent.
Well, now he decided he was going to dress up Watch his face!
Watch his face!
See ya!
I'm outta here!
You just f***ing got me caught!
not go well for him.
Here's what it sounded like.
Watch his face.
Watch his face.
See ya.
I'm outta here.
This got me caught.
Get the out of here Borat.
You're watching the moment employees of a Riverside gun store say they caught actor Sasha Baron Cohen coming to their shop in disguise and under false pretense.
I went to buy a gun.
Like that.
Talking like that.
And I just kept looking at the guy and I was like, you're bored.
As soon as I said that, his eyes just looked at me like, and he did a B-turn right out the door.
Well, good.
Good.
And everyone should be on their guard because there are Borats.
Borats everywhere.
So, you know, you sort of have to assume now that everything you ever say will be recorded.
That's just the way that everything works now.
But good for that gun shop owner.
The only thing that would've been even better is if he had pranked Borat, right?
Like, he'd recognize that it was Borat, and instead of tossing him out of the shop, he'd basically offered to sell him, like, a zucchini gun.
Or he'd made up different types of guns and shown how ignorant Sasha Baron Cohen is, actually, about guns.
And he actually said to him, you know, in the back, I have a grenade launcher that attaches to a pistol.
You know, would you like to buy that?
And Sasha Baron Cohen probably would have aired that, because nobody at Showtime, nobody at Showtime knows a damn thing about guns.
He should have said, do you want your chainsaw adapter for your shotgun?
It would have been really great, but that was pretty good in and of itself.
Basically telling him, you're boring, get the hell out of here.
Well done, dude.
Well done, random gun shop owner.
I appreciate it.
Okay, quick thing that I hate.
So the show today has been chock full of things I hate, but here's another thing that I hate.
So according to San Francisco, they are now registering non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, to register to vote in the November election for the city's school board, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The move follows passage of a 2016 ballot measure by San Francisco voters opening school elections to non-citizens who are over the age of 18.
Hillary Ronan, who's a San Francisco supervisor, said, this is no-brainer legislation.
Why would we not want our parents invested in the education of their children?
Now, I'm fine with parents being invested in the education of their children.
I'm just not fine with parents who don't pay taxes being invested in how tax dollars get spent at the public school.
It seems to me that you ought to be in the system, and if you don't pay taxes because you don't have to under the law, that's one thing.
But why shouldn't... I mean, you could literally make this argument about any criminal in the United States.
Any criminal.
You could say somebody who was convicted of predatory child sex abuse, they should be able to vote in local elections if they have a kid.
Right now, undocumented immigration, illegal immigration, is not the same thing, obviously, as pedophilia, but the point is a general legal one, which is that if law-breaking is not a barrier to voting, then why shouldn't we have any law-breaker who has a kid able to vote in school elections?
Maybe they would say that you should.
Maybe they would say that you should.
I don't know.
This is San Francisco.
They're real weird over there, and they poop on the sidewalk, so it's quite a possibility, but that said, is this a good model?
Probably not, and what you will see, and it'll be hilarious, is a bunch of people who don't pay taxes voting for more and more tax spending, which will eventually allow For people to move out of the school district when the school district is bankrupted by all the people who are voting for more benefits to which they do not pay in.
Okay, we'll be back here tomorrow with all the latest.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection