Ep. 419 - Democrat Clown Show Wants To Run Health Care System
The Democrats can't run their own primary, but they want to run health care? Also, an exciting new business venture gives you the chance to pay two women $2,500 to tell you that you're racist. And a dangerous sociopath is released from prison only 11 months after causing someone's death. Is this another example of female privilege?
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Obviously, there's quite a lot happening in the world today, in the country.
We're going to talk about all of that, lots of important news.
But I want to begin by discussing something even more important than any of that, namely myself.
Well, not myself exactly, but my book.
I did just announce yesterday that I have a new book coming out, being released February 25th, but you can pre-order it now, and I would ask that you do pre-order it rather than waiting to the last minute, you damn procrastinators.
The book is called Church of Cowards, and It brings together in one volume my thoughts on the subject I've spoken about often on this show, written about, and that is the problem of apathy, cowardice, and complacency in the church.
And this is a problem that cannot be pinned entirely on church leadership, on the so-called Christian leaders in the country and throughout the world.
Though, obviously, of course, there's a significant portion of blame that goes to them, and I talk about that in the book.
This is also an issue that implicates everybody.
Me, you, everyone.
I don't think any of us are entirely innocent.
So, I try not to spare anybody in this book, myself included, and I hope you'll give it a read.
Church of Cowards.
Go to Amazon, look it up, buy the book before it comes out on February 25th.
Okay, speaking of bad leadership, the Democrat Party continues to somehow make the Republican Party look like it has its crap together by comparison.
Which, if you've been following politics for any length of time, that is an incredible accomplishment.
That's a remarkable feat, to be able to do that.
As you know, as you've probably no doubt heard by now, the Iowa caucuses were last night.
Somehow they managed, after three years of preparation, to completely bungle it.
The night ended with no winner, no results, nothing, which threw everybody into disarray, including the media, which led to, and I want to play this just at the front of the show because I think this is one, this is just a great moment, a great moment in media was this right here.
Watch this.
Sean Sebastian's joining us right now from Story County.
He's a precinct secretary out there.
What can you tell us about this delay in getting any results, Sean?
Well, Wolf, I have been on hold for over an hour with the Iowa Democratic Party.
They tried to, I think, promote an app to report the results.
The app, by all accounts, just doesn't work.
So we've been recommended to call into the hotline, and the hotline has not been responsive.
Have you gotten any explanation, Sean?
Sean, have you gotten any explanation at all as to what's going on?
No, I have not.
No.
I'm just waiting on hold and doing my best to report the results from my precinct.
What are you hearing?
I know you're listening to a conversation from the Iowa Democratic Party.
I just got off hold, just now.
So I've got to get off the phone to report the results.
Alright, go ahead and report your results.
Can we listen in as you report them, Sean?
Yep.
Alright, let's listen.
Okay, hi, hello?
They hung up on me.
They hung up on me.
Okay, I've got to get back in line on hold.
They just hung up.
So frustrating indeed.
Now, on one hand, I really love that.
It's good stuff.
But on the other, I feel for that guy.
I feel I can relate to it, especially as a parent, because this has definitely happened to me before, where I'm waiting on hold with Comcast or somebody for 45 minutes.
And then after 45 minutes, my kids come into the room and they distract me.
And I'm telling them to, you know, I'm yelling at them.
And then in the melee, the customer rep comes on the phone, but I'm distracted.
And he takes the opportunity to just hang up.
So, and of course, in this analogy, Wolf Blitzer would be like, my kids.
So, that was fun though.
But the utter incompetence of the Democratic Party here, and not just here, but over the past three years and beyond, does lead us to, I think, to a more serious, perhaps ominous point.
And I want to talk about that in just a moment.
But first, you know, one of the most important things in your home is not only to be safe, but to feel safe, to feel secure in your home.
I think if you don't have, not being able to feel secure in your home, it's something that robs you of peace of mind.
And that's not good at all.
And that's why Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer and to make you safer and feel safer in your home.
You might already know about their smart video doorbells and cameras that protect millions of people everywhere.
Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world.
So if there's a package delivery or a surprise visit, You'll get an alert, you'll know, and then you can talk to the person no matter where you are.
And so this is not just about safety, it's also about convenience and being able to answer the door, essentially, even if you're not in the home, or even if you can't get to the door.
You can be 3,000 miles away, you can still answer the door.
And there's that convenience there, but I can't emphasize enough the peace of mind aspect of it, which especially for me, you know, I've got four kids.
I've got a wife, family in the house.
And so that's one of the reasons that I have Ring.
As a subscriber, you have a special offer and a Ring welcome kit available right now at Ring.com slash Walsh.
The kit includes a video doorbell and a chime pro, which is just, just what you need to start building a ring of protection around your home today.
Go to Ring.com slash Walsh.
That's Ring.com slash Walsh.
Okay, so there are a few lessons that we can learn, I think, from the disastrous beginning of the Democrat Party's primary process.
A process that, as they boasted in a tweet on Monday afternoon, they'd spent the last three years preparing for.
That's what they said.
And, you know, the pilot of the Hindenburg also spent time preparing.
But all of the preparation in the world can't compensate for incompetent execution.
So somehow after the build-up, Monday Night ended without a winner or any results at all.
And it seems part of the problem is that the Democrats decided to hand the facilitation and management of its primary in Iowa over to a secretive firm in D.C.
called, literally, Shadow Inc.
That's literally the name of the organization.
Shadow Inc.
Which is a bit like sending your children to a daycare center called, like, Child Neglect LLC.
So, I can only, I just imagine the, you know, the bosses of the Democrat Party in the offices of Shadow Inc.
And there's a guy, you know, sitting at his desk with his chair turned around, looking out the window, his back to them, puffing on a cigar, stroking a cat.
And they say, yeah, I think this is the guy.
This is the guy that needs to handle our primaries.
And these are the sorts of unforced errors that the Democrats can't seem to stop themselves from making as they continue, as I said, to achieve the remarkable feat of making the Republican Party look good somehow.
Now, of course, I may be giving them too much credit when I say that this is an error.
I'm not sure that this debacle can be called an error, necessarily, because that categorization assumes that there's no deliberate corruption at work here, and that's probably not a safe assumption, especially given the Democrats' track record with primaries.
But all in all, this amounts to more good news for Donald Trump, who is a man that has been blessed with the most impotent and ineffectual adversaries that probably the world has ever seen.
This is Donald Trump He's so fortunate.
God has blessed him with these buffoons as his enemies.
And as many of us have been saying for years now, ever since Trump came on the scene, especially ever since he became president, all the Democrats really have to do is just be basically normal and sane, and that'd probably be enough.
To get the edge.
And to win in 2020.
It's all they need to do.
And they can't even do that.
That really... That bar, as low as it is, they're not able to get over that bar.
Which means that, you know, that I think the possibility of Trump still losing to these blundering clowns is a possibility that seems less and less likely with each passing day.
If he does lose to them, this is an ominous warning, I think, for the future.
Because we should keep in mind that these people, who cannot figure out how to operate their own primary, also want to operate the entire healthcare system.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, in particular, have promised a complete government takeover of healthcare.
In fact, Sanders is on record saying that he's advocating a complete government takeover of all industry, of all major industry.
He has said this specifically, explicitly.
Now, he hasn't been quite that explicit in recent years, but this is what he said back in his 30s.
I think it was back when he was 35 or 36.
He's on record saying the government should take over all major industries.
Now, if we had a real media, they'd be following up with that and saying, hey, is that still what you want to do?
I mean, think about it.
We've got a Democrat candidate who very well could win the nomination, who's in the past advocated for a government takeover of all major industries, and nobody in the media has asked him about it.
And this, by the way, is full-blown communism.
Not communism in the loose kind of pejorative sense that people use it, but actual, literal, real communism.
Bernie Sanders is an actual communist.
So this is the communism of Soviet Russia and Pol Pot and many of the most evil and blood-drenched regimes of the 20th century.
That is the ideology and the governing philosophy that he aligns himself with.
But he's not asked about it by the media.
Which is really incredible.
And I think this latter fact, the fact that we've seen how communism works in other countries, especially in the bloodiest, deadliest, A century in human history, the 20th century, because of communism.
So, that should be enough to cause us to run far and fast away from any candidate who advocates a full government takeover of any industry, let alone the healthcare industry, let alone every other industry as well as the healthcare industry.
But, if the 20th century is too far in the past to make an impression somehow, then I think this Monday is less than enough.
In order for the plans proposed by Sanders, Warren, and company to have any appeal, we first have to place our trust in the skill and competency and integrity of government bureaucrats.
And this is the part, you notice, this is the part of the case that the socialists never bother trying to make.
Yes, they can tell a harrowing tale about all the evils of capitalism and the problems of the free market, and they can convince you to look with suspicion on corporations and the dreaded billionaires, and I don't even necessarily disagree with them on that point.
In a way, we should be suspicious of corporations.
We shouldn't just blindly trust them.
You know, if you've got...
One of these tech companies asking you to hand your privacy over to them, which most of us have already done, but we shouldn't trust our privacy with them and all of our sensitive information.
So that part, fine.
But then there's the next part, where they never get around to explaining why we should trust them, the politicians, instead.
And that's because I don't think even they could make that argument with a straight face.
And this again goes back to malpractice by the media, which is a very intentional malpractice.
You're going to let Bernie Sanders stand up there all day at debates and interviews and so on, talking about the problem with capitalism and billionaires and why they shouldn't have control over this and that.
Nobody ever stops to ask him, okay, but why should you control it, though?
Why should we trust you?
Why should we trust bureaucrats?
What's the reason?
Give us one good reason.
That's all I'm asking for.
One good reason why we should trust bureaucrats instead.
Well, because the billionaires... No, no, I didn't ask about the billionaires.
That's not what I'm asking.
Let's go from the billionaires to the bureaucrats.
Why should we trust them?
One good reason.
That's it.
Just give me one.
And don't tell me because they're subject to elections.
They're not.
Our government is massively, massively, enormously, gargantuan, monstrous, huge, and 99% of the people in the government who work for the government, probably more than 99%, are not elected.
So, they can't make the argument.
And besides which, we've all been to the DMV, so we know how the government works.
And this week is just the latest example.
And that, I think, is the highlight and the point of this madness in Iowa.
There are some people trying to make it a point about, well, this is why Iowa shouldn't be the first primary in the country, and this is why we need to change the way we do primaries.
I don't disagree with that either, by the way, but that's not really the point.
Though, on an almost unrelated note, I do agree that it doesn't make any sense to me why Iowa arbitrarily gets this privileged position.
Where the decision they make in the primary has all of this enormous weight.
Iowa and New Hampshire.
Iowa and New Hampshire, right?
It's like, all that really matters is them.
And then you have states that by the time they go, it's already been decided.
So, I don't see how that makes any sense.
At a minimum, if we're gonna... There's a part of me that would be sympathetic to a call for a national primary where you do all the primaries on the same day.
Now the argument against that is that then, well there are a few arguments, one of them is that it would make it a lot harder for the lesser-known candidates who need that staggered process to build momentum.
If you just do it all on one day, then really just the most famous, most well-known candidates are going to win every time.
Okay, I get that.
But if you're going to do the staggered thing where we're holding these primaries over the course of many weeks, There's no reason why one state should always go first and always have this disproportionate influence over the way the rest of the primary goes.
There's no reason for that.
Other than, it's tradition.
Okay, well, just because it's tradition doesn't mean we keep doing it forever without ever stopping.
Okay, let's move on.
You know, The Guardian and The Daily Wire have both reported on an exciting new business venture that I wanted to mention.
And this is for the low price of just $2,500.
Two particularly industrious race hustlers will come to your house, eat your food, and call you a racist.
This is a real business.
And this is not some sort of strange, masochistic, sexual fetish, as far as I know.
It's an opportunity for white people to learn that they are abysmal sacks of garbage, if you didn't already know.
So it's kind of like a self-empowerment thing, but the opposite of that.
The opposite of self-empowerment.
Let me read, this is the Guardian explaining this business.
It says, a white woman volunteers to host a dinner in her home for seven other white women.
Often strangers, perhaps acquaintances.
Each dinner costs $2,500, which can be covered by a generous host or divided among guests.
A frank discussion is led by co-founders Regina Jackson, who is black, and Saira Rao, who identifies as Indian American.
They started Race to Dinner to challenge liberal white women to accept their racism, however subconscious.
If you did this in a conference room, they'd leave, Rao says, but wealthy white women have been taught never to leave the dinner table.
So this is a service, yes, offered only to white women.
Unfortunately, white men are irredeemable.
The Guardian says, Rao and Jackson believe white liberal women are the most receptive audience because they are open to changing their behavior.
They don't bother with the 53% of white women who voted for Trump.
White men, they feel, are similarly a lost cause.
Jackson says, quote, white men are never going to change anything.
If they were, they would have done it by now.
And then here's an inspiring example of one such white woman finally admitting and accepting that she is essentially Hitler.
Alison Goobser says, Recently I've been driving around seeing a black person and having an assumption that they're up to no good.
Immediately after that I'm like, that's no good.
This is a human just doing their thing.
Why do I think that?
Because of course, you know, it's only white people who engage in this sort of negative stereotyping.
Other races of people, they never do this.
Ever.
Doesn't happen.
Only white.
Right?
Now, we're told that they've conducted 15 of these dinners at 2,500 a pop, so that totals to almost 40 grand they've made.
Not a bad business plan, especially when you consider this is nearly all profit.
I guess the only real overhead is the only cost that they incur, I imagine, are the medical treatments for their vocal cords after they spend a whole evening shouting racist.
In the faces of cowering soccer moms.
So I must say, I was thinking about this, you know, I find their efforts inspiring.
And so inspiring that in keeping with the traditions of my people, of white men, I'm going to appropriate this idea.
Now I have no doubt, and I don't mean to cast aspersions here, I have no doubt that the certified haranguing offered by these two women is well worth the money.
But why spend more than you have to?
And this is where I'm, you know, this is me.
I announced a book and so now this is a business, a new business I'm opening that I'm excited to announce as well.
So it's kind of a big, a big day for me for a number of reasons.
Here's my business model.
I would be willing to perform the exact same service at half the price.
Okay.
So for a measly $1,250, that's it.
I'll sit at your table, gorge on your food and ceaselessly belittle you.
Now, here's what I'm saying.
Don't pay full price for a scolding when you could get a perfectly acceptable scolding for half of that.
It doesn't make any sense financially, is what I'm trying to say.
And don't think for a second that my accusations and my insults that I hurl at you will be tamer just because I'm the bargain bin option.
Now, I understand, like a good wedding DJ, you have to play the hits, so that means, of course, I'm going to call you a racist, I'm going to call you a sexist, I'm going to call you a transphobe, I'm going to call you a homophobe, etc., etc., etc.
But I'll even mix in a few of the more cutting-edge ists and phobes that maybe you haven't heard of.
So, after my dinner, you may discover that you're not only an ageist, ethnocentric, cisnormative biphobe, but also a gooberphobe.
You know what a gooberphob is?
A gooberphob is someone who is discriminatory against gay Uber drivers.
Okay, that's a real thing that I just made up.
But this is the kind of ingenuity that I bring to it.
And it gets better, because for a small, let's say $75 upcharge, I'll also yell at your pets.
And you have to think about this, because you are racist scum, as we've established.
Do you think your pets have not absorbed any of that?
Any of your bigot fumes?
See, living with you is like living near Chernobyl.
The toxicity radiates off of you and infects everything in the vicinity.
So after I finish with you at dinner, I'll go to your, you know, dog, I'll go to the hamster, I'll go to the goldfish, whatever, and I'll scream at them.
And it'll be a very cleansing experience for them as well.
And so, once my session is complete, everybody in the house is going to feel like total dirt.
That is my guarantee for your money back.
Just kidding, of course, I would never give money back to a racist.
So look out for that as I bring that business to the masses.
Now, a couple of things to talk about.
But first, a quick message about this show.
As you know, we rely in part on our advertisers to keep the mic hot and the lights on.
And one thing that's really important to us is that we know who's listening.
And it's how we make sure that we're featuring advertisers that you guys actually want to do business with.
So if you have just a few minutes to spare, I'd really appreciate it if you could visit
thepodsurvey.com.
That's thepodsurvey.com to fill out a short survey about yourself.
Once we have enough data, that helps us find advertisers who you want to hear from.
So this is just all about, you know, what kind of things you're interested in and all
So visit thepodsurvey.com.
It'll take just a few minutes.
And, you know, you've got five minutes to spare, don't you?
You're not doing anything.
None of us are.
With our lives.
Complete the survey to help my team bring you advertisers that you really want and need to hear from.
Okay.
I've been wanting to talk about this issue for a few days now, and now I will.
It's a story that hasn't gotten a lot of attention.
Michelle Carter.
I don't know if you remember the name.
She was released from prison last week after serving 11 months in jail.
11 months.
Carter, as you may or may not recall, was the sociopath who repeatedly encouraged her suicidal boyfriend to kill himself, and then when he did, at her urging, she told no one, pretended to be shocked and saddened, and had apparently done the whole thing to get attention.
This was, according to the prosecutors, and she was convicted, This was all a ploy because she wanted sympathy and attention and so she decided to get that by manipulating her boyfriend into killing himself.
Now this is a case that has really stuck with me because, and I think it's stuck with a lot of people, it's just because it's just how absolutely evil this is.
It's the kind of case that sends chills right down to your bones in a way that some other Bad cases don't quite to the same degree because this gives you a unique look into the depths of human evil.
I mean, let's recall what this girl did.
This was not her saying once, kill yourself out of anger or half-joking or something like that.
That's not what this was.
This was not her putting kill yourself in the comment section under a YouTube video.
Or sending it in an email to a podcast host she doesn't like.
That's not what this was.
This was a depressed boyfriend Um, who came to his girlfriend for, you know, for emotional support.
And instead, her girlfriend repeatedly, over a period of time, methodically tried to break his will, uh, break him down and get him to kill himself, including berating and insulting him for not doing it.
And on the night when he did it, she was on the phone with him, um, berating him for trying to back out.
You know, he wanted to back out at the last minute, and she was urging him Insisting that he do it.
And when he did and was dead, she didn't call anybody, didn't tell anybody, certainly didn't try to get a medical treatment, of course, and just pretended to be shocked and sad and everything when she heard the news.
Now, incredibly, in my view, there are plenty of people who've defended this person.
The girlfriend, the carter.
Or at least, if not defended her, said that, at a minimum, she shouldn't go to jail.
People have even tried to make this a free speech issue, which is what her defense team argued, and I understand her defense team arguing it.
That's the only defense they could possibly offer, and so they did.
But if you're not one of her lawyers, I don't understand arguing that.
Free speech?
Really?
And this only proves my point that free speech has come to mean almost nothing.
All of the freedoms and rights we talk about, it's as I discussed at length yesterday, these phrases mean almost nothing now.
Nobody knows what they mean.
No one can define them.
We just throw them out there randomly to make a point.
And that's what's happening here.
Trying to manipulate a suicidal depressive into killing himself is not free speech.
And I can't believe I even have to say that.
By the way, if you think it is, And this is absolutely inescapable.
If you think that what she did is covered under free speech, then you have to argue that Charles Manson never should have gone to prison.
Because Charles Manson, many people don't know this, never killed anybody.
No, he brainwashed his groupies into killing people.
He didn't do it himself.
Yet he went to jail for life.
Until death.
Which is how life in prison works.
Now, I would say that's clearly not free speech.
When you take mentally unbalanced people and you urge them, try to get them to kill somebody, that's not free speech.
That's murder.
That's what I would say.
But if you're going to tell me that it's free speech for this girl to manipulate her mentally unstable boyfriend into killing himself, then you have to argue that Charles Manson was covered under free speech when he manipulated mentally unstable people into killing other people.
This is logically inescapable.
But of course, with Charles Manson, nobody would argue that because it's totally crazy.
And what exactly are people worried about?
That this is a slippery slope?
I've heard that.
I was talking about this on social media this week, and some people were saying, it's a slippery slope, you know?
A slippery slope into what?
Into some sort of dystopian horrorscape where you can no longer tell people to kill themselves?
Oh, the humanity!
How horrible that would be!
That's not even where this is headed at all, because she embarked on a campaign, a long campaign, to manipulate him into killing himself.
This was not a one-off thing.
This was not a moment of passion and her just saying, kill yourself.
Obviously, if she had done that, she wouldn't have gone to jail.
It's not what this was.
So this is not heading to a place where you're not allowed to leave a YouTube comment telling someone to kill themselves.
That's not where this is headed.
But my point is, even if it was heading there, who cares?
Is that really, like, would you be oppressed and persecuted if you lived in a country where you can't tell people online to kill themselves?
How would that harm you in any way whatsoever?
In any case.
Manipulating a man into killing himself so you can get attention.
I would say, horribly evil.
And this is a dangerous person.
She gets out of jail, and if you don't think she's dangerous, what do you think's gonna happen when she gets kids?
How's that gonna go?
When you have somebody this emotionally manipulative, and a sociopath, a psychopath, who only cares about attention to themselves, And they've got kids?
How do you think that's gonna go?
Munchausen by proxy?
What do you think that is?
That's a parent making a child sick, or causing the child to think that he's sick, so that the parent can get attention.
So, that's where this is headed.
This is a dangerous person.
Eleven months in jail.
And she gets out.
Now, you cannot convince me that the fact that she's a blonde chick didn't help her.
Because I would say it absolutely did.
I don't really see any scenario.
Can you imagine?
Let's reverse the genders for a moment.
Let's say you've got a man, over a period of many months, manipulating a mentally unbalanced, depressive woman into killing herself.
Can you imagine him getting out of jail in 11 months?
Now granted, she was only sentenced to 15 months, which is bad enough as it is.
She didn't even serve the whole year.
Can you imagine that with a man?
I can't.
This is where female privilege comes in.
This is a real thing.
They've done studies on this.
The statistics are right there.
You can go look them up yourself.
Women get, I think on average, on average men get sentences that are 63%, like 50 to 50 to 60, I want to say 63% is the number that's on top of my head here.
But they get, men on average, for the same crimes, get significantly longer sentences than women do.
And that's even when controlling for factors like previous criminal history.
Okay, so it's not like, well, the men get longer sentences because they've got a track record.
No, even when controlling for those sorts of things, women get significantly shorter sentences.
And in fact, men are twice as likely to get sent to prison in the first place.
Meaning, in many cases, the women don't, in many situations, there are crimes where if a man commits it, he goes to jail for a period of time.
If a woman commits it, she doesn't go to jail at all.
So that is actual female privilege that is really happening systemically.
We hear so much about systemic bigotry and systemic, this is systemic, it's in the justice system, systemic discrimination.
against men in favor of women.
And you just, you can't convince me that this is not an example of that.
I think it very clearly is.
So we'll get to emails in just a second here, but first, I want to tell you about this offer we have.
This has been quite a year already.
What a year this month has been.
I feel like I've aged about six years already in 2020 and it's only been a little over a month.
And the election race is just getting started.
God help us.
The best way to stay informed and on top of all of this is to become a Daily Wire member with 20% off your membership.
That's 20% off all new Daily Wire memberships when using promo code DW2020.
Members get our articles ad-free, you get access to all of our live broadcasts, the show library, the full three hours of Ben Shapiro's show every day, select bonus content, access to the mailbag, and now our new all-access tier gets you into live online Q&A discussions like the one being hosted tonight after Tonight, which is backstage State of the Union, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Clavin, Michael Knowles, and God King Jeremy Boring will be streaming at 8.30 p.m.
Eastern, 5.30 Pacific, to bring you Trump's speech live with their analysis, subscriber questions, and followed by an exclusive online Q&A over at dailywire.com slash discussions.
Again, that's promo code DW2020 for 20% off.
Trust me, you don't want to miss it.
All right, let's go to emails.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
This is from Kurt.
Says, Matt, very dumb question, but I'm hoping you can give me a simple explanation.
What exactly is a caucus?
How does it work?
How should it work?
I know the Iowa situation is a mess, but how is it supposed to go?
Seriously, I've never understood it.
Well, Kurt, you're right.
This is a rather dumb question, I'm afraid.
Caucuses, like the one in Iowa, putting aside all this debacle that happened, it's a pretty simple process, and I can't believe you don't understand it.
I don't mean to, you know, I don't mean to judge you or anything, but fine, I'll explain it.
You see, and I can easily explain it to you.
And it goes like this.
I'll explain it right now, in fact.
What happens As it proceeds, the caucus, is that there are actually, well essentially, decisions, okay, are made.
And let's just say, basically what it comes down to, when in fact it's all said and done, at the end of the day, is that determinations are made.
Alright?
Important determinations.
And those determinations are, at the conclusion of a process, let's call it, they're going to lead to the formulation of what you might even call results.
And those results are really going to tell you who wins.
Okay?
So do you understand?
That's as simple as I can put it.
Okay.
Because I definitely understand how caucuses work myself.
This is from Carlos, says, Hello, Matt.
Yesterday, the Super Bowl was a good game.
Not as exciting without my Patriots on it, but I'm glad the Chiefs won.
I saw that people were accusing you of being anti-Latino for saying that the halftime show was inappropriate.
However, as a Hispanic born in Latin America myself, I agree with you.
If anything, what I find offensive is their implication that our Latin culture can be reduced to that garbage.
A show of over-sexualized 50-year-old women stripping and pole dancing on the stage is not representative of Latin culture.
Everybody, white, Hispanic, or otherwise, should be free to say so.
It is a shame, because Shakira wasn't too bad back when she started in Colombia, before she went full Hollywood around 2008.
Thank you, and keep up the good work.
Well, thanks Carlos, and yeah, it's funny because I noticed, perhaps unsurprisingly, that many of the people who were making the argument that it's anti-Latino, or racist, or whatever, to criticize the Halftime Show, were not Latino themselves.
So once again, we have the bigotry of low expectations on display here, which is very common among liberal white people.
Imagine being non-Latino, just a white person like me, and arguing that strip shows and simulated orgies are Latin culture.
What are you actually saying about Latin culture?
And how is that a defense of Latin culture and not an attack on it?
So that's kind of the, with these liberal white savior types, that's the kind of patronizing undertone, which you can hardly even call an undertone because they sort of smack you in the face with it, it's so obvious and explicit.
But what they're saying is, oh no, we can't expect... I'm here arguing, let's have some basic decency, that's all.
As I said yesterday, let's have basic decency.
I'm not saying that everything on TV has to be appropriate for kids all the time, obviously not.
You turn on premium channels at 10pm, you turn on HBO or something, I'm not asking for that to be appropriate for kids, obviously it won't be.
And I'm not even asking that the halftime show be tailored for kids.
Okay?
I'm not asking that you have the Wiggles performers.
That's the last thing I'd want to say, in fact.
But just basic decency.
Just keep in mind that families are watching and don't go out of your way to be wildly offensive and inappropriate.
That's what I'm arguing.
And when a white person comes in and says, oh no, we can't expect that.
They're a different culture.
We can't expect that of them.
I cannot think of a more racist sentiment than that.
Okay, let's go to... Paul says, you win the Internet.
I hate this phrase and all variations of it.
It is stupid.
Your thoughts?
Well, Paul, I gotta say you win the Internet for that email.
I agree with you.
This is just one of dozens of phrases and memes that represent, to me, a person's inability to form original thoughts.
If you want to communicate to someone that you like what they posted on the internet, instead of using this phrase, which has been used six billion times before, just use your own distinct voice and describe how you feel in a way that is not this... this... this cliché.
I don't even... what's the point?
Like, if you're gonna comment under something on the internet and say, you win the internet, why even say it?
What's the point of even saying it?
It's already been said a million times.
So this is why, under my regime, you win the internet will be a banned phrase, along with many other overused internet phrases and jargon, such as, you hate to see it, yikes, just gonna leave this here, checks notes, Sorry this is happening to you.
Said no one ever.
Let that sink in.
Hold my beer.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Let's be clear.
Shots fired.
I'll take blank for a thousand, Alex.
Full stop.
Don't at me.
This.
Period.
This didn't age well.
Asking for a friend.
RT if you agree.
I'll wait.
Big if true.
Louder for the people in the back.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but... Clap back.
Bruh.
I'm dead.
I'm old enough to remember when... Okay, Boomer.
Raise your hand if... Delete your account.
Hard pass.
Hot take.
TBH.
The thing where people repeat the same phrase over and over in all caps.
You can't make this up.
And then, so all of those are banned internet phrases now.
And then, by a mile, my most hated is, you're really gonna die on this hill?
I hate that one the most.
Because it is so incredibly overused, and painfully unoriginal, But it's also this way of mocking someone for committing the sin of having a conviction of some kind.
And it also implies that every opinion somebody expresses is somehow the most important thing in the world to them, and they're taking some kind of last stand to defend it.
It is just a boring, bland kind of cynicism where someone expresses an idea, and you're just sitting there going basically, yeah, whatever.
That's essentially what it is.
Because you're gonna die on this hill is almost always used specifically for people who share a counterintuitive or original opinion.
And it's a way of trying to shut down that opinion, which is the last thing we should be doing!
I don't understand people who react so harshly to original ideas.
You know, I'm at the point where...
I don't even care what the original idea is.
It doesn't even matter to me.
If you're on the internet or anywhere in life sharing an original opinion, I want to hear you out.
I want to hear it.
I don't care what it is.
Because I am so sick to death and tired of the same old thing and the same old talking points from everybody all the time about everything.
So that, you know, are you really going to die on this hill?
I get that all the time, as it may not surprise you to learn, especially when I'm talking about some kind of more minor thing, and it's all, oh, you're going to die on this hill.
Well, according to people, I've died on about six million hills, and yet I'm still standing.
So, no, I don't think I'm dying on a hill.
I think I'm just expressing a point of view.
The other day, I made this point plenty of times in the past, because it is important.
That you shouldn't use ketchup with your fries.
That if you're using ketchup with your fries, that's an indication that your fries are not well-seasoned.
If you have well-seasoned fries, then ketchup actually dulls the seasoning in the fries, and it's not as rich of an experience anymore, and so you shouldn't use fries.
Ketchup is really for children, it's not for adults.
That's the point I made.
Someone said, are you going to die on this hill?
How am I dying on a hill of ketchup?
I'm just saying.
This is just my opinion about ketchup.
You don't have to care.
You don't have to agree.
I'm not standing here, taking some last desperate stand with my dying breath, saying, don't eat ketchup.
I wouldn't put it past me to make that the thing I say in my last words.
My last words probably will be something petty and stupid like that, but still, that's not really what I'm doing right now.
All right, let's go one last email here.
This is from Dan.
Matt, I think you're contradicting yourself.
You complain at length about the inappropriate halftime show and said your kids should be able to watch the game with you, but other times I've heard you say of people who complain about your social media content that they can just unfollow you and about your show that they can just stop listening.
So why can't you just stop watching and turn the channel?
Why bitch about it?
You're really gonna die on this hill, Dan?
Really?
Well, there are a number of differences, Dan.
First of all, I think there's a rather obvious distinction between an expressed opinion, which is all I ever do, expressing opinions, and something like objectionable sexual content.
So your comparison would make sense if I was, rather than sharing opinions on my podcast and on social media, if I was, sorry to put this image in your head, but if I was stripping on my podcast, if I was doing my podcast from a stripper pole, And then complaining about J-Lo at halftime, then maybe you'd have a case.
But I'm not.
All I'm doing is talking about ideas.
Second, actually, you wouldn't even have a case even then.
Even if I was stripping on my podcast, you still wouldn't have a case.
Because my point is that there should be spaces in society that are appropriate for children.
I think that a football game, the biggest TV event of the year, is such a space, or should be.
It is such a space because you have to go out of your way to make it not appropriate to take away that space from children.
If you just played the game and had a normal halftime show, it'd be perfectly fine for families and children.
But it only becomes inappropriate when you, again, go out of your way, wildly out of your way, to make an objection.
Well, my point is, don't do that.
Don't do it.
It's egregious.
It's pointless.
I mean, I understand the point.
The point is about rating, so I get that.
But that is the point.
It's a cynical point.
But there's still... I mean, ethically, it's just... I don't think it's the right decision.
They have every right to do it.
I'm not saying they don't have a right to.
They have a right to do it.
I'm saying it's the wrong thing to do.
They have a right to it, but it is not the right thing to do.
And when they do, they're taking away this space from kids.
Not that kids have a God-given right to it.
That's not my point.
Putting the rights aside, I think a football game should be a space for kids and families.
That's it.
My podcast, on the other hand, should that be a space for kids?
I don't see any reason why it needs to be or should be.
There are millions of podcasts out there.
You have to go and seek this one out.
And if your kid is interested in podcasts, well, they can surely find one that works for them.
It's different from the Super Bowl, which is a game broadcast to billions of people at a time, something that literally the whole world participates in, almost, at some level.
So turning that into a non-kid-friendly space is very different from me turning this little old podcast into a non-kid-friendly space.
You see the difference between those two things?
I'm flattered by the comparison, that you think this podcast is as relevant and pervasive as the Super Bowl, but I can assure you that it is not.
We'll put it mildly.
And we will leave it there.
But thank you for the email.
Thanks, everybody, for watching and 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, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Donovan Fowler, Audio Mixer Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Chaos ensues in the Iowa caucuses as Democrats fail to tally up the votes.
Mayor Cheat Buttigieg declares himself the winner, even though no official votes have come in, and he's not polling at the top in a single state.
Actually, Bernie Sanders is polling at the top, not just in Iowa, but also in New Hampshire.
And he's running second in Nevada and South Carolina, where Joe Biden's firewall is collapsing.
We will examine how an unaccomplished communist rose to the top, why party elites are trying to steal the nomination from him again, and how the Democratic Party fell apart.
Then, the peerless and pioneering Rush Limbaugh announces a diagnosis of advanced lung cancer.
We will see what the reaction to his announcement means for Rush and his enemies.
Finally, a lone Democrat turns against impeachment and rich liberal white women pay bigots to call them racist over dinner.
