Ep. 285 - Democrats Put Their Insanity On Full Display
Today on the show, the Democratic debate was last night. The dems proved again that they are a party completely detached from reality and morality. We'll talk about the craziest moments of the night. Also, the real story behind that tragic viral photo of the migrant father and daughter who drowned in the river has come to light. And the real story does not fit with the narrative Democrats are spinning. Date: 06-27-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the Democratic debate was last night.
The Dems proved that they are a party completely detached from reality and morality.
And so we'll go through it today, talk about it, review it, recap, all that stuff.
Also, the real story behind that tragic viral photo of the migrant father and daughter who drowned crossing the river into the country, the real story has come to light.
And I want to talk about that real story and what we can learn from it.
Do that today on The Matt Walsh Show.
I'm Matt Walsh.
I'll see you next time.
Bye.
Como estas?
Donde esta Amarillo?
Por favor no abofite sus vacas.
Giraffe, naranja, siete baños, mariachi.
tengo muchas enchiladas, deja de hablarme tacos, soy caballo.
As you can see, I was just speaking Spanish there.
I am fluent in Spanish.
That's why, in case you didn't notice, I was speaking Spanish.
I can speak Spanish.
And did I mention that I speak Spanish?
I just wanted to be sure that you caught The whole bit where I was speaking Spanish, just right there.
Pretty impressive.
I'm not making a big deal of it or anything, but it's pretty impressive that I can speak two languages.
We discovered last night that a number of Democratic presidential candidates speak Spanish, and they were eager to show off the fact that they speak Spanish, especially Beto O'Rourke, who broke into it randomly in the first question, creating one of the most Hilarious and uncomfortable moments of the night.
For me, one of the most hilarious and uncomfortable moments that I've seen in a debate in a long time.
And we will revisit that moment in a moment, and a few other moments as well.
But first, let's talk about finding freelance talent for your business or project.
Finding the right freelancer can be time-consuming and frustrating, also expensive.
There are a lot of questions, a lot of unknowns, like how much will it cost to hire a freelancer?
Where are you going to find the talent?
How can you be sure they'll deliver?
What is the meaning of life?
Well, Fiverr can help you answer those questions, except for the last one, I guess.
That's more, you're kind of on your own with that.
Thanks to Fiverr, finding the right freelancer doesn't have to be a struggle.
I've talked to several people who have used Fiverr, and they've all raved about how simple
it is, how straightforward.
Just makes the whole process easier.
There's no guesswork, nothing to worry about.
Here's how it works.
Fiverr's marketplace connects businesses with freelancers who offer hundreds of digital services including graphic design, copywriting, web programming, film editing, and much more.
You can find what you're looking for instantly by searching based on, they break it down into categories,
you know, based on service, delivery time, price, reviews, much more.
Take five and check out fiverr.com and you will receive 10% off your first order
just by using my code Walsh.
It's so easy, don't waste any more time and get the service that you deserve
by going to fiverr.com, that's F-I-V-E-R-R, two R's, .com, F-I-V-E-R-R.com and code Walsh.
Again, that's Fiverr.com, code Walsh.
All right, so let's talk about the Democratic debates.
For some reason, we're going to talk about it.
These debates, of course, don't really matter that much because nothing matters anymore in general, and also because the news cycle moves so quickly that nobody remembers anything for more than half a day at most, especially early on like this.
When there are 67 people in the field, we're still, it feels like, 300 years away from the actual election taking place.
By the time everyone goes to vote in 2020, no one's going to remember anything that happened today or last night.
Mainly the issue is simply that we live in a culture where everyone has the memory of fruit flies.
So do you remember even what was the big story, the big news story we were all talking about two weeks ago or last week?
I don't remember.
And I was on this show talking, whatever it was, I have no idea.
People sometimes will discover the show, they'll go back and they'll watch the old ones and catch up and they'll send me emails about some of the older shows.
And when I say older shows, I mean sometimes like shows that I did three days ago.
And I appreciate that they're doing that and they're sending emails, but they're responding to discussions we had and I have no memory of it.
Like, what?
We talked about that?
Really?
So I get to relive it, which is kind of exciting.
And that's how it is for everyone.
Everything evaporates from our mind.
It's replaced by new information.
We're consuming so much information, there's so much going on, that we have to shove out the old information and replace it with new every day.
And there's this recharging process that takes place where we remember nothing at the end.
And then you add in the fact that 99% of what you hear at a debate is pre-planned, canned, staged, phony, speaking in soundbites.
Nobody's even attempting to offer anything that approaches or resembles an authentic human thought or opinion.
There are very few actual back and forths going on.
The one thing that rarely happens at a modern debate Is debate.
You'll see a little bit of that.
There'll be a few moments where the people start breaking into actual debate where they're actually like arguing with each other and making points back and forth to each other.
But then what always happens is the moderator steps in and says, Hey, hey, hey, hey, we're not going to have any of that debating at this debate.
Okay.
Or follow the rules.
Now let's return to my boring and irrelevant questions.
Um, and, uh, and that's what you do.
We move.
Back to the Q&A thing, and then each candidate gets a chance to speak and talking points again.
An actual debate would be something like, okay, here's the topic.
Here are a few points or things to grapple with.
Go ahead.
Have at it.
And then the candidates talk to each other.
That's what a real debate would be.
People like to mention what's considered one of the great American political debates of all time, the Lincoln-Douglas debate of 1858.
And those, of course, were not televised because most families back then didn't have TVs.
That's a little historical nugget for you.
But you can go and you can read the transcripts, the back and forth that took place at this debate.
And it's considered a great debate for a reason, because it's an actual debate.
The two men are going back and forth, making long, sort of eloquent, in-depth points to each other.
And that just doesn't happen anymore.
With that said, now that I've explained why it doesn't matter and it's totally pointless, we're going to take a look at some of the memorable moments.
Memorable moments, by that I mean moments that you'll remember until dinnertime and then forget.
So let's do that.
We begin with Robert Francis O'Rourke, otherwise known by his stage name Beto, who was once considered a star in the Democratic Party, and now he's just kind of this sad and boring little guy who does stuff like this to get attention.
Watch this.
Congressman O'Rourke.
What we've just been discussing and talking about is how much fundamental change to the economy is desirable and how much is actually doable.
In that vein, some Democrats want a marginal individual tax rate of 70% on the very highest earners, those making more than $10 million a year.
Would you support that?
And if not, what would your top individual rate be?
This economy has got to work for everyone.
And right now we know that it isn't.
And it's going to take all of us coming together to make sure that it does.
We need to include everyone in the success of this economy.
But if we want to do that, we need to include everyone in our democracy.
Every voter needs representation, and every voice needs to be heard.
Okay. Uh...
Now, of course, NBC offers subtitles for Spanish speakers, so that stunt was just that.
It was a stunt.
And it made even less sense when you consider that he didn't continue it constantly throughout the entire debate.
Now, he did that with his first answer.
And when he did that, I thought, is he going to do this for every question?
But you kind of have to do it.
If you're going to do it once, then don't you have to do it for every question?
It doesn't make any sense to only do it once or twice.
So, but that's what, he did it only a couple of times, which makes it even more bizarre.
So, for instance, Beto did not, he gave his answer on climate change where he explained, like all the others did, that we're all going to drown and die any time now.
But he didn't give that in Spanish.
He only gave it in English.
So what, does he not care if Hispanic people drown when the polar ice caps melt?
Is that what he's trying to say?
He's basically saying to the Spanish speakers, hey, you guys don't need to hear this part.
All right.
I mean, the rest of us, you know, we're going to we got to build an arc here because it's going to be flooding.
Now, you guys don't need to hear this.
Don't.
Oh, don't worry about it.
Don't worry.
Doesn't concern you.
See, that's what if you if you're pretending that you have to speak in Spanish also so that they understand what you're saying, then it because then it's you have to stick with it.
You can't only do it once.
That's the problem.
I think the most telling part, and then there was Cory Booker and Julian Castro, they also broke it in Spanish at a couple different points.
And Booker was asked about it after the debate on NBC, asked how he felt about O'Rourke speaking Spanish, and then Booker said, hey, well, he threw down the gauntlet, and me and Castro, we knew that we had to bring it also.
So what he's admitting is that he's admitting that it was a stunt.
He was admitting that it was just a dumb competition.
There was nothing sincere about it.
He was using the Spanish language as a stunt.
He admitted that.
Which, I don't know, if I was a Spanish speaker, I would not appreciate that.
Now, I think the most telling part of the debate happened maybe about midway through And up until this point, a few of the candidates had thrown in some lines about killing babies, just to get a quick applause line, you know.
There was one point, one of the candidates, I don't remember who, was making a point, had nothing to do with abortion, and then he noticed that he was losing the crowd, people were kind of, their eyes were glossing over, and so he threw in a quick line about, hey, yeah, we need to kill babies.
He didn't say that exactly, but...
In essence, that's what he said.
And then it got the crowd perked up and they started, oh, killing babies?
Yeah, oh yes!
This is what the modern Democratic Party has become.
But they did break into a full-on competition to see who supports killing the babies the most.
And it was established that none of them want any restrictions of any kind on the practice.
And in fact, they all want abortion for free.
So here they are going back and forth on that.
It should not be an option in the United States of America for any insurance company to deny women coverage for their exercise of their right of choice.
And I am the only candidate here who has passed a law Protecting a woman's right of reproductive health and health insurance.
And I'm the only candidate who has passed a public option.
And I respect everybody's goals and plans here.
But we do have one candidate that's actually advanced the ball.
And we've got to have access for everyone.
I've done it as a public officer.
I just presented it all at once.
That's a false claim.
I'm fascinated by this, Senator.
I just want to say there's three women up here that have fought pretty hard for a woman's right to choose.
So I'll start with that.
Senator Warren, would you put limits on, any limits on abortion?
I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care services, and that includes birth control, it includes abortion, it includes everything for a woman.
And I want to add on that.
It's not enough for us to expect the courts to protect us.
47 years ago, Roe vs. Wade was decided and we've all looked to the courts all that time as state after state has undermined Roe, has put in exceptions, has come right up to the edge of taking away protection.
Your time is up, Senator.
We now have an America where most people support Roe v. Wade.
We need to make that federal law.
Thank you.
This, again, is what the modern Democratic Party has become.
This is what it's been for many years now.
It is a party utterly obsessed with abortion, a party unattached, unmoored, disconnected from any notion of basic morality or human decency.
There isn't even a debate anymore about anything related to abortion in the Democratic Party.
They aren't talking about when personhood begins, or about when abortion is acceptable, about fetal pain, or whatever.
They aren't talking about any of that.
They don't care.
It's just abortion for everyone, at any point, for free.
That's where they are.
There cannot be any nuance, there cannot be any equivocation, or reservation, or moderation, just everyone is on the abortion train.
And even that isn't extreme enough.
So abortion for all women, for any reason, at any point, for free, you would think, well that's as extreme and as absolute as it gets, but not so fast.
Castro, he took it a step further.
Watch.
Secretary Castro, this one is for you.
All of you on stage support a woman's right to an abortion.
You all support some version of a government health care option.
Would your plan cover abortion, Mr. Secretary?
Yes, it would.
I don't believe only in reproductive freedom.
I believe in reproductive justice.
And, you know, what that means is that just because a woman, or let's also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to exercise that right to choose.
And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion.
He could barely say that with a straight face.
If you watched him say that, he could barely get it out.
Because he knows that what he just said is nonsensical.
We need to give abortion rights to trans females?
In other words, men.
Okay?
A trans woman is a man, a biological man.
And this grown adult, this somehow successful and prominent, relatively speaking, political figure, just claimed on national TV that biological men can get pregnant.
And he, of course, knows this is nonsense.
He doesn't actually think that.
There's a reason why, if you go back to the 2008 Democratic presidential debate, or any debate before that, none of these people were talking about trans and, you know, men getting pregnant.
Nobody was talking about that.
Nobody was.
Because it wasn't a question then.
Now they're talking about it, even though they've all lived... If you're looking at a Democratic presidential candidate who's pretending to take this trans stuff seriously, pretending to actually believe that a biological man can be a woman and even get pregnant, well, these are grown adults.
Most of them are much older.
So they have lived Most of them, 40 or 50 years, never talking about this, never bringing it up, and then all of a sudden, in the last few years, it's, oh yeah, I don't know, I believed this all along.
I believed all along that biological sex is basically a myth.
You never would have guessed it because I never said it and I spoke and behaved as if I just believed that there are only men and women.
But no, I believed that all along.
Now this is just craven opportunism.
Castro saying something that he knows is scientifically illiterate, insane, absurd.
Buddy's saying it anyway, and it's an applause line for Democrats.
Now, if we lived in a sane country, and if we lived in a sane country, then Castro's political career would be over after he just stood on national TV and claimed that men can get pregnant.
It would be over.
He would be the laughingstock of the country, and that would be it for him.
But instead, it's an applause line, and I bet you that his poll numbers go up today.
Go from, you know, 1% to 3% or something.
But you know what?
Okay, I agree.
Actually, I'm going to agree with Castro.
Yes.
Let's give abortion rights to men.
Because if men are pregnant, That's not a baby in there, I can tell you that.
If you're a man, if you're an actual biological man and you're pregnant, then yes, you should get an abortion, because that's not a baby.
This is either a scene from Alien, or you have a tapeworm infestation.
Either way, yes, you can go and kill whatever it is, because it ain't a baby, that's for sure.
Or, if we're talking about abortion rights for men, if you mean by that that men should have a say In the fate of their children, then I agree with that also.
All right, but I'm, you know what, I'm glad, as I was watching the debate, I was glad that this was happening.
I'm glad that they put this on display.
I'm glad that the Democrats put their insanity on display for everyone to see.
So that the average Joe Schmo sitting at home You know, the blue-collar worker in Minnesota.
You know, just that random hypothetical person that the candidates in debates like to always bring up.
I'm looking for policies that are going to positively affect the nurse in Iowa.
Or the lunch lady in Ohio.
They always just happen to choose the swing states for their hypothetical, anecdotal people.
But if you are someone like that watching at home, and you're not normally very politically invested or aware, I'm glad that you got a chance to see that this is what the Democratic Party is.
They're fighting over who wants to kill babies the most, and they're claiming that men can get pregnant.
That's what the Democratic Party is.
If you're seeing that and you're thinking, what?
This is what they are?
This has got to be some kind of fluke.
No, it's not a fluke.
This is what they are.
And so you decide if you want to have anything to do with these people or not.
All right, a couple other things.
I thought this was interesting.
Watch this.
You have many plans, free college, free child care, government health care, cancellation of student debt, new taxes, new regulations, the breakup of major corporations.
But this comes at a time when 71% of Americans say the economy is doing well, including 60% of Democrats.
What do you say to those who worry this kind of significant change could be risky to the economy?
So I think of it this way.
Who is this economy really working for?
It's doing great for a thinner and thinner slice at the top.
It's doing great for giant drug companies.
It's just not doing great for people who are trying to get a prescription filled.
It's doing great for people who want to invest in private prisons, just not for the African-Americans and Latinx whose families are torn apart, whose lives are destroyed, and whose communities are ruined.
It's doing great for giant oil companies that want to drill everywhere, just not for the rest of us who are watching climate change bear down upon us.
Okay, that was at the very beginning of the debate.
I think I just cut her off there mid-sentence, but blah, blah, blah.
You get it.
Did you catch the Latinx, by the way?
That's the new politically correct term, because you can't say Latino anymore, because that's gendered, and it excludes females, and it excludes the other 57 genders.
So Latinx, I think is how she pronounced it.
I thought it was pronounced Latinx.
That's really how I, all this time, I thought, I figured, because it's Latinx.
It's like L-A-T-I-N-X.
So I thought it was Latinx.
Which does sound a little clunky, but Latinx.
That sounds like an inappropriate website.
Latinx.
That doesn't sound... That's just... Of course, it's a made-up word.
And so, of course, it sounds completely silly.
But anyway, notice how she was told that... She was told by the moderator, to begin the question, that 71% of Americans say the economy is doing well.
And she responds, including 61% of Democrats, she responds by insisting that no, actually, the economy is terrible.
And there was a lot of that last night.
Where it's, the setup to the question is, yeah, the economy's doing well.
No, no, no, things are terrible, trust me.
It's that things are awful.
People are hating it, people are depressed, they're starving to death.
No, no, no, but they say, the 71% say, no, no, no, no, no, it's terrible, trust me, it's terrible.
Is that how the conversation, when they're on the campaign trail?
If somebody goes up to, if one of these candidates goes up to someone sitting at a diner, they say, how are things for you?
Oh, the things are doing pretty well.
No, they're not.
They're not doing well for you.
You are in despair.
You are crushed.
Your life is miserable.
Trust me.
Trust me.
But this is in order for, Elizabeth Warren's goal is socialism.
The goal of all these people is socialism.
Either by that word or another.
And in order for them to pass their socialist policies, they need to convince us that the economy is in shambles, that it's a disaster.
And if it's not actually in shambles, like they wish it was, they wish it was.
I mean, they would love it if the unemployment rate was 30% and people were starving to death on the streets.
They would love that.
That's what they would prefer.
Because of course these people don't care about human life at all, which is why they can not bat an eye at 60 million human babies being killed.
But because it's not that, unfortunately for them, they have to convince us that that's what it's like so that they can then shove their socialist policies down our throats.
And it's all pretty gross.
Speaking of gross, we'll watch one more clip.
Watch this.
It's a simple question.
What is the biggest threat?
Who is the geopolitical threat to the United States?
Just give me one word to answer, Congressman Delaney.
Could you repeat the question?
Greatest geopolitical threat to the United States right now?
Congressman Delaney?
Well, the biggest geopolitical challenge is China, but the biggest geopolitical threat remains nuclear weapons.
So those are different questions.
I got you.
Totally get it.
Go ahead, Governor Inslee.
The biggest threat to the security of the United States is Donald Trump.
So that guy, and I don't even know who he is, I don't know how half those people were, I don't know who that guy is, but he's somebody.
You're not gonna win.
He says the biggest threat to the United States is the President of the United States.
Now if Trump had said, imagine that Trump had said in a debate that the biggest threat to the United States is Barack Obama.
And now, he kind of uses rhetoric like that about the media, saying they're the enemy of the people and so on, but how does the media, how does the left react when he says stuff like that?
They say, oh, it's dangerous rhetoric, it's terrible, it's irresponsible, you're gonna get somebody killed.
Well, isn't it, if you say the biggest threat to the United States is the president, how do you, if there's some crazy, wacko, would-be assassin out there, how do you think he's gonna respond to that?
By the logic of the left, and what they say about when Trump calls his rhetoric and how it's dangerous, it's gonna get people killed.
By that same logic, aren't you potentially getting the president killed when you say stuff like that?
That he's the greatest threat to the United States?
How is that not reckless and irresponsible rhetoric?
That's what I don't get.
Well, of course it is.
But again, it was a massive applause line.
So, everything is hypocritical and nobody cares.
All right, before we continue, a word about something pretty awesome.
Let's get that taste out of our mouth.
all that Stupidity and nonsense. Here's something awesome
Big token big token is a new app that lets you share data about yourself your interests your habits
And then you get paid for it. Okay, you get paid Right now you already share an enormous amount of
information about yourself whether you know it or not whether you like it or not
You're sharing information and you're not making any money on it. People are making money on you
You're not making money.
That's not what this country is about.
That's not what living in free market capitalism is about.
And as long as we live in a free market, which who knows, that might be only for another two years, then you should be able to make the money off of your own information.
And that's where Big Token comes in.
Here's how it works.
First, download the app and sign up for a free BigToken account.
Next, complete actions to earn points.
Actions include answering surveys, checking into locations, connecting your social accounts, and much more.
Then you can redeem your points for rewards, such as cash and gift cards, or you could donate your earnings to charity.
If you're a very generous person, then you can do that.
But whatever the case is, you choose what data you share with BigToken, and then you get paid for it.
You can also get more points for referring friends and family.
Your data is always secure with BigToken.
They take it very seriously.
They take your privacy seriously.
Based on the data you choose to share, you'll be placed in the specific ad groups, and brands will buy access to those ad groups for use in personalized advertising.
Best part?
Again, to emphasize, you get paid.
Cash money.
Okay?
If you want to start earning money for your data, go to the App Store or Google Play.
You can search for Big Token.
B-I-G-T-O-K-E-N.
That's one word.
Download the app and sign up.
Make sure to use my referral code, which is Matt Walsh.
Again, search Big Token in the App Store or Google Play.
Download the app.
I've done it.
It's very easy to do.
It doesn't take long.
And then you're up and running.
And also use my referral code, Matt Walsh, to sign up, claim your data, and get paid.
All right.
I want to revisit something from yesterday because this came up in The debate a lot.
And people are still talking about it.
And I think there is a more complete story that needs to be told.
A more complete story that when I discussed this issue yesterday, I didn't know the full story yet.
I hadn't read it.
Now I do.
So I want to go back to this.
As we talked about yesterday, there's that gut-wrenching photo that really strikes at the heart of the immigration debate in this country, and the photo went viral.
It shows a father and his young daughter face down on the shore of the Rio Grande.
The girl has her arm around the man's neck, and they're both dead.
It's horrible, devastating, heartbreaking, just awful.
Now, the left has attempted to use this image to make the case for open borders.
And we're told that somehow this is Trump's fault, it's the Republicans' fault, it's the GOP's fault.
But the story behind the... Now, even if we didn't know the story behind the image, and at first we didn't, all we knew was that you had these two people, unfortunately, that had died.
Even without knowing any of the background.
You already know that this isn't the president's fault.
The president didn't do this.
And if this is someone, if this is illegal immigration we're talking about, again, that's not, now we could talk about who to blame, but there's just no way to put it on the president.
Now that we know the full story though, it emphasizes even more that this has nothing to do with immigration enforcement, or if it does, it's about lax immigration enforcement.
And it certainly is not Trump's fault or the fault of the Republican Party or whatever.
So the full story, as reported by the Daily Mail and New York Magazine and others, is that Oscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez and his daughter Valeria were swept away while trying to cross the Rio Grande into Texas on Sunday.
Now Oscar had made it across with his daughter but then he went back to get his wife and tragically his daughter was afraid, scared, young girl, less than two years old.
She followed her father back into the water and was then taken by the river.
He tried to save her and they both drowned.
The Daily Mail describes the circumstances that led to this family attempting to traverse a dangerous river on foot.
Now, reading from the Daily Mail now, they say, they left El Salvador on April 3rd and spent two months in a migrant camp in southern Mexico awaiting news of their asylum request to the U.S.
before they decided to take a bus to the border on Sunday to try to speed up their case.
When they arrived, the consulate was closed, but they also learned they were far down a list of hundreds of migrants in line for interviews.
They decided to make the crossing illegally rather than wait, a decision that led to their deaths.
This was not a family turned coldly away at the border as it fled violence and persecution.
They weren't turned away at all.
They simply grew impatient, waiting for the bureaucratic wheels to turn.
Which, I get it.
I would be impatient, too.
But this was not being turned away.
Indeed, family members confirmed that the family was not being persecuted in its home country.
This was not really a case of legitimate... These were not refugees, in other words.
Reading now again says, Oscar worked at a Papa John's pizza restaurant where he was earning $350 a month.
They lived off his wage, limiting themselves to $10 a day because Tania, that's the wife I believe, had already quit her job as a cashier in a Chinese restaurant to care for Valeria, their only child.
They were not fleeing violence, Tania's mother has since said, but were in desperate search of a life where they could earn more.
Their plan was to spend a few years in America to save up money and then to return to El Salvador and buy or build their own house.
Now this might explain why their asylum request was taking so long to process.
Ramirez and his family were looking for asylum from low-paying fast food jobs, which is not how the asylum program is traditionally meant to be used.
The U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services website defines asylum, and this is what they say asylum is and how it works.
Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
We have stretched the concept of persecuted on account of race, religion, or social group into meaninglessness if we include those who are understandably distressed by low wages.
This is economic immigration.
This is not asylum.
If you blame the terrible deaths of Oscar and Valeria Ramirez on Trump, Well then what are you saying, exactly?
Are you arguing that the president should have personally moved the Ramirez family to the front of the asylum line, in front of people who may actually be fleeing violence and persecution?
Or else are you saying that the asylum system should be, that there should be a general policy instated that just grants immediate asylum to everyone who asks for it, no questions asked?
Obviously both of those things are absurd.
So if you're not advocating for either of those things, then how could you possibly blame this on Trump?
It's not Trump's fault that they were living in poverty in El Salvador.
It's and it's so what what did he do?
It seems that if you're looking for someone to blame or something to blame,
there are two systematic problems we can blame.
First, the abuses of the asylum system have been tolerated for so long that people who shouldn't qualify for asylum still expect to receive it.
I don't blame Ramirez for seeking asylum.
He was doing what he thought he needed to do for his family.
I might have done the same thing in his position.
We obviously cannot make somebody a refugee based on the fact that they're getting low wages at Papa John's.
By that logic, then there are a lot of refugees who are American citizens who could apply for refugee status because they're working at Papa John's.
It doesn't work that way.
So requests of that kind should be denied immediately, and loopholes that encourage or allow these sorts of abuses have to be closed.
Second, as we talked about yesterday, our border is porous.
Everybody knows it.
Ramirez knew that if he could just make it across the river, which he almost did, and tragically, he did not ultimately, but he knew that if he could just do that, he'd probably be home free.
I think if the word had gotten out to men like Ramirez, That his chances of making it across the border were extremely slim and it wasn't going to happen, then perhaps he never would have stepped foot into that river.
A fortified and enforced border, you know, it may seem scary and mean to metropolitan liberals, but it would be life-saving for people like Ramirez and people on both sides of the border.
If Ramirez knew that he could not get here by erroneously seeking asylum, and he could not get here by sneaking across, then he'd be left with two options.
And both would have saved his life.
One would be to apply for citizenship through the standard channels.
Two, stay in El Salvador and try to find other ways to increase your income.
Either option is fine.
Either of them.
would have meant that he and his daughter are alive today.
And there are a lot of people, there are a lot of people who have died trying to cross the border and would not have had they never attempted it.
And we could encourage people or rather discourage them from attempting it by making it extremely, extremely difficult to do.
That is the compassionate choice, I think.
All right.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
MattWalshow at gmail.com is the email address.
We'll get to a few emails.
Let's see.
This is from Tim, says Matt, thank you for your continued hard work engaging with many of the hard and complex issues we face in society.
Yesterday you made a remarkable point that I feel needs more attention.
When introducing the photo of the recent tragedy at the border, you said that it's horrific for anyone to use the photo for any lesser purpose, especially to make a political point.
This is so important for us to consider in our culture today.
You were then quick to expose the absurdity of Democrats leveraging the lives and deaths of a father and daughter to rally harder against the Trump administration's border policy and practices.
While I agree wholeheartedly with this analysis, I think it's vital that you also condemn Trump's statement in which he likewise uses the tragedy to argue a different point.
And now quoting Trump, They want to have open borders, and open borders mean crime, and open borders mean people drowning in rivers.
I hate it, and I know that it could stop immediately if the Democrats would change the laws, and then the father, who probably was this wonderful guy with his daughter, things like that wouldn't happen.
I realize that keeping up with Trump's tweets slash nonsense is impossible, and there are plenty of left-wing media folks trying to do that for any reason.
But in this case, it is entirely relevant to your earlier point that no one should try to profit off of the suffering of others by using a photo like that for political gain.
This is yet another form of human objectification that our society has completely normalized, and we should condemn all instances of it, regardless of whether we agree with the logic that follows or the ends being sought.
Thanks again for the show.
Hi, Tim.
Well, I agree with your basic point about not using it.
And I agree that it is a form of objectification, of dehumanization.
When we look at death, and whether it's people that have died crossing the border, or it's a school shooting, when we see these bodies just as tools to be used, and it is very much objectification.
We're turning them into objects.
And we are not recognizing their humanity anymore.
So I agree with that.
I don't think that's what Trump was doing, any more than that's what I was doing.
What I was doing just now, and yesterday on the show, and what Trump was doing, I think, was to clarify, to explain, in the face of lies and distortion, the actual truth.
People are blaming those deaths on Trump.
Trump is responding to those accusations.
He didn't, now I know this sounds like a childish sort of, they started it sort of thing, But I guess that is what I'm saying.
You know, when Trump isn't the one who dug up this photo and said, hey, see here.
No, it was it was the left took that photo.
We're using it to bludgeon him.
And he's saying, no, that's not.
No, no.
Look, if we're going to have this discussion, then let's talk about why that actually happened.
It's about open borders and so on.
So I think he's entitled to defend himself.
And I think he also has a responsibility as the president to to To offer clarifications on things like this.
So in that case, now look, I don't think Trump is above using tragedies for political gain.
I think almost every politician does it.
And I don't think Trump is an exception.
But in this case, I don't think that's what he did.
When someone comes to you with an accusation and says, hey, you caused this tragedy, I think you're allowed to say no.
Same thing with, again, with the school shootings and when someone tries to use that against Second Amendment advocates.
I think the Second Amendment advocates are entitled to respond, no, you're wrong.
In fact, the Second Amendment would help prevent these things.
All right.
This is from Sam says, love the show.
I always enjoy listening to your show.
It's very educational.
I am 15 and I go to an all boys Catholic school and I've started to like girls and notice girls more over this past year.
I have friends who have started dating and some of those relationships have been good and some have not been good.
My friends say I should wait to date girls until I'm interested in getting married.
My brother who's 20 and in college just got his first girlfriend and says that I should wait.
I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on this topic or could give me any advice.
Um, Hi, Sam.
Well, great question.
Let me be the first to tell you, full disclosure, that I did not take the advice that I am going to give you.
When I was your age, I did not take this advice.
So I understand why people don't take it, because I didn't.
But I wish I did.
And my advice, well, it's the same advice that your brother and your parents gave you.
I agree with them.
We have to ask ourselves a simple question.
What's the point of dating?
I think, Sam, that's the question you should ask yourself.
Wanting to date is a natural, healthy thing to want, but I think you should just ask, well, what is it?
What's the point of it?
Everything has a point, not just dating.
Everything has a point.
If it's a thing, if it exists, it has some kind of point, some kind of purpose.
So what's the point?
If we say that the point is something like, well, having fun or getting to know someone, I would say that's not really a point.
It's sort of, okay, fun and getting to know someone to what end?
And now it's possible to have fun just for the sake of having fun.
You go out and play a pickup game of basketball.
The main point is just fun for the sake of fun.
It's an end in and of itself, which is fine for something like a game.
But for a human relationship, I don't think the end itself can be fun.
I think it's got to be because it's something deeper and more complex.
And that's not a game, right?
So, plus you can have fun with someone and get to know them without dating them.
Dating them is a kind of weird thing where you actually define the relationship and the two of you reckon, and that's why in every dating relationship, at least this is how it was when I was your age.
I think people still do this.
Maybe they don't.
But back in the old days, if you were dating, there had to be that weird conversation at some point where you establish Okay, we're boyfriend and girlfriend.
And there's no non-awkward way of doing that.
It's always super awkward.
But at a certain point, you've got to establish, is this what we are?
Now, I think these days, people maybe never bother to define it.
That's why people say, it's not even dating anymore, it's just we're hanging out.
We're just kind of hanging around the same vicinity as each other, which makes it even worse when it's not defined.
But in the traditional dating scenario, it's defined, boyfriend, girlfriend, okay.
So, again, what's the point of that?
What's the point of that distinction?
And besides, as much as we might say, oh, we're just having fun, it's not serious, it will get serious.
It always does.
Dating relationships in high school get very intense.
Very intense.
I mean, you say things like, I love you, you act totally committed to each other, devoted to each other, you become almost obsessed with each other, and all of that commitment and devotion and supposed love has to be headed somewhere.
It's not a switch you can flip.
Now, it does feel like a switch that's sort of flipped on, where all of the sudden there is this intense Infatuation, really, is the word.
But it's not really a switch that can be flipped off.
So it's got to be headed somewhere.
You're in this boat together, where's the boat going?
If you're both in your 20s, and you're at a high school, then it could be going to the altar, to marriage.
And maybe it doesn't, ultimately.
But at least there's that possibility.
And at least there's an understanding that if all things go according to plan, That's where you're going.
That's the end result.
That's the end game.
And that gives you hope.
And that gives you purpose.
And that makes it worth it.
Even if it doesn't work out.
You could say then, well it was still worth it because I'm pursuing marriage and I'm pursuing this next phase of my life.
And I took a chance and it didn't work out.
But it was still worth it.
It was worth the chance.
Because the end is worth it.
But the problem is that in high school, it's almost certain that it's not headed there.
No one's talking about marriage in high school.
99.9% of all high school relationships do not end in marriage.
I'm making that statistic up, but it's probably pretty close to accurate.
So most just end, and they end in heartbreak and devastation, feelings of betrayal, abandonment, hatred, jealousy.
I think as an adult, and I look back, and I've been married for eight years, and I got four kids now, Um, and so I can look back to my relationships that I was in as a teenager and I can sort of see it as, from this perspective now, I can see it as this kind of like silly thing and it doesn't, but at the time it was not silly and, and breakups were devastating, heartbreaking.
You know, you, you, cause you can't, you can't see it.
It's hard.
You can't remove yourself from your own perspective.
Which is, yeah, someone might tell you, hey, well, look, you were dating that person for six months.
It's not like you guys weren't married.
People get divorced after being married for 15 years.
They have kids.
I mean, imagine how they feel.
Six months, like, yeah, well, you can recognize intellectually it's not the same thing, but that doesn't, yeah, but that's not your life.
This is your life.
And so it's a very hard thing for kids to deal with.
So, if marriage isn't on the table, and you get into a serious and committed relationship with someone, you've just guaranteed yourself a messy and heartbreaking split.
It's guaranteed.
Every day you spend with that person, you know in the back of your mind that eventually, probably in the next few months, you're gonna hate each other.
You know it's going there.
So all this talk about love and commitment, it's all really a joke, and you sort of know that.
You don't mean for it to be a joke, but in the back of your mind you know.
You say, I love you, I'm so committed, but you know.
It's like you know in 20 years you're not going to be with this person.
In 10 years you won't.
Probably in 10 months you won't.
So you're kind of lying to each other, and it's a game, and it's not a very nice or fair game to be playing with another person's heart.
Quit playing games with my heart.
That was before your time, but very wise words from, I think, the Backstreet Boys.
Some people will say that high school relationships teach you things.
You learn from them.
Yeah, what do you learn though?
You learn how to break up.
You learn how to hate someone you used to claim to love.
You learn how to say things you don't mean to people that you pretend to care about.
You learn a lot of lessons that really aren't handy in a marriage.
You learn how to be in a failed relationship.
You learn how to get divorced, basically.
It's divorce practice.
It's not marriage practice.
Um, there really isn't anything like marriage practice.
Marriage is one of those things where, you know, you just, you learn how to do it when you're in it.
You'll learn more just like with a job, right?
I mean, you could train for your job, learn about, you'll learn more in the first day of your job than you could possibly learn in 10 years of reading books about it.
And you'll learn more in your first day of marriage than you could have ever learned through, through any dating relationship.
So, um, that's my, that's what I would say is, but as I said, I recognize that it, it, you know, we can all say this because it's, it's easy for us now to say all this with our, with our hindsight and everything.
But, um, when you're actually in high school, you know, to actually put that off until college or after college is a very difficult thing to do.
But if you can, if you can pull that off, I would say you won't regret it.
And what I'll tell you, now I've been babbling for too long, last thing I'll say is I guarantee you that when you're 25 or whatever and you're married, if you're married by then, and you didn't date in high school, you absolutely will not regret having not dated.
You won't regret it.
Especially because once you get married and you have kids, your past life, it's like someone else's life.
It's like you hardly, it's like a blur all of a sudden.
You've started this whole new life.
You're a new person.
And so you're not going to regret that.
All right.
Let's leave it there.
Thanks for the questions.
And we'll talk tomorrow.
Godspeed.
The first Democratic presidential primary debate was last night, and everyone started speaking Spanish.
We will examine why los Democrats son muy estúpidos.
Then my pal Jameel Jivani stops by to explain why young men get radicalized.
