Conventional wisdom says Bloomberg was the debate's biggest loser. I think he was only the second biggest. The real loser was Bernie Sanders, who is such a weak and vulnerable candidate that even Bloomberg landed a shot on him. Also, if "consent" is all that matters then what exactly is wrong with incest and polygamy? And AOC says billionaires shouldn't exist. Shouldn't we be creeped out to hear agents of the state say that certain types of people shouldn't exist?
Check out The Cold War: What We Saw, a new podcast written and presented by Bill Whittle at https://www.dailywire.com/coldwar. In Part 1 we peel back the layers of mystery cloaking the Terror state run by the Kremlin, and watch as America takes its first small steps onto the stage of world leadership.
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
Nobody else seems to want the job, so, you know, you've twisted my arm enough, and I will.
I'll do it.
I'm in.
I take it.
Now, I know that I don't necessarily check all the boxes ideologically that you need to to be considered a liberal Democrat, but I do have a strong sense of entitlement.
I do, of course, as you know, have a deep desire to control people.
That makes me well qualified to be the Democratic nominee.
And that's not to say that I don't believe in freedom, first of all.
That's a myth, you know, that I don't believe in freedom.
I just, I certainly believe, first and foremost, in my own freedom, and I also believe that everybody else should be free to do the stuff that I want them to do.
So, again, my conception of freedom is identical to the conception of every Democrat who was on the stage last night, so just give me the job.
As for the debate, most people seem to be saying that Bernie Sanders was the big winner of the contest last night.
So again, I have to kind of disagree with conventional wisdom.
It seems to me that Bernie was the loser, the biggest loser, even bigger than Bloomberg, who himself was certainly a loser as well, and I want to explain why.
First of all, setting the stage as it were, everyone of course was landing shots on Bloomberg.
Last night was, it was like watching, it was as if someone had thrown a wounded rat into a piranha tank.
And that's, it was just a free for all, a feeding frenzy on Bloomberg.
And you couldn't ask for a greater blessing, really, if you're a Democrat candidate, to have this Feeble old billionaire degenerate on the stage with you so you can practice your best anti-billionaire insults It was they were all absolutely thrilled to have him Because because of that opportunity provided to them and so it was last night was sort of like watching a training camp for socialist demagogues with Bloomberg acting the part of a tackling dummy and the crazy thing is that
The guy seemed somehow completely blindsided by the treatment he received.
Now, I guess that's what happens when you, you know, you've got $60 billion and you surround yourself with yes-men and you're paying people to say nice things about you on social media.
When you've got that kind of money, nobody around him has the courage to stand up and say, hey, listen, Mr. Bloomberg, these people are going to skin you alive.
You are an old white billionaire, okay?
They are going to skin you alive and then roll you around in salt.
That's what's going to happen.
So be prepared for that.
Nobody said that to Bloomberg, so somehow he was unprepared.
He walked in there and managed to come off like he wasn't expecting what happened, which is pretty amazing.
Probably the roughest moment of the night was this.
This moment right here.
Watch this.
In a lawsuit in the 1990s, according to the Washington Post, one former female employee alleged that you said, quote, I would do you in a second.
Should Democrats expect better from their nominee?
Let me say a couple things.
If I can have my full minute and a quarter, thank you.
I have no tolerance for the kind of behavior that the Me Too movement has exposed.
And anybody that does anything wrong in our company, we investigate it, and if it's appropriate, they're gone that day.
But let me tell you what I do in my company and my foundation and in city government when I was there.
In my foundation, the person that runs it's a woman.
70% of the people there are women.
In my company, lots and lots of women have big responsibilities.
They get paid exactly the same as men.
And in City Hall, the person that's the top person, my deputy mayor, was a woman.
And 40% of our commissioners were women.
I am very proud of the fact that about two weeks ago we were awarded, we were voted the most, the best place to work, second best place in America.
If that doesn't say something about our employees and how happy they are, I don't know what does.
Yeah, you see there, he didn't have a, somehow, he didn't have a better answer prepared for that question.
It took him off guard.
And he also didn't have an answer prepared for this other line of attack from Elizabeth Warren.
I'd like to talk about who we're running against.
A billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse-faced lesbians.
And no, I'm not talking about Donald Trump, I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
Democrats are not going We're going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women, and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop and frisk.
Look, I'll support whoever the Democratic nominee is, but understand this.
Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another.
This country has worked For the rich for a long time and left everyone else in the dirt.
It is time to have a president who will be on the side of working families and be willing to get out there and fight for them.
That is why I am in this race and that is how I will beat Donald Trump.
Now I think all of this was made so much worse by the startling contrast between Bloomberg's online persona, the image constructed by his marketing team, and the actual man himself.
Anyone who was a supporter of Bloomberg's, however many of those people actually existed, whoever was supporting Bloomberg leading up to the debate, they had to feel like they'd been catfished.
He's this, online, he's this kind of irreverent and savvy guy online, or rather his social media team is, or tries to be.
Oftentimes failing, but that's the image that he's trying to construct of himself.
But then in person, he shrinks and shrivels in front of our very eyes.
And he's already a pretty short guy, so he doesn't have a lot of room to spare.
By the end of the debate, he could barely see over the podium.
Bloomberg is basically the embodiment of every loud-mouthed, loud-mouthed tough guy on Twitter who gets all shy when you meet them in person.
It was a disaster for him.
Now, again, what the image he wants to put off is that he's savvy, he's a tough guy, he's from New York, he always talks about how he's from New York, you know, no nonsense, he just wants to beat Donald Trump, cranky old bastard kind of thing.
And that would be, if he could actually pull that off, if he had taken that tack in the debate, I think it would work well for him.
But instead, he became even worse than shrinking away and having zero charisma and zero personality.
He was apologizing all over the place.
Apologizing, worst of all, apologizing for, among other things, his number one accomplishment.
Which was to significantly lower the murder rate and the crime rate in New York.
Now that's a real thing that he did.
He didn't do it by himself.
He doesn't get all the credit for it.
But he did have something to do with it.
That's a real accomplishment in governance.
And he apologized for that.
He backed away from that.
He backed away from everything.
Which is the exact opposite of what he needed to do.
The attitude he needed to have was, listen guys.
Yeah, you know what?
I'm rich, okay?
I'm inappropriate.
I get all of that.
Okay, maybe I'm not very palatable to your sensibilities, but look at Donald Trump.
I'm exactly the kind of guy you need to go up against Donald Trump.
That's the selling, his only selling point if he has one, but that's not what he went with.
Instead he just groveled and apologized and tried to get into a woke-off, a woke contest with the socialists on stage.
And it didn't work out.
But, as I said, I think that Bernie is the one who lost the debate, not Bloomberg, and I'll explain why in a second.
First, a word from Paint Your Life.
We sent in a couple months ago to Paint Your Life one of our favorite pictures of the kids on one of our favorite vacation spots, a cherished picture of ours, and we've got it hanging now proudly.
in the living room.
And it is, it's one of those things.
Every time somebody comes, a new person comes to the house, they always notice the painting
and they start asking questions about it.
So it's sort of a conversation piece.
This is something I can't recommend enough.
It's just, it's a great thing to do.
You can have an original painting of yourself, your children, your family, special place,
a cherished pet at a price you can afford from paintyourlife.com.
This is a true painting done by hand by a world-class artist created from a favorite photo.
So this is not something they're doing.
It's not a, it's not a Photoshop trick.
Okay.
It's not like it's one of those pictures.
It looks like it's a, no, it's a real painting by a real, very talented artist who does it for you.
Uh, you can mix the perfect gift for birthdays and anniversaries, uh, or just, uh, something to do for yourself and for your, for your own family.
You choose the artist whose work you most admire, and then you work with them throughout the process.
Impressed by with paint your life is how how Receptive they are to feedback, and it's very sort of hands-on process throughout the entire thing.
And look, there's no risk.
If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded.
It's as simple as that.
It's great for decor.
It's a work of art.
With Paint Your Life, you get your favorite memories transformed into a work of art that will be cherished forever.
Right now, a limited-time offer.
Get 30% off your painting.
That's right, 30% off and free shipping.
To get this special offer, text the word Matt to 64000.
That's Matt To 64,000, text M-A-T-T to 64,000.
All right, so as I said, I think Bernie Sanders actually is the one who lost the debate, even though it was a disaster for Bloomberg as well.
Here's the moment where Sanders lost it, right here.
What a wonderful country we have.
The best known socialist in the country happens to be a millionaire with three houses.
What'd I miss here?
Well, you'll miss that I work in Washington, house one.
That's the first problem.
Live in Burlington, house two.
That's good.
And like thousands of other Vermonters, I do have a summer camp.
Forgive me for that.
But where is your home?
Which tax haven?
New York City, thank you very much, and I pay all my taxes.
Now, first of all, it's pretty amazing that Sanders has done so many of these debates, and this is the first time to my memory that anyone has hit him for being a communist with a million bucks in the bank and three houses.
Now, he gets hit for that all the time among conservatives on Fox News and on Twitter and everything, but to his face at a debate is the first time I can think of that someone has brought that up.
And the guy who finally attacked him for it has about 20 houses himself at a minimum.
So it took a billionaire to point out that the socialist who hates rich people is a rich person himself.
But here's the significance of this moment.
Remember, everybody in the debate, everybody on stage, landing punches on Bloomberg, left and right, taking turns at the piñata.
No blindfold, right, just a metal bat and the piñata, and they're whacking it, and there's Tootsie Rolls and Jolly Ranchers flying all over the place.
But then, it's Bernie's turn at the piñata, and instead, the piñata grabs the bat out of his hand and whacks him.
He got beat by the piñata.
Bernie was the only one on the stage who got whacked by Bloomberg.
He was the only one that Bloomberg was able to land a blow on.
And if I'm a Bernie fan, that makes me pretty uncomfortable.
That my candidate is so vulnerable and susceptible that Michael Bloomberg was able to have a moment like that.
Now why did the attack work from Bloomberg?
Why was Sanders the one guy that even Bloomberg, with his total lack of charisma and personality, was able to nail?
Because Sanders is an extraordinarily weak candidate whose hypocrisy and inconsistency is hanging there in the open, just waiting to be used against him.
He is a millionaire socialist.
That's all you need to say.
And again, Bloomberg is the first guy to bring this up in a debate.
You think Donald Trump will be shy about bringing that up?
I would predict that's going to be one of the only things.
That's just going to be the refrain over and over.
We're going to keep going back to that.
And consider how weak Bernie's rejoinder was.
Speaking of being unprepared for a really obvious line of attack, now at least in Bernie's case, he was unprepared because no one's brought it up before.
But he explains the three homes by calling his $600,000 vacation home a summer camp.
Now, Bernie, I've been camping, okay?
That ain't camping.
That's not any kind of camping I've ever heard of.
A $600,000 lakefront vacation home, which is your third home, that's not camping.
So Bernie didn't do himself any favors there, and he didn't do himself any favors here either, watch.
Mayor Bloomberg, you own a large company.
Would you support what Senator Sanders is proposing?
Absolutely not.
I can't think of a ways that would make it easier for Donald Trump to get re-elected than listening to this conversation.
It's ridiculous.
We're not going to throw out capitalism.
We tried that.
Other countries tried that.
It was called communism and it just didn't work.
That was very telling, that moment there.
It was a small moment.
I don't know, it seems like people missed it, but Bloomberg mentions communism.
In a negative light, he besmirches the name of communism and Bernie and Warren get very upset.
They start raising... Whoa!
Did you hear that?
That was actually Warren's reaction.
Whoa!
Hey!
Hey!
Come on!
Leave communism out of this!
Communism never hurt anybody except for a hundred million people that it killed.
Never hurt anyone except for those.
Um, last thing from the debate that I want to mention is, uh, this moment from Bernie Sanders.
If speaking to the needs and the pain of a long neglected working class is polarizing, I think you got the wrong word.
What we are trying finally to do is to give a voice to people who after 45 years of work are not making a nickel more than they did 45 years ago.
We are giving a voice to people who are saying we are sick and tired of billionaires like Mr. Bloomberg seeing huge expansions of their wealth while a half a million people sleep out on the street tonight.
And that's what we are saying, Pete, is maybe it's a time for the working class of this country to have a little bit of power in Washington rather than your billionaire campaign contributors.
Did you catch that?
Bernie says there are people who've been working for 45 years and don't make a nickel more today than they did 45 years ago.
Who?
What?
Who?
Who exactly?
I'm going to need some specific examples.
I'm going to need you to provide specific examples of people who have been... I mean, find me any adult.
Find me one adult in this country who's been working for 45 years, for half a century, and is still making the same amount today that this person made 50 years ago.
Can you find me just one example of somebody in that camp?
Now even if I'm generous and I allow for the possibility that Bernie meant that they don't make a nickel more than they did 45 years ago when adjusted for inflation, that would still be BS.
Because a person who made $5 an hour in 1975, 45 years ago, Would make $24 an hour today, adjusted for inflation.
So you're telling me there are people who've worked jobs all that time, for half a century, and all they've gotten is inflation-adjusted, you know, raises?
No actual real raises in 45 years?
But this is what Democrats do.
Rather than just sticking with reality.
Because in reality, of course there are people... Now, I don't think there's anybody who's been working for 45 years and hasn't gotten a raise.
I mean, imagine, that'd be like, you know, you've got someone who's 60, working since 15, hasn't gotten a raise since the age of 15.
I don't think there's anybody like that.
But there are plenty of people who are struggling financially.
So you just say that.
That's all you have to say.
There are people who are struggling financially.
We would all agree.
It's just like when we talk about the minimum wage.
There are people who are on the minimum wage and are struggling.
Okay, yeah, I agree with that.
It doesn't mean I agree that the government needs to solve that problem or can solve it without creating more problems and creating those problems for the very people it's trying to help.
But you could say that there are people who are struggling on minimum wage.
That's true.
The issue is when you start pretending that, for example, there are people who, you know, mothers who have been working minimum wage for 10 years, you know, and haven't been able to get over, haven't been able to get over even that hump of minimum wage, like that kind of thing.
It's just, it's not necessary to lie like that, but that's what Bernie Sanders does.
And that's another reason why he's so vulnerable and would be so easy to beat.
Because he just says things.
Says things that have no basis in reality.
He has no evidence for them.
And oftentimes he's being inconsistent and hypocritical.
Alright, before we move on, I want to tell you about Honey.
You know, Honey is the free online shopping tool that automatically finds the best promo codes and applies them to your cart.
And, I mean, everyone knows how great it feels to save.
And how bad it feels when you spend more money than you need to on something.
So, why not save with Honey?
There's really no reason not to.
Saving with Honey, you know, it's just, it feels, as I said, it feels great.
It feels like hitting every green light on your commute, finishing up a podcast episode
right when you get to work.
It's that perfect feeling.
I've been using Honey for several weeks now, and I can't imagine going back to a time when
I'm shopping online.
The thing is, like most people these days, I buy probably 80% or more of the stuff that
I buy in my life now, I buy online.
Especially as an anti-social person.
It makes it a lot easier.
I don't have to see people or interact with them because who would ever want that?
But I use Honey now and I'm just saving money left and right.
Did you know that Honey supports over 30,000 stores online including Macy's, Target, Sephora, Best Buy?
And they're adding more every single day.
So if you get Honey now, you know that it's only going to get better as time goes on.
And users love Honey.
And you know that because there are over 100,000 five-star reviews on Google Chrome Store.
You can go and look at that for yourself.
Using Honey feels pretty great.
Just think of it as a little daily victory.
Plus, it's free to use and it installs in just a few seconds.
Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com.
That's joinhoney.com.
Two interesting items here that we will look at together.
The first is another question sent into Slate's advice column.
The headline here is, My wife wants to have sex with her brother.
I'm not opposed in principle.
I'm not opposed in principle.
That's the question.
Now I'm not going to read the actual thing.
I don't think you need the nitty-gritty details here.
Suffice it to say that this guy is in an open marriage with his wife, meaning that they both have sexual relations with other people.
And his wife suggested, happily one night, that maybe they should have a threesome with her brother.
And the husband says that this is an uncomfortable direction for them to go, but he has no real philosophical objection to it.
In fact, his main concern is that it'll make his relationship with his brother-in-law awkward.
That's the main thing he's worried about.
Now, credit to our intrepid advice columnist in this case, though, because he does get around to the right conclusion.
He says at the end, and this is sage advice for everybody, he says, I don't think you should do anything that makes you uncomfortable, particularly if it involves having sex with your wife and her brother.
I mean, that's the kind of advice you can live by, frankly.
I can find nothing to criticize in that advice.
Of course, the reason that Slate takes questions like this and puts them in articles and in headlines and stuff is that people notice them and react, and react in the same way, which is revulsion across the board.
Across-the-board revulsion.
But we have to ask why, right?
What exactly is the problem with an arrangement like this?
If the husband were to agree, it would be something between consenting adults.
And isn't that all that matters?
See, we no longer have the language in this culture to explain why something like this is wrong.
Though we know it is.
I mean, everybody does.
We know that inherently.
And we don't have the language because we otherwise insist that the only ethical boundary for sex, the only rule that must be followed, is consent.
We've gotten used to excusing anything on the basis of consent.
But then, so we've stripped away all the rules of sex, all the ethical guidelines, all the considerations that you're supposed to take into account before having a sexual relationship with somebody.
We've stripped all that away, and we've boiled it down only to consent.
It's the only thing that matters.
Whereas in the past, I mean, consent mattered, but then there were also other things, too, that you should take into account.
The problem, though, that we've discovered is that, well, It's actually not all about consent.
Consent is not the only thing.
There are, you know, it is possible, it turns out, to have a consensual sexual relationship between adults that's still wrong.
Here's an example.
But we don't have the language.
We don't have the language for explaining what it is.
You know, when we see it, or when we hear about a sexual, hopefully we don't see it, when we hear about a sexual relationship between consenting adults, That we know is wrong.
We know that it lacks something that it should have, or it has something that it shouldn't.
But what is that thing?
Well, I know what it is.
You know what it is, hopefully.
But it's something with implications that our culture finds dangerous, and that's what leads to this kind of confusion.
And that thing is, I think the word that we're People in our culture are struggling to avoid or don't understand is that it's disordered.
This is a relationship that is disordered.
It is outside the proper order of things.
That's what disordered means.
Why would it be wrong for this husband and wife to have sex with the wife's brother?
Because that's not what you do with your brother.
This is not how the relationship is supposed to work.
We all know that's the answer.
We all agree.
Or almost all of us, hopefully, agree.
Yet we don't like the answer because it introduces the concept of proper order to human sexuality.
And that, we're afraid, might be a knife that cuts deeper than we want it to.
We're okay with taking that knife and carving out these really perverse things out on the peripheral of human experience and human sexuality.
We're okay with getting rid of that stuff.
But what if it keeps cutting, we worry?
What then?
So most leftists will not say that this relationship described in the letter to Slate is disordered.
That's not the word they're going to use.
That's not the language they're going to use.
But then what word will they use?
What can they say?
That's the point.
There's nothing.
They know it's wrong, but they have no way of explaining why it's wrong.
Another example, Utah is moving towards decriminalizing polygamy.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune.
Well, what exactly is the argument against that?
I can think of a few, but none that are consistent with the whatever-consenting-adults-do-is-okay ethic.
This is the whole point of the slippery slope argument that people have made when it comes to human sexuality and marriage and opening up the definition of marriage.
And this is why, by the way, A slippery slope argument is not a fallacy.
So when you make an argument, a slippery slope argument, and someone says, oh, that's a fallacy, it's a slippery slope.
No.
Number one, this thing that people do online, it's sort of a side issue, but this thing people do online where they try to rebut your argument just by labeling it a certain fallacy, they call it the whatever XYZ fallacy, and then they move on as if that in itself suffices as a response.
It's not.
There is nothing in itself fallacious about making a slippery slope argument.
The whole point of the slippery slope argument is to say, listen, you are justifying a certain thing, certain behavior, a certain act, whatever, and you're using certain arguments to justify it.
Now, here's the problem.
What if I can take that argument Fully intact, and use it to justify something over here that we both agree is wrong.
Isn't that an issue?
See, what that would seem to tell us is that either there's something wrong with your argument, or there's something wrong with the thing that you're trying to justify, or maybe that this thing over here is actually okay too.
But it's going to be one of those options, and now we've got to figure out which one it is.
As far as I can see it, that's the point of the slippery slope argument.
And so when people said things like, well, all that matters is what consenting adults do, love is love, so on and so forth, you know, people who were trying to protect the quote-unquote traditional definition of marriage, The point we were making is, okay, but that argument can clearly be used.
I can take that argument fully intact and clearly use it to justify this stuff over here that even you think is wrong.
That means that there's an issue here.
And if you're not willing to argue that these things over here are wrong, then there's only two possible conclusions left.
There's something wrong with your argument, or there's something wrong with the thing you're justifying.
That's what we've discovered.
Turns out, at a minimum, love is love, and, you know, whatever consenting adults do, those are bad arguments.
At a minimum.
I don't see any way around that.
All right, let's, before we wrap up here, let's check in with LifeLock.
Tax season can be a pain in the butt, but it's all worth it when you open the mailbox and you see the one envelope you've been waiting for, unless it turns out that someone else already filed your return.
Okay, that's going to kind of ruin things for you.
During tax season, your personal info, like your name or social security number, may be emailed and shared more than usual.
Criminals can steal info from your devices and sell it on the dark web or use it to commit identity theft.
That's why you need LifeLock, the number one most recognized brand in identity theft protection.
LifeLock monitors for use of your personal info, alerts you to possible suspicious activity, and if you become a victim of identity theft, a dedicated identity restoration specialist will work to fix it.
No one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions from all businesses.
But having LifeLock means one less thing to stress about during tax season.
And the thing is, you know, no one can monitor all this stuff, but you yourself can monitor hardly any of it.
And that's where LifeLock comes in.
Join now and save up to 25% off your first year.
Just go to LifeLock.com slash Walsh.
That's LifeLock.com slash Walsh for 25% off.
Um, last thing here, my dear friend, AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, was on my favorite show, The View.
Really great to have your two favorite things together in that way.
And she was, surprisingly, talking about the evil rich men.
Pretty shocking from her to hear that kind of rhetoric.
Very rare sort of rhetoric from AOC.
Usually she'd be the last person on earth to demonize someone for their income.
So this is not the AOC that I know.
Anyway, listen to what she had to say.
Our entire political system revolves, frankly, around rich men.
And rich men are not the center of my universe.
working families are.
And I guess that is controversial.
Now wait, hang on a second here.
Thank you.
The system revolves around rich men, but they aren't the center of her universe.
Well then, what is this all about?
It wasn't until I heard of a man by the name of Bernie Sanders.
I began to question and assert and recognize my inherent value as a human being that deserves health care, housing, education, and a living wage.
I could be crazy, but it sounds like AOC there is saying that a rich white man taught her about her value as a human being.
She learned that she has a value as a person from a rich white man.
Yet rich white men aren't the center of her universe?
It sounds like they definitely are.
At least one of them is.
And she also said, as usual, that billionaires should not exist.
I don't think that in a place where 60% of Americans can't even, you know, make more than $40,000 a year, that the presence of a billionaire who largely makes their money off of businesses underpaying their workers like Walmart, like Amazon, like so on, should exist.
Bernie said the same thing last night at the debate, and I have to tell you, I will never quite get used to hearing agents of the state say that certain types of people shouldn't exist.
I will, I don't think it's, I'll never get used to it.
It creeps me out, to put it mildly.
But here's my question for Bernie and AOC and everybody in their camp.
First of all, if billionaires don't exist, who's going to pay for all the socialist programs?
Where's that money coming from?
On one hand, you say they shouldn't exist, and on the other hand, you say that they should pay to reimburse everybody's student loans, along with a dozen other things you want them to do and pay for.
So which is it?
Because if they don't exist, they can't pay for that stuff.
And then who's going to pay for it?
Who would pay for it then?
Second, what do you think happens to those 60% of Americans That AOC mentioned.
60% who, you know, are whatever she said, are making 40 or 50 grand or less a year.
What happens to them when their bosses, the people who own the companies they work for, suffer massive losses in income?
Or disappear entirely?
I mean, I don't know what, when you say billionaires shouldn't exist, do you want to just kill these people?
I mean, what do you want to do?
You want to shoot them into the sun?
What's your plan exactly?
But let's take the less violent approach and assume that you mean, well, we're going to stop them from being billionaires by just taking almost all their money.
Okay.
Well, what happens then?
What happens to their companies?
What happens to all their employees?
Have you thought about this?
Have you thought this through at all?
No, of course you haven't.
Because this is just childishness.
That's a lot worse than childishness because it's coming from adults who also are in government and have power.
So I wish it was merely childishness.
But that's about as, you know, in terms of the intellectual complexity of what we're dealing with, that's it.
This is the mentality of a child.
Saying, they have a billion dollars, I don't have it, that's unfair, they shouldn't have it.
That's as far as it goes.
And we'll leave it there.
But before we do, I want to give a shout out to all of our Daily Wire members.
You guys are the ones that keep us in business.
And we love making content that matters.
And while we're on the front lines of the culture war, we know that we can't do it without your support.
So you're also sort of on the front lines with us.
If you're still skeptical about joining The Daily Wire, a Reader's Pass is a great start and a great value.
A Reader's Pass will enable news junkies to read our articles ad-free, including op-eds from Ben Shapiro, which are exclusive for Daily Wire members only.
You get that upgraded experience and in-depth analysis from our Editor-in-Chief.
You also get access to our mobile app, which has really become popular with all of our members.
And you can read all of our stories on mobile.
And you receive push notifications for breaking news and special content.
It's perfect for when you want to stay up to date on what's going on, and especially when you're on the go
and want to stay up to date.
So this membership tier is already a bargain at three bucks a month.
It's hard to get much cheaper than that.
But it does get cheaper than that, actually, because now we're offering one month for 99 cents.
That's mobile, ad-free, all access to the Daily Wire news, exclusive op-eds from Ben Shapiro, and breaking news and updates on our mobile app, all for a low price of $1.
One cent less than $1.
So give it a shot.
It's worth it.
And we'll leave it there.
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.
Tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there.
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 Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Danny D'Amico, Audio Mixer Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Bloomberg smacked Bernie, Warren scalped Bloomberg, and Joe Biden wrecked himself.
We will examine the highlights from the wildest 2020 Democratic debate so far, and specifically how Mike Bloomberg fundamentally misunderstands the presidency.
Then, AOC wants billionaires to disappear, and the moralists of modernity at Slate Magazine can't quite explain why it's wrong to sleep with your brother.
