Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 28, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show

50:54

Ep. 286 - Democrats Want To Give Free Health Care To Everyone In The World

Today on the show, another debate last night. Dozens more to go. God help us. We’ll go over the lowlights, including all of the Dems admitting that they want to give free health care to illegals. Also, a woman writes a viral article bragging about all of the boyfriends she's cheated on. Date: 06-28-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Today on the Matt Wall Show, another debate.
	We've got many more of these to go.
	God help us all.
	We're going to go over the highlights or lowlights of the debate last night, including all of the Dems admitting, finally, that they want to give free health care to illegals.
	That's something that, up until very recently, they denied.
	So we'll talk about that.
	And also, there's an especially disgusting article that's gone viral featuring a woman bragging about all the time she's cheated on her boyfriend.
	We'll go through that and talk about why it's so horrible, although I guess you could probably guess.
	Talk about that and get to your emails today on The Matt Walsh Show.
	I'm sure you heard about it.
	And we've got how many more of these things to go?
	We've got like a year and a half worth of...
	Debates.
	Oh, my Lord.
	I can't.
	God save me.
	God save me.
	Please, just deliver me from this, Lord.
	I can't.
	I just can't do it.
	I'm not crying.
	Well, I'm crying a little bit.
	I just can't imagine how... I mean, how is this happening already?
	I feel like the campaigning never stopped.
	I feel like we never left in election year.
	We've been in election year my entire life, and I just can't take it anymore.
	You know, I was...
	I'm a football fan, so I like to watch football during the season.
	And I also like to watch, during the season, the analyst shows, where the guys all sit around – and girls, too, OK?
	Not discriminating – like to sit around on TV and they talk about the games that happened over the weekend, and they predict what's going to happen in the upcoming games.
	And I like to watch those shows, those football talk shows.
	But it never fails to occur to me as I'm watching it how kind of stupid and pointless it really is that you've got all these people sitting around talking about a game and very seriously analyzing it and discussing, you know, which team do they think is going to do better in the game next week than the other.
	But yet I enjoy watching it anyway.
	But really I think...
	Talking and analyzing, and I thought this last night as I was flipping through cable news after the debate, watching all the talking heads analyzing the debate, and I realized that's even more stupid and pointless, actually.
	Because the debates are a game also, but at least with football you know it's a game and nobody hides it.
	And also, football is a lot less scripted.
	It's a lot less predetermined.
	than is a debate. But we all sit around, you know, we got all these canned lines,
	these pre-planned, pre-packaged, scripted lines that these politicians had already,
	that they already decided they were going to fit in. And so they give their little line,
	and then we all discuss the loads. It was a great, it was a great moment from her,
	when she, well, what a great moment when she said the line that her staffer gave to her to say.
	Anyway, I guess on my part, it's not very good a professional for me to complain about
	the thing that I'm going to spend much of the show talking about.
	So forget everything I just said.
	Let's start over.
	There was another debate last night, and boy was it exciting and relevant to your life, and that's why I'm going to talk about it today.
	Now, not to spoil anything, but the major takeaways seem to be Joe Biden is old, Bernie wants to give people free stuff, nobody has any idea how they're going to enact any of the policies they propose, Kamala Harris is not accusing Biden of racism, but she's definitely accusing him of racism, and Marianne Williamson, whoever that is, needs to lay off the Buddhism.
	Oh, and Andrew Yang was the only guy on the stage with somewhat interesting ideas.
	I didn't say good ideas, interesting ideas, which means naturally he was given about 14 seconds to speak.
	We're going to go through, talk about some of the stuff in more depth.
	Really, the headline for me is just like the night before, Wednesday night, the Democrats on the stage took off the mask and let their extremism shine through, especially on immigration.
	And we'll get to that in a moment.
	But for the media and the pundits, that's not going to be the headline.
	And you see how it really doesn't matter what happens in the debate.
	What matters is the narrative the media creates after the fact.
	So the media narrative, which was already predetermined, was that Kamala Harris was electrifying and wonderful and she's now a rising star.
	The media, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
	They want her to be a rising star.
	They'd already decided before the debate that she was going to be the rising star after the debate.
	And so now she's going to be a rising star because they said so.
	Um, just like the media decided that, uh, for a little while, for a few weeks, it felt like O'Rourke was the rising star.
	And then they got bored of him, and they said, uh, never mind, and he's not a rising star anymore.
	So, Harris had, uh, basically two moments.
	One was a canned line that a staffer obviously gave her to use.
	A bad line, actually, and I'll explain why in a second.
	Then the other was a shameful attempt, yet a successful attempt, to smear Joe Biden while pretending that she was not smearing him.
	Nothing particularly amazing or brilliant about any of it.
	It was competent, which is more than I can say for some of the people on the stage, but nothing amazing about it.
	Yet we're told that it was amazing and brilliant.
	So let's look first at the canned line she used.
	That everybody is fawning over.
	Watch this.
	Hey guys, you know what?
	America does not want to witness a food fight.
	They want to know how we're going to put food on their table.
	Okay, now again, that's a line that someone gave her and she waited for a chance to use it.
	Fine.
	But it's actually wrong, okay?
	Two sentences and both sentences are wrong.
	First of all, she says that people aren't there to witness a food fight.
	Yes, they definitely are.
	That's exactly why people are tuning in.
	It's always funny when politicians say this at debates.
	They say, hey folks, people aren't watching this to see us fight, okay?
	Yes, we are.
	That's the only reason we're watching it.
	So yes, please fight.
	That's the whole reason.
	But more to the point, she says that we want to know, well, we don't want to see a food fight.
	We want to know, how are they going to put food on our table?
	They being the politicians.
	Again, no is the answer to that.
	I don't want to know that.
	I'm not watching a debate to find out how you're going to put food on my table.
	It was like my kids come in, hey dad, what's for dinner tomorrow?
	I don't know, I'll watch the debate tonight.
	I'll let you know what Kamala Harris has to say.
	Okay, I gotta check with her first.
	Maybe she's gonna make us lasagna, but I'm not sure yet.
	Don't get your hopes up.
	Um, no, that's, that, what a gross and patronizing and stupid line that everybody applauds.
	Oh my gosh, what a line!
	Do you notice how she said food and then she used food again?
	She used food in two different contexts.
	That was a mate, wow.
	Wow, guys, that was really smart.
	That was great.
	What a great line.
	What a moment.
	What a moment that line was.
	No, it was a moment of utter stupidity.
	What, that's what you want?
	You want politicians to put food on your table?
	You pathetic infantilized baby.
	Not you specifically who are watching this.
	I'm sure you're not that.
	I'm just yelling at the hypothetical person who thinks that's a good line.
	So that's nanny statism in the extreme.
	It's infantilizing and insulting and it's just not true.
	But of course it got huge applause because she's half right.
	Some folks actually do want To know how politicians are going to put food on their table.
	There are some people in this country who are like baby birds, basically, with their chirping, with their eyes closed and their mouths open, just waiting for a bureaucracy to regurgitate pre-chewed food into their mouth.
	There are people in this country that are like that.
	Unfortunately, quite a lot of people.
	And the Democrat Party is trying to breed more of them.
	But it is just disgusting and wrong.
	And so that was a bad line.
	So that was that was Kamala Harris.
	Bernie Sanders.
	There were a couple of interesting moments with Bernie Sanders, and we'll talk about those in just a minute.
	But first, you know, it's summertime, and the only thing more annoying than having to watch 57 Democrat debates while the life is slowly sucked out of you are flies and other insects invading your home.
	And who knows, you know, where those flies have been.
	A fly landing on your salad or on your sandwich.
	Could have been on a dirty diaper before, okay?
	Could have been in a garbage.
	Could have been on a dead squirrel, okay?
	I mean, I could keep listing things that it could have been on, because flies are gross, so you don't want that.
	That's why we'd like to thank our sponsors over at Dynatrap.
	Dynatrap is the leading manufacturer of outdoor mosquito and insect traps, and now they've come up with a solution for indoor pests, the Dynatrap Flylight.
	The Dynatrap Flylight works day and night to attract and trap flies, fruit flies, mosquitoes, other pesky insects, And I'll tell you what works for me.
	We've got these things, we've got a bunch of them all over the house now.
	And they are, because kids are always leaving the door open, that's one thing kids are incapable of doing, is shutting a door behind them.
	So they leave the door open, flies come in, but these things really take care of the flies.
	In fact, I was walking, we had one up here, and I was walking by one, there was a beetle trapped in there.
	And the beetle was trying to escape, but I just sat and watched the beetle trying to get out.
	And I said, she'll never escape, Beetle.
	And I rubbed my hands together very nefariously.
	But that's kind of weird.
	You don't have to do that.
	But the point is that Dynatrap takes care of the problems.
	If you want to get a Dynatrap fly light, you can get yours at Dynatrap.com.
	That's D-Y-N-A-T-R-A-P.com.
	Enter the promo code Walsh.
	Receive 15% off any of their products.
	Dynatrap.
	is the safe, silent, and simple solution to household insect control.
	Once again, dynatrap.com.
	Go there and get yours now.
	All right, Bernie Sanders.
	Interesting moments with him.
	Speaking of nanny statism and baby birds chirping for food to be regurgitated into their mouths, Bernie Sanders wants very much to be the mama bird for all of us spitting food into our mouths.
	Which is a horrifying mental image that you now have in your head, thanks to me.
	There were a couple interesting moments with him.
	The first was when he finally admitted that he wants to take money from the middle class.
	Now, he always pretends that, oh, all the money's going to come from the millionaires and billionaires.
	But here he finally, I want you to watch this whole exchange because he finally admits it.
	Watch this right here.
	Well, you're quite right.
	We have a new vision for America.
	And at a time when we have three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of America, While 500,000 people are sleeping out on the streets today, we think it is time for change, real change.
	And by that I mean that healthcare, in my view, is a human right.
	And we have got to pass a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system.
	Under that system, by the way, The vast majority of the people in this country will be paying significantly less for health care than they are right now.
	I believe that education is the future for this country.
	And that is why I believe that we must make public colleges and universities tuition-free and eliminate student debt.
	And we do that by placing a tax on Wall Street.
	Every proposal that I have brought forth is fully paid for.
	Senator Sanders, I'll give you 10 seconds just to answer the very direct question.
	Will you raise taxes for the middle class in a Sanders administration?
	People who have health care under Medicare for All will have no premiums, no deductibles, no copayments, no out-of-pocket expenses.
	Yes, they will pay more in taxes, but less in health care for what they get.
	All right.
	He comes out with it once and for all, which is good, because Bernie really hates to go into specifics, and you've got to trap him to get him to do it.
	And so he finally says, oh, yeah, well, I'm going to help the middle class by taking money from the middle class.
	That's basically his plan.
	But speaking of his plan, there was another moment where, again, remember, he likes to scream about millionaires and billionaires, that's his whole thing, and drug companies, right?
	Those are the bad guys.
	But there was one part of the debate where the moderators actually did a good job, and they tried a couple of times saying, hey, Bernie, OK, you want to give health care to everybody, free stuff to everybody.
	How are you going to do it?
	It's a very specific question, very reasonable question, not a gotcha, not a trap question.
	How are you going to do it?
	And this was his non-answer.
	Watch.
	Senator Sanders, you basically want to scrap the private health insurance system as we know it and replace it with a government-run plan.
	None of the states that have tried something like that, California, Vermont, New York has struggled with it, have been successful.
	If politicians can't make it work in those states, how would you implement it on a national level?
	How does this work?
	Look, I find it hard to believe That every other major country on earth, including my neighbor 50 miles north of me, Canada, somehow has figured out a way to provide health care to every man, woman, and child, and in most cases, they're spending 50% per capita what we are spending.
	Let's be clear.
	Let us be very clear.
	The function of healthcare today, from the insurance and drug company perspective, is not to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way.
	The function of the healthcare system today is to make billions in profits for the insurance companies.
	And last year, if you could believe it, while we pay the highest prices in the world, I just have to follow up there.
	drugs and I will lower prescription drug prices in half in this country. Top 10
	companies made 69 billion dollars in profit. They will spend hundreds of
	millions of dollars lying to the American people telling us why we cannot
	have a Medicare for all, single payer program. I just have to follow up there. How do you implement it on a national
	level?
	How do you implement it on a national level given the fact it's not succeeded
	other states have tried.
	I will tell you how we'll do it.
	We'll do it the way real change has always taken place, whether it was the labor movement, the civil rights movement, or the women's movement.
	We will have Medicare for all, when tens of millions of people are prepared to stand up and tell the insurance companies and the drug companies that their day is gone, that health care is a human right, Not something to make huge profits off of.
	Senator Sanders, how are you going to give health care to all?
	Well, I'll tell you how.
	We're going to give health care to all.
	OK, but how?
	By giving health care to all.
	Yeah, but how, though?
	Well, health care to all.
	That's how we're going to do it.
	Well, if that was...
	Uncomfortable, which it was.
	It was nothing compared to this, which is the moment that people are raving about of Harris calling Biden a racist, but not calling him a racist.
	Watch.
	Growing up, my sister and I had to deal with the neighbor who told us her parents couldn't play with us because we were black.
	And I will say also that in this campaign, we've also heard, and I'm going to now direct this at Vice President Biden, I do not believe you are a racist.
	And I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground.
	But I also believe, and it's personal, and it was actually very, it was hurtful.
	To hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country.
	And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing.
	And, you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day.
	And that little girl was me.
	So I will tell you that on this subject, it cannot be an intellectual debate among Democrats.
	That's really — and I'm not a Joe Biden fan, but I — that's one of the dirtiest things I've ever seen, or at least that I've seen in a while at a
	debate. It's certainly in the top 10.
	And you knew it was going to be bad as soon as she said, Vice President Biden,
	I don't think you're a racist. But see, the but when you attach a but it's a very magical but
	that you're attaching.
	When you attach a but to a statement like, I don't think you're a racist or I'm not a racist, it's just anytime there's a but after the word racist, then you, what happened is, what's going on is that everything before that but has been erased.
	So it's forget about what was said before the but, now it's just let's move on to the statement.
	And she moves on to accusing Biden of racism, basically.
	Even though she knows that Biden is not a racist, she knows it.
	I mean, there are a lot of things you could say about Biden, many of them not good, but one thing you cannot honestly say about him is that he's a racist.
	And they all know that.
	And at any rate, If they really do think the guy is a segregationist bigot Klansman, basically, then they're to blame for saying nothing about it for 40 years.
	Harris has been in the game for a while.
	Now, she never said anything about it during the Obama administration.
	She never said, hey, by the way, Barack Obama, you chose a racist segregationist who opposed busing and who caused me all this pain as a young girl.
	That's an emotional story, an emotional moment that I'm sure she rehearsed plenty of times beforehand, but it's an emotional moment.
	We're told, yeah, where was that emotional moment for the eight years that he was vice president?
	If you really think that he's got some, that he's either a segregationist himself or he's got some warm feelings about segregation or whatever, then why didn't you say anything?
	So we have two options here now for Harris.
	Either she's just a lying fraud, or she's a coward who allowed a segregationist, racist bigot to be in the White House all those years in her own party and said nothing.
	So those are the options.
	But maybe Biden is learning something at the age of 76, which is that in the Democrat Party, in the modern Democrat Party anyway, you're racist if you're a white man, especially an old one.
	And it's as simple as that.
	You're not going to get away from it.
	You're going to be accused of racism.
	They're kind of accusing Mayor Pete of racism a little bit.
	They're throwing a race thing at him.
	They're not doing it with Swalwell, but only because he's polling at negative 32%, so it doesn't matter.
	Once you, as a white man, if you peek your head above the fray a little bit, you're going to get cut down with racism claims.
	That's the way that it works now in the modern Democrat Party.
	All right, a couple other things.
	Here's the moment when The Democrats, when the Democrats really let their extremist flag fly, which they did two nights ago, and they did it again last night, here it is.
	A lot of you have been talking tonight about these government health care plans that you proposed in one form or another.
	This is a show of hands question, and hold them up for a moment so people can see.
	Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.
	I am old enough to remember, I'm old enough to remember up until the last 55 seconds or
	so when Democrats always pretended that they weren't giving health care to illegals, that
	they didn't want to give free health care.
	In fact, they not only denied that claim, but they said that claim is absurd, ridiculous, a lie.
	We would never do that.
	And now all of them are just raising it.
	Hey, do you want to give free health care to everybody in the world?
	Anyone who happens to cross the border?
	Oh, yeah, sure.
	Me too.
	And then of course it's an applause line from the trained seals in the audience.
	By the way, those are the people that in any debate, the people that I hate the most are the audience.
	They always, hate is a strong word.
	They are the ones who I am the most annoyed by always are the audience members who just will clap at anything
	without even thinking about it.
	So now we're clapping at giving healthcare to, well, okay, so yeah, just give free healthcare
	to anyone in the world, no matter who they are.
	Sure, why not?
	Let's get free healthcare to 7 billion people.
	Why not?
	I mean, I can't think of any reason why that wouldn't work except for maybe about 7 billion reasons.
	It's just, it's total madness.
	And it's not just stupid and mad and impractical and all those things.
	It is those things.
	But it's also...
	morally abominable.
	It is a moral atrocity, what you just witnessed.
	Cloaked in compassion, of course, cloaked in this claim that they want to help people, they want to help sick people.
	What they're doing is they are enticing more people to come across the border.
	They are enticing more people to cross the Rio Grande.
	Just like that father and daughter did and drowned in the process.
	They are enticing more people to make that dangerous, potentially fatal, hazardous trek across deserts, across rivers, across places where there are drug cartels and bandits and wild animals.
	They are enticing people to do that by saying, yeah, come here and we'll take care of all your medical bills.
	That's not the kind of thing you say if you actually care about these people.
	All right, finally, let's lighten the mood a bit.
	A woman named Marianne Williamson was also there.
	I'm not sure why, but she was there, and her contributions were like, well, you know how you have that one aunt who comes to Thanksgiving And derails every conversation with irrelevant personal stories and all you can do while she babbles is smile politely and wait for her to stop talking so that you can continue the conversation where you left off before she interjected.
	You know that aunt?
	We all have that aunt, that person at the Thanksgiving table.
	Williamson not only behaved like that aunt, but she even kind of looks like that aunt.
	She looks like every person's eccentric aunt.
	So there were a couple moments with her.
	Here's my favorite, probably my favorite Williamson moment right here.
	My first call is to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who said that her goal is to make New Zealand the place where it's the best place in the world for a child to grow up.
	And I will tell her, girlfriend, you are so on, because the United States of America is going to be the best place in the world for a child to grow up.
	You guys were close with the short, at least it was shorter.
	What'd she say?
	It was hard for me to understand, but she said, girlfriend, you are so on.
	Which, I am going to start using that phrase a lot more than I have in the past, because I never have before.
	But, girlfriend, you are so on.
	That's a great phrase.
	So she's claiming that she had a conversation with a New Zealand prime minister, I guess, and the prime minister of New Zealand said, I'm going to make New Zealand the best place for a young girl to grow up.
	And Williamson said, girlfriend, you are so on, because I'm going to make America, when I'm president, I'm going to make America the best place to grow up.
	If that conversation actually happened, which it probably didn't, but if it did, I can only imagine the Prime Minister of New Zealand, what her facial expression must have been when Marianne Williamson is claiming that she's going to be president and she's going to change the country.
	The New Zealand Prime Minister was probably like, yeah, sure.
	Yeah, I know you are.
	I know you are, Marianne.
	Yeah, that's going to be great when you're president.
	Okay.
	And then here was her closing statement.
	I'm sorry we haven't talked more tonight about how we're going to beat Donald Trump.
	I have an idea about Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump is not going to be beaten just by insider politics talk.
	He's not going to be beaten just by somebody who has plans.
	He's going to be beaten by somebody who has an idea what this man has done.
	This man has reached into the psyche of the American people and he's harnessed fear for political purposes.
	So Mr. President, if you're listening, I want you to hear me please.
	You have harnessed fear for political purposes and only love can cast that out.
	So I, sir, I have a feeling you know what you're doing.
	I'm going to harness love for political purposes.
	I will meet you on that field and sir, love will win.
	We gotta harness the power of love.
	She, Marianne Williamson basically speaks like 80s pop lyrics.
	She speaks in 80s songs.
	I think that's how I would nail it down for her.
	But it was good to have her and have her there and kind of breaking up the monotony a little bit.
	And honestly, I hope that she is the nominee.
	I think that that would be a lot of fun.
	Okay, before we go any further, I need to tell you about Freedom Project Academy.
	This year, nearly $70 billion, with a B, of taxpayer money will be spent on public education, yet a new report finds that just two in five American students are actually ready to attend college.
	So the public education, the money we're spending, it's not doing the job.
	Public education is not doing the job.
	And we could see that all around.
	Just look anywhere and you could see.
	Just walk outside of your house.
	Have interactions with human beings in this country and you could tell that, okay, public education is not working.
	Many of you then have been searching for a school with traditional values that help students develop strong foundations in math, science, English, American history, the kind of education where students are taught how to think, not just what to think, not taught, you know, what things to parrot, what concepts and phrases to repeat, but how to work through problems.
	Your search is over.
	Freedom Project Academy is an accredited online school built on Judeo-Christian values and classical curriculum for students from K all the way through high school.
	We're talking about a complete interactive educational experience where students attend live classes with other students from across the country.
	Freedom Project Academy provides live and recorded lessons, homework, tests, tutoring, grades, transcripts, so it's all there.
	This is the answer to your prayers.
	Go to freedomforschool.com, freedomforschool.com, and request your free information packet today.
	That's freedomforschool.com.
	Enrollment ends July 19th, so don't wait long.
	You don't have a lot of time.
	Get on that now.
	Don't forget to subscribe to their weekly education podcast, The Dr. Duke Show, available on iTunes and everywhere else.
	Again, enrollment ends on July 19th, so get on it.
	Take back control of your kids' education.
	Freedomforschool.com.
	All right.
	There's an article in Cosmo that's gone viral online, and It's a Cosmo article, so of course it's stupid and gross and just bad in every way.
	But I actually think that there's something we can learn from this one.
	The title is, I've cheated on every boyfriend I've ever had and I don't regret it.
	The writer, who bravely remains anonymous, goes into elaborate details about the many times that she's cheated.
	I'm not going to read all the details.
	You can just imagine what it's like, what this article is like.
	But I will read them.
	Let me read a few snippets, just so you get an idea.
	Uh, she says, Cheating is one of the big no-no's.
	A flashing do not pass sign.
	One of the few things most people in the world can agree is very bad.
	It's a capital S scandal.
	Something you have to have literally Beyonce level strength to forgive.
	And I would know.
	I saw one of my parents do it to the other and now, because of that, they are no longer married.
	Still knowing this, I've cheated on all three of my serious boyfriends.
	I'm not completely morally bankrupt.
	Yes, you are.
	And I feel bad for lying, even if the lie only lived for a few days or weeks until I broke up with each guy.
	But I don't regret each instance of cheating.
	Not really.
	Because although they were all very different, each experience taught me crucial things about myself and my sexuality in my early 20s.
	Before I go any further, just imagine how... She says she's not morally bankrupt, but of course, imagine how morally bankrupt you have to be To cheat when you're just dating someone?
	Now, cheating when you're married is more serious and worse.
	But there's one uniquely awful element of cheating in a non-marriage relationship, and that is that you can leave the relationship easily.
	Like, if you really are not into this person, so much so that you want to cheat on them, Then just, you can, you can, you can just call them on, you can send a text message if you want to.
	You could literally, now that's, that would still make you kind of a scumbag, but it's better than cheating.
	You could literally just send a text message.
	Right before you're about to cheat and just say, hey, it's not working out.
	We're breaking up.
	Again, you're still a jerk and a scumbag if you do that.
	But at least then you're not technically cheating.
	I mean, or you could, if you could control yourself, you could hold off for, I don't know, 24 hours and just sit down with the person and say, listen, this isn't working.
	I'm not into it.
	I am strongly tempted to cheat on you.
	And so obviously this isn't happening.
	Let's break up.
	If you could just hold off on 24 hours.
	You can't even do that?
	You have so little control and so little concern for other people, including this person that you've been with and you've probably claimed that you love, and at a minimum you've spent time with and at a point you had some affection for.
	You have so little concern for them and for their emotional states.
	They're nothing.
	They're just garbage to you that you can't even hold off for a few hours and just break it off And then go do what you want to do, which I don't recommend that.
	But it's, at least then you're not cheating.
	And so that's what makes it, I just, I don't get it.
	I don't get the cheat, even though it happens all the time in non-marriage relationships.
	What's the, just break up.
	You can't, there's nothing, you don't have kids.
	You don't, you have nothing.
	It's nothing, just break up.
	So anyway, okay.
	And then she even says, oh, well, we broke up a few days later.
	Okay, you couldn't have waited?
	So why do you do that first?
	She says, uh, the frenzy... Okay, then she, she, um... Where are we here?
	Uh, she moves on and she's describing, uh, one of her cheating experiences.
	This is when she's cheating with a guy named Drew on her boyfriend, Matt.
	The frenzied grabbing and kissing on Drew's bed that night, for instance, didn't immediately reveal to me how badly I needed to break up with Matt, but it did show me that my sexuality hadn't dried up like I was worrying it had.
	I was still capable of feeling tingly and wild.
	Over the coming weeks, I noticed how not there that feeling was with Matt, how it had never really been there at all.
	It wasn't me that was broken, it was our relationship.
	No, it's you.
	Mainly, it's just you.
	You're a terrible person.
	And I think it would have taken me so much longer to realize that if I'd just walked out of Drew's room that night.
	She's saying that, how could she have possibly realized that her relationship with Matt wasn't working if she didn't cheat on him multiple times with some guy named Drew?
	I mean, most of us can figure these things out without cheating on our significant others with a guy named Drew or anyone else.
	But she couldn't do it.
	There's no way she could have figured it out.
	So, I don't really think cheating is a capital offense, not when you're young and still trying to learn how your heart and body work.
	I think about the way my grandparents, who were in their 80s and still happily married, talk about their early relationships and how much more laid back they were than any of mine.
	They talk about going on dates in groups of people and attraction that felt like popcorn in a hot pan, quick and random.
	Things were casual and open until they were very serious.
	That's not really how people date anymore, and so instead, some people cheat.
	Okay, but they're saying they went on dates with groups.
	That doesn't mean that they were having sex with all those people.
	It just means that they went on dates with groups.
	People still do that.
	It's a normal thing to do.
	I don't think your grandparents were confessing to being polyamorous.
	That's not the point they were trying to make.
	Then she goes into more details about the guys that she slept with, behind the backs of guys she's dated.
	And then she says, Oh, poor her.
	This is the part where I tell you that I don't regret cheating.
	It also doesn't feel great, though.
	Guilt is like a gas in that it will expand to fill whatever container it's in.
	I felt the pressure of it building inside me, and it was painful.
	Oh, poor her.
	Poor baby.
	Still, regret and guilt are separate feelings, and I know that, given the chance, I wouldn't
	do any of this differently.
	Because otherwise, I'm not really sure who I'd be now.
	Well, you'd be a better person, rather than a dirtbag, is what you would be.
	And then she comes to the conclusion, which she arrives at after cheating on another boyfriend
	with an ex-boyfriend who she'd also cheated on.
	Okay, so now she's cheating on another guy with the guy Matt from before.
	Remember Matt?
	Well, Matt's back in the picture.
	She's cheating on another guy with Matt.
	And she says, I'd come a long way since the night on Drew's bed when I first cheated on Matt.
	I had learned so much about myself in the years since then, like how it feels to be in love,
	how a kiss feels when I really want it, and how sex feels when love and wanting it converge.
	That third lesson is so rare to learn and perfect when you experience it.
	How could I ever regret doing any of the things I did to find it?
	So there you go.
	Here's a follow-up article that I'm just predicting.
	Follow-up article in 20 years.
	The title's going to be, I'm miserable and alone, and it's all men's fault.
	That's going to be the follow-up article, because this is someone who, you know, if this is your attitude, you are going to die alone.
	I know you're young.
	It's, oh, I'm young.
	You're not going to be young forever.
	In fact, you're going to be, if you're in your 20s, By the time you're in your 30s, you're still young, but you're definitely in grown-up territory now.
	You were in your 20s too, but in your 30s, you can't deny it anymore.
	So that's already almost gone for you, it sounds like.
	And you're going to be old or older for a lot longer than you were young.
	And so now you're just ensuring that you're going to be alone and miserable and you're going to die alone and no one is going to weep for you or care.
	I mean, not to be harsh about it, but well, yeah, I am being harsh on purpose because that's the reality.
	When you live a selfish, narcissistic life and you never learn how to commit yourself to anyone, you never learn how to have integrity or fidelity or loyalty, You're going to be alone.
	You're going to die and there's not going to be anyone around to care.
	All your friends are going to be either dead or they're going to, you know, by then they're all going to have their own lives that they're going to be worried about.
	And, um, that's what you're setting yourself up for.
	Um, now, and I think that, so maybe the two things that we take from this is that, you know, she's approaching relationships from this intensely selfish perspective, she's not the only one.
	Now, this might be an extreme example, but I think that's how most people approach relationships actually these days, even if they're not serial cheaters.
	But she's just taking what is a common kind of philosophy for human relationships these days, and she's just taking it to its logical extension, which again will lead all the way to her dying alone.
	But I think that a lot of, so she's all the way, she's taking the train all the way there.
	A lot of people are on the same track.
	Because how she keeps talking about, oh, this is how it made me feel, and how I feel, and what I need, I, me, I, me, I, me, right?
	I think that's how people have been raised and trained and conditioned to approach relationships.
	Doesn't make you happy, it's all about you.
	There's no element of service, sacrifice.
	The word sacrifice, we have pretty much completely removed from discussions of relationships or discussions of anything.
	And you just, you cannot have a healthy relationship of any kind with anyone, but especially a romantic relationship and especially a marriage, if you're not willing to make sacrifices for the other person.
	It's as simple as that.
	Oh, guilt and shame.
	No, guilt and shame are good.
	The thing that prompted the guilt and shame is not good, and that's why you have the guilt and shame.
	But the fact that you're feeling it is good.
	So guilt and shame is good in the same way that the sensation in your finger from your nerve endings, that painful sensation when you touch a hot stove, is good.
	The sensation is good.
	It doesn't feel good.
	But it is good because it lets you know, take your hand off the stove, you dummy.
	And that's another thing, that's a distinction we fail to grasp these days.
	There is, sometimes something can be good, Even though it doesn't feel good.
	And sometimes something can be bad, even though it does feel good.
	So those two, you know, feeling good and being good, are not the same.
	That guilty feeling, that part is good, because it is the pain in your finger letting you know that, morally speaking, you have your hand on a hot stove and it's time to pull it away.
	All right.
	We're going to get to emails in a minute.
	But first, I want to tell you about BigToken.
	BigToken is a new app that lets you share data about yourself, your interests, your habits, and then you get paid for it.
	Because right now, you share a lot of information already that you don't get paid for.
	Well, it's time that you take back control, that you make some money off of your own information.
	That's where BigToken comes in.
	Here's how it works.
	First, you download the app.
	You sign up for a free BigToken account.
	I've done this myself.
	It's very easy.
	It only takes a minute.
	Next, you complete actions to earn points.
	Actions include answering surveys, checking into locations, connecting your social accounts, and more.
	Then you can redeem your points for rewards, such as cash, gift cards.
	You could donate to charity.
	I didn't choose that option, just to be honest with you, but you can choose it if you want to.
	You choose the data you share with BigToken, and then you get paid for it.
	And you could also get more points just by referring friends and family.
	Your data is always secure in BigToken.
	You don't have to worry about that.
	There's a lot of problems with data these days being misused and abused.
	Well, you don't have to worry about it with Big Token.
	Based on the data you choose to share, you'll be placed into specific ad groups and brands will buy access to those ad groups for use in personalized advertising.
	The best part?
	Again, you get paid.
	If you want to start earning money for your data, go to the App Store or Google Play.
	Search for Big Token.
	That's B-I-G-T-O-K-E-N.
	That's one word.
	Download the app.
	Sign up.
	Make sure to use my referral code, Matt Walsh.
	Again, search Big Token in the App Store or on Google Play.
	Download the app.
	Use my referral code, Matt Walsh, to sign up, claim your data, and get paid with Big Token.
	All right, mattwalshow at gmail.com is the email address.
	This is from Rodolfo, says, hi Matt, long time listener.
	Since pride has been the topic of the month, and I agree with arguments from your fellow Daily Wire contributors, that pride is the queen of all vices.
	I came to a realization that pride is what keeps me from taking family handouts in the form of money and the urge to get ahead on my own.
	My question is, is this form of pride bad as well?
	And if so, am I confused with my reasoning for preferring to do everything on my own?
	Thanks, love the show, hope your recovery is going well.
	Well, thank you for that.
	Well, and it's not going well, I'm in extreme pain every moment, and my life is miserable.
	No, I'm just kidding, actually, it's going fine.
	I think that we have to distinguish between a few things.
	Pride, confidence, Dignity.
	Those are three different things.
	So just because you're confident doesn't mean that you're prideful.
	Confidence is just recognizing abilities that you have and realizing that they're there.
	That's what confidence is.
	Nothing wrong with that.
	That's good, actually.
	You want to have that.
	And just because you have dignity doesn't mean that you're prideful.
	I think your desire to get ahead on your own and your belief in not to take handouts and your belief that you can, to me, that seems like a combination of dignity And confidence.
	You're confident you can do it.
	You're dignified.
	You want to be able to stand on your own two feet as a man.
	That's dignity.
	And so that's what I would say.
	Now, that can bleed into pride.
	If you're really in dire need, and you really need help, and sometimes we all need help, and that's fine to reach out.
	If you're really in dire need, and you still refuse help, then yeah, I think it's prideful.
	Like, extreme example, if you're drowning in the water.
	And a lifeguard's going to come save you.
	And you say, no, no, no, I got it.
	I got it.
	Don't worry about it.
	I got it.
	And then you just drown.
	Well, you literally drown from your pride.
	Your pride is what sunk you there.
	Or a less extreme example would be the stereotypical, but in my experience, completely accurate thing where the man is lost and doesn't want to stop for directions because he wants to figure it out on his own.
	That's how I am, even though it's so cliched.
	That's also pride.
	So I think that's how you Sort through that.
	This is from QB.
	It says, Matt, I want to say something regarding your argument in this episode of your podcast.
	I'm referring to an episode I did a few days ago.
	You say in 1804 that the border is open.
	In what universe is that true?
	There are thousands of border agents and immigration officers.
	There are hundreds of miles of physical barrier.
	I don't see how making immigration even more illegal will prevent anyone from dying trying to get in.
	Seriously, the only reason this family took the dangerous route they did was to get around border security.
	If the U.S.
	border were actually open, as it should be, then this family would not have died since they could have just walked in through a safer path.
	Matt, you sound like someone who wants to respond to the black market and drugs by making drugs even more illegal.
	I know that you understand that prohibition makes the drug trade more dangerous.
	Why can't you understand that for human movement?
	Would you have responded to the existence of the likes of Al Capone by making alcohol more illegal?
	Well, you're right.
	If the border was completely open, and we had no immigration laws of any kind, and we weren't even attempting in any way to enforce the border, then yeah, people would be able to just walk right across, and probably fewer of them would die in the process.
	The only problem is that they would have no reason to even attempt it in that case, because in short order, our country would be just a failed state like the countries to the south of us.
	The countries that those people are fleeing from.
	So this is really simple to me, right?
	We have a border for the same reason that you have a door on your house and you have walls which comprise your house.
	If you didn't have walls and you didn't have a door, you wouldn't have a house.
	It's the exact same concept.
	Without a border, we don't have a country.
	Same concept.
	In order to be a country, we need there to be a distinction between our country and the ones surrounding it.
	And we need to be able to define and enforce that distinction.
	Being a citizen has to mean something.
	It can't just be, oh, you happen to walk across this line in the sand.
	Because if it doesn't mean anything and we just fling the doors open to everyone, then how long do you think we last as America?
	There's a reason why people want to come here.
	The reason is that we are not those other countries.
	If we become those other countries, then we are not in any position to help the people from those countries.
	All right.
	Finally, this is from Katie, says, Hi Matt, I've recently started listening to your show and I'm really glad I found it.
	What are your thoughts on the Pope changing the Lord's Prayer?
	I'm asking you specifically as a Catholic who's supposed to follow the Pope's interpretation of the Bible.
	Does it bother you that he believes God misspoke when telling the disciples his prayer, or is this something that should have been changed from the start?
	Well, first of all, I am not required to follow the Pope's personal interpretation of Bible passages.
	I disagree with many of his interpretations, in fact, including on issues such as capital punishment, and I'm perfectly entitled to do that.
	Just because he offers some opinion doesn't mean that it's infallible and we all have to follow it.
	This particular change though, so they changed Lead Us Not Into Temptation and now it's going to be Do Not Let Us Fall Into Temptation.
	The idea behind the change is that God would not lead anyone into temptation.
	God is not the tempter, Satan is.
	God doesn't try to get us to sin, so to pray that he doesn't do that makes no sense, because he wouldn't do that anyway.
	Instead, it should be something like, you know, prevent us from succumbing to sin, which is what that means.
	I'm okay with the change, honestly.
	There are plenty of things this Pope does, and when I first heard this and I read the headline months ago, I had the reaction that everyone else had, which is, oh, what's that old rascal up to again?
	But then when I actually read what the change is, I'm fine with it.
	Because people are saying, like I guess you did just there, that he's changing God's Word, or changing Jesus' Word.
	He's not.
	He's changing the English translation to better reflect the original meaning of Jesus.
	People forget that we speak a different language from what Jesus spoke.
	So, if you read in English, then you are not reading the literal words of Jesus anyway.
	You're reading a translation.
	And every translation is, in a sense, an interpretation.
	Any translation, whether it's a translation of the Bible or of crime and punishment, whatever it is, part of translating is interpreting.
	Because it can't just be a one-to-one, like literally just taking that word and putting it on the paper in sequential order, because then it's not going to make any sense.
	So you have to rearrange the words a little bit.
	You have to use sometimes different words to bring out the meaning of the original in English in a way that's going to make sense to us.
	I mean, the King James Bible, all of the formal floweries, that's not in the original.
	That's not how these people spoke.
	That's an interpretation, trying to bring out the deeper sort of meaning of the original.
	So I think that That's what this is.
	It's just, it's not changing it.
	It's just, the argument, and maybe you disagree, but just to be clear, the argument here is, no, we're not changing what Jesus, we're not saying Jesus misspoke, we're saying that our English translation for these many years has been wrong and has not totally captured what Jesus was actually trying to say, because he wasn't saying that God would ever lead us into temptation.
	That's not the point.
	So that's the argument.
	So again, if you disagree with it, then it's just a disagreement of, oh no, I think that the translation was accurate before.
	It's not an argument of, should we change Jesus' words or not, because no one is saying that we should in this case.
	All right, that's it.
	I think we'll leave it there.
	Have a great weekend, everybody.
	Godspeed.
	Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, we recap night two of the Democratic debate.
	All the excitement, all the splendor, all the misery.

▲