Today on the show, the Democrat debate was last night. We will go over the major takeaways from the show, including the desperate and losing fight by some of the remaining sane democrats to preserve some semblance of sanity in the party. Also, a Republican proposes a bill to fight social media addiction. And is it time to just let Leftists destroy women’s sorts, as they obviously desire? Date: 08-01-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, another debate yesterday.
Did Joe Biden do enough to withstand the onslaught from all comers?
Also, Kirsten Gillibrand insults her husband on the debate stage in an effort to prove her feminist credentials.
That was interesting.
We'll talk about that.
And there's a racist tape of Ronald Reagan floating around out there.
We'll discuss.
Finally, I'll respond to a leftist who was very upset about my position on the minimum wage.
So I'm going to respond to his arguments such as they were today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Before we get started with all the important news and everything today, and there's a lot
of it, there's a lot to cover, but I need to, and this is awkward because I'm here in
LA at the Daily Wire Studios this week, but I need to air my grievances about someone
I was at dinner last night with all the writers on the site and it went well, except for, I'm not going to mention any names, but someone Put strawberries on their pizza, in my presence.
And I took a picture of it, I put it on Twitter.
Here's the picture right here, just as proof.
Strawberries on pizza.
Now, I suffered a great deal of trauma witnessing this.
I'm firmly in the don't knock it till you try it camp, so I did try it myself.
And I can report that strawberries on pizza taste like strawberries on pizza.
It tastes as though you have put strawberries on your pizza.
It's exactly what you expect.
It's disgusting.
Listen, I know that some sociopaths and terrorists and serial killers will put pineapple on their pizza.
That's bad enough.
But we have to draw the line somewhere, OK?
We can't just take the whole bowl of fruit salad and dump it on the pizza.
We've got to draw the line somewhere.
And this was just a travesty.
And I am going to be filing a complaint with HR about that.
But democratic debate last night.
Another one.
It was almost as revolting as strawberry on pizza.
We'll talk about that.
We'll do some highlights.
And then we're going to move on from the debate and a couple of things.
We're going to respond to an attack on me.
And we've also got to talk about the racist Reagan tapes that maybe you heard about last night.
All right, a few moments from the debate last night.
The thing that I think everyone is talking about, the most important moment, was Joe Biden apparently giving the audience some kind of secret code.
I don't know if this was a secret message to the Russians, or if these are the coordinates to buried treasure, or maybe this was the launch code for a nuclear attack.
I'm not sure, but something very strange happened last night at the end of the debate.
Watch this.
This is the United States of America.
We've acted together.
We have never, never, never been unable to overcome whatever the problem was.
If you agree with me, go to Joe30330 and help me in this fight.
Thank you very much.
Now, by the way, if you actually, which I did, if you go to joe30330.com,
it takes you to this video.
Hi there, I'm Josh Faher, and today I'm launching my exploratory committee for the 2020 presidential
race.
Now, I may be the youngest candidate by far in this race, but I know I have what it takes.
I'm the only candidate currently running on a no-homework-in-college position.
Now, some say that this type of policy is unneeded, self-serving, and that no one really wants it, but my comprehensive polling has shown irrefutably that college students support my position.
So there you go.
I can't make heads or tails of that, but that's what happened.
Now, Cory Booker, moving on to some of the other candidates, Cory Booker is possibly the biggest phony in the race, which is obviously quite a statement.
And I'm going to show you what I mean.
Here is Booker at one point calling for unity And in fact, I know we talked yesterday and I said that when I am in charge of the world, if a political candidate offers an irrelevant anecdote, a trap door will open and they'll be sent into waters and eaten by sharks.
I would also add in that category, people at political debates who call for unity and say, you know, we all just need to stop the fighting and forget about this and get together.
It's called a debate.
Okay, you're supposed to be—you're not supposed to be unified.
You're supposed to be arguing with each other.
That's literally the whole point.
But here is Cory Booker seeming to struggle with the concept of what a debate is.
The person who's enjoying this debate most right now is Donald Trump as we pit Democrats against each other while he is working right now to take away Americans' health care.
So you see he's mad at CNN for pitting Democrats against each other, which again is that it's a Democrat debate.
What do you think they're going to do?
That's like a linebacker, you know, being interviewed after the game by a reporter and complaining that he's sick and tired of the NFL pitting football players against each other.
That's it's the whole point.
Um, and Cory Booker well understands that because in the very same debate where he decries Democrats going against each other, he also did this.
Well, my response is that this is a crisis in our country because we have treated issues of race and poverty, mental health and addiction with locking people up and not lifting them up.
And Mr. Vice President has said that since the 1970s, every major crime bill, every crime bill, major and minor, has had his name on it.
And sir, those are your words, not mine.
And this is one of those instances where the House was set on fire, and you claimed responsibility for those laws.
And you can't just now come out with a plan to put out that fire.
We have got to have far more bold action on criminal justice reform.
We have a system right now that's broken, and if you want to compare records, and frankly, I'm shocked that you do, I am happy to do that.
Because all of the problems that he is talking about, that he created, I actually led the bill that got passed into law that reverses the damage that your bills, that you were frankly, to correct you Mr. Vice President, you were bragging calling it the Biden crime bill up to 2015.
We have to stop pitting Democrats against each other.
Also, FYI, Joe Biden is a piece of crap.
Anyway, we need unity.
So that's basically what he did there.
But the two, I think the two headlines from the debate are the the the trouncings suffered by Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand, both women who desperately deserve to be humiliated on stage.
And they were.
So here's Tulsi Gabbard in probably the most talked about moment, destroying, as they say, Kamala Harris.
Senator Harris says she's proud of her record as a prosecutor and that she'll be a prosecutor president, but I'm deeply concerned about this record.
There are too many examples to cite, but she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.
She blocked evidence.
She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so.
She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California.
And she fought to keep the cash bail system in place.
That impacts poor people in the worst kind of way.
The bottom line is, Senator Harris, when you were in a position To make a difference and an impact in these people's lives, you did not.
And worse yet, in the case of those who were on death row, innocent people, you actually blocked evidence from being revealed that would have freed them until you were forced to do so.
There is no excuse for that.
And the people who suffered under your reign as prosecutor, you owe them an apology.
I am maybe in the minority among conservatives in that I think Harris would be a formidable challenge in the general election for Donald Trump, but it doesn't matter anyway because she ain't making it to the general election.
Democrats simply will not stand for someone who ever had anything to do With enforcing the law.
They don't want anything to do with that.
And when I say that, it's sort of funny that one of the primary attacks on Kamala Harris among Democrats is that she is guilty of having enforced the law when she was Attorney General.
But I don't mean that as a defense of Kamala Harris, because she was also, and I totally agree with this, she was completely corrupt.
This is the person, and you're not going to hear a Democrat bring this up in a negative way, but this is the same person who, as Attorney General, while receiving donations from Planned Parenthood, launched attacks on Planned Parenthood's enemies.
The Center for Medical Progress, Dave Daleiden, and the people who were exposing corruption in Planned Parenthood, Kamala Harris is the one who spearheaded the campaign to shut them down, to legally persecute them.
And while doing that, she was not only accepting money from Planned Parenthood, but she had a, while she was spearheading this effort as Attorney General, she had a thing on her website calling people to support and donate to Planned Parenthood.
So she was not even trying to hide the fact that she was operating as a As a minion of the abortion industry.
So, I don't weep for Kamala Harris at all.
And then we had this kerfuffle, if I could call it that, between Biden and Gillibrand.
Now, for context here, Gillibrand is trying to hit Biden for an allegedly sexist op-ed that he wrote 38 years ago, back in 80 or 81, where he opposed a bill that I guess would have given tax breaks to some mothers who send their kids to daycare.
And this was sexist, Gillibrand says.
And here's, well, let's go right to Biden's response.
Here it is.
That was a long time ago, and here's what it was about.
It would have given people making today $100,000 a year a tax break for child care.
I did not want that.
I wanted the child care to go to people making less than $100,000, and that's what it was about.
As a single father who, in fact, raised three children for five years by myself, I have some idea what it cost.
In the very beginning, my deceased wife worked, but we had children.
My present wife has worked all the way through raising our children.
I was deeply involved in all these things.
I came up with the It's On Us proposal to see to it that women were treated more decently on college campuses.
You came to Syracuse University with me and said it was wonderful.
I'm passionate about the concern making sure women are treated equally.
I don't know what's happened except that you're now running for president.
So I understand, Mr. Vice President, Okay, so Joe Biden, unlike the first debate, has figured out how to respond to attacks against him forcefully without being seen as getting down in the mud.
So in other words, he's figured out how to be a frontrunner, which up until now, I don't think he knew how to do that.
But now that he's figured that out, I think it's bad news for the other candidates.
Before we move on, though, and I almost forgot I wanted to, so let's actually go back.
Let's rewind a little bit.
So we just saw Biden's response, which was pretty good.
I want to play some of Gillibrand's original attack on Biden, because there's something she said in there that was, well, it was interesting, I thought.
Watch this.
I think we have to have a broader conversation about whether we value women and whether we want to make sure women have every opportunity in the workplace.
And I want to address Vice President Biden directly.
When the Senate was debating middle-class affordability for child care, he wrote an op-ed.
He voted against it, the only vote.
But what he wrote in an op-ed was that he believed that women working outside the home would, quote, create the deterioration of family.
He also said that women who were working outside the home were, quote, avoiding responsibility.
And I just need to understand, as a woman who's worked my entire career as the primary wage earner, as the primary caregiver, in fact, my second son, Henry, is here.
All right, so stop right there.
She says that she is the primary caregiver and primary wage earner in her family.
She makes that claim.
I mean, I don't even see how that could be true.
If you're working full-time, you really can't be the primary caregiver, right?
Unless you're working, and while you're working, you have your kids locked in a closet somewhere.
In lieu of that, somebody is watching your kids while you're being the breadwinner, right?
Someone has to be taking care of them, it's not you.
And especially in Gillibrand's case, her job takes her out of the state for weeks at a time because she's a lawmaker.
Um, so someone has to be caring for your kids and that person then would be the primary caregiver, not you.
Um, think about now, we, that was an attack ostensibly on Joe Biden.
Think about how her husband must feel.
Imagine if you're Gillibrand's husband.
Which would be unfortunate for a number of reasons.
But imagine if you're a husband and you do not turn on the debate and here she is in front of a national audience emasculating you and insulting you and essentially implying you do nothing.
I mean, if your wife is the primary caregiver and primary breadwinner, what do you do?
You apparently have no real function.
That's what Gillibrand said.
Now, it goes without saying, of course, That if, can you imagine if a man were to get up at a debate and say, Hey, listen, I earned the money in my family and I take care of the kids.
He'd probably be arrested for domestic abuse the next morning.
At a minimum, he would have to issue a groveling apology for saying something like that.
I mean, can you imagine the outrage if a man were to make that claim about himself?
But we encourage, in this society, we encourage women to say stuff like this.
Even if it's not true, this is what we encourage.
Where, you know, feminists said, hey, we want to go out and be the breadwinners.
That's what feminists said for decades.
And so now many women do that.
But they wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
They wanted to have both.
They couldn't, yeah, I'm going to go be the breadwinner, but because of their arrogance, they cannot admit that there's someone else in the family doing anything.
So they want to be the primary breadwinner, but they also want to still lay claim to being the primary caregiver, even though they're out of the house and somebody else is watching the kids.
So that's where you get now, I think, in our culture, a lot of this Super mom stuff for these women who say, I do everything.
I care for the kids.
I am every job.
I'm a CEO.
I'm the teacher.
I'm the blah, blah, blah.
No, you're not.
You're not the super mom.
You don't do everything.
There are people in your household who do things.
And all we're learning from your attitude is that you don't appreciate them.
You have no appreciation for them.
You're ungrateful.
That's the only thing we're learning, is that the people who are picking up the slack, because there is some slack, because you're not superhuman, what we're learning is that you have no appreciation for them.
So I think we need to... We don't encourage that in men.
We don't really encourage men to think or claim that they do everything.
In fact, we discourage it.
Yeah, we encourage this in women, and I think it's damaging.
It's damaging to marriages.
If somebody in a marriage feels unappreciated, feels like their contributions are not being noticed, that's deadly to a marriage.
And I think that's why a lot of marriages with feminists don't work out.
All right, let's move on.
Yesterday, many on the left were celebrating gloating.
Unapologetically, openly, after the Atlantic.
I believe it was the Atlantic who first dug up audio from a conversation nearly 50 years ago.
So we already did.
We were doing an op-ed in 1981.
We were talking about that.
Let's go back to 1971.
Let's go back five decades to a conversation between the then governor of California, Ronald Reagan, and the then president of the United States, Richard Nixon.
Richard Nixon famously had a thing about recording people, so he recorded the phone call, and the National Archives five decades later decided to release this phone call.
Or I believe it was they had already released parts of the phone call, but they had taken this part out.
Now they release this part of it.
Reagan and Nixon were talking about a vote at the UN to recognize the People's Republic of China.
And Reagan was complaining about some of the African delegates who celebrated the results.
He was annoyed by that.
Celebrated the vote.
And this is what he said about those African delegates.
Last night I told you to watch that thing on television, and I did.
Yeah?
Those monkeys from those African countries, damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes.
If you didn't catch that, what he said was last night, he said, last night I tell you to watch that thing on television as I did, to see those monkeys from those African countries, damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes.
That's what Reagan said.
Now, as I said, the left was pretty ecstatic about this because, of course, Reagan was a white Republican, and also he's been an icon on the right now for decades, and so now we know he's racist.
And there's no getting around that, right?
What he said is, of course, racist.
It goes without saying.
Racist as hell, actually, and repugnant and disgusting.
So there's no justifying it or trying to, eh, it wasn't technically racist.
It was none of that.
It was racist as all get out.
But here's my thing about this.
If we're going to tear down Reagan now, 50 years later, over something he said privately, and I'm expecting now that the statues are going to come down, that his name's going to come off buildings and off of airports, which some on the left have already been calling for.
They called for it yesterday, immediately, is the first thing they thought, is, okay, we're taking out, yes, we can finally, we can tear down another statue of a white person, yes!
Like I said, they were so excited about it.
That's the thing about leftists.
They are so excited when they discover that people are racist.
They love it.
They can't get enough of it.
But if we're doing that, I again have to insist, and I hate to be a stickler, I have to again insist that we be consistent about this.
We need to have a consistent standard, a consistent approach.
To, you know, what we do when we discover skeletons in the closet of people who died a long time ago.
You know, you've got a skeleton in the grave because they're dead and turns out that the skeleton has skeletons.
What do you do when you find out that a skeleton has skeletons?
I think we need a consistent approach.
Right now there is not a consistent approach.
Well, if there's any consistency to it, it seems to be If we can discover bad things about a white, if the person is white and conservative or someone who's important to conservatives or known, you know, was known as a conservative, if they have those two things, then whatever we find about them, we can tear down their legacy and destroy them posthumously and kill them all over again.
You know, that seems to be the standard.
But I don't think it's a very fair standard.
I think we need one that doesn't take race into consideration.
The reason I bring this up, just as one example, a few months ago, we talked about those FBI tapes that were reported by a Martin Luther King Jr.
biographer, someone who's a very credible source, not someone who had a vendetta against Martin Luther King Jr.
by any stretch.
It was someone, a biographer, someone who really respected the man.
But he reported on tapes that the FBI has of Martin Luther King Jr.
that include many awful things.
Many things far worse, actually, than what Reagan said, as bad as that was.
Allegedly, they have a tape, for instance, of Martin Luther King Jr.
laughing as he watches a woman get raped.
And then they have tapes of when he is committing violence against women and saying horrible things about women, which apparently, according to these tapes, allegedly he did all the time.
Okay, we talked about that a few months ago.
And what I was told, especially by those on the left, is that, hey, listen, it's not relevant.
He still accomplished what he accomplished.
Why are we digging this up now?
This is racist to do this.
Why are we attacking this great black man?
We can't do that.
Okay, well, if that's our standard, if we're saying, hey, let's leave the dead alone, and if somebody has a legacy for accomplishing great things, that legacy, we shouldn't look to undo or destroy that legacy based on their own personal flaws.
If that's what we're saying about Martin Luther King Jr., which, by the way, I agree with that, that's what I'm saying about Martin Luther King Jr.
This stuff that we know about him now, allegedly, we have to take that into account.
We can't ignore it.
I'm not saying we ignore it.
That becomes part of the story, but it doesn't undermine the fact that Martin Luther King Jr.
accomplished great things and was in many ways a great man, but he had great, great, great flaws.
So that's what I'm saying.
We think that's how we look at Martin Luther King Jr.
now.
We don't have to tear down his monuments or anything like that.
Because those monuments are there to celebrate what he did, and what he did still was great.
Well, if that's what we're saying about MLK, then I think we have to apply it to Ronald Reagan or any white person from the past.
Ronald Reagan accomplished great things, not the least of which being winning the Cold War.
And so that's one of the things we celebrate.
We can't take that away now that we find out he said horrible things in private.
All right, so let's do this then now.
If you were watching the show a few days ago, somebody alerted me to this.
It's from a show called The Majority Report with a guy named Sam Seder.
Seder?
Seder?
Sodder?
Cedar, like the tree, I think?
I'll just go with cedar.
Anyway, Sam, who wants to make it very clear that I am, by the way, terrible at my job, and irrelevant, and I am just so bad in so many ways, and so stupid, and you'll see, he wants to make that very clear.
He keeps going back to it.
Yet he still spent 17 entire minutes of his show a few days ago responding to comments I made about the minimum wage, which is always interesting to me when someone, you know, responds to me yet also make sure to mention that, oh, but
you're irrelevant. But by the way, let me let me respond to everything you're saying. Now, if
you'll excuse the self-indulgence, we're going to watch together as Sam plays clips of me and
responds to them. And I have to play the clips of me as well, because or else you won't understand
what he's talking about. You probably won't understand what he's talking about, even with the
context. But anyway, we'll we'll we'll we'll take a look. So let's let's begin. Let us find the
most moral amongst us to tell us why people don't need a minimum wage.
Who do we have that is the most moral amongst us, yet also has the ability to sound like the oldest junior high student in the country?
Why, of course, it's Matt Walsh on The Daily Wire.
Okay, we gotta stop it right there, just for a minute.
If Sam thinks that I'm the most moral among us, well, that's his affair.
But if he's implying that I have made that claim about myself, or that I've even implied that I'm this morally upright person, then he's going to have to provide examples of that.
Because I don't think I've ever claimed to be the most moral, or to even be moral at all.
I don't think I've ever put myself forward as a moral example.
This is something you find a lot on the left.
Or if you make a moral claim, if you make a moral argument, they're going to automatically accuse you of being self-righteous and holier-than-thou.
Here's what a self-righteous, holier-than-thou person does.
A self-righteous, holier-than-thou person puts themselves forward as the moral example for everyone else to follow.
I don't think I've ever done that ever in my life.
Now, if someone has an example of it, they can provide it.
Simply making a moral argument doesn't make you self-righteous.
Now, here's the thing.
What Sam is about to do here is make a moral critique of me.
So if making moral arguments makes you self-righteous and holier-than-thou, then so is Sam.
So he's already contradicting himself.
We're only about 30 seconds in.
This is already a mess.
All right, let's go back to the clip.
Why, of course, it's Matt Walsh on The Daily Wire.
I do support a minimum wage, but the minimum wage that I support is zero.
I think zero is the baseline.
Zero should be the minimum wage.
I definitely don't think the minimum wage... it shouldn't go below that.
Okay, so there shouldn't be a negative.
Positive.
Nobody should... Breaking news!
Where's my breaking news thing?
Daily Wire podcast host denounces slavery.
There you go, that's pretty big.
Yep, breaking news, a guy named Sam Seder takes joke literally.
Well done, Sam.
Okay, back to the video.
Zero's the baseline, should be the baseline wage for work, because that's the baseline amount of effort you can put in.
It's possible for someone to do zero work, which means that they have earned zero dollars.
I would offer this, this, that we're watching, assuming he's paid, is disproving his very theory there.
Because I feel like we're watching someone who's put in zero effort.
Or minimal effort, but getting paid far more for it.
I mean, I feel like he should be paying us to watch him.
On some level, we're getting paid to watch it.
So that is actually happening.
The guy just found out what the minimum wage means.
But he doesn't understand.
It's the minimum wage.
So it means the least amount of money that you can get for working for an hour.
For having your labor reserved for that hour.
Right.
Exactly.
Because you can still fire people.
I mean, I wonder what, I mean, Matt Walsh thinks about wage theft, which is basically the opposite of the dynamic he's talking about here.
But let's listen to this, because this is fascinating.
It really is like, I feel like I understand my teenage daughter a little bit better when I watch this guy work through a problem.
You have to warn her against guys like this.
Believe me, she knows that.
I'm just watching them work through sort of concepts that they don't seem to be terribly familiar with.
That's interesting to me.
Alright, a few things here.
We're now, well it feels like we're hours into this, but we're certainly several minutes.
And I haven't heard an argument, have you?
I haven't heard this guy explain why I'm wrong.
Let me know if I'm wrong.
If you detected an argument, let me know.
I have not yet detected an argument.
I've seen a lot of snorting and chuckling, snorting, combine them, this kind of pompous eyebrow raising, oh how foolish, how silly, this person doesn't know what they're talking about.
I've seen a lot of that, but I haven't seen anything approaching an argument.
So just saying over and over and over again, this person is so wrong.
How wrong they are.
That's not an argument.
Okay?
My basic contention is that the minimum wage should be zero.
Because it's possible for a person to do zero work.
Okay?
My... Here's... To try to make it as simple as possible, so even someone like Sam can understand.
I believe That when you do a job, you should be paid for the work you do.
Revolutionary, I know, but that's sort of my thought process.
So if you do zero work for a company, then you get zero dollars.
If you do a dollar's worth of work, you get a dollar.
If you do $15 worth of work, you get $15.
That's the way I think it should work.
Um, you get paid according to your worth to your employer as an employee.
Okay?
It's not, you're not getting paid according to your worth as a human being.
We all have infinite worth as human beings.
I believe that as a Christian.
So, but we can't all get paid in infinity dollars, right?
Um, so we're going to get paid according to our worth as employees.
Now, someone, yes, someone who's literally worth zero, uh, that's probably someone who's going to be fired.
That's someone who's not going to have a job anymore.
So Sam's exactly right about that.
So now I think he's getting it.
Maybe he's catching on.
The people who are on the minimum wage, the real minimum wage in this scenario, are probably going to be the people who mostly don't have jobs.
They have zero worth to any employer, thus they have no job.
Thus their wage, in effect, is zero.
And that's the starting point.
Okay?
The least amount you can be worth to an employer is nothing.
Right?
What's hard to understand about this?
Have you ever heard of the concept of zero, Sam?
It's possible to be worth nothing to an employer.
For instance, right now, I am, as an employee, I am worth nothing to Subway, because I don't work for them.
So I get paid zero from them.
I'm worth nothing to them.
My wage from them is zero.
All right.
What I'm saying is that a minimum wage of $15.
Now, I know that's, it's an obvious point, but, so you might say, why am I, why am I bringing it up?
Well, because people like Sam struggle with it.
So I feel like I have to, you know, he's someone on a remedial level here, which is fine.
I'm not making fun of him, but so I've got to just slow down and spell this out for him.
What I'm saying is that a minimum wage of $15 an hour.
Doesn't make sense, because it assumes, it commands, really, that every person who has a job must necessarily be worth at least $15 an hour to their employer just by the fact that they exist and they walked in the door.
I don't think that's the case.
So, Sam, of course, goes for another personal dig there, as you saw, says that I'm worth zero to my employer.
But again, not an argument, that's just an insult, a lame one.
And here's the thing, Sam, it's also not accurate.
Because I'm not worth zero to my employer.
I'm not even worth zero to you, because you're using me for content.
I'm not worth zero to my employer, and in this business it's pretty easy for my employer to tell what I'm worth.
Because they can look at traffic, they can look at ad revenue, they can look at the size of my platform, so on and so forth.
And according to all of that, I am worth more than zero.
At least.
You might not like that.
You might not like me.
You might think I should be worth zero.
You might think I'm a terrible person.
That's fine.
And maybe that's all true.
But it doesn't matter.
Because I bring in money to my employer and so therefore I'm worth money to them.
That's all.
It's a transactional relationship.
That's all it is.
That's how it works.
Again, a simple concept.
And then I thought it was interesting there in that clip where he goes and he goes on to insult me by comparing me to his teenage daughter.
Great dad this guy is.
He uses comparisons to his teenage daughter as an insult.
Okay, wonderful man, isn't he?
Now, I gotta tell you something.
I'm sure your teenage daughter is a wonderful person, so I don't take that as an insult.
You apparently have a low opinion of her.
I don't.
I don't know her, but I'm sure she's wonderful.
So I'll take that as a compliment, actually.
Okay, now we're going to go back to a clip of me and his response.
This is me first talking about a kind of typical experience I had interacting with somebody at a fast food restaurant who, in my view, and I was trying to illustrate, And so here's how that interaction went, verbatim.
And as I said, we've all had interactions like this.
it's not anything unique, and that's the point.
But I'm trying to illustrate how a person might be worth less than $15.
And so let's go to that clip.
So here's how that interaction went, verbatim.
And as I said, we've all had interactions like this.
So I walk up, the cashier goes, can I help you?
Yes, I'll have the large number one, please.
Thank you.
Big Mac.
Is that it?
Yes.
That's $6.57.
Oh, actually, sorry.
Can you change that to a medium?
Okay.
Pause it.
I want to remind you he's being paid for this.
He's being paid money for this.
Isn't this a good time?
But here's the interesting thing.
Now let's just stop here because this would also blow his mind.
That meal number one for $6.57.
That means that that meal, according to Matt Walsh, you can't find that meal at a different price anywhere else in the country.
Right?
Because prices are fixed.
There has to be more or less value on that.
Okay, I'm confused here.
How do you get from my argument about the minimum wage That I therefore think you can't get fast food for less than $6.57.
That doesn't even make any sense.
I think Sam is spiraling into just nonsense at this point.
But let's, let's see if we can find some kind of argument.
So let's keep watching.
Is not worth $15 an hour or is not worth the person who gave him service the one who treated him nicely it's at the mcdonald's.
I mean give me a break the idea that this guy could make a dollar more than 0.
Or any more than like half the people that we watch the stuff you stuff that we disagree with.
This is bad.
Just from an entertainment perspective, it's bad.
It's bad.
I know I'm making money, mocking it, and it's still painful.
It just blows my mind that he would think that he doesn't come off like the worst person in the world in this.
The point is, is that he is proving, maybe it's some type of art project, but he's proving that the value of labor is completely subjective.
Okay, now see, I think, Sam, what you're proving is that a person can hit the age of 50 without developing the ability to understand simple concepts.
And I go back and I ask the listener again, have you heard an argument yet?
Has there been an argument?
All I've heard from this is that I'm bad.
I'm terrible.
I'm just like his daughter, who he apparently isn't fond of.
I'm just awful.
I'm bad.
This is how Sam argues.
And listen, there are a lot of people on the left who argue like this.
So this is how Sam argues.
You make your point.
You say, I think X, Y, Z because A, B, C. And Sam's counterargument, you're bad.
You're just bad.
You're so bad.
You're bad.
You're bad.
Bad, bad, bad.
Bad, so bad.
My God.
And this guy, I think he's in his fifties.
And again, Sam, the reason I'm worth more than zero, more than a dollar really, is that I myself make money for my employer, even if I'm bad, even if I'm the worst person in the world.
You make money for your employer and you get paid.
If you make money for your employer and you don't get paid, then yeah, that's wage theft.
That's wrong.
But if you're putting in the effort and you're making the money, then you get paid.
And you should get paid according to how much you're worth to your employer.
My contention about that fast food worker is that based on the effort and the skill he brings to the table, his financial worth to his employer is minimal.
And the reason it's minimal is that almost anyone could do what he does.
Almost anyone could replace him.
They could fire him and there's a 99% chance that whoever walks in the door next, however old they are, they could be six years old, they could do what that guy does.
So he's just not worth that much financially to his employer.
And importantly here, the automated things that McDonald's, that they already have set up, that thing can do what that guy does.
And do it better, actually.
Now, that could change.
Here's the good news.
He has the power to change it.
He could come to work tomorrow, energetic, on the ball, helpful, involved, engaged, on time, ready to work, you know, making the customers feel good, upselling, doing all this stuff.
He could do that tomorrow and instantly, just like that, in an instant, he could be worth considerably more than a dollar an hour.
He has that power.
He has that ability.
So, that's the upside to all of this.
I'll play one more clip because I'm really looking for an argument of some kind.
We still haven't gotten one.
And let's go here.
This is the closest thing to an argument we're going to get.
Here it is.
The more they talk about how people don't deserve a living wage, the more they insulate themselves.
They will gain no new voters from this.
And they will just remind people that the Democratic Party is the one who is ensuring that at the very least there is a minimum wage.
That the idea that you set aside an hour to work and go work and create value beyond your wages for other people, And it's true we there will be some.
Job loss because of this in some it's still has to be some.
But the revenue generated will create other jobs.
Okay, and that's as I said, that's it really, as far as arguments go.
ago.
He goes into more personal insults a little bit later on.
He says that my bookshelf is ugly.
Really, that's part of his rebuttal, is that I have an ugly bookshelf, which you can't see right now because I'm at the studio.
And I will say, I think bookshelves should be ugly.
They should be cluttered.
That's what a bookshelf should look like.
Meanwhile, his backdrop looks like a stained glass window in Episcopal Church from 1975.
But never mind that.
He says that everyone deserves a living wage.
OK.
Not really an argument.
That's more of an assertion.
But it's the best we're going to do.
So I'll deal with that.
It's a nice sentiment.
OK.
That's something that you can shout.
And people will nod their heads.
And he's right about that.
Voters love it.
And that's, that's fine.
But who cares?
Because I'm not running for office.
I'm not a Republican politician running for office.
So I don't care.
I'm not, I'm not up here trying to say things that the voters are going to like.
I'm just telling you the truth as I see it.
And that's why I have no problem saying, I have no problem saying, and this is not my recommendation to Republican politicians that they should say this the way that I'm going to say it, but I have no problem saying, no, not everybody deserves a living wage.
In fact, um, If I could give you just one example of a person, hypothetically, who wouldn't deserve a living wage, then I have defeated, I have disproven the thesis that everyone deserves a living wage.
Okay, so let's take someone who we have all, a person, the kind of person that we've all come across at our jobs.
Let's take someone who comes into work late every day, gossips about their fellow employees, puts an absolute bare minimum effort, is rude to the customers, is unreliable, and so on.
Okay.
Does that person deserve a living wage?
If so, how?
Based on what?
I mean, what do you mean they deserve?
Why?
Where does that come from?
This deserving nature they have, where does it come from, Sam?
It doesn't come from the job they're doing, because the job is crap.
The job they're doing is crap.
So it just comes from just because they're them?
From the very fact that they're a body walking into a building?
I don't think it works that way.
What about someone who steals from the cash register?
Do they deserve a living wage?
Well, no.
Okay, so we can fire them, right?
So that's fine.
Okay, so that's someone who doesn't deserve a living wage, right?
So we have now come to the conclusion that it's possible, theoretically, for a person to not deserve a living wage.
Okay.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Well, is it possible that a living wage is something you earn?
Not something you deserve simply for existing, simply because you're a warm body, but it's something you earn.
That's my contention.
And I will say this, everyone who has earned a living wage deserves a living wage.
So again, wage theft, if you've earned a certain salary and your employer's not giving it to you, that's theft.
They're stealing from you.
That's wrong.
I'm against that.
And here's the great thing, and I just have to emphasize this.
The type of person I outlined who doesn't deserve a living wage, here's what's really great.
They can deserve it.
They could deserve it tomorrow.
Just like that.
They can deserve it by earning it.
And they can make that change immediately.
Especially at a job like McDonald's, one of these fast food places.
Because if you put in an effort that is slightly above bare minimum, and you do things like, if you work at a place like McDonald's, and I've worked these jobs, so this is how I know that, this.
That if you do radical things like tuck in your shirt, Come to work on time every day.
Be willing to take on extra shifts.
Smile to the customers.
You do really basic stuff like that, you've already set yourself above probably 80% of your co-workers.
So, someone who I would, if you point them to me right now, a person that I would say, no, they don't deserve a living wage, that's not a death sentence.
That's not a life sentence.
That could change in the next 30 seconds if they just change the way that they approach their job.
And they become worth more to their employer in doing that.
You know, I also gave the example of, you know, you go to some of these places sometimes, and yeah, we can sometimes run into those customer service people who are terrible, but then also sometimes you run into those customer service people who are just amazing and are so on the ball, have so much energy, are so nice and friendly that they make you want to order more, they make you want to come back, they make you feel good.
If you're a customer and you're going into a retail place or a restaurant, If you feel good, you're going to buy more stuff.
And that's why the company wants you to feel good.
So as an employee, if you're making the customers feel good, then you're worth a lot to your employer.
And that's why I say, you get rid of the minimum wage, this whole, I think, fallacious idea that everybody is worth at least X amount, regardless of the work they do.
You get rid of that, then you could have a scenario where you've got Five people working behind the counter at McDonald's.
Yeah, a few of them are making four or five bucks an hour because that's all they've earned.
But you've also got people making 25 bucks an hour because they're so good at what they do.
And you enable the companies to reward the people who are really doing a great job.
That's my contention.
I don't think Sam did anything to debunk it or disprove it.
A rather pitiful performance there, unfortunately.
And again, I give my condolences to his daughter, who he, you know, insults publicly, which is also unfortunate.
Alright, we're not going to have time to do emails again today, but email me at mattwalshow at gmail.com and I promise tomorrow we'll get into the mailbag.
But we'll end it here today.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Godspeed.
We will examine the best of the worst with a special emphasis on breakout star Marianne Williamson.
