Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 30, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

49:57

Path To 2018 | Ep. 591

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	As the 2018 election approaches, both parties prepare, President Trump takes on the New York Times, and the Mueller blowback continues.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Well, I hope you had a wonderful weekend.
	I actually had a wonderful weekend.
	It was really nice.
	I got to spend time with my wife and my kids, which is my favorite thing to do, and take cocaine.
	That's not a thing that I actually did over the weekend.
	But in any case, let's talk about things that you should have done over the weekend, but you didn't.
	Okay, like get new blinds for your apartment.
	The fact is, look at those blinds.
	Those things are hideous.
	Look at the place you live.
	You don't have to live like it's a pigsty.
	Go out and get some nice blinds.
	You don't think about your blinds very often, because why would you?
	But when you actually look at them, you realize that you need an upgrade.
	And that's where Blinds.com comes in.
	So go check them out right now.
	They make it really easy for you to replace those blinds.
	Not sure what you want?
	Even where to start?
	With Blinds.com, you get a free online design consultation.
	Just send them pictures of your home.
	They send back custom recommendations from a professional for what's going to work with your color scheme, your furniture, and specific rooms.
	They will even send you free samples to make sure everything looks as good in person as it does online.
	Every order gets free shipping, and this is the best part.
	If you screw it up, Blinds.com will remake your blinds for free.
	If you accidentally mismeasure or you pick the wrong color, They'll redo it for you.
	It's just amazing, okay?
	There's no reason for your place to look like a trash heap.
	Instead, go over to blinds.com and get it fixed.
	20% off everything right now at blinds.com when you use promo code Ben.
	That's blinds.com promo code Ben for 20% off everything.
	That's the faux wood blinds, the cellular shades, the roller shades, and more.
	Blinds.com promo code Ben.
	Rules and restrictions apply.
	They're awesome.
	We've used them for our own home.
	I vouch for their customer service is really terrific.
	Go check it out.
	Blinds.com promo code Ben.
	All right, so.
	It was a busy weekend, not only for me, but for Rudolph J. Giuliani.
	I don't actually know what his middle initial is.
	But in any case, Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York, he is now President Trump's personal attorney.
	And he was on national television over the weekend and on Monday morning talking about the president of the United States and Michael Cohen.
	Now, as you recall, when last we left our compelling narrative, Michael Cohen, the president's other former personal attorney, he had been arrested, well, not really arrested, but raided by the FBI.
	The FBI had gone into his office.
	They'd found all sorts of recordings.
	And then Michael Kahn had begun to sing like a bird in the press.
	He had gone out there and suggested that the president of the United States had, in fact, paid off a bunch of women.
	He had tapes to prove it.
	And then he suggested that President Trump knew about a 2016, June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr.
	and members of the Trump campaign, and this woman named Natalia Veselnitskaya, who is a Russian hired lawyer, Who is supposed to be a go-between, supposedly, between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.
	And Cohen says Trump knew about this.
	Now, he has no tapes to prove it, but we're supposed to believe Michael Cohen anyway.
	Which would be fine, except that Michael Cohen is a pathological liar, but so is everybody else, apparently.
	Like, this is the problem with politics.
	Pretty much everybody's a pathological liar.
	So, who do you believe?
	And the answer is, you really shouldn't believe anybody, but I will say that Rudy Giuliani He's in an awkward position because now he's the president's personal attorney on the Mueller investigation and the Cohen matters.
	And Giuliani has two jobs.
	One is to try and exonerate his man, right, to make sure that President Trump doesn't get in trouble that he ought not be in.
	And two is to perform for President Trump.
	And that's not the easiest job because President Trump likes performative people.
	He likes people who go out there and do these kind of loyalty shows on national TV.
	We know this about President Trump.
	He's a guy who enjoys the visual.
	And so this has been true since the beginning of his administration.
	People in his administration say, and have said, that when they want to talk to President Trump, what they try to do is go on national TV, on a show they know he is watching, and then talk to him that way, because he likes to watch the telly.
	So, Rudy Giuliani was on the telly, and he was talking about Michael Cohen.
	And what he had to say about Michael Cohen, it may be good, it may be entertaining for President Trump, but it's not great for public relations.
	If you're trying to make sure that your client looks innocent, you probably shouldn't say stuff like this.
	Turned out to have a close friend betray him.
	Like, uh...
	Like Iago betrayed Othello, and Brutus put the last knife into Caesar.
	Okay, so he's going with the full Shakespeare references right there.
	Iago betraying Othello, and Brutus taking the last knife to Caesar.
	There are a couple of problems with this particular analogy.
	One, Iago succeeded in destroying Othello, and also Brutus succeeded in killing Caesar.
	So if he's likening Iago and Brutus to Michael Cone, what he's basically saying is Michael Cone's gonna take down the President of the United States.
	Well, that's not so great.
	Also, just this kind of vitriolic back and forth is not useful.
	Like having your lawyer out there saying, listen, Michael Cohen has a long history of dishonesty.
	Michael Cohen has described himself as loyal to the president, as the president's bag man and all this routine.
	And the media hated him and thought he was dishonest until he flipped.
	And all of a sudden you guys think he's honest as the day is long.
	All that would be fine.
	But the Shakespearean reference is probably not good.
	And then Rudy Giuliani goes even further.
	And this is where he gets himself in real hot water.
	He's talking about President Trump not colluding with the Russians.
	And then he drops this line.
	He was never involved in an intimate business relationship with Donald Trump.
	Four months, they're not going to be colluding about Russians, which I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians.
	You start analyzing the crime, the hacking is the crime.
	Well, that certainly is the original problem.
	Well, the president didn't hack!
	Of course not.
	That's the original problem.
	He didn't pay them for hacking!
	Okay, so, the goalposts are now moving, and it's very difficult to see this playing well in the public sphere.
	Because when you've got your personal lawyer going out there, and the goalposts move from, he didn't collude, to, even if he did collude, it's not a crime, people start to think, well, did he?
	Or didn't he?
	Here's the thing.
	Giuliani isn't wrong.
	I've gone through the statutes with regard to collusion.
	There's no actual statute on collusion.
	There are statutes about conspiracy.
	There are statutes about campaign finance violations.
	There are all sorts of statutes that could be implicated if the President of the United States was, in fact, colluding with the Russians in order to shift the results of the 2016 election.
	There are actual statutes that are on point, but they don't talk about collusion.
	They talk about a variety of other specific crimes.
	Collusion is a blanket umbrella term that is supposed to cover a wide variety of activities.
	So when Giuliani says collusion itself isn't a crime, This is technically true.
	However, the question is not that.
	The question is, is it impeachable?
	OK, is it something where the American people turn on the president of the United States and say, you are guilty of trying to interfere with the election by working with the Russians to do so?
	Doesn't matter whether there's a criminal trial.
	The real question is whether the American people decide that they are so sick of all of this that they oust Trump in 2020 or they oust Republicans in 2018 and then impeachment takes place.
	So when Giuliani says this sort of stuff, it's just not useful.
	Now, I'm somebody who doesn't believe the president of the United States colluded with the Russians.
	I don't think that's a thing.
	I don't see any evidence so far that the President of the United States was working with the Russians, and they were coordinating their activities, and that these coordinated activities, exchanges of information, played any part in the actual election cycle itself.
	So again, I don't see why Rudy Giuliani is moving on this point, but unfortunately, he's not the only person in Trump's camp who's saying this sort of thing.
	Chris Christie this morning came out and said exactly the same thing.
	He was on national TV, and Christie said the same thing.
	He said, I'm not sure collusion is a crime.
	Don't shift the goalpost publicly.
	If the goalpost, like just as a lawyer, okay, putting on my lawyer hat, If I'm arguing for my client, my first argument for my client is my client is innocent.
	And then if it turns out that my client is guilty of something, my second line of defense is, even if my client is guilty of that, it's not a real crime.
	But I don't preemptively go to my second defense.
	I don't preemptively go to, well, I'm not sure collusion is a crime, because this is all a public relations battle.
	And this is what has bogged down the Trump administration, not the actual criminal proceedings.
	The actual criminal proceedings take time.
	They take money.
	All of the hearings, all of the interviews, all that stuff is expensive.
	And all that stuff is annoying.
	But that's not really what's bogged down the administration.
	What's bogged down the administration is this perception that President Trump is guilty of something.
	Now, most Americans don't actually believe that President Trump is guilty of something, which is why it's weird that Rudy Giuliani is out there saying that collusion is not a crime.
	It's just, it's a huge unforced error by Rudy Giuliani.
	And it doesn't help when the president is tweeting about Robert Mueller.
	So President Trump continues to tweet about Mueller, and here is what he tweeted over the weekend.
	he tweeted, there is no collusion.
	The Robert Mueller rigged witch hunts headed now by 17, increased from 13, including an Obama White House lawyer, angry Democrats, was started by a fraudulent dossier paid for by crooked Hillary and the DNC.
	Therefore, the witch hunt is an illegal scam.
	Okay, here's the thing.
	Some of what he's saying here is true.
	Okay, this idea that This idea that the Mueller investigation was at least partially reliant on a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton, that's true.
	But I don't know what the point of this is other than to sound off.
	Now, listen, Republicans believe President Trump.
	I think most Americans are relatively, I would say, skeptical of the Mueller investigation.
	I think rightfully so.
	But I'm not sure that at this point the president's constant focus on this thing is helping.
	He also tweeted out, Also, why is Mueller only appointing angry Democrats?
	Some of whom have worked for Crooked Hillary.
	Others, including himself, have worked for Obama.
	And why isn't Mueller looking at all of the criminal activity and real Russian collusion on the Democratic side?
	appointment as SC, as special counsel, and Comey is his close friend?
	Also, why is Mueller only appointing angry Democrats, some of whom have worked for crooked Hillary, others including himself have worked for Obama, and why isn't Mueller looking at all of the criminal activity and real Russian collusion on the Democratic side?
	Podesta dossier?
	I think there's some actual real good questions to be asked about the Mueller investigation and why they've not, for example, looked into Podesta, or if they have, how much they have, and if they've looked into the dossier, how much they have done that.
	But remember, every Republican, including Newt Gingrich, was out there saying that Mueller was honest, an honest man, and now Trump is out there slamming Mueller.
	The question is, does this make Trump look more innocent or does it make him look more guilty?
	Now, people who already believe he's innocent are going to say it makes him look more innocent because he's an outraged man.
	OK, fair enough.
	But for the vast, moderate, undecided in the middle, Do you really think that they look at tweets like this and Rudy Giuliani's statement and say, this sounds like a guy who's being wrongly maligned?
	Or do they look at that stuff and say, well, maybe there's something to this?
	Again, I'm saying this as someone who believes there is not something to this, or at least the evidence has not been shown that there is something to this yet.
	This is what I find so confusing.
	I'm not sure I understand the public relations strategy on all of this.
	And the Republicans are getting involved in this too.
	It's not just Trump and the Trump administration.
	Devin Nunes, who's the House Committee Chairman for Intelligence, he came forward and he says that the DOJ and the FBI have been stalling turning over their documents because they hope the GOP will lose the midterms and then they won't have to turn over those documents.
	So he's going after the DOJ and the FBI.
	Here is Devin Nunes from California.
	There's a stall game going on at DOJ and FBI.
	They're trying to stall as much as they can, hoping and betting that Republicans would lose the House in the fall.
	OK, so this is all fine.
	There's only one problem with it.
	And that is if the president wants to declassify this stuff, he can declassify this stuff now.
	If it is true, there's this awful conspiracy going on inside the DOJ, inside the FBI.
	And the president of the United States has an obligation, an obligation to declassify all of this material so we can see what is actually going on here.
	It's not enough to sit there and complain about Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Sessions and the head of the FBI.
	It's not enough to do that.
	Because first of all, Trump appointed all those people.
	So if you're really upset about this stuff, then Trump ought to be tweeting less and declassifying more.
	If we really want to get past all this, tweet less, declassify more.
	This is my advice.
	The president doesn't have to take it.
	He's obviously done well not taking my advice before.
	But I do think that it would behoove him to recognize that The base that brought him here is not going to be enough to win re-election or necessarily to do well in the 2018 midterm elections.
	Okay, before I continue along these lines and I want to talk about President Trump versus the media, I want to talk about the the incipient government shutdown, but we'll talk first about the fact that you need to make your resume better, okay?
	Okay, the reality is the economy is doing really well right now, so that means that there are lots of opportunities out there for you.
	Well, if there are lots of opportunities, you need to be making your resume constantly better, and that's where Skillshare comes in.
	It's an online learning platform with over 20,000 classes in business design, technology, and more.
	You can take classes in social media marketing and illustration, data science, mobile photography, creative writing, you name it, they've got it.
	And whether you're trying to deepen your professional skill set or start a side hustle, or just explore that new passion, Skillshare is there to keep you learning and thriving.
	We here at The Office, Have used Skillshare for a variety of classes.
	I've used it for social media marketing as well as for watercolors because I need to relax sometimes, guys.
	And that's what Skillshare can do for you.
	Again, they have all these experts.
	These classes are like 45 minutes and they really are first rate.
	Join the millions of students already learning on Skillshare today with a special offer just for my listeners.
	Get two months of Skillshare for just 99 cents.
	Again, Skillshare is offering Ben Shapiro show listeners two months of unlimited access to over 20,000 classes for just 99 cents.
	To sign up, go to Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	That's Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	You can start your two months right now.
	Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	Go check it out.
	It's a lot of fun and you're going to be learning and making your resume better, which means you're going to get paid more down the line with these additional skills.
	Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
	Go check it out right now.
	OK, so.
	The president is obviously very focused on the Mueller investigation, which I think is a waste of effort.
	I think it's a waste of effort.
	The Mueller investigation is going to do what the Mueller investigation is going to do.
	The president is not going to fire Robert Mueller.
	The Republicans are not going to impeach Rod Rosenstein.
	It's a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
	And in the end, I don't think that Mueller is going to come up with anything anyway.
	What I really think is going on here, you know, there are a lot of people who say, OK, so then why is Trump so fussy about this?
	If there's nothing happening, why is Trump so upset?
	Well, you'd be upset too if somebody suggested that your election victory was not real and that it had been achieved by colluding with a foreign power.
	But all of that said, the president really is not doing himself any service with his great frustration.
	A lot of the president's mistakes have been made out of a sense of frustration, and there's no reason he should feel frustrated right now.
	The economy's doing really well.
	He's doing fine in the approval ratings.
	All he ought to be doing is focusing on what is the program for 2018 and beyond, because the polls right now are not looking good for the Republicans in 2018.
	So how's he gonna turn this thing around with just a few months to go here?
	Right now, there were two polls last week that came out D plus 12 in the generic congressional ballot.
	The president has to assert some leadership on all of this.
	It was funny, over the weekend, there was a story about Barack Obama and Michelle Obama, who are apparently in Europe, partying at a Jay-Z-Beyonce concert, dancing at a Jay-Z-Beyonce concert, and Jake Tapper of CNN got in all sorts of hot water with the left wing, because he suggested that while Obama and Spouse are partying, the Democrats are at low ebb, the lowest ebb they've been since the 1920s, which is true.
	So why is he partying it up?
	The same thing could be said right now for the president.
	Stop focusing so much on Mueller.
	It's time for you to focus on how exactly you achieve victory in 2018 midterms.
	Because if you lose the House and you lose the Senate, not only is nothing going to get done in 2018 to 2020, there will be nothing but endless investigations against you.
	Nothing but endless investigations against Republicans, against Trump himself, against other members of the administration.
	I mean, you want to ensure that you lose in 2020.
	An easy way to do that is by not doing enough to win in 2018.
	2018 is going to have a major impact on 2020.
	Right now, the Republicans can play rearguard for President Trump.
	The Republicans can stop President Trump from doing some of the things that would damage his own administration.
	The Republicans in the House can sort of act as a back shield for the President.
	But they can't act as a deflector shield for the President if they're in the minority.
	Well, with all of that said, let's talk about how the president of the United States is going to attempt to affect the midterms.
	So, President Trump has a strategy.
	His strategy for the midterms is this.
	He is going to go full-on immigration.
	And attacking the media.
	This is his strategy.
	So he's not going to pump up the economy.
	He'll talk about the economy some.
	He may talk about the Democratic agenda a little bit.
	But mostly, he is going to be talking about, I think, immigration and the media.
	Which is the gal that brung him.
	Let's be real about this.
	President Trump in 2016, his campaign, if it was won on any two issues, it was you hate the media and the Democrats are too soft on immigration.
	Those were his two big issues during the campaign.
	Okay, so, President Trump tweets out on Sunday about the government shutdown, about a government shutdown.
	He says, when the media, driven insane by their Trump derangement syndrome, reveals internal deliberations of our government, it truly puts the lives of many, not just journalists, at risk.
	Very unpatriotic.
	Freedom of the press also comes with the responsibility to report the news.
	And then he continues along these lines.
	He says, accurately, 90% of media coverage of my administration is negative, despite the tremendously positive results we are achieving.
	It is no surprise that confidence in the media is at an all-time low.
	I will not allow our great country to be sold out by anti-Trump haters in the media, in the dying newspaper industry.
	No matter how much they try to distract and cover it up, our country is making great progress under my leadership and I will never stop fighting for the American people.
	As an example, the failing New York Times, Now, I don't think this is a terrible strategy.
	I'll be real with you.
	I don't think this is the worst strategy President Trump has ever come up with.
	I think that there's some effectiveness to this.
	The reality is that the polls show that Republicans hate the media far more than they hate pretty much anybody else in American life.
	There's a morning consult poll They came out over the weekend, and what it showed is, who do you trust more, right?
	Here's the question.
	Who do you trust more, the national media or President Trump's White House?
	Republicans, 71% say President Trump's White House.
	Only 7% say the media.
	22% say they have no opinion.
	That is a slight shift in favor of President Trump since the same time last year.
	Independents say that they don't trust the media.
	This is the fascinating part.
	When you think that President Trump is destroying the media, the media are destroying the media.
	How do you know this?
	Look at the numbers among independents.
	So yes, Republicans have shifted dramatically in the direction of the White House as opposed to the media, but look at the numbers on independents.
	In May 2017, 26% of independents said that they believed President Trump more than they believed the media.
	35% said they believed the media more than President Trump.
	39% said they didn't know.
	A year later, 24% said they trust President Trump, so that's a decrease of 2%.
	32% said they trusted the media, which is a decrease of 3%.
	And 44% said they didn't know who to trust.
	Which means that while the media say you ought to trust us, and Trump says you ought to disregard the media, most people are saying, I don't trust either of you folks.
	Or at least the vast majority of people in the middle.
	They say, I don't really trust any of you people.
	And even among Democrats, you're seeing that.
	Even among Democrats, you're seeing that fewer people trust the media now than they do a year ago.
	Only 7% of Democrats say they trust President Trump more than they trust the media.
	63% say they trust the media more than they trust Trump.
	But that number was 66% last year, and 29% say that they don't know who to trust, which means that more people believe that the media are simply not credible, which demonstrates the poor job that the media have done in staving off President Trump's correct critique of the media, that they are wildly biased against him.
	Now, President Trump tweets out that all of these outlets are biased against him and he calls them the enemy of the people.
	And all of this drove Pinch Sulzberger's son, the new Sulzberger who runs the New York Times, to put out a statement about his meeting with the president.
	So, according to the New York Times, President Donald Trump and the publisher of the New York Times, A.G.
	Sulzberger, engaged in a fierce public clash Sunday over Trump's threats against journalism after Sulzberger said the president misrepresented a private meeting and Trump accused the Times and other papers of putting lives at risk with irresponsible reporting.
	Trump said on Twitter that he and Sulzberger had discussed the vast amounts of fake news being put out by the media and how the fake news has morphed into the phrase enemy of the people.
	Sad.
	And then Sulzberger put out a statement.
	He said he had accepted Trump's invitation for the July 20th meeting, mainly to raise his concerns about the president's deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric.
	He said, I told the president directly, I thought his language was not just divisive, but increasingly dangerous, is what Silsburger said.
	I told him that although the phrase fake news is untrue and harmful, I'm far more concerned about his labeling journalists the enemy of the people.
	I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.
	Now, I said months and months and months ago, if the media actually want to regain credibility, the best way to do this is to turn down the rhetoric to two and turn up the fact-checking to ten.
	That's the best way to do this.
	Instead, the media have turned up the rhetoric all the way to eleven, and they've turned the fact-checking down to about four.
	They're spending most of their time showing that they enjoy being in this sort of Rock'em Sock'em Robots mode with the President of the United States.
	What does that mean?
	It means really neither of them is winning.
	But if neither of them is winning, Trump is winning.
	Because the media rely on trust.
	President Trump's a politician.
	He doesn't rely on trust.
	President Trump relies on policy and policy wins.
	The media relies solely on trust.
	So if you trust Trump, great.
	But if you don't trust the media, terrible for the media.
	Okay, so in just a second, I want to talk about the other prong of President Trump's 2018 plan.
	Prong number one is attacking the media.
	Prong number two is immigration.
	We'll talk about that in just a second.
	First, let's talk about your punim.
	Let's talk about that face.
	Okay, sunspots, brown spots, discoloration, red and flame patches.
	All of these could be gone with a brand new GenuCell sunspot corrector.
	Ella from Rockford, Illinois writes us, I have both age and acne spots and this stuff is actually fading both of them.
	The serum is worth every penny.
	Ladies and gents, the GenuCell Sunspot Corrector is here.
	It is yours free just for trying GenuCell today.
	It's a must-have for your summer.
	Finally, see those stubborn sunspots vanish and the bags and puffiness?
	Those are gone too.
	And for results in less than 12 hours, the GenuCell Immediate Effects is also yours for free.
	Light, clean, effective natural skin care.
	That gives you amazing results, healthier, softer skin day after day.
	No one does it better than Chamonix.
	Go to GenuCell.com right now or call 800-663-2495.
	That's GenuCell.com right now.
	800-663-2495.
	My wife, my mom, they both use GenuCell and the incredible results are obvious to them, obvious to me as well.
	You be the judge.
	You'll see the magic of Chamonix or you get 100% of your money back.
	So it's risk-free.
	800-663-2495 or go to GenuCell.com.
	That's 800-663-2495.
	Or you go to genucel.com.
	Again, genucel.com.
	And it really is.
	It's terrific stuff.
	So go check it out.
	OK, so prong number one of President Trump's 2018 plan is attack the media.
	That will get his base fired up.
	I'm not sure it's going to get them fired up enough to actually go out to the polls in massive numbers.
	Prong number two is immigration.
	And here, the president has it right.
	The president knows that his base is deeply concerned about the impact of illegal immigration.
	The president ran on building a wall.
	There is no wall, and Coulter pretty much every day tweets out that we are now in day whatever it is, 400 of the presidency, and not one foot of wall has been built by the president of the United States.
	She's very frustrated with that.
	So the president now says, OK, now's the time.
	I'm going to go for a government shutdown.
	He tweets out on Sunday, quote, I'd be willing to shut down government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for border security, which includes the wall, must get rid of lottery, catch and release, etc., and finally go to system of immigration based on merit.
	We need great people coming into our country.
	Now, is this a great strategy?
	Probably not to say it out loud.
	Would he be right to shut down the government, meaning he's not going to sign any bill that doesn't include border funding?
	Yeah, I think that he'd be fully within his rights to do that.
	I think he'd be fully within his rights to do that.
	I think the president ought to do that a lot more often.
	He's been signing in trillion-dollar budget packages for the past year, and those packages are garbage.
	Those packages are giant pork-laden barrels of crap.
	The president of the United States should exercise that veto pen.
	And if Mitch McConnell and the Republicans can't get it done, well, then they can't get it done.
	But the president is fully justified in saying, listen, I want the border funding or I'm not going to sign this.
	Now, should he be openly talking about, I'm willing to do government shutdown?
	Probably not.
	What he really should be saying is, listen, I know the kind of bill I want to sign and Democrats, it's their choice whether to shut it down or not.
	This is what Obama did and did successfully.
	Now, Obama, of course, had the help of that compliant media doing his work for him, but The first person to say shutdown is usually the person who is blamed for the shutdown, so that is not particularly a great political tactic.
	But, is it smart for the president to stand on this particular soapbox?
	Yeah, I do think that it's smart for him to stand on this particular soapbox.
	Now, the problem is he's not going to get what he wants, because the Republicans are not going to pass a bill along these lines, and the Democrats are not going to pass a bill along these lines.
	So then the question becomes, if the president is going to declare a game of chicken, is he actually going to put a brick on the accelerator?
	Now, one of the things that you do in politics, do a tiny bit of game theory.
	There's a game in game theory called chicken.
	Now, the game of chicken, you'll recall from things like Rebel Without a Cause, you see it in movies sometimes, two people basically drive cars directly at each other, and the question is, who's going to turn the wheel first?
	Whoever turns the wheel first is considered the chicken and loses the game.
	Well, the way that you win that game, if you are that interested in winning, is you take a brick, you put it on the accelerator, and then you move over into the passenger seat.
	Because you've now demonstrated to the other guy, I am not turning no matter what.
	No matter what you do, I've pre-committed.
	I cannot turn.
	Well, the president, if he's going to declare a game of chicken, he has to pre-commit.
	And that means that he has to say, listen, I will veto any bill that doesn't include this provision right here.
	And then we find out whether the other side is willing to blink or not.
	He hasn't done that in the past.
	He's said in the past that he's been willing to do a government shutdown.
	He hasn't actually been willing to do a government shutdown.
	And blinking is not a particularly successful strategy.
	Democrats are pre-committing.
	They're saying, we're not going to be bullied.
	So here's Maxine Waters, anti-Maxine, as they call her, saying that she's not going to be bullied into giving the president the funding necessary in order to protect our border.
	This president is a bully.
	And he'll try and intimidate all of us.
	He's not going to shut down anything.
	American citizens are not going to pay for this wall.
	He's not going to shut down the government.
	And we're not going to be intimidated by his bluffing and his bullying.
	OK, I do appreciate that Anne T. Maxine, a woman who suggested that people be confronted in gas station parking lots.
	She's calling President Trump a bully, so that's great.
	But she's not wrong that if you're going to play this game of cards, if you're going to play chicken, you've got to pre-commit.
	So if the president wants to shut down the government, or rather, if he wants to get what he wants in this bill, then he needs to say, here's what I will veto.
	And he needs to make clear what he will veto.
	Now, it's pretty clear the Republicans don't believe him.
	And this is the problem, right?
	So Senator Ron Johnson, who was elected as part of the Tea Party, he says, listen, all of this is not particularly helpful, this shutdown threat stuff.
	I certainly don't like playing shutdown politics.
	And how damaging would that be for Republicans ahead of the November races?
	I don't think it'd be helpful, so let's try and avoid it.
	Okay, so Republicans in Congress are very much afraid of the possibility of a shutdown, but I'm not sure why they should be.
	And I said this with regard to the last threat by President Trump of a shutdown.
	I don't know that they should be that scared because, in essence, it's the people who are seen as obstructing the government's workings who are going to be blamed for any sort of government shutdown.
	And Republicans will get out to the polls for this sort of stuff.
	Republicans will get out to the polls.
	I, you know, there was a lot of talk after Ted Cruz was, quote unquote, responsible for a government shutdown back in 2013.
	This was going to damage Republicans.
	Republicans won walking away in 2014.
	All this talk about government shutdowns damaging the, damaging the Republicans.
	I just, I haven't seen that that's really been true in general.
	So if President Trump wants to do it, then I say go for it.
	I just wouldn't signal that you want a government shutdown.
	I think that what you should say is, listen, here's what I'm willing to veto and here's what I'm not willing to veto.
	You know, I think that the idea of immigration and media being the two prongs for 2018 are not actually that bad.
	The other prong obviously has to be the insanity of the left and why these people should never be in charge of anything.
	The latest reason is because of this.
	There's a new study out today with regard to Medicare for all.
	Okay, so this has been the call from insane nutjob Bernie Sanders.
	So, Bernie Sanders, when he is not stuffing his face with pudding, believes that we ought to have Medicare for all.
	Now, Medicare is basically a blanket coverage for people who are old, but he wants that now applied to everyone.
	He essentially wants a government nationalized healthcare system.
	He says that this will pay for everything, it'll pay for itself.
	Whenever he's asked, you know, people will ask him, so how do you pay for this, Bernie?
	He says, that's not important.
	What's important is that Europe finds a way to pay for all of this.
	And Europe has fantastic healthcare.
	Okay, first of all.
	Europe has 60-65% tax rates.
	These healthcare systems are bankrupting countries.
	The fact is that they've had cutbacks in a lot of these areas.
	They've had to bring in immigrants to simply staff the medical profession in places like the National Health Service in Great Britain.
	These are all much smaller countries, too.
	I mean, when he talks about Norway or Denmark, these are places that have a population less than the population of L.A.
	County alone.
	Let's put it this way.
	It's not easy to scale a nationalized healthcare system to a system just on an effectiveness level.
	Forget about the fact that it is an invasion of people's rights and that it's not my job to pay for your healthcare because your healthcare is yours.
	It's my job to pay for my health care, my kids' health care, my family's health care.
	It's my job to help out with people who I want to help out with regard to charity.
	But it is not my job to pay for your health care because if I'm paying for your health care, that creates a perverse incentive system where you can go make a bunch of decisions that are not great for your health, knowing somebody else is going to pick up the tab and access health services at a faster pace.
	All of that said, the effectiveness of these healthcare systems abroad, there are a bunch of different types of systems.
	Everybody sort of thinks that there are two systems.
	There's the free market system, and then there's the nationalized system.
	This is not true.
	There are a bunch of different types of system.
	The Swiss system is a lot more privatized than, for example, the Nordic system.
	The Swiss system works great.
	And the Nordic system works pretty well too.
	There are differences between how they work.
	They both work, but part of the reason they both work is because they had functioning health care systems before they actually had a nationalized health care system in Sweden, for example, or in Norway.
	And the reason for that is, again, because lifestyle differences and cultural differences in these places, these are not the same places as the United States.
	You have to take these things into account.
	You can't just take something that works in Denmark and assume it's going to work in the United States.
	That's idiotic.
	That's not how policy actually operates.
	Anyway, Bernie Sanders says he wants Medicare for all.
	So there's a new study out today from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia.
	Now, the left is saying that this, this is just, this study is nonsense.
	It's nonsense.
	How do we know that it's nonsense?
	We know that it's nonsense because, after all, it was funded by the Koch brothers.
	Well, how about this?
	There's another study from the Left-Wing Urban Institute.
	They estimated the cost of Medicare for All.
	Here's what they came up with.
	$32 trillion over the next 10 years.
	$32 trillion.
	That is twice the annual GDP of the United States.
	It is double the annual federal budget every single year.
	It's another $4 trillion of federal budget every year.
	And there's a study from the Mercatus Center, and they say it'll cost $32.6 trillion over 10 years.
	According to Bloomberg, Bernie Sanders' plan builds on Medicare.
	All U.S.
	residents would be covered with no co-pays and deductibles for medical services.
	The insurance industry would be relegated to a minor role.
	Charles Blauhaus is the study's author.
	He was a senior economic advisor to former President Bush and a public trustee of Social Security and Medicare during the Obama administration.
	So this is not a partisan hack.
	He says enacting something like Medicare for All would be a transformative change in the size of the federal government.
	We'll talk about a little bit more about this proposal and why it's going to fail and why Democrats shouldn't be in charge.
	But first, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com.
	So for $9.99 a month, you can get your subscription to dailywire.com.
	When you do, rest of this show live, rest of Clavin's show live, rest of Knowles' show live, be part of our mailbags on Friday.
	And with your annual subscription comes this, the very greatest in all beverage vessels, leftist tears, hot or cold tumbler.
	You will enjoy it.
	You will love it.
	You will live it.
	It's incredible.
	So go check it out.
	$99 a year cheaper than the monthly subscription.
	Also subscribe over at YouTube and SoundCloud.
	That makes sure that you are actually updated whenever we have our Sunday specials.
	For example, last Sunday, Mike Rose stopped by and it was great.
	So go check that out.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So $32.6 trillion dollars.
	How much money is $32.6 trillion?
	Tiana Lowe over on Twitter, she says that is nearly twice our annual GDP.
	It's 54 times our annual defense spending.
	It's over eight times our annual federal budget.
	It's 281 times the private sector's annual medical R&D investment.
	It is 867 times the federal government's annual medical R&D investment.
	And by the way, Medicaid covers one in three Californians and nearly 40% of LA residents.
	And since the ACA expansion, Medi-Cal providers went from barely breaking even to making $5.4 billion in profits from 2014 to 2016.
	Okay, so this is ridiculous.
	Okay, by the way, the statistics I'm citing about, you know, it's 867 times the federal government's annual medical R&D investment, right?
	We are talking about over 10 years, but still, it is twice our annual GDP, $32.6 trillion.
	It's an enormous blowout in spending.
	Now, Bernie Sanders doesn't have any actual argument with these statistics.
	He just doesn't like that the Koch brothers funded this particular study.
	But again, the Urban Institute says it'll cost $32 trillion as well.
	It turns out that covering people's health care endlessly means that you're going to spend endless amounts of money.
	Dan McLaughlin over at National Review, he has a framework for understanding health care, and here's what he says.
	He says, basically...
	You can have three things in healthcare.
	You can have affordability, you can have universality, you can have quality.
	You can only have two of those three things.
	You cannot have all three.
	Again, affordability, universality, quality.
	It can either be cheap, or it can be universal, everybody can have it, or it can be good.
	So it can be good and it can be affordable, but not everybody's going to have it, right?
	It's a free market system.
	You can have universal and cheap, but then it's going to be kind of crappy.
	You can have universal and good, but then it's going to be really expensive.
	Right?
	So you can only have two of these particular three things.
	Bernie Sanders says you can have all three because he is lying to you.
	I love this.
	Bernie Sanders's office, they say that this estimate is bad, but their office has not done a cost analysis.
	Wait, you mean a lazy socialist who didn't bother doing his homework?
	I can't believe it!
	That's crazy!
	Bernie Sanders' staff did find an error in the initial version of the Mercatus report, which counted a long-term care program that was in the 2016 proposal but not the current one, which means it will merely cost $29.6 trillion as opposed to $32.6 trillion.
	Oh, well that fixes everything.
	And by the way, you could remove every dollar from every rich person in the United States.
	It would not pay for this for more than a year.
	So this idea that you're going to somehow fund all of this is just insane.
	The study estimated that doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not fully cover the additional costs.
	So, all of this sounds great.
	All of this sounds nice.
	How are you going to pay for it?
	The answer is, you ain't.
	You ain't.
	Because Democrats have no interest in paying for this stuff.
	If you actually want to help cut healthcare costs, by the way, in the United States, there is a way to do it.
	What you actually have to do is ease regulation, particularly when it comes to all of the administrative paperwork.
	Dealing with all the regulation is what doctors do most of the time.
	You may have heard, my wife is a doctor.
	Okay, being a doctor, that means she has to deal with paperwork on a near constant basis.
	And when you own your own office, You have to deal with Medicare and Medicaid.
	Many doctors have stopped working with the government because they don't want to deal with all the regulations and all the paperwork.
	The New York Times has a piece out just a couple of weeks ago saying that it only takes a glance at a hospital bill or at the myriad choices you may have for health care coverage to get a sense of the bewildering complexity of health care financing in the United States.
	The complexity doesn't just exact a cognitive cost, it comes with administrative costs.
	In 1999, the New England Journal of Medicine, which is the premier journal of medicine in the United States, they estimated that about 30% of all American healthcare expenditures were the result of administration.
	In other words, dealing with insurance companies, working with the government, trying to deal with regulation, all that stuff is expensive.
	And you know who gets charged for it?
	You do.
	And your insurance company does.
	There are ways to cut down on that, but that means deregulation, which is precisely the opposite of what the left actually wants to do.
	It also turns out, by the way, that in nationalized healthcare systems, there's a lot of paperwork as well.
	This idea that it solves everything to be nationalized is just not true either.
	So this is what's so ridiculous about this.
	The Democrats come forward with their proposals for 2018.
	This is where Trump really should be hitting them.
	What Trump should be saying is, you can't allow these people to be in charge because if you put these people in charge, it's going to be a disaster.
	Their policy proposals are insane.
	Another policy proposal that's just, it just shows how asinine the left's take on economics is.
	Kamala Harris tweeted this out.
	She tweeted out, Let's do some basic econ here.
	Where do you think that money is going to go?
	of their income on rent would be eligible for a federal tax credit.
	What would you do with that extra money in your pocket?
	I want to, let's do some basic econ here.
	Under the Rent Relief Act, anyone who spends more than 30% of their income on rent would be eligible for a federal tax credit.
	Where do you think that money's going to go?
	The answer is to the raised rent.
	Okay?
	You'll spend more money Because if I just give you money back, because you spent a lot on rent, what do you think that your landlord is going to do?
	He's going to raise your rent, because there's now increased demand in the housing market.
	There are people who want to get into the housing market and spend more in the housing market, and they're going to offer the landlord more.
	You're just going to take that money, and you're now going to spend it on the rent.
	Democrats don't understand basic economics, so they make proposals that sound like free money, but actually are just inflating the cost of the actual product itself.
	No Democrat should not be in charge.
	Now, I also want to talk about, you know, the insipidity of our politics, the stupidity of our politics.
	This is the best story of the day.
	It's pretty spectacular.
	So, the Democratic challenger in Virginia's 5th congressional district, Leslie Cockburn, I'm not making that name up, called out her opponent, GOP nominee Denver Riggleman, again, not making the name up, for his love of Bigfoot erotica.
	Again, not making this up.
	This is real.
	Cockburn tweeted out, This is not what we need on Capitol Hill.
	Riggleman was a running mate of Corey Stewart, who she called a white supremacist.
	Cockburn tweeted out, My opponent, Denver Riggleman, running mate of Corey Stewart, was caught on camera campaigning with a white supremacist.
	Now he has been exposed as a devotee of Bigfoot erotica.
	This is not what we need on Capitol Hill.
	Now, I know you're sitting there asking yourself, what in the world is Bigfoot erotica?
	It's exactly what it sounds like.
	It is erotica about Bigfoot.
	Her evidence included a drawing of a naked Bigfoot with a large and long censored bar over the presumptive location of Bigfoot's privates that Riggleman had posted on Instagram.
	And she also posted a second image with Riggleman's face pasted on top of another naked but censored Sasquatch.
	Rigelman just started his campaign after being named to replace Representative Thomas Garrett on the ballot in a red-leaning district in June.
	Apparently, he's a craft distillery owner and former Air Force intelligence officer.
	He's facing Cockburn, who's a journalist, author, and first-time candidate, trying to capitalize on opposition to President Trump in Charlottesville and other liberal enclaves.
	Now, Is it true that any of this, that Riggleman is actually devoted to Bigfoot erotica?
	Of course it's not true!
	Because that's ridiculous!
	There's no actual such thing as Bigfoot erotica.
	It's a bunch of people who are mocking the fact that there should, like, the idea of it is so insane.
	But we now live in such a literalistic universe that somebody puts up a joke about Bigfoot erotica and their political opponent decides that it is absolutely necessary and worthwhile to turn this into a campaign issue whether, in fact, their opponent is checking out the Ding Dong Of a creature that does not exist but wanders around in the forest.
	So that's very exciting stuff.
	I'm glad that our politics has come this far.
	Clearly, the founders would be happy with the state of our republic.
	Bigfoot erotica.
	Just really, really solid stuff.
	But when Democrats are not worried about fake stories about Bigfoot erotica, They're also worried about renaming the city of Austin.
	So according to the Austin Statesman, known as both the father of Texas and the namesake of the state's capital, Stephen F. Austin carved out the early outlines of Texas among his many accomplishments.
	He also opposed an attempt by Mexico to ban slavery in the province of Tejas and said if slaves were freed, they would turn into vagabonds, a nuisance, and a menace.
	For that reason, the city of Austin's equity office suggested renaming the city in a report about existing Confederate monuments that was published this week.
	Also on the list of locales to possibly be renamed, Pease Park, the Boulding Creek neighborhood, Barton Springs, and 10 streets named for William Barton, the Daniel Boone of Texas, who was a slave owner.
	So now we are in the process of renaming all sorts of things, including the city of Austin itself, because Samuel Austin, who helped found the city, was a slave owner.
	This is what we're going to do now.
	Which means that we're going to have to turn Washington, D.C.
	into not Washington, D.C.
	anymore, because George Washington was a slave owner as well, and we're going to have to rename the state of Washington, too.
	Also, we're going to have to get rid of Jefferson City.
	We're going to have to get rid of the Jefferson Memorial.
	We're going to have to tear that sucker down.
	We're going to have to get rid of any reference whatsoever to any Southern president from the first part of the nation's history.
	It'll just be great.
	Apparently, Austin will do this to virtue signal.
	So, the council has already renamed Robert E. Lee Road and Jefferson Davis Avenue.
	They now want to rename Austin.
	Now, listen.
	I understand people being uncomfortable, particularly black folks being uncomfortable with the fact that some of these figures were being paid tribute to as people who are proposing slavery.
	I do think there is a difference in kind, by the way, between Samuel Austin and Jefferson Davis.
	I think that Jefferson Davis is mostly famous for having defended slavery.
	As the president of the Confederacy, I don't think the same is true of Samuel Austin, who's mostly famous for having started American settlement in Texas, right?
	What we pay attention to with regard to naming things is generally the thing that the person is most famous for.
	But it does demonstrate the left's full-scale desire to destroy history and whitewash history.
	Why is it possible that you can't just explain that people did bad things in the past and some people who may have been bad had an impact on the nation's history?
	I don't understand why any of this is supremely controversial or difficult.
	Teaching history is all about teaching nuance, but we now live in a world where every nuance has to be removed forcibly.
	And by the way, all the people who are busily getting rid of the name Austin in Austin, Texas, in a hundred years, when their names are on street signs, all of them will be cast out too, because virtually all of these people are going to be pro-abortion, pro-uh...
	Okay, let's do a couple of things that I like and then we'll do a couple of things that I hate.
	names removed from buildings too, because in a hundred years, that's going to be looked on with exactly the same sort of scorn that we currently look on slavery.
	So they're going to have to get ready for that as well.
	Okay.
	Let's do a couple of things that I like, and then we'll do a couple of things that I hate.
	So a thing that I like...
	So I mentioned last week that my dad is a tremendous jazz pianist.
	And I was not kidding.
	Here is a cut of my dad playing.
	This is him playing jazz.
	Girl from Ipanema.
	And all of this is original.
	You know, he made it up because he's a jazz musician.
	So here it is.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	- So my dad can play.
	So you can check out some of these cuts.
	He's got a couple of cuts on YouTube that you can check out.
	Just search David Shapiro piano and check it out.
	And we'll have to have my dad on the Sunday special one time, because I think that'd be a lot of fun.
	And I'll interview him about all this stuff.
	My dad was playing clubs when he was like 12, 13 years old.
	He would go into the clubs and play jazz piano at these clubs.
	So when I say that I grew up with a bit of a musical background, that's because my dad was that guy.
	Okay, time for, let's do another thing that I like.
	So, I will admit when people on the left do something funny.
	People on the left have no sense of humor about people on the right.
	They say that nobody on the right has any sense of humor, we're all a bunch of fuddy-duddies, and when we make a joke, it's not really a joke because we're mean and we're cruel.
	Sometimes the left does something funny.
	I will acknowledge that this is actually pretty funny.
	So the other day, some schmuck went down to Hollywood Boulevard and wrecked Donald Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
	So Kevin Spacey's star, totally okay.
	Harvey Weinstein's star, totally okay.
	But Donald Trump's star, completely destroyed by this idiot on the left.
	By the way, that will have to be paid for by the actual institution, this Hollywood institution that actually puts those stars on the sidewalk.
	And Donald Trump is not the only conservative who has a star on those sidewalks.
	I mean, Ronald Reagan obviously has one.
	But I have a friend, Larry Elder has one as well.
	In any case, I will admit that this was funny.
	So a couple of lefties went down to the star and they guarded the star dressed up as Russian soldiers in like the full-on gear with the Russian flag, which is kind of funny.
	So here is Kimmel talking about it.
	The president now has security out there on the boulevard protecting his star.
	Anyway, that's what comrades do for other comrades.
	Okay, so I'll acknowledge that that is pretty funny.
	Like, credit where credit is due, sometimes people on the left can be funny.
	Okay, time for a thing that I hate.
	Gender roles for children are important.
	Gender is connected with biology.
	Why is it that primates, like chimpanzees, males and females, act differently and have different genders?
	Is that because of the patriarchy?
	The monkey patriarchy?
	Is it because of that?
	Well, apparently, according to the BBC, the answer is yes.
	According to the BBC, all gender is connected with social stereotyping, and so what they're going to do is torture a few kids.
	To make sure that you know that you are actually a sexist.
	So, they cut a video over at BBC.
	I'm sure taxpayers in Britain are super thrilled that this is what they spend time on.
	Here is the BBC reporting on taking a couple of kids, one who's a boy and one who's a girl, and switching their clothing, and then watching as adults treat them differently.
	Right, because adults are not stupid enough to believe that boys and girls are the same.
	Look at this, you like it, don't you?
	OK, this is Edward, who's dressed as a girl.
	I think she liked that pink dolly the best.
	If I were to tell you actually that Sophie is Edward, does that change anything?
	I maybe thought, oh, this is a little girl, so I have to give her little girl things.
	So long.
	So long.
	What's this one?
	Men hugely dominate careers, surprising math, spatial awareness.
	Are boys born better at these, or is it nature, or is it nurtured?
	- What's this one? - And the answer is it's nature, you guys, by the way.
	- Is that a robot?
	If I tell you that he is actually a girl.
	Really?
	Yes.
	Oh, wow.
	I like the lady's look of disapproval.
	Like, why would you do that?
	I suppose it's because of the stereotype.
	And then that changed your behaviour towards the child.
	Yes, it did.
	It did.
	And your behaviour was quite directive.
	I was surprised.
	So I automatically went for the pink fluffy toy because I see it was a girl, so I was sort of stereotyping.
	Okay, this is so stupid!
	This is so stupid.
	Stop for a second.
	Okay, stop.
	This is so stupid.
	Oh, I wish I was... I thought I was more open-minded.
	I immediately went for the gender stereotype toy.
	You know why?
	Because babies... I have a girl, I have a boy.
	You know what?
	They prefer different toys.
	They prefer different toys.
	My boy prefers a lightsaber and smacking his sister with it.
	My girl prefers actually sitting there and reading books and playing with dolls.
	Okay?
	Every so often, she'll grab the sword and smack her brother back.
	But that's not because she prefers that kind of toys.
	There's such, there's deep social science about toy preference.
	Okay, it's so funny.
	I think it was Hasbro at one point tried a gender neutral dollhouse.
	They tried a gender neutral dollhouse.
	And you know what they found?
	What they actually found is that the girls were taking the dollies and putting them to sleep.
	They're being all nice to the little dollies.
	And the boys were taking dollies and catapulting them off the roof of the toy house.
	Because boys and girls are different.
	The only reason my boy ever wants to play with anything that my daughter has is because my daughter has it.
	That's legitimately the only reason.
	Now, is it bad to reinforce these natural inclinations of children?
	No.
	Would it be the worst thing in the world if my kid wanted to play with a doll and my boy?
	No.
	But why would I possibly, like, try and steer him in the direction of playing with dolls when that's not something he wants, number one?
	And number two, when I think it is very important to reinforce gender stereotyping.
	I think some gender stereotyping is quite good.
	Not about what you can do and what you can't.
	My daughter can be a scientist.
	My daughter can be a doctor.
	Her mommy is.
	But it is important to recognize that men and women are not the same.
	And trying to undermine this by confusing a child is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
	I'm sure it makes you feel better about yourself to believe that you have this much control over the world, but you actually don't.
	It turns out that men and women are very different in a variety of ways that extend beyond genitals.
	And the fact that the left continues to propose this anti-scientific nonsense that boys and girls are completely the same and that if we just retrained women to be more interested in engineering that suddenly the gap would disappear.
	It's just not true.
	It's just not true.
	You know they've been trying this stuff in the Nordic countries and it's been failing dramatically.
	There's no evidence that any of it works.
	Because in the end, nature will end up winning.
	It's ridiculous.
	And to do this to small children, to dress up a boy as a little girl just so you can show parents, oh my gosh, look at your stereotyping.
	Why don't you just dress the boy in boy clothes because he's a boy?
	It's important.
	It's important.
	Now, it's interesting.
	People have this whole thing now about cross-dressing.
	Well, why do you care if your boy wears a dress?
	Why do you care if your doctor wears a white coat?
	Why do you care if your police officer wears a police uniform?
	Why do you care if you walk into the office dressed like a normal human being or dressed as a schlub?
	It turns out that clothes actually mean something.
	They give off social cues.
	And not only do they give off social cues, they also give you a uniform to identify with.
	It is good that boys should identify with other boys.
	It is good that girls should identify with other girls.
	It is good that sexes understand the differences between the sexes.
	And it is not bad to reinforce those things.
	Again, this is not nothing to do with reinforcing lies about the capacity of women or anything of that sort.
	But to suggest that it's good if a girl cross-dresses or a boy cross-dresses, it makes them more sensitive?
	No, it makes them more confused.
	It gives social cues to people they should treat the boy as a girl.
	And boys and girls are not exactly the same.
	And treating them exactly the same... You're a bad parent if you do.
	If I treated my girl the exact way, the same way I did the boy...
	You know what I'd be?
	A garbage parent.
	Because they don't want the same things, they're not interested in the same things, and it would be me being selfishly stupid to do that.
	Turning everybody into these faceless widgets is the dumbest nonsense ever.
	All these individualistic lefties who want to turn babies into widgets so they can treat them all as genderless neutral beings.
	They're not these balls of slime that you can mold into any shape you want.
	You idiots.
	Okay.
	Well, we will be back here tomorrow with much, much more frustration and anger.
	We'll see you then.
	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 Caramina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.

▲