All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 16, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
37:17
Ep. 350 - A Disastrous Night For The Democrats

Last night's debate was a disaster for Democrats. Their frontrunner is incoherent. The other two frontrunners are communists. The only slightly appealing candidates are polling in the single digits. We'll talk about the debate. Also, a celebrity is in hot water for singing along to a rap song. And Kanye West becomes an advocate for Christian modesty. Date: 10-16-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, the squad has spoken, ladies and gentlemen.
The squad has spoken.
The squad is endorsing Bernie Sanders for president.
Well, three quarters of the squad is anyway.
Tlaib, Omar, AOC.
And then the other one, what's her name?
Ringo is not.
I don't know what she's doing.
But unfortunately, you feel bad for her.
Nobody cares who she endorses.
We only care about the three main ones.
And this is really fascinating.
These young women of color, politicians who live and breathe identity politics.
It is their lifeblood.
It is coursing through their veins, identity politics.
And so they're looking at the field of Democratic candidates trying to decide who to endorse, and they decide to endorse a 650-year-old white guy for president.
They're endorsing an ancient Wealthy white male career politician.
Meanwhile, there's a perfectly good ancient wealthy white female career politician who they could endorse.
There are also a few non-white candidates they could go with.
But no, it's got to be the old white guy.
People will offer their own explanations for why they're doing this.
Why Sanders and not Warren?
Warren would seem like the obvious choice for them.
But I think, here's my, just my gut instinct, I think this is sort of a mean girls situation.
This is a mean girls jealousy thing.
Where, you know, one of them wants to be the first female president.
And so they just don't want Warren to steal their thunder.
I think that's what this is about.
They don't want to have, they don't like her because, basically they don't like her because she's a woman.
And she's gonna take all the attention away from them.
So, as for the debate last night, as you know, I take my job as a podcast host very seriously, because it's a very serious and important job.
So, you know, it's one of those things, it's such an important job, it's one of those things where if there was some sort of apocalyptic asteroid strike, And before the asteroid comes, we've got a bunker, and we can only put a few people in the bunker to rebuild human civilization after the asteroid strike, when everyone else is killed.
And we're deciding who we're going to put in the bunker.
Well, of course you need a doctor in the bunker.
You need a couple scientists, you need people who can hunt, you need a carpenter, but you're also going to need a podcast host.
Because who's going to be hosting the podcast as we rebuild civilization?
Anyway, the point is, very important job.
So, even though I'd rather shove a rusty butter knife directly into my eyeballs than watch another three-hour Democratic debate, I did, you know, I did choose last night the debate over the rusty butter knife because I needed to provide you with the searing, insightful political analysis that you definitely have not come to expect from me.
But I have to admit, I just, I couldn't do it.
I just couldn't make it all the way through.
I tried.
Dear God, did I try.
It was just so boring.
I am so bored by this.
So about two hours in, I ended up muting it and watching YouTube videos, but I did see I still had it on.
I just wasn't really paying attention to it.
I did look up and I see how they spent the final half hour of the debate talking about their favorite friendships.
Not a joke.
If you didn't watch it, I'm not kidding.
They spent the last half hour, half hour of the debate, talking about their friendships.
Um, the last question, which again they spent about 30 minutes on, was about their most, I think it was their most, was it their most surprising friendships?
And they each went.
They each, this is a very important question, they each had a chance to answer it.
And they went through one by one talking about their friendships.
That would have been, I think, a really great question if these people were running for treasurer of student council in fifth grade.
But I'm pretty sure they're running, despite appearances, they are running for president of the United States of America.
So I'm not sure we really care about their friendships.
What's next?
I mean, maybe the next debate they'll spend the last part of it, you know, the CNN will ask candidates, what is cuter?
A panda or a seal?
You'll each have 20 minutes to respond.
Go ahead.
As for the other notable moments, I guess there were, of the parts of the debate that I watched, there were a few things maybe sort of worth talking about, and we'll get to that in a second.
But first, a word from Bolin Branch.
Speaking of debates, here's something that we don't need to debate.
We can all agree on this.
Sleep is good.
Second, we could all use more of it.
Thankfully, getting a great night's sleep is easier than ever thanks to the world's softest sheets brought to you by Bowlin Branch.
Everything Bowlin Branch makes, from bedding to blankets, is made from pure, 100% organic cotton.
It's just, it's the best material that you can have.
for bedding and blankets and sheets and everything, which means they start out really soft, and they only get softer over time.
Everyone who tries Bull & Branch sheets loves them.
That's why they have thousands of five-star reviews.
Don't take it from me.
Go and look at the reviews yourself.
People love these things.
And Bull & Branch wants you to love your purchase, too.
So they offer a no-risk 30-day trial and free shipping, but you're not going to want to send them back.
You have that.
This just shows the confidence that Bull & Branch has in their product.
Because once you sleep on their sheets, you'll never want to sleep on anything else again.
To get you started right now, my listeners, get $50 off your first set of sheets at bollandbranch.com,
promo code Matt.
Go to bollandbranch.com to get $50 off your first set of sheets.
That's B-O-L-L-A-N-D branch.com, promo code Matt, bollandbranch.com, promo code Matt.
Okay, before we get back to the debate, I think the more important thing going on today
is the website Pink News, which is an LGBT website.
They've apparently been given the distinct honor of naming the gender-neutral penguin in the London Zoo, which is a thing.
That's a real thing.
There's a gender-neutral penguin.
And so, I guess the zoo said to Pink News, you guys can name the penguin.
So they put a poll up on Twitter with four options.
And if you want to go, you go to Twitter if you want to vote in this.
Very important thing.
But the options are Roxo, Cheddar, Ziggy, Pumpkin.
Now what do you think about that?
Remember, this is a gender-neutral penguin.
It's actually, as I understand, it is a gender-neutral, pansexual, vegan, communist penguin.
Easily the wokest aquatic bird of all time.
But here's my question.
Do any of those names live up to the wokeness of this penguin?
Cheddar sounds like the nickname you give to the fattest guy in the biker gang.
Roxo is the name of a mob hitman.
Ziggy doesn't really work.
And Pumpkin is a nickname that fathers sometimes give to their daughters, which is highly offensive and traumatic, and it puts young girls in a gendered box.
Where they now have the expectation that they're going to grow up to become, you know, a large squash.
So here's my idea.
Sky.
Aspen.
Addison.
Oswin.
I don't even know if that's a name.
It just sounds like Keegan.
Dakota.
Zane.
Shiloh.
Any of those names are better.
Or here's a better idea.
This is something I was considering for my own daughter who was just born.
Rather than giving the child a name, or a discernible name, what you do is you give them an assortment of sounds.
And then as they grow older, they can decide how to arrange those sounds according to their own self-identity.
So the name is something like, you know, Free All, Lose Me, Cough, Red, and then, or whatever, it doesn't matter.
And then as they grow older, they can take those sounds and sort of put them in whatever order they want, maybe on a day-to-day basis, just on how they're feeling.
Which really lets them express themselves.
Okay, that's just an idea.
Back to the debate.
For me, the headline is that the Dems are screwed.
This is a very, very weak field, and their frontrunner can barely string together a coherent sentence.
All of their frontrunners are ancient.
And that was really highlighted last night when you watched, because they had Warren, Biden, and Sanders in the middle of the stage, and then all the irrelevant ones out on the fringes.
And you just saw how old these people are.
And you thought, this really is, this is the best you could do?
You couldn't find anyone outside of the nursing home to be your frontrunners?
And you've got, you know, Biden who's basically losing it.
The other is a communist with a bad heart.
And the other is someone, a communist who just copies all of her talking points from the other communist.
I'm not kidding about Biden not being able to string together a coherent sentence.
Listen to this.
We have to start rewarding work, not just wealth.
I would eliminate the capital gains tax.
I would raise the capital gains tax to the highest rate of 39.5%.
I would double it.
Because guess what?
Why in God's name should someone who's clipping coupons in the stock market make, in fact, pay a lower tax rate than someone who, in fact, is, like I said, a schoolteacher and a firefighter?
It's ridiculous, and they pay a lower tax.
Secondly, the idea that we, in fact, engage in this notion that there's $1,640,000,000,000 in tax loopholes.
You can't justify a minimum $600,000,000,000 of that.
We could eliminate it all.
billion dollars in tax loopholes. You can't justify a minimum $600 billion
of that. We can eliminate it all. I could go into detail ahead of time.
Secondly, I mean thirdly, what we need to do is we need to go out and make it
clear to the American people that we are going to.
We are going to raise taxes on the wealthy.
We're going to reduce tax burdens on those who are not.
And this is one of the reasons why these debates are kind of crazy, because everybody tries to squeeze everything into every answer that is given.
The fact is, everybody's right about the fact that the fourth industrial revolution is costing jobs.
It is.
The fact is also corporate greed.
If they're going back and not investing in employees, they're reinvesting and buying back their stock.
Okay, so he says, quoting, I would eliminate the capital gains tax, I would raise the capital gains tax, because guess what?
Why should someone who is clipping coupons in the stock market Make, in fact, pay... Wait, hold on a second.
Sorry.
Let me start over, because I'm trying to... Maybe there's a way to make sense of this.
I just... I'm not... Maybe I'm just not getting it.
I'm not a very smart person.
Maybe that's what it is.
Okay, let's try this again.
I would eliminate the capital gains tax.
I would raise the capital gains tax, because guess what?
Why should someone who is clipping coupons in the stock market make, in fact, pay a lower tax rate than someone who is, in fact, like I said, a school teacher and a firefighter?
I don't know what that means.
I really don't.
I'm not even trying to be, you know, difficult here.
I just, I don't know what he's trying to say there.
Are we raising or eliminating?
Are we raising it, then eliminating it?
Or eliminating it, then raising it?
And who's, they, so they're making or paying.
They can make the tax or pay it.
And who's clipping coupons in the stock market?
Is that even a thing?
You get that sheet of coupons, 50 cents off toilet paper, buy one get one free, box of fruit snacks, and a coupon for the stock market?
This is disastrous for the Democrats, that that guy is your frontrunner.
That guy is the best you could do.
And say what you want about Donald Trump, but the guy has a lot of energy.
I'm not sure that Trump is the best at stringing together coherent sentences either, which kind of makes me look forward to the prospect of a debate between Biden and Trump.
That would at least be entertaining.
So in a sense, I'm rooting for that.
Because can you imagine?
A three hour debate between Trump and Biden.
I think at the end of it, none of us are going to have any idea what anybody said.
We'll have no clue.
But it'll be a lot of fun.
It'll be a great, it'll be a fun journey in the very least.
Meanwhile, you've got Beto talking about consequences for people who don't give him their guns.
Watch this.
Just to follow up, your expectations aside, your website says you will fine people who don't give up their weapons.
That doesn't take those weapons off the street, so to be clear, exactly how are you going to take away weapons from people who do not want to give them up and you don't know where they are?
If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war, or brings it out in public and brandishes it in an attempt to intimidate, as we saw when we were at Kent State recently, then that weapon will be taken from them.
If they persist, there will be other consequences from law enforcement.
But the expectation is that Americans will follow the law.
I believe in this country.
I believe in my fellow Americans.
I believe that they will do the right thing.
This is the kind of talk that excites leftists on Twitter, but it's not going to help a Democrat beat Trump in Pennsylvania, or Michigan, or Florida, you know.
Same can be said about demonizing the wealthy, which was another funny thing, where you had this competition on the stage between people.
Who could hate the wealthy the most?
Even though they're all wealthy, by the way.
Everybody up on the stage, all of them are wealthy.
But they're having this competition about who could hate the wealthy the most.
And notice something about Sanders.
Maybe you've noticed this interesting, somewhat subtle change in his rhetoric.
Now you may remember back in 2016, he was constantly going on and on
about millionaires and billionaires.
Remember that?
Well, it's fascinating that this time around, he's shortened that a little bit,
and now he focuses on billionaires.
He doesn't really say millionaires and billionaires anymore.
They're not the bad guys.
It's billionaires.
Now, that could be just abbreviation.
It's too much trouble to say millionaires and billionaires.
Or it could be that he himself has become a millionaire in the meantime, and so he realized that, oh, maybe millionaires aren't so bad.
He finally became a millionaire and said, oh, you know what?
This is actually great.
I can see why people like it so much.
But those billionaires.
Now they're the problem.
But it was funny that they're all Competing over who can hate the billionaires the most.
Meanwhile, you had this guy, Tom Steyer.
I don't know who he is.
No one's heard of him.
But he got up on the stage somehow.
And he's a candidate now.
Had a great tie on.
I'll say that much for him.
But he is a billionaire.
And so they're going through, and each person is saying, oh, billionaires are terrible, billionaires are scumbags, billionaires should be skinned alive and roasted over an open fire.
And then they go over to Tom Steyer, the billionaire, sweating profusely, saying, yes, I agree.
Billionaires are, I agree, billionaires are scumbags.
Billionaires should be thrown into the sea.
In fact, right after this debate, I'm going to go throw myself into the sea.
That's how I feel about it.
But this kind of rhetoric, as I said, it may be popular among far leftists, whether we're demonizing the wealthy, screaming about climate change, advocating abortion through all three trimesters, but it's not going to do much for people who are not on the far left.
And the Democrats, they're going to need to win more than just far leftists.
There aren't enough of them.
It's the same thing I always say about Trump, that he's got his hardcore band of supporters, a pretty sizable collection of people, but there's not enough of them to put him over the top.
And the same on the left.
There are, unfortunately, sadly, a sizable number of people who go for this kind of stuff.
Which is a sad statement about our culture.
But there aren't enough of them to put Democrats over the top.
Um, speaking of abortion, the candidates on that stage, they were, they were just itching to talk about abortion.
They kept bringing it up when it wasn't even the topic at hand.
And eventually the moderators had to say, okay guys, calm down.
We're going to talk about killing babies.
We know you, we know y'all love that.
We're going to talk about it.
Or words to that effect, basically.
And then they got around to talking about it.
And when the time came, of course, they all went on and on about reproductive rights.
A term that, as I have explained many times, is a total misnomer.
Reproductive rights is a term that means nothing.
Or at the very least, if it means anything, it certainly has nothing to do with abortion.
Because...
Abortion happens after reproduction has already occurred.
In order for there to be an abortion, something has to have already been produced.
So, the human being has already been reproduced.
It's not a matter of reproduction anymore.
You're not controlling your reproduction when you get an abortion.
You have already produced the human being, which is now in your womb.
The question is, is it okay to kill an existent human being in the womb?
I would say no.
If you say yes, you need to be able to defend that position, explain it, without recourse to reproductive rights, because reproductive rights are irrelevant.
You know what reproductive rights?
Okay, that's like a two-child policy in China or something like that.
That is a government telling people you can't reproduce more than X amount.
That is a reproductive rights issue.
Because it's the government literally trying to control reproduction.
But no one is saying that in this country.
Nobody is saying women can't reproduce.
Nobody is saying you have to reproduce.
All we're saying, as pro-lifers, is that once you've already done it, even if you didn't mean to, you did, now we've got a human being on our hands, and it's not okay to kill him.
Very simple.
The only one who wasn't completely stoked about abortion was Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard is still pro-abortion, but at least she supports some restrictions, and she wants there to be fewer abortions.
Which used to be the mainstream Democratic position.
And it was for many years.
Safe, legal, and rare.
I believe Tulsi Gabbard even used that phrase.
And it was sort of shocking for some Democrats to hear it because it had been so long.
But for decades, that was the slogan on the banner that they were marching under.
Safe, legal, and rare.
We want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare.
But Democrats now, The left, they don't want that.
Yeah, safe they want, even though a safe abortion, speaking of misnomers, safe abortion is a contradiction in terms, because there's always at least one person killed in an abortion, so we couldn't call it safe.
So they want it to be safe, they certainly want it to be legal, but rare?
No.
They want more abortions.
And in fact, Leanna Nguyen, she was the former CEO of Planned Parenthood.
Her reign was cut very short.
She was fired, basically.
And I think now we know why.
Because she came out on Twitter last night after the debate and agreed with Tulsi Gabbard and said, yeah, abortion should be legal, women should be able to do it, but we should try to cut down on the number of abortions.
In fact, I would recommend, if you're on Twitter, go to Leanna Nguyen's Twitter page.
Look at that comment by her, mainly to see the comments underneath it.
From all these leftists saying, basically accusing her of being a traitor.
Saying, no, we don't want rare abortions.
We don't want there to be fewer abortions.
We like abortions.
We want there to be more of them.
And keep that in mind the next time Because anytime you refuse to use the word, the euphemism, pro-choice, and instead you say pro-abortion, what do you always hear?
You always hear, oh, we're not pro-abortion.
No one's pro-abortion.
That's crazy.
Well, if you don't want abortions to be rare, if you have a problem with that goal, then you are definitely pro-abortion.
And speaking of Tulsi Gabbard, the last thing I'll say about the debate is watching this.
Now, I'm no Tulsi Gabbard fan.
She's still, at the end of the day, a leftist.
But I think she would easily be the strongest competitor against Donald Trump because she's not a crazy far-left leftist.
She would win the anti-Trump vote, as any Democrat will.
And that's what they're all relying on, is that there's going to be a strong anti-Trump vote.
And anyone who's not Trump will win that vote.
She'll win some people in the middle because of her positions on things like gun rights and abortion and so on.
It's a little bit more in step with what people in the middle think.
She'd probably even win some conservatives.
I think she'd be a formidable challenge.
I think she could probably even win in a landslide.
And on top of that, she's young and attractive and a veteran.
I mean, all those things help.
But she has no chance.
She has absolutely no chance because she's not going to get through a primary.
She's polling at 2%.
Leftists are not interested in someone who has sane and reasonable positions.
They aren't interested in it.
And they're going to pay the price for that.
Maybe in the form of another four years for Donald Trump.
All right, let's move on.
Gina Rodriguez is an actress, apparently.
She got into some hot water yesterday because she recorded an Instagram video of herself rapping along to, I think it was a Fugees song from the 90s.
And the song contains the N-word, as many rap songs do.
And she sang the N word in the song, because it was in the song.
And this became a huge outrage.
People were very upset.
Gina Rodriguez got canceled immediately, canceled from what I'm not sure.
I don't know what she does or who she is or why she's famous.
She almost immediately came out with an apology video, you know, begging for forgiveness.
And like I said, I don't know who she is.
It doesn't matter though, because unless this person is literally in the Klan, which is unlikely for someone named Gina Rodriguez, I don't need to know their background to say that this controversy is completely stupid.
The idea that it's racist to sing the lyrics to a popular song that's been on the radio for like 20 years, is just beyond the bounds of stupidity.
It goes beyond pure stupidity.
It leaves the atmosphere and achieves intergalactic levels of stupidity.
And this is very obvious.
There's just no way around this logic.
If the word is so bad that it's racist simply to sing along to a song that contains it, then the word should not be in the song to begin with.
The idea that there could be song lyrics that you're only allowed to sing if you have the right skin pigmentation is, again, very, very stupid.
And I'm going to keep going back to that word stupid because that's what this is.
Again, if this word has that kind of power, if it is that incomprehensibly evil, That to even utter its syllables, no matter the context, is an unforgivable sin, then nobody should be saying it, and certainly nobody should be putting it in a pop song that goes on the radio.
This, to me, seems very reasonable.
Or, on the other hand, we could go this way.
We could say, context matters.
If you're using a racial slur as a racial slur, well, then that's obviously racist.
And terrible.
And if Gina Rodriguez was on video shouting racial slurs in a racist context, I would say she brought the consequences on herself.
But if the context is you singing lyrics to a song, or matter-of-factly quoting someone, Or reading something that has the word in it, then clearly it is not racist.
Because there's no intent.
A statement can only be racist if it has a racist intent behind it.
That's how human communication works.
It's not You know, there is no word that's like some sort of magical spell that if you even say the word, you turn into... It's like a magical spell that turns you into a frog or something.
Well, this is not a magical spell that turns you into a racist because you said the word in any context whatsoever.
And besides, the other thing that doesn't make any sense about this is when you're quoting someone, Or singing a song, or whatever, and you censor yourself, and you say instead, N-word, you're still causing your listeners to think that word in their heads.
I think Bill Burr has a bit about this, or maybe Louis CK, I don't remember which one.
But the point is, you're still communicating the word, right?
You're just communicating without all the syllables.
So is there something mystical about that particular arrangement of syllables that makes you racist if you utter it without the right skin pigmentation regardless of content or of context?
It starts to sound superstitious after a while.
And it just doesn't make any sense.
I have no dog in the fight with Gina Rodriguez.
Like I said, I don't even know who she is.
And yeah, was it stupid for her to... I don't even know why you would take an Instagram video of yourself singing along to a song on the radio and then put it on... I don't even know why you would do that.
So it's stupid for a number of reasons, but it's in a song.
You sang the words of a song.
And if this all ends with people saying, hey, you know, maybe we should put Fewer profanities and slurs and everything in songs to begin with, I would say great.
Yeah, that sounds good.
But if you're going to put it in the song, you can't get mad at people for singing along to it.
All right, finally, I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I want to play something from Keeping Up With The Kardashians.
Actually, it's worse than that, because I'm going to play, it's a report on Entertainment Tonight about Keeping Up With The Kardashians.
And by the way, I'm not trying to be funny here.
I had no idea that Keeping Up With The Kardashians was still on the air.
I thought it went off the air like 10 years ago.
I really had no idea that it's still... Did they reboot it or something?
Or has it been on TV this whole time?
I don't know.
Because aren't all these people billionaires now?
And they're still doing a reality show?
So, apparently it's still on the air, and there's a certain scene that people are talking about.
Some people are upset.
Upset at Kanye West because he confessed to his wife, Kim Kardashian, that he's not comfortable with her wearing skimpy outfits.
Watch this.
Kanye West storms out on Kim Kardashian after confronting her about her super sexy Met Gala look.
All right, all right, cool.
Kanye West storms out on Kim Kardashian after confronting her about her super sexy Met Gala look.
I'm really freaking out.
You can now say that you're not into me wearing a tight dress.
You are my wife and it affects me when pictures are too sexy.
On Sunday night's episode of Keeping Up With The Kardashians, Kanye surprisingly admits to having an issue with people gawking at his gorgeous wife.
Of course it's like a formal underwear, it's hot, it's like it's hot for who though?
So like the night before the fact, you're gonna come in here and say that you're not into a corset bun.
I mean, we love each other's opinions.
Well, maybe not in this case, as Kim was not okay with the 42-year-old rapper's concerns over her choice in wardrobe for fashion's biggest night.
I just feel like I just went through this transition.
Where from being a rapper, like looking at all these girls and looking at my wife, like oh my girl needs to be just like the other girls showing her body off, showing this, showing that.
And I didn't realize that that was affecting like my soul and my spirit as someone that's married and loved and the father of like now about to be four kids.
Kim, shut that down real quick.
Entertainment Tonight tells us this is surprising.
and all this stuff.
And just because you're on a journey and you're on your transformation doesn't mean that I'm
in the same spot with you.
Entertainment Tonight tells us this is surprising.
It's surprising that Kanye West doesn't want his wife running around like that.
And a lot of people online have echoed this sentiment.
It's surprising that a man, a husband, doesn't want other men ogling his wife.
It's surprising that a father doesn't want that sort of example set for his daughters.
No, that's not surprising.
That's normal.
That's healthy.
But I kind of love that clip that I just played because you see this stark contrast between the very thoughtful, honest explanation from Kanye about why he cherishes his wife's dignity and why he, as a father and a husband, wants her to respect herself and show more modesty.
And he's sharing that.
And then the Entertainment Tonight lady cuts in and says, Kim shuts that down real quick.
It's just so vapid and shallow, where you see is a perfect illustration of how the other side, you know, you've got the, what I guess we call now traditional values, which now Kanye West of all people is exhibiting, and good for him.
You see how the other side is so vapid and shallow.
And I'm just gonna say this, if you don't, if you really don't understand Where Kanye's coming from in that clip, if you don't understand what he's saying or why he's saying it, if you really do find it shocking, scandalizing, then I would say don't get married because you're not marriage material.
You're never gonna have a successful marriage.
And I'm not saying that you have to agree 100% with everything that Kanye West is saying there in order to have a good, healthy marriage.
But you should at least understand what he's saying.
This instinct that a spouse feels, not wanting his wife to go out half-naked, And be ogled by other men.
That is a natural, healthy instinct.
And if you can't even understand that, if the idea of having a truly monogamous, exclusive relationship, where you both have some dignity and some modesty, and there are certain things Physically, emotionally, that you keep between yourselves and you don't share with the world?
If you don't understand that, then again, your marriage probably isn't going to work out for you.
Because that's what marriage is all about.
It's all about having those exclusive, intimate things that aren't shared with everybody else.
No, because you're not sharing every aspect of your spouse with the entire world.
And when you get married, as a spouse, what you're saying to the person you're marrying is, there are parts of me, metaphorically and literally, that are not going to be shared with anyone else.
It's just between you and me.
So that's...
It really is.
It's like something out of Idiocracy, which I think is one of the most prophetic movies to come out in the last 20 or 30 years.
But this is like something straight out of Idiocracy.
People are gawking, laughing like hyenas, because a man, you know, doesn't want his wife going out in public basically nude.
All right.
So, Kanye West.
Whoever thought Kanye West would become the spokesman for Christian modesty?
But this is where we are in 2019.
It's great.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Donovan Fowler.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
If you prefer facts over feelings, if you aren't offended by the brutal truth, if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well, tune on in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.
▲
Export Selection