All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 8, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
53:38
Is The Blue Wave Coming? | Ep. 598
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Republicans barely hold on to a deep red district in Ohio, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has herself a rough day, and fallout continues from the Alex Jones ban.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Wow, lots of things happening last week.
Last night was a big election in Ohio.
There was also an election in Washington that turned out to be too close for Republicans.
None of this is great news for Republicans.
I want to talk about what exactly is going on in those elections.
But first, let me remind you that our national debt is $21 trillion in counting.
That is money we owe other countries, or at least owe back to funds that we have withdrawn money from.
It is greater than the entire economic output of the United States.
If your entire life savings is tied to the U.S.
dollar, you should be asking yourself, what's your plan for inflation?
If the stilts fall out from under the economy, Higher wages can increase minimum wage across the country.
Import prices are going to skyrocket with trade wars.
Raw materials prices are increasing with tariffs, rising housing prices.
That's certainly happening here in California.
And the government's solution to a lot of this stuff very often is printing more money, which means demeaning your assets, degrading your assets.
Well, the best way to protect your hard-earned investments sometimes is to hedge against inflation and uncertainty with at least some diversification into precious metals.
Gold is a safe haven against such uncertainty.
My savings plan is diversified and yours should be as well.
The company I trust with precious metals purchases is Birch Gold Group.
And right now, thanks to a little-known IRS tax law, you can even move your IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver.
It is perfect for people who want to protect hard-earned retirement savings from any future geopolitical Uncertainty.
Birch Gold Group has thousands of satisfied customers, countless five-star reviews, and an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Right now, contact Birch Gold to request a free information kit on physical precious metals.
It's a comprehensive 16-page kit showing how gold and silver can protect your savings, how you can legally move your IRA, 401k, out of risky stocks and bonds, or into a precious metals IRA.
To get that no-cost-no-obligation kit, go to www.birchgold.com.
That is birchgold.com.
They're the people I trust for diversification into precious metals.
Okay, so last night, the left was prepared for their big moment in the sun.
Last night was going to be the moment when they finally won a deep red district.
Now the last time they won an actual red seat was when they won the Alabama Senate seat because Roy Moore had been the Republican nominee and it turns out that he liked frequenting the food court back in the 1970s to look for 14-year-old girls, allegedly.
Well, he lost that election to a Democrat, but that was seen as largely an outlier.
This Ohio election was seen as more of an indicator as to how the elections of 2018 are going to go.
This district is heavily, heavily, heavily Republican.
This is a very heavy Republican district.
When I say it's a heavy Republican district, I mean that this district went for President Trump by something like 11 points.
It means that if you look at the counties that are surveyed in the Ohio 12th District, the vast majority of them are R plus 15.
Overall, if you look at how this district has voted, it voted Republican in the last several election cycles.
There was a Republican congressperson who decided to resign, and that's why you had this special election happening in Ohio's 12th District.
The Democrat in the county was the Franklin County recorder named Danny O'Connor, and the Republicans chose a 50-something veteran of state politics, a guy named Troy Balderson.
He barely pulled out the election.
This thing was narrow as all get-out.
It should have been a Republican district plus 14.
It is 14 percentage points more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole.
There's something like 114 Republican seats that are less Republican than this particular district is.
None of this looks good for Republicans, even though Troy Balderson picks up the seat and wins the seat.
They're going to have to do this again in like three months because the special election is only to fill out the term that's currently happening.
The political geography in this district is really interesting, because there's a lot of suburban districts, and those suburban districts, Balderson dramatically underperformed.
He overperformed, actually, in districts... Let me reverse that.
He overperformed in some of the suburban districts, specifically because John Kasich came out and endorsed him.
John Kasich is the governor of Ohio.
I am not a John Kasich fan, as most people are aware, but He did not win this seat, Troy Balderson, because President Trump endorsed him.
He won this seat because John Kasich endorsed him.
In the last days of the seat, the statistics are pretty clear about this.
this.
Nonetheless, President Trump tweeted out, as long as I campaign and or support Senate and House candidates within reason, they will win.
I love the people and they certainly seem to like the job I'm doing.
If I find the time in between China, Iran, the economy, and much more, which I must, we will have a giant red wave.
The possibility of a giant red wave, extraordinarily slight.
It It is very, very unlikely that there is going to be a red wave come November.
It could happen, theoretically.
But there were a lot of indicators that were not particularly good for Republicans across the country last night.
In the third district of Washington, which is a likely Republican district, Democrat vote totals is in a primary.
Outpaced Republicans by 50.3% to 49.7%.
That is a contest that is going to feature the GOP representative Jamie Herrera-Boetler and Democrat Carolyn Long in November.
In the fifth district, which is run between Representative Kathy McMorris-Rogers, who's the fourth-ranking Republican woman In the House of Representatives and a Democrat named Lisa Brown, the vote totals showed that Republicans only led by 50.5% to 47.1%.
That is not a good vote total for Republicans in that particular district.
And again, in Ohio, that's not a result that should be, I think, encouraging to a lot of Republicans.
People are saying, well, yeah, the Republicans retained the seat.
This is a R plus 10 seat.
They retained it by basically 2,000 votes, less than 2,000 votes.
Balderson won 50.2% of the vote to Danny O'Connor's 49.6% of the vote.
And the Green Party picked up 1,100 votes.
So this is, this is not, it's not encouraging for Republicans.
It is not.
And anybody who is telling you differently is whistling past the graveyard and trying to suggest to you something that is simply not true.
You have to look reality in the face.
You have to look the statistics in the face.
It is also worth noting that the polls in this district were quite good.
There was a lot of talk about the failures of state polling in 2016.
There were failures of state polling in 2016, particularly in a lot of states where there had only been one poll every couple of months.
But the polling in this district was spot on.
It basically showed a dead heat.
The race was indeed a dead heat.
So the polls were correct.
CNN's Sean King, he says that this was a big deal last night, that this was too close to call.
He's correct about this.
Republicans are taking solace in the fact that this district ended up going for the Republican.
But it is true that this district never really should have been on the table in the first place.
During the Trump presidency, the close-in suburbs in here have turned against this president.
That's why Alabama has a Democratic senator.
That's why Democrats did so well in Virginia.
I could go on and on and on, including Pennsylvania 18 and Conor Lamb.
So this district is ruby red Republican.
The fact that it is so close is a big deal.
And that is 100% true.
What John King is saying there is right.
And it's why Republicans ought to be careful with what they do in the upcoming months.
There's this sense on the Republican side that President Trump is untouchable, that the Republicans are untouchable.
The data just do not bear this out.
Listen, I know I'm not telling a lot of folks what they want to hear.
But the reality is that this is a district that went for Donald Trump by nearly 10 points, right?
It went 51.8% to Donald Trump, I believe, this district.
Actually, the state of Ohio total went 51.6% to Donald Trump.
The Ohio 12th district went to Trump.
in a landslide in the last presidential cycle, and yet it did not go in a landslide for President Trump last night.
Democrats have been routinely outperforming in these special elections by dramatic measures, by dramatic measures.
This is not a seat that should have been competitive, and there's a lot of money that was poured into this district in support of Balderson.
The Republicans did outspend the Democrats, and then they barely won the seat.
Again, if you look at these district numbers, they don't look good.
If even half of the 68 Republicans who represent a district less friendly than Ohio's 12th lose this November, Democrats retake the House with 11 seats to spare.
If only one in three lose, Democrats stand at a net gain of 22 seats.
None of this is particularly encouraging for Republicans.
So when President Trump says that this is just evidence that Republicans are on the upswing and everything is hunky-dory, that The evidence is just not there for that.
Meanwhile, the Democrats continue, the radical wing of the Democratic Party continues to gain in its ascendancy, and this is part of the problem with the Democrats, and this is why they could actually blow this.
So, the Democrats have what you might term reverse Tea Party problems.
There was a lot of talk in 2008, 2010, 2012 about Republicans nominating unpalatable candidates because they were the most anti-establishment candidates.
The latest example of that was Roy Moore in Alabama.
But you remember, we nominated Christine O'Donnell in Delaware instead of Mike Castle, and she ended up losing that Senate seat.
And there were Republicans in Nevada.
They ran a candidate in 2010, I believe, who was unpalatable, and she ended up losing the seat.
This is the sort of thing that can happen when the base of the party starts thinking less pragmatically and more passionately.
You're seeing the Democrats sort of do the same thing.
The reality is that in this Ohio 12th District, the Democratic candidate was a longtime Democratic politician with establishment ties, and they did better in that district.
The same thing is true in Pennsylvania.
But the Democratic base is embracing radicalism full scale.
Indicated by the amount of conspiratorial nonsense pressed by some of their more radical members.
Alyssa Milano, the actress, she tweeted this out last night.
She tweeted out, you know what sucks because of our unwillingness to pass policy that protects our election integrity.
I immediately think the Green Party votes tonight are Russian meddling.
Why else would anyone cast a protest vote in Ohio when there's so much at stake?
If you actually think that the Democrat in Ohio 12 lost because of the Russians, let me suggest that you have now been completely taken over by Trump derangement syndrome.
So the Democrats are having to fight an internal battle between electing candidates who can actually win general election seats and electing candidates who are most likely to vent their spleen and their ire at the world.
And I'm not sure that's going to end well for them in 2020, because in primaries, in presidential primaries, what 2016 shows is that passion actually matters.
What 2016 demonstrated is that when you've got an angry base, when you've got an enraged base, that base can make serious trouble for you.
You saw with Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party and Donald Trump in the Republican Party.
It seems likely to me that the Democrats in 2020 do not elect somebody to run on their ballot who is going to be a moderate voice of reason.
It seems more likely to me that they elect somebody along the lines of a Bernie Sanders or an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which is why most of the major 2020 candidates showed up at Netroots, this radical convention for the Democrats, over the last week and a half.
All the names that have been mentioned are wildly out of the mainstream.
Elizabeth Warren is out of the mainstream.
Cory Booker is out of the mainstream.
Kamala Harris is out of the mainstream.
Certainly, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are out of the mainstream, but those are the people that Democrats seem like they want to push.
So if they are practical, then they will go and they will find moderates to run in a lot of these districts and in the presidential seat in 2020.
But if not, then they are going to end up, I think, undercutting their own momentum here, which is what Republicans are counting on.
Basically, Republicans are counting on President Trump to troll Democrats into insanity and force them to run candidates who are wildly Wildly radical, and the American people cannot stand.
That is the best hope that the Republicans have here, because the Republicans are doing a piss-poor job of actually representing their victories in these particular election cycles.
It is not good stuff.
And in just a second, I want to talk about the future of the Democratic Party and this turn toward radicalism.
But first, let's talk a little bit about what you're wearing.
Right now, if you're at the office and you're wearing a suit, you probably got it off the rack, and it's probably ugly.
The reason that you need to get a better suit is because custom-tailored suits make you look like a million bucks, but you don't have to spend a million bucks.
Instead, you should head over to Indochino.
It's the world's largest made-to-measure menswear company.
They've been featured in major publications, including GQ, Forbes, and Fast Company.
They make suits and shirts made to your exact measurements for its horrific fit.
Guys love the wide selection of high-quality fabrics, the option to personalize all the details, including your lapel, lining, and monogram.
Here's how it works.
You visit a showroom or you shop online at Indochino.com.
You pick your fabric, you choose your customizations, you submit your measurements and then you wait for that custom suit to arrive in just a few weeks.
I've been to their showroom here in Beverly Hills and it is just a lot of fun.
It's really a blast.
You go in there and you feel like James Bond.
You're selecting your material and your lapels and You can get things monitored.
It's really awesome.
This week, my listeners can get any premium Indochino suit for just $379 at Indochino.com when you enter Shapiro at checkout.
That's 50% off the regular price for a made-to-measure premium suit.
Again, shipping is free.
Indochino.com.
Promo code Shapiro for any premium suit for just $379 plus free shipping.
It's a great deal.
Go check it out right now.
Indochino.com and use promo code Shapiro at checkout.
OK, so The best hope for the Republicans, considering this wave of Democratic turnout, which really is pushed by the president's unpopularity.
I understand among Republicans, President Trump is very popular.
President Trump also has a bad habit of pissing off the left to the point that they actually want to go to the polls.
And when you're the president, your job is to enervate the other side.
Your job is to take the wind out of their sails.
President Trump is constantly blowing wind into the sails of the left by making statements on a routine basis that just get them jazzed up to throw fellow Republicans out of office.
As I say, I'm not sure that that has a major impact on Trump's re-election prospects, but I do think it has a serious impact on these congressional races.
The corollary of that is that Democrats, because they are so jazzed up, could move radically to the left.
And that means that their future is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Now, yesterday I said that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not the brightest bulb in the basket.
And I stand by that statement because she is not, in fact, the brightest bulb in the basket.
She was on Pod Save America yesterday and she made a series of ridiculous, silly statements.
She, again, is considered the future of the Democratic Party because she's an intersectional candidate.
She's a person of great intersectional capacity.
She's a woman and she's Latina.
And that means that she has valuable things to say, even if she is just saying Random stuff all the time that doesn't make any sense.
By the way, I've received a lot of emails.
she was asked a series of kiss-ass questions, and she proceeded to immediately blow them sky high because she can't even answer those questions properly.
By the way, I've received a lot of emails.
Would I debate Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez?
I would pay money to Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's campaign to debate Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
I would pay her money to come on the Sunday special.
I would give money to her campaign if it meant that she would actually come on the Sunday special and answer some serious questions from somebody on the other side of the aisle.
But there's a reason that she's only existing in the safe space of Pod Save America, where they're just going to ask her questions like, Alexandra, where do you get that lipstick?
Alexandra, how do you do your hair in the mornings?
Alexandra, can you talk to us about how Republicans are mean and cruel?
It's really funny.
This morning, she tweeted out, because there's a lot of blowback, After her various interviews, she tweeted out a bunch of things about how the reason people are coming after her is because they're trying to distract from this burgeoning Republican scandal.
There's a Republican representative who's now been arrested for some sort of bank fraud.
He's a big early backer of President Trump's.
And she says, the reason people are coming after me is specifically because they're trying to distract.
She says, whenever the right is being particularly feisty towards me, the first thing I do is check Well, no.
The reason we focus on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is because the media have fallen in love with the lady who won 17,000 votes in a Democratic primary in New York, and we're all supposed to believe that she's the wave of the future.
That's why we're paying attention.
Also, because it's a lot of fun to pay attention to the dumb stuff she says, because if this is the future of the Democratic Party, the future is stupid.
The future is just dumb.
So we're going to go through her comments in just one second.
Then we'll get to all of the controversy surrounding this Republican candidate, this Republican officeholder, Chris Collins.
So here's what she had to say to Pod Save America.
She began by talking about what America is not anymore.
Now, the Democratic Party, in order to win in 2020 and overall, is going to have to appeal to audiences they may not like.
The Democratic Party has made the argument that America is moving in a different demographic direction.
It's moving away from white families.
It is moving away from families altogether.
If you have to pick the person who you are appealing to, if you have one person who sort of sums up the base of your party, The Democrats would say that person is probably a minority woman who's either a single mom or who doesn't have kids and has a career.
That is the person the Democratic Party is looking to appeal to.
Whenever you make a TV show in Hollywood, you have to think, who is the member of the audience who is most indicative of the base for this particular show?
I think that politicians do the same thing.
For President Trump, it was clearly blue-collar white males.
That may not work out the way that he wants in 2020.
For Democrats, however, it seems to be that it is minority females who, this is Hillary Clinton's entire base, right?
Minority females who either are single moms or who don't have kids and have a career.
Those are the people she is most attempting to appeal to.
And then you sort of backtrack to the more mainstream audiences, but those are the people you're trying to get out in massive numbers.
Now, the people that both sides seem to be ignoring are white women in the suburbs who vote an extraordinarily high rate, who are in fact mothers, Who do care about safety and economic prosperity.
George W. Bush in 2004 won because that was his target audience.
His target audience was not white blue collar males in 2004.
His target audience were the so-called security moms.
Those were the people that Bush went after in 2004.
Both parties seem to have neglected that.
Obama...
Didn't neglect it in 2008.
He did neglect it in 2012.
In 2016, both parties neglected that.
I'm really bewildered as to why both parties are neglecting mothers.
Mothers who are married, who actually take care of their kids and or have a job.
Why is that a group of people who you're trying to ignore?
That group of people, mothers who stay home, has actually increased in the American demographic dramatically over the past 10 years.
In the last census, that number, stay-at-home moms, rose by 13%.
13% more women are opting to stay out of the workforce and take care of their kids at home.
And that is still a huge burgeoning percentage of the population.
I don't understand why both parties are ignoring it, but particularly the Democrats.
You would think that would be the place they'd go, right?
Donald Trump is very off-putting to college-educated women.
He's very off-putting to suburban moms.
Why would they not be targeting those folks?
But they send out people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 29-year-old former bartender who is single, has no kids, and talks in disparaging terms about soccer moms.
She sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton back in 1992, talking about how she's not a timely Ynet woman.
She could have stayed home and baked cookies and had tea parties, but she decided to pursue her career.
That's what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sounds like right here when she is talking about the supposed lack in the middle class.
Here's what she had to say.
That's not America anymore.
when like, you know, kids had like Furbies and like parents that you had like soccer moms with like two vans and stuff like.
- Furbies and two vans.
- Yeah.
- That's the dream.
- That's not America anymore.
- That's not America anymore.
First of all, like, I don't know, like, yeah, like soccer moms with like two vans and a Furby and like this woman is clearly, she is clearly the greatest intellect the Democratic Party has seen since probably Ted Sorensen.
Maybe since JFK.
Clearly, this is a person of great intellectual firepowder.
The reality is, again, that according to the census, 10.6 million children under 15 in two-parent homes were being raised by stay-at-home moms.
And it's not that these moms don't exist anymore, it's that they're driving SUVs rather than minivans, which brings us to the second stupid point Ocasio-Cortez made.
She was asked specifically about the breakdown in economics in the United States, what Democrats are missing, and she talked about the upper middle class, this is clip 11.
She talked about the upper middle class, which she says does not exist anymore.
They were really kind of connected most to an electorate when they were fighting for these seats, when they got these seats, when they're campaigning most, when we had more of an American middle class.
And so I think that politically, this like upper middle class.
Okay, she doesn't even know what the hell she is talking about.
Not only does the upper middle class exist, it is the fastest growing segment of the American population and has been for 30 years.
So she's just making things up right now.
Between 1979 and 2014, the upper middle class in the United States increased by 16.4%.
As opposed to the poor in the United States, that number actually decreased by 5%.
The upper middle class constituted about 12% of the population in 1979.
It was close to 30% as of 2014.
So it's a massive, massive increase in the upper middle class.
Stephen Rose of the Nonpartisan Urban Institute says, quote, any discussion of inequality that is limited to the 1% misses a lot of the picture because it ignores the large inequality between the growing upper middle class and the middle and lower classes.
In 1980, 7% of Americans lived in affluent neighborhoods By 2012, that number was 16%.
The Pew Research Center found that 203 metropolitan areas have seen their middle class shrink, but in 172 of those cities, the shrinkage was in part due to the growth in wealthier families.
So as usual, she is wrong.
Shock of shocks, it turns out the Democratic Socialist doesn't know what the hell she's talking about.
But this is the face of the Democratic Party, and the hurt didn't stop there.
The failures didn't stop there.
I'm gonna have to show you this clip, or play for you this clip.
In which she explains how she's going to pay for things, because it really is astonishing.
But first, let's talk about your business.
You're not a democratic socialist.
You have a business to run.
And that means that you're constantly looking to make your business better.
And because you are looking to make your business better, you need to talk to the folks over at LegalZoom.
The folks over at LegalZoom can provide you all the legal services you need for your startup, your growing business, and they can also help you with a lot of your personal legal work as well.
Most Americans don't have a will.
20 years ago, that wasn't a shocking statement because you needed a trustworthy attorney.
But now, LegalZoom has made it easy to create your own, which is why more than a million people have used LegalZoom for their estate planning needs.
It's National Make-A-Will Month at LegalZoom.com.
It is now your turn to take control of your family and assets with an estate plan.
It starts with a will or a living trust.
If you don't know which one is right for you, No problem.
LegalZoom has a network of independent attorneys who advise you on what's best for you and your family.
And LegalZoom isn't a law firm, so you're not paying law firm rates.
Make things a lot easier on your family when you're gone.
Check out that LegalZoom Last Will and Living Trust Estate Plan right now during National Make-A-Will Month at LegalZoom.com.
Plus, they have all sorts of other legal services for your business.
Go check them out right now.
For special savings, be sure to enter code BEN in the referral box at checkout.
That is promo code BEN for special savings only.
at LegalZoom.com, where life meets legal.
Again, promo code BEN for special savings at LegalZoom.com.
They really are fantastic.
I've been using LegalZoom for years, long before they were an advertiser on the program.
So go check them out.
Okay, so, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
The reason Republicans are talking about her is because the Democrats have propped her up as the supposed next wave of brainiacs inside the Democratic Party.
And not only that, because it is good for us to talk about her, because I hope that she's the face of the Democratic Party.
I hope that their new face is the Bernie Sanders, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez wing.
The worst thing that could happen for Republicans is for them to run a candidate like Joe Biden.
The worst thing that could happen for Republicans is for them to run somebody who can purport to be moderate, Just long enough to become president of the United States or become senator or congressperson.
I'm hoping the Democrats make a big boo-boo here and they are so blasted out of their mind by Trump's presidency that they move to make Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez their darling.
Okay, so she was asked yesterday again on Pod Save America, a podcast run by the Obama bros, right?
I mean, it's a bunch of Obama people who are running that podcast.
And they love her because secretly she represents their id.
And she says all the dumb things they wish they could say, but then their super ego kicks in and they say, perhaps I should not say this out loud because it's a stupid thing.
She doesn't have any brain to mouth filter when it comes to this stuff.
So she was asked specifically about how she was going to pay for all of her plans.
It did not go well.
You know, they say, how are you going to pay for it?
As though they haven't used these same ways to pay for unlimited wars, to pay for trillion dollar tax cuts and tax cut extensions.
They use these mechanisms to pay for these things all the time.
They only want to know.
It just seems like their pockets are only empty when we're talking about education and investing in human capital in the United States, education, health care, housing.
Okay, so I do love the fact, and the original question here was, how do you pay for things?
There's nothing left.
All of a sudden, the wealthiest nation in the world has, we're just totally scarce.
We have complete scarcity when it comes to the things that are most important.
Okay, so I do love the fact that the original question here was, how do you pay for things?
And her answer is, nobody pays for things.
Thank you, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, for that brilliant exposition on the debt and deficit in the United States.
By the way, when she says things like, the only thing we invest in is tax cuts and wars.
That's all we invest in.
This year, we will spend $4.3 trillion.
The federal government will spend $4.3 trillion this year.
What percentage of that goes to the military?
Any guesses?
Any guesses in the room?
Any guesses?
What percentage of that $4.3 trillion goes to the American military establishment, including the vets?
How much of that?
Senya, you got a guess?
What percent?
Okay, Senya, it says 60 goes to the military.
Jess, any guesses on what percentage of the American federal budget goes to the military?
Jess?
30.
Okay.
The answer is 16% of the federal budget goes to the American military.
The remainder goes to all of these supposed priorities that we are supposedly ignoring according to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
62% of the entire federal budget goes to mandatory spending under Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
The vast majority goes to social welfare programs that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says we are spending too little money on.
The fact is, the amount of money that we spend per capita in the United States on social welfare programs is actually almost on par with that of the European countries and actually surpasses some of the European countries.
And we are spending a buttload of money on all these priorities that she says we are not spending money on.
It's just a lie that we're spending it all on quote-unquote tax cuts.
First of all, that's not an expenditure.
That's me keeping my own money.
And then when she says we're not investing in the middle class, understand that when she says that we're supposed to invest in the middle class, what she means is we're supposed to tax the living hell Out of everyone who makes more than 30 grand in the United States.
And then we'll pass it back to the people at the lower end of the income spectrum for investment in garbage government programs that do not result in higher productivity, higher wages or higher employment.
That is her actual plan.
I would love, I mean, when people say, would you debate her?
I would love to debate her because I have one question for her.
Name an industry you would not nationalize.
Which ones should the government not run and why?
Can she name any of them?
I have serious doubts.
She says she wants to abolish the profit motive.
Okay, well then she's going to have to explain how she abolishes the profit motive without abolishing private industry.
Or would she just abolish it?
Or why does the Democratic Party think this is a good idea?
By the way, when she says that we are, you know, we haven't worried about spending in the past, yes, that's a problem.
I'm old enough to remember when Republicans thought it was a problem.
I guess now we don't worry about that so much because President Trump's president, so we're supposed to ignore the fact there's a $21 trillion national debt.
But that sucker is going to come due.
Social Security will be bankrupt in the next decade.
Medicare will be bankrupt a decade after that.
These programs are not going to be around.
Or if they are around, they're going to require massive cuts or massive taxes.
And even so, what I love most, I think, what I love most is that she says that, you know, we've never had to worry about spending this sort of money before.
The kind of money that she's proposing spending is so insane that it makes what we have spent before absolutely obsolete.
According to the Mercatus Center, a libertarian-leaning center at George Mason University, they estimated that Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All plan, we talked about this last week, would cost the government $32 trillion over the next decade.
But we can actually do a budget exercise using nonpartisan and even left-leaning groups.
Vox.com, you know, a left-wing source, they talk about what exactly we would have to pay for single-payer health care, a jobs guarantee, and free college.
What exactly would it cost?
Well, it turns out that it would cost, according to the Tax Policy Center, according to the Tax Policy Center, it would cost legitimately trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars.
$42.5 trillion in new proposals over the next decade, on top of the $12.4 trillion baseline deficit.
To put this in perspective, according to Vox.com, Washington is currently projected to collect $44 trillion in taxes, in revenues, that's what they call it, over the next decade.
Okay, the Republican tax cut, the fiscal Armageddon, will cost less than $2 trillion over the next decade.
So we're gonna spend $44 trillion, but Alexander Ocasio-Cortez says the real problem is those tax cuts that quote-unquote cost $2 trillion.
What is the 30-year projected tab for these programs that they're talking about?
The 30-year projected tab is, I kid you not, $218 trillion.
On top of an $84 trillion baseline deficit driven by Social Security, Medicare, and the resulting internet costs.
Federal spending, which is typically between 18% and 22% of GDP in the United States, would soar past 40% of GDP on its way to 50% of GDP within three decades.
And she says, oh, well, we've never had to worry about spending before.
Well, it turns out if you quadruple the spending, you might have to worry about it a little bit more.
You got a $10,000 credit card debt, and then you decide to rack up another $40,000 of credit card debt.
Maybe you ought to think about whether the original debt was a good idea, but quadrupling it is an even better idea.
Okay, we'd be at 60% of GDP by that point.
Okay, within three decades, state and local government spending would push the total cost of government, according to Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, all the way to 60% of GDP.
60% of every buck made in the United States would be spent by the federal government, exceeding the current spending level of every single European country.
And this is their big idea?
This is what they think is going to win them elections?
Good luck.
Good luck.
And again, this is Vox.com.
I'm going to talk a little bit more about the radicalism of the Democrats, which is being obscured by the fact that we have to talk about the constant stream of scandals and stupid inside the Republican Party.
If we talked about this every day, it would be very difficult for Democrats to win.
We don't talk about it any day except on this show because we're too distracted with all the rest of the nonsense.
First, I want to talk about your sleeve quality.
I am not famous for being good at sleep, but one of the things that makes me better at sleep is my Helix Sleep mattress.
Working with the world's leading sleep experts, Helix Sleep developed a mattress that is customized to your specific height, weight, and sleep preferences, so you can have the best sleep of your life at an unbeatable price.
Here's how it works.
You go to HelixSleep.com, you fill out their two-minute sleep quiz, and they will design your custom mattress.
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.
These are all new pillows.
They're fully adjustable.
You can achieve perfect comfort regardless of sleep position or body type.
Helix Sleep has thousands of five-star reviews.
Plus, you get a hundred nights to try them out.
I was so impressed by Helix Sleep that I told my sister about it when she got married.
She asked for that as her wedding gift.
We got her a Helix Sleep mattress and it is just awesome.
She loves it.
We love our own Helix Sleep mattress.
It comes in the mail.
You unwrap it and it flakes right in front of you.
You pop it on the bed frame.
You're good to go.
It's really convenient.
It's really easy and it's personalized to you.
HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
Go there right now.
You'll get up to 125 bucks toward your mattress order.
Again, that's HelixSleep.com slash Ben for up to 125 bucks off your mattress order.
Go check it out right now.
HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
This is a luxury mattress at a non-luxury price.
HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
Go check it out.
Okay, so I want to talk a little bit more about the cost of the radicalism of the Democrats and yet why Republicans can't take advantage of that.
But first, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com.
$9.99 a month.
Gets you the subscription.
It helps us here.
It really does.
People say, how can we support the show?
How can we support the site?
Go subscribe.
That's how you can help support us.
Seriously.
It makes sure that we are able to employ the dozens of people who we have work on the show every single day.
To whom I'm deeply grateful, despite my catty remarks about them on a constant basis.
So you can go check that out for $9.99 a month.
Also, for $99 a year, you get this, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler.
It is cheaper than the monthly subscription.
Also, you get an awesome giveaway gift, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler.
So go check that out as well.
Also, please subscribe to YouTube, iTunes.
We have a brand new Sunday special you can only get if you subscribe over at iTunes or YouTube.
Our Sunday special this week features the entrepreneurial guru, Tai Lopez.
It was a lot of fun.
Here's a little bit of a preview.
All right, it's Tai Lopez here.
I'm gonna be on The Ben Shapiro Show this Sunday.
He got me to talk about stuff that nobody's been able to get me to talk about.
A little bit of religion, a little bit of politics.
But we're gonna talk about entrepreneurialism, mentors, and what I learned from my 100-year-old grandma.
Okay, so it's pretty great, so go check that out this Sunday.
And make sure you subscribe, again, to YouTube and iTunes.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
To conclude our analysis of the stupidity of the program now being pressed by Democrats is the future.
This democratic socialist program, according to Vox.com, again, Vox.com, a wild left wing source.
They say that single payers is not just involved a straightforward shift from private payment to taxes.
So one of the great lies that's being told is, well, if we spend $32 trillion over the next 10 years, we'll save money on health care.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Okay, why?
Because we'll take all of our private spending and it'll just be government spending.
We'll just tax you and we'll spend it.
That's not how it works, you idiots.
You idiots.
People buy supplemental insurance even if they are on Medicare because Medicare coverage kind of sucks.
Okay, here's the dirty truth about Medicare.
The health outcomes for people who have Medicare is not dramatically better than the health outcomes for people who do not have insurance at all.
Okay, seriously.
There have been studies that have been done on this.
And what they suggest is that Medicare health outcomes are not always better than not having Medicare.
Why?
Because doctors don't accept Medicare in many cases.
Sometimes emergency medicine is better.
Sometimes paying cash out of pocket is better.
People buy supplemental insurance because Medicare does not do the job.
It makes people feel comfortable, but it is not always the best system.
Not only that, Medicare is based on a certain level of collective bargaining with the doctors.
If you had everybody ensconced in the single-payer system, the demand for services goes up, Medicare would have to collectively bargain differently, and you'd actually have an increase in prices or a shortage of doctors or both.
You'd have to basically, you always have a choice in these nationalized healthcare systems.
You either have to abolish the private sector or you have to allow the private sector to upcharge.
And this was a serious battle in Canada.
There was an attempt to actually abolish private practice in Canada because there were too many people who were opting out of the system and paying private doctors and they had a shortage of doctors who they wanted to leverage into the public system.
Here's what Vox says.
Single-payer would not fix Washington's current unsustainable health spending.
Medicare's existing $6 trillion cash shortfall over the next decade, which soars to $40 trillion over 30 years, would not be reduced because Medicare is already a price-controlled single-payer system that would merely become more generous under Medicare for all.
Second, single-payer proponents claim that $32 trillion in single-payer costs should be considered differently from other expenditures since money spent privately on health insurance and other health care costs would now be spent by the government.
So you just shift the money from the private to the public sector.
This is false.
The $4 trillion saved by state and local governments on programs like Medicare and CHIP over 10 years and the $22 trillion saved by families and businesses on premiums and out-of-pocket expenses cannot be converted into a $26 trillion single-payer tax without serious economic and redistributive side effects.
Designing a politically acceptable $26 trillion tax hike is nearly impossible.
Medicaid recipients who currently pay no health insurance premiums would not receive any insurance premium windfall to help for their steep new taxes.
So actually, this is completely unrealistic, even according to folks on the left.
So it's going to cost a damn fortune.
And yet Republicans aren't talking about this stuff.
What are we talking about today?
Well, we're talking about scandals involving Chris Collins.
Federal prosecutors in New York on Wednesday charged New York Republican Representative Chris Collins, his son, and another man with 13 counts of securities fraud.
It's perfect timing.
I remember back in 2006, Republicans looked like they might do okay in the midterms, and then they just got blown out because of the Mark Foley scandal, a situation in which a gay Republican congressman was hitting on the interns, basically.
The congressional pages.
That worked out horribly for Republicans.
They lost, what, 60 seats in 2006?
So, you could see something similar happen.
If Republicans are perceived as corrupt, it depresses the turnout.
Collins is the first sitting member of Congress to endorse President Trump.
He surrendered Wednesday morning at his attorney's office in Manhattan, according to the FBI.
According to prosecutors, he actually used insider trading to trade on the stock of a pharmaceutical company, Innate Immunotherapeutics Limited, of which Collins is a board member, to avoid more than $768,000 in losses that would have incurred if they had traded the stock after certain drug trial results became public.
So this guy could easily go to jail.
Or we're talking about President Trump's latest tweets about Robert Mueller.
Or we're talking about President Trump's latest tweets about LeBron James.
Imagine if Republicans actually talked incessantly about the fact that Democrats have crazy spending plans, want to nationalize nearly everything, and are propping up people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Keith Ellison as the leaders of the party.
Imagine if that were the program, as opposed to these constant day-to-day battles over the fake news.
Imagine if Democrats were depressed enough that they weren't able to actually go out to vote because it turns out that their own candidates are radical nutjobs.
Instead, we have to discuss the headline of the day.
And this is the real problem.
It's a serious problem that our lodestar in politics, the black hole around which all of politics revolves, are these high-level Twitter battles between the President of the United States and whomever is in his grill that day.
It's just not worthwhile.
It is not worthwhile.
Hitting Democrats hard is easy to do and fun.
It can be enjoyable as well as worthwhile.
But you actually have to hit them on their agenda and the foolish things they are embracing and saying.
You really think that Cory Booker is a tough target?
You really think Alexander Ocasio-Cortez is a tough target?
I'll tell you, Robert Mueller is a lot tougher target than any of those folks.
And we're spending all of our effort right now on defending the myriad sillinesses that are emanating from Republicans who feel the necessity to assuage President Trump's ego.
If President Trump wants a Republican Congress, how about this?
Less on Trump, more on Democrats.
2016 went well for Republicans because it was more of a referendum on Hillary Clinton than it was on Donald Trump.
It was not a giant upswing for Donald Trump.
It was people didn't like Hillary Clinton and so Democrats didn't show up to vote for her.
Make every election a referendum on Democrats.
That's how you win elections.
We won the 2004 election, Republicans, because it was a referendum on John Kerry, not a referendum on George W. Bush.
It was a referendum on John Kerry's pusillanimous behavior over the course of his career.
Republicans won in 2010, and 2012, and 2014 in Congress, because it was a referendum on Barack Obama.
Whomever an election becomes a referendum on, loses.
Right now, all these elections are a referendum on Trump.
That's not going to be good for the Republican Party.
It just isn't.
Okay.
In just a second, I want to talk in a little bit about the Alex Jones fallout.
So Democrats continue to claim, people on the left continue to claim, that the ban on Alex Jones is actually a good thing, that Twitter mobbing and social media mobbing is actually a positive, useful thing.
You know, Twitter itself did something I thought was actually good yesterday.
They came out.
They're the only social media company that did not ban all of Alex Jones's content.
All the other ones basically coordinated to take down Jones.
Now, as I've said, I think that Alex Jones is a giant pile of human excrement.
I think he's a bad guy who says bad things.
He says conspiratorial, idiotic things that are nasty and evil.
And he says terrible things about families of shootings.
He's a garbage heap.
If you're going to ban him from social services, from social media, you actually have to come up with a rationale to ban him, and it can't just be we don't like what he says.
So Jack Dorsey, who's the head of Twitter, he tweeted this out yesterday.
He's getting all sorts of flack for it, but he's correct.
He says, we didn't suspend Alex Jones or InfoWars yesterday.
We know that's hard for many, but the reason is simple.
He hasn't violated our rules.
We'll enforce if he does.
And we'll continue to promote a healthy conversational environment by ensuring tweets aren't artificially amplified.
All of this is perfectly appropriate.
Jack has this right.
This is the only time you may hear me say this.
I think Jack Dorsey has this exactly right.
We're fixing that.
We're going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories.
All of this is perfectly appropriate.
Jack has this right.
And the fact that this is the only time you may hear me say this, I think Jack Dorsey has this exactly right.
Twitter has it exactly right.
Right now, we in the country are worried so deeply about incivility that there are a lot of us who just want to ban the opposing view in order so that we can get to civility.
The truth is that that actually is a form of incivility.
There are two poles when it comes to civility, and both of them are bad.
One is, ban everything I don't like for the sake of civility, and the other is, Yell at each other for the sake of social media mobbing for the sake of civility.
And then on the other side, you have shut down all of the all the things I don't like for the sake of civility.
Right.
So we'll yell at each other for the sake of civility because you're not civil enough.
So I'll yell at you for the sake of civility.
And then there is we want to ban you for the sake of civility.
The answer is that we should be somewhere in between, which is rational discussion in which we can dismiss fools like Alex Jones as part of the conversation, right?
He can be part of the conversation long enough for us to dismiss the stupidities that he spouts on a daily basis.
But that involves actually not banning people.
And yet, the prevailing opinion on the left is that some online mobs are good.
There's a piece by Amanda Hess over at the New York Times that is just an awful stupid piece over at the New York Times, suggesting that social media mobs on the left are good, social media mobs on the right are bad.
Here's what she writes.
She says, "Isn't it amazing what people can do when they put their minds together?
On a Monday in July, a casting announcement blitzed the Hollywood press.
Scarlett Johansson would star in a forthcoming drama as Dante Tex Gill, a real life 1970s underworld kingpin who according to the deadline, flourished in a male dominated business of massage parlors and prostitution by essentially taking on the physical identity of a man.
Within hours, those suspicions were brewing.
Online commentators noted that Gill appeared to live as what we would now call a transgendered man, not a woman cross-dressing to get ahead.
By the time Daniela Greenbaum, a conservative writer at Business Insider, defended Johansson for just doing her job, the wrath she met was so forceful that her editor scrubbed the column from the web.
Twelve days into the controversy, Johansson announced her decision to respectfully withdraw from the project.
And then this this columnist goes on to talk about Hollywood mobbings, the Mark Duplass situation we talked about a couple of weeks ago, the director who was basically mobbed into apologizing for saying that folks might want to follow me on Twitter, the mobbing of James Gunn.
And what this columnist for The New York Times says is that these mobs are not all alike, that the mob that targeted Scarlett Johansson and Daniella Greenbaum is a good mob.
The mob that targeted James Gunn is a bad mob.
How do we know which mobs are good and which ones are bad?
By the level of sincerity.
By the level of sincerity.
That's how you can tell.
Because if people are sincerely upset by a transgender man being played by Scarlett Johansson, then we know that they are a good mob.
And if they are not sincere about James Gunn, they're just going after James Gunn to go after James Gunn?
Then they are an insincere mob.
And we know that sincere mobs are better than insincere mobs.
Now, my question is, what the hell would make a sincere mob better than an insincere mob?
I'm sure there were legitimate lynch mobs that were sincere in their absolute hatred of black folks.
They were evil.
And sincerity does not confer any sort of moral privilege upon you.
Sincerity means nothing.
But really, this is just an excuse for suggesting that mobs of the left are good, and mobs of the right are really, really, really bad.
The truth is, mobs all the way around are not good.
And the mobbing of people who I find exorable, I think, is...
Simply not worthwhile.
And not only not worthwhile, it's unreasonable and it actually destroys civility.
We have idiots like Jeet here, who I guess writes for The Atlantic, tweet this out about Barry Weiss, a New York Times columnist.
She was being sent to Australia to do some writing.
She says the prospect of Barry Weiss in Australia is frankly terrifying.
Terrifying.
If you feel that that is a terrifying thing, then you are part of the problem.
And someone pays this moron to write words.
It's just, it's an incredible, incredible thing.
If you actually want a civil America where we can have conversations with each other, you're going to need to accept that there will be differing points of view and that they shouldn't be social media mobbed.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I like and then a couple of things that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
Every so often, I'm just in a bad place.
And yesterday, for whatever reason, I was in kind of a grumpy mood.
I think it's because I've been on this diet and diets are terrible.
But that said, one of the things that put me back in a good mood was listening to some Mozart.
This is one of my favorite pieces of Mozart.
It's the Flute and Harp Concerto in C. And it's just a superlative piece of work, of course, because Mozart was one of the great geniuses in human history.
Paralleled only, I have been told, by Jay-Z.
So here is Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a flute and harp concerto in C.
Music by Ben Thede Music?
Yes.
Yes, because this is good music.
And there's a lot of very, very bad, stupid music.
This is good music, okay?
If this doesn't speak to your soul in a different way than the random pop music that you are smashing your head into your steering wheel over, then I would suggest that you think a little bit more deeply about the kind of music you listen to.
Listen, at some point I should do sort of an introduction to classical music course.
Not really based on music theory, because I'm not an expert in that, but at least introducing people to kind of user-friendly classical music.
Because most people think, oh, classical music, it goes on so long, and it's so boring.
Why can't we just have a three-bar chorus that we sing over and over for eight minutes?
Why can't we do that?
The fact is that there's a bunch of people who think Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven is a great piece of music.
It has a catchy opener.
How long is that song?
Eight minutes?
It's an eight-minute song?
Okay, shut your head.
Okay, eight minutes for Stairway to Heaven?
You could get that, or you could get the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.
There is not a comparison.
Fine, call me an elitist, I don't care.
Okay, other things that I like today.
Jason Reilly has a great piece over at the Wall Street Journal.
Jason Reilly is a black columnist for the Wall Street Journal, which means that the left can't attack him as a racist for writing this.
He says, liberal racism is not a horse of a different color.
He says, bigotry is bigotry, whether systemic, as at Harvard, or idiosyncratic, like Sarah Zhang's Twitter feed.
As to paraphrase a well-known political figure, Ms.
Xiong could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot a white person without losing the support of liberals.
It's a safe bet she was tapped by the Times because of these racial prejudices, not to spite them.
Editorial board members are hired to help formulate and express the official position of a newspaper Ms.
Xiong is being hired to speak for the Times, and they like where she's coming from.
The Grey Lady attacks President Trump as a racist and a sexist on a near-daily basis, and columnists like Charles Blow write about little else.
So it is hypocritical for the paper to hire and defend a new editorial board member who has made no secret of her own biases?
Of course it is!
But that's considered beside the point by people who share Ms.
Zhang's worldview.
He goes on, he talks about this particular double standard.
There's a great piece also by Raihan Salam over at The Atlantic about this tendency of people on the left Particularly white folks on the left, to try and enter into the elitist stratosphere by suggesting that racism by certain people, this sort of paternalistic racism attitude, that that's okay.
Racism by certain people is okay because they've been historically victimized.
This gains you access to the highest levels of leftist thought.
It's a great piece.
You should go check it out by Jason Reilly over at the Wall Street Journal.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
So, Jason Rantz has a piece over at Daily Wire exposing this ridiculous attack.
So here's what he writes.
He says, when Diane from Connecticut saw that the 80s sitcom Elf earned a potential reboot, she was ecstatic.
Not because she was personally a fan of the show necessarily, but because it brought up memories of her son, Timothy, who passed when he was just 24.
Little did she know that her sweet tweet would earn her a vicious, callous attack from Seattle-based Jeopardy!
champ Ken Jennings.
So she tweeted out, Alf was my son's favorite character.
He had so many Alf puppets.
When he died, we buried them together and had an Alf engraved into his headstone.
Then my daughter got an Alf tattoo in honor of her brother.
No matter what, Alf is special to our family.
And this was apparently the response from Ken Jennings.
This awful MAGA grandma is my favorite person on Twitter.
Yes, clearly she's awful because she liked Alf.
If only she'd liked Transparent, and then they'd had a transgender person engraved onto the person's headstone, then this person would be a social justice warrior hero.
But the son happened to like Alf, and that means this is a terrible, terrible MAGA grandmother.
Terrible, terrible person.
Yeah, the terrible person, it seems to me, is the person who's ripping on a person whose kid died at the age of 24.
Whatever you choose to put on your kid's headstone at the age of 24, I really don't think it's anybody else's business, frankly.
Okay, other things that I hate.
So there's this article.
It's just astonishing.
Remember when what you did in the bedroom was your business?
Remember that?
That was like five minutes ago.
We were told that the LGBT movement should, their basic goal was to have Americans not care about what they did in the bedroom.
And I was like, okay, fine.
I'm with you.
Cool.
Enjoy.
Whatever.
Free country.
Now it turns out that the left wants to dictate who you should want to have sex with.
There's an article at a website called them.us.
Okay, I think it's a gay-friendly website or a gay advocacy website.
And here is what it writes.
Considering the discrimination trans people face on a daily basis, it comes as no surprise that trans people are overlooked when it comes to dating.
Two Canadian researchers recently asked almost a thousand cisgender folks, that's people whose sex matches their gender, right?
In other words, you're a man who thinks you're a man.
If they would date a trans person, a new study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships is the first ever study to attempt to quantify the extent of trans discrimination when it comes to romantic and sexual relationships.
Okay, let me just point something out.
I thought that it was my prerogative as a free human being to decide with whom I would like to have sex.
I thought that either way, right?
There was a biological drive, right?
If you're gay, then you are biologically gay and you don't get to decide who you're attracted to.
That's just the way it works.
Or you get to choose whom you have sex with because it's a free country.
The left has now decided that it is both a biological drive, but if you don't want to have sex with the people they want you to have sex with, it's because you're discriminating.
This is where the two definitions of the word discrimination cross over and things get real weird.
So discrimination can be me discriminating between two types of drink that I want to drink or two types of people.
One of whom I want to have sex with and one of whom I don't.
I'm a straight man.
That means I like having sex with my wife.
I like having sex with women.
That is a discriminatory attitude because I'm discriminating between women and men in making that particular decision.
But that's not bad discrimination.
Bad discrimination is saying that all members of a particular group are biologically inferior or I wouldn't hire a member of a particular group or something like that.
But the left has now conflated these two things.
Any sort of decision in which you like one thing more than another, you like hamburgers more than you like tacos, if that is your thing, that is now bad discrimination according to the left.
958 participants, all but seven cisgender, ranging in age from 18 to 81, with an average age of 26, were asked to indicate which genders they would consider dating.
The options included cisgender man, cisgender woman, trans man, trans woman, or gender queer.
And participants could select as many genders as they wanted.
Only 12 participants, only 12% of all participants, selected trans woman and or trans man.
Right, because it turns out that most people would like to date a member of the sex to which they are attracted.
Why is this even remotely controversial?
Those who would consider dating a trans person didn't differ in race or ethnicity, but were somewhat older, more likely to hold a university degree, and unsurprisingly, less likely to be religious than those who would not date a trans person.
But some of the most striking differences were in regards to participants' gender and sexual orientation.
This is my favorite part.
Okay, this is the best part of the study.
Virtually all heterosexuals excluded trans folks from their dating pool.
Only 1.8% of straight women and 3.3% of straight men chose a trans person of either binary gender.
Why is this shocking?
If I'm a straight man, I don't want to have sex or be dating a biological man or a woman who believes she is a man.
Why is this remotely controversial in any way?
This is ridiculous.
Okay, and if you're a straight woman, I assume that you don't want to date a person with a vagina or date a person with a penis who believes that he is a woman.
with a vagina who, a person with a penis who believes that he is a woman.
Like what?
Okay.
And then, this is the best part.
Most non-heterosexuals weren't down for dating Oh no, it turns out that a lot of LGBT people only want to date people of the sex to which they are attracted.
Oh no.
Only 11.5% of gay men and 29% of lesbians being trans-inclusive in their dating preferences.
Bisexual, queer, non-binary participants were most open to having a trans partner, but even among them, almost half did not select either trans man or trans woman.
Because it turns out you're attracted to certain types of people, and those people typically have to have the set of genitals that you prefer, and also believe that they are a member of the sex that has that particular set of genitals.
Why in the- But it's all controversial.
You understand?
Any discrimination is controversial.
Any decision you make is controversial.
All of this demonstrates the full-scale stupidity of the left.
I hope that they continue along this path because I promise you, human biology will not stand for this sort of political nonsense.
Okay, we'll be back here tomorrow with all of the latest updates.
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