Today on the Matt Walsh Show, this shouldn’t need to be explained, but it does. Today we’ll talk about why Christians should not and cannot support Joe Biden. Also Five Headlines including Trump receiving an endorsement from another famous rapper. And in our Daily Cancellation, in light of recent events involving Jeffrey Toobin, I will be canceling Zoom and all other forms of video calling.
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
Today on the Matt Wall Show, this shouldn't need to be explained, but it does apparently.
Today we'll talk about why Christians should not and cannot support Joe Biden.
Also, five headlines, including Trump receiving an endorsement from another famous rapper.
And in our daily cancellation, in light of recent events involving Jeffrey Toobin, I will be canceling Zoom and all other forms of video calling.
All of that coming up.
But let's, we begin here.
You know, every few days it seems there's another News article, blog post, editorial, making the rounds on Facebook and stuff with a title like, you know, why this evangelical minister is voting for Joe Biden or I'm an actual pro-life Christian so I'm voting for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris or faith leaders back Biden in sign that evangelical support for Trump is waning.
The polls still say that Trump is leading as expected with Protestants, though Biden also, as expected, I'm afraid, has majority support among Catholics.
Overall, people who qualify, at least according to pollsters, as highly religious still tend not to vote for Democrats, but the trends are troubling.
Support for Joe Biden or any other Democrat candidate among religious people ought to be steady at around 0%, but it's quite higher than zero.
And rising.
And that's a problem.
Now, I'm not here to claim that a Christian has any obligation to vote for Republicans.
That's not the point.
The Republican Party is not the official Christian party, and Christians have no obligation to it.
I'm also not going to argue that Donald Trump is a man of deep faith or high moral character, because I don't believe he is.
Either of those things.
You know, if you happen to listen to Ben Shapiro's show yesterday, I agree with his take on Trump and the reasons to vote for him.
That's not going to be my focus though.
Whatever you decide to do on election day, what I can say is that if you're a Christian, or an adherent to any other major religion for that matter, you simply cannot vote for Joe Biden.
You can, obviously, in the sense that you have the right to and the physical ability to, but you can't do it justifiably or in a way that is consistent with your professed worldview.
And the reason for that is very simple.
Let's leave aside any question of personal character.
I don't think that Biden is unassailably decent and honest the way he's been branded, but never mind that.
It comes down to what sorts of things Biden will do, the policies he supports, the bills he will happily sign.
I would say that it's not possible to be a decent man who enacts evil policies.
But even if it is, what good is that alleged decency?
If a man smiles while he punches you in the face, your nose will be no less broken for it.
And in the case of Biden, the consequences are far worse than a broken nose.
Like this.
60 million children have already been slaughtered by abortion since Roe v. Wade.
The grotesque and ludicrous Supreme Court decision that Biden supports and has pledged to defend with all his might.
As a Christian, or simply as a person with a functioning moral compass, there is no way to minimize 60 million murdered babies.
We are compelled to see it just as it is.
Unthinkable wickedness, a historic atrocity, an injustice of unfathomable proportions.
Joe Biden intends to continue this slaughter, indeed to fund it.
After opposing tax funding for abortion for many years, Biden recently reversed himself and decided that American citizens should be forced, at proverbial or maybe not so proverbial gunpoint, to contribute financially to the extermination of human beings.
Biden does not support any restrictions on abortion.
Biden believes that mothers have a God-given, sacred right to execute their offspring.
And he plans to do everything in his power to protect that right.
His running mate, we should note, is even more radically infanticidal than he is.
Kamala Harris has been given a 100% perfect score from the pro-abortion group NARAL for a reason.
A good reason.
And this is all that should need to be said about good old decent Joe.
It's all that a Christian needs to hear.
But there's more, even so.
Biden is an enemy of religious liberty, vowing, among other things, to reinstate Obama's policy of forcing nuns to allow, quote, access to contraception.
Biden's also said that passing the Orwellian and inaccurately named Equality Act would be one of the first priorities of his presidency.
This law would make both sexual orientation and gender identity into protected categories under the Civil Rights Act, meaning that a man who identifies as a woman would now be the victim of a civil rights abuse should this self-identification not be respected by, say, a women's shelter that he is demanding access to.
This is not only an assault on religious liberty, as it forbids the people who run these organizations from operating according to their religious and moral beliefs, but also an assault on science and basic common sense and decency.
Speaking of which, Joe Biden very recently endorsed the notion that an eight-year-old boy ought to be able to transition into a girl.
Now, whether he really believes this madness or not is another question.
The fact remains that he's bought into it, acquiesced to it.
The most dangerous and fantastical claims made by the most radical elements of his base he has acquiesced to and pledged to govern accordingly.
And on the same topic of dangerous and radical elements, Biden is a staunch proponent and supporter of the racist, Marxist organization Black Lives Matter, a group that has, in its spare time between fomenting race riots and calling for the defunding of police departments in the most crime-plagued communities in the nation, also publicly pledged to disrupt the nuclear family.
This is what Joe Biden supports.
These are the things he plans to actually do.
Granted, he probably won't send very many mean tweets and his speeches will be less ad-libbed and probably include fewer profanities, though there's no guarantee on that second point.
But that's window dressing anyway.
What should matter most to us as Christians is that even if he's less bombastic about it, he will help to shape America into a country that is even more hostile to faith, even more dangerous to children.
Even more fundamentally opposed to us and what we believe.
He doesn't deserve our support.
Shouldn't receive it.
So do what you like with your vote, but don't use it to undermine yourself and the values that you supposedly hold dear.
It's really as simple as that.
Let's get to our five headlines.
So we're excited to tell you that this Wednesday, The Daily Wire God King Jeremy Boring will be presenting alongside a team of world-renowned business leaders at Expert Ownership Live.
It's a two-day virtual conference about leading through crisis.
The conference features a lineup of speakers like leadership author John Maxwell, the founders of Duck Commander and OtterBox, The Benham Brothers, many others who can relate to what entrepreneurs and leaders are going through right now.
They'll share their stories.
They'll talk about the challenges they faced, but also how they got through and got to the other end and were stronger for it.
That's the most important part.
So visit expertownershiplive.com to register for $197 and get a second ticket for a friend, 50% off.
You don't want to miss Jeremy.
You don't want to miss this whole Experience and you've only got you know, you've got less than a day to get to get signed up.
So go to expertownershiplive.com slash Walsh reserve your spot this Wednesday for $197 and an opportunity to get a second ticket for 50% off again.
It's expertownershiplive.com.
Alright, it's been announced by the debate commission that Trump and Biden will have their mics muted during the last debate this Thursday.
This Thursday night they're going to be debating, final debate I believe, and they're going to have their mics muted.
Not for the entire debate, which actually wouldn't maybe be such a terrible thing, but while one is speaking and giving their two minute spiel, the other one's going to have their mics muted.
Now, Trump has protested this decision and said that it's very unfair, quote unquote, And a lot of conservatives are upset about it because they see it as something that's being done specifically targeting Trump, which of course it is.
And they see it as something that's supposed to hurt Trump, which of course it is.
But my point is that although it is targeted at Trump, I don't think it's going to hurt him.
I'm actually in favor of this.
I think it's going to help Trump.
My biggest frustration in the last debate was that Trump would not just shut up and let Biden speak and bury himself, metaphorically speaking, with his own words.
We know that Biden struggles to string together two minutes worth of coherence in general.
We know he struggles to do that, just as I clearly struggle to do it too.
So let him do it.
When you only give him 30 seconds to speak, he's going to sound like he's really with it.
Give him the full two minutes.
That's good strategy.
Now, if Trump had a certain measure of discipline and self-control, then he could just do that without the mics being muted.
But he doesn't.
So that's why it helps to have the mics muted.
So I think in the end it's going to help Trump.
Although, of course, In reality, he's right, it is an unfair decision, the fact that it's targeted at him.
And also, this is not really how a debate's supposed to work.
I'm talking from a purely political optics sort of standpoint.
I think it will help Trump ultimately.
But it does defeat the purpose, the actual real purpose of a debate, which is you're supposed to debate.
There's supposed to be a back and forth.
That's what a debate is.
All this stuff, these things we call debates, none of them are debates.
They don't qualify.
Think about if you've ever been in a real debate, which, if you're a human being, you probably have, with just another person, like, in your living room.
That's not how it works.
It isn't, well, okay, I will state my case for two and a half minutes, and then you can go, and then we'll go back.
No, it's, then we'll have 30 seconds for rebuttal, and, no, you just go back and forth, and you have a conversation.
That's what a debate should be.
But that's never gonna happen, so, We make do, I suppose.
Number two, speaking of Trump, he has picked up an unexpected endorsement.
Another rapper, another famous rapper, 50 Cent, has come out in support of Trump.
So maybe, so you got Kanye West, 50 Cent, maybe they'll have a collab next in time for the election.
Who knows?
50 Cent on Instagram posted a screenshot of Biden's tax plan showing that people in his tax bracket will have to pay 62% of their income.
And he had this caption.
He said, what the F?
Vote for Trump.
I'm out.
First of all, a lot of emojis here, so this is upsetting me right now.
This is a- I've already made my point here, but this is a grown- this is- If you're watching this right now on YouTube or something, the emojis, do they help enhance the point at all?
He says, I'm out of New York, the Knicks never win anyway, and he's got a little emoji of a guy running.
Yeah, I get it.
You've already told me you're leaving.
I understand what leaving is.
I don't need an illustration.
You know what leaving is?
Are you sure?
Because I'll draw you a picture.
No, I don't need that.
Anyway, he says, I'm out of New York.
The Knicks never win anyway.
I don't care if Trump doesn't like black people.
62% are you out of your effing mind.
Now obviously the left is having a fit over this.
But, you know what, leaving aside the emojis and everything, this is a very normal, very adult reason to vote a certain way.
People on the left are upset at 50 Cent and say, oh, you're so selfish.
You're so selfish that you want to keep your own income.
What, you say you don't want to work?
In order to give more than half of your income to the government so they can squander it?
You selfish bastard.
No, normal adults Who work for a living, have responsibilities, maybe have family to take care of.
We prefer to keep as much of our own money as we can.
Not because we're a bunch of ebonies or scrooges.
Maybe we are.
That's our own business.
That doesn't have to be the reason.
It's just that this is why I don't go to work every day.
I mean, if I had a real job, I wouldn't go to work every day feeling like, okay, I gotta do a good job here so that I can support the system and support the government.
No.
This is a normal thing.
And, of course, the problem is a lot of the people on the left, especially the activists and so forth, who get upset at those of us who want to keep our own money and who don't want to pay, you know, for example, 62% in taxes, Which you are out of your effing mind, to quote 50 Cent, if you support that.
But a lot of people don't understand this.
They don't pay anything in tax because they don't have jobs.
The activists who are out on the street every single day, it's pretty clear they don't have jobs.
So they just, you know, they got mommy and daddy taking care of them, either their real mommy and daddy or mommy and daddy government taking care of them.
So they just don't understand how demoralizing it is.
And as I've said before, I don't think anyone, even if you have a job and you pay taxes, even if you pay a lot of taxes, you still don't really understand how bad the taxes are and how demoralizing it really is or should be until you have physically written checks to the government.
If it's all W-2 withholding, you still don't really understand how bad it actually is.
So you gotta write that check, send it in, watch the money leave your bank account.
Okay, number three.
Disney has added racism warnings to a number of its classic films.
Disney explains it this way.
This is on their Disney Plus streaming service, I believe.
It says, as part of our ongoing commitment to diversity and inclusion, we are in the process of reviewing our library and adding advisories to content that includes negative depictions or mistreatment of people or cultures.
We can't change the past, but we can acknowledge it, learn from it, and move forward together to create a tomorrow that today can only... Hang on a second.
Learn from it and move forward together to create a tomorrow that today can only dream of.
Oh my good lord.
This is Disney we're talking about, so I guess I have to expect stuff like this.
Create a tomorrow that today can only dream of.
That is... Alright.
I'll just let that go.
Then they go on to explain why many of their past films are horrifically racist and offensive.
This is what they say about Peter Pan, for example.
And my kids love this movie, so I read this one with interest.
My kids love it.
It wasn't my favorite growing up, but I've watched it with my kids a bunch of times.
I never noticed really anything offensive about it.
To me, it just seemed like it's a story about a kid who flies around and fights a pirate.
But, Disney, they will tell me why I should be offended by their own film.
This is what they say.
The film portrays native people in a stereotypical manner that reflects neither the diversity of native peoples nor their authentic cultural traditions.
It shows them speaking in an unintelligible language and repeatedly refers to them as redskins, an offensive term.
Peter and the Lost Boys engage in dancing, wearing headdresses, and other exaggerated tropes, a form of mockery and appropriation of native peoples, culture, and imagery.
Well, that's pretty bad.
Yeah, it's pretty bad when the magical boy who flies because of pixie dust is culturally appropriating.
You know, he should know better.
If he existed, he should know better.
Then the Aristocats, this is the warning, it says, the cat is depicted as a racist caricature of East Asian peoples with exaggerated stereotypical traits, such as slanted eyes and buck teeth.
He sings in poorly accented English, voiced by a white actor, and plays the piano with chopsticks.
This portrayal reinforces the perpetual foreigner stereotype, while the film also features lyrics
that mock the Chinese language and culture, such as, quote, Shanghai, Hong Kong, egg fu young,
fortune cookie always wrong. I've never seen Aristocats.
I might have to check that out.
Swiss Family Robinson.
And here's the disclaimer there.
The pirates who antagonize the Robinson family are portrayed as a stereotypical foreign menace.
Many appear in quote yellow face or brown face and are costumed in an exaggerated and inaccurate manner
with top knot hairstyles, robes and overdone facial makeup and jewelry, reinforcing their barbarism and otherness.
They speak in an indecipherable language presenting a singular and racist representation of Asian and Middle Eastern peoples.
Okay.
Well, you know that one's really important too because you have to make sure that you portray pirates with sensitivity.
You have to be very sensitive to the pirates when you're portraying them.
And they are a sensitive bunch.
And so that's essential.
What is there to really say about this?
It's obviously ludicrous and embarrassing for Disney.
But if Disney... Here's really my point.
If Disney had the courage of its convictions, it would just get rid of these movies.
It would take them out of circulation.
Destroy them.
Save our children from being corrupted by the racism and bigotry.
Because most kids who watch Peter Pan anyway probably can't read the disclaimer.
And so now you're relying on parents to read it for them.
And I can tell you, as a parent, I'm not going to read the disclaimer to my kids.
I'm sorry.
I'm just not going to read it.
If they ask me, Daddy, what does that say?
I'll say, Oh, don't worry about it.
Just something stupid.
Don't worry.
And if I do read it, I'll probably, I won't be able to help myself from laughing while I read it.
And that's going to send the wrong message.
So my point is, don't put the ball in my court as a parent.
You should just get rid of the movies.
Don't stream them.
Don't sell them on DVD or anything.
Merchandise.
Get rid of all that.
But they don't want to do that.
Why is that?
If you've noticed.
They could take that approach.
That would really send the best message.
And again, if these are really racist, horrible movies, then why are you choosing to?
You're choosing to stream them on your own platform while you apologize.
I'm so sorry for this.
I'm so sorry that I'm showing you this right now as I show it to you.
I'm so sorry.
Please forgive me while I continue doing this thing right now that I can stop doing.
But they don't want to do that because they make a lot of money.
They make a lot of money from some of these properties.
I don't know how much they make from Aristocats, but they make a lot of money from Peter Pan, I'm sure.
Especially the merchandise and the Peter Pan property and brand and all of that.
So they want the money, but they still want the wokeness.
So this is just performative fake.
Wokeness, which is the only kind of wokeness we ever get anymore, of course.
Number four, Rush Limbaugh on his show on Monday had an update on his battle with lung cancer.
It wasn't a good update, but I thought his whole segment on it was pretty powerful.
I can't play the whole thing, it's several minutes long, but let me play just part of it.
Listen to this.
From the moment you get the diagnosis, there's a part of you every day, okay, that's it, life's over.
You just don't know when, but when you get that diagnosis, I mean, that's so during the period of time after the diagnosis, you do what you can to prolong life.
You do what you can to prolong a happy life.
You measure a happy life against whatever medication it takes.
And at some point do you decide, you know, this medication may be working, but I hate the way I feel ever.
This is just, I'm not there yet.
But it is part and parcel of this.
It's tough to realize that the days where I Do not think I'm under a death sentence are over.
Now, we all are, is the point.
We all know that we're going to die at some point, but when you have a terminal disease diagnosis that has a time frame to it, then that puts a different psychological and even physical awareness to it.
We are all under a death sentence, he says, and that's true.
That's a profound truth, one that I think most of us simply refuse to accept.
Certainly we don't want to think about it.
We don't want to face the implications.
But Rush Limbaugh here is staring into the abyss, facing down his own mortality, his own death, and doing it with courage and dignity.
And you know, the leftist critics of his, excitedly preparing to dance on his grave, reveling in his suffering, and I'm sure you've seen, if you go online and you really want to see this sort of thing, you can go find it.
I don't know why you'd want to see it, but you can.
But all the ones doing that, we know that most of them will not have the strength to confront their death, their impending death, the way that Rush is confronting his.
And that's what makes it so stupid, by the way.
So stupid to delight in another person's death or eventual death.
I mean, obviously what the people are doing with Rush Limbaugh is also evil and vile and disgusting and grotesque from a moral standpoint, but I'm talking even aside from the morality of it, it's stupid.
Because what do you think?
You're going to live forever?
You don't think this is going to happen to you?
You will also be dead very soon, relatively speaking.
What you're doing when you delight in someone else's death and suffering, you are essentially pointing and laughing at someone while they walk down a road that you are also walking on.
Or maybe a better analogy, you're on the same train as them, heading over the same cliff, and laughing as their train car goes over the edge.
Well, you're in a train car just a few cars back.
Your time is coming in mere moments, relatively speaking.
You're going where they're going.
You're under the same sentence, as he points out.
So it's... But I think it is in recognition of that.
It's one of the reasons why people react this way to death, especially the deaths of people they don't like.
It's a defense mechanism.
It's a way of sort of convincing themselves or pretending that this is never going to happen to them.
That death is somehow this sort of like absurd, abstract, far-off thing, and something that only happens to people they don't like.
But that's not true, and they'll get a wake-up call.
But anyway, a lot of dignity and courage from Rush Limbaugh, so God bless him.
Number five.
We talked about dignity.
Let's go to the other end of the spectrum.
Headline in the Wall Street Journal says, Men's nail polish is taking off.
Why now?
And then the subheading says, Influenced by celebrities like Bad Bunny, Harry Styles, and Aesop Rocky.
I only know who one of those people are.
Harry Styles is a... What's he from?
He's a singer, right?
I sort of know him.
I don't know.
Bad Bunny?
There's a male celebrity who goes by Bad Bunny.
Anyway, it says, young guys nationwide are turning to nail polish and companies are meeting the demand with muted male shades.
Now, I can't read the article because it's behind the paywall and I'm not going to pay for this kind of content, but I don't really need to read it.
I can simply answer the question being posed in the headline and by saying, it's not happening.
You're asking why it's happening now?
It's not.
It's not taking off.
This is what we call an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And the media does this all the time.
All the time, especially when it comes to masculinity and those sorts of things.
They're always finding these absurd effeminate styles that, like, two guys are wearing.
And they put out these headlines and saying, men everywhere are doing this.
Look, men everywhere are wearing lipstick and yoga pants.
How did this style take off?
No, it didn't.
You just want it to, you freaks.
That's the difference.
Okay, another seamless transition because speaking of freaks, we'll talk about...
Something related to that, just a second of daily cancellation.
But before we do, you know, as with everything in 2020, there's been a lot of drama with the presidential debates.
We already talked about that.
But we're ready for the next and final debate this Thursday.
Join us at 8.45 p.m.
Eastern, 5.45 p.m.
Pacific for an all-new episode of Daily Wire backstage to watch the debate with us and get our immediate live reaction to this major political event.
And even better, join Daily Wire now as an insider or All Access member to get 20% off with Code Debate so you can watch all the debate coverage live on our Apple TV or Roku app.
Members get our articles ad-free, access to our live broadcast, the full three hours of the Ben Shapiro Show, get a lot of great benefits.
You can also watch Daily Wire backstage.
So watch the debate with us on dailywire.com, YouTube, and Facebook, and get 20% off your Daily Wire membership with code DEBATE when you sign up today.
Okay, time for our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation today, sort of a sequel to yesterday's cancellation, in which I destroyed phone calls with facts and logic.
I explained on the show on Monday that nobody's allowed to talk on the phone anymore, phone calls are officially cancelled, and I gave my reasons, which I won't rehash here, but in response to that segment, there were a number of people who suggested that perhaps video calling of some kind, Skype, FaceTime, Zoom, etc., would be a way around this cancellation.
Yes, phone calls are cancelled, but when you can see the other person's face, It isn't technically a phone call, so shouldn't it be exempt?
The answer is no.
And also, stop trying to play fast and loose with the rules.
You are expected to obey both the letters of my commands when it comes to the cancellations, but also the spirit of the law.
As well as any arbitrary exceptions or addendums I might come up with.
And as if in a concerted effort to prove my point, or perhaps as an indication that my cancellations also have the power of prophecy, a news story broke shortly after my show yesterday, demonstrating the dangers of all forms of phone or internet-related audible communication, and also demonstrating why video chat cannot be an exception.
And for that, we turn to New Yorker, writer, and CNN contributor, Jeffrey Toobin, who has been suspended by the New Yorker after reportedly exposing his genitals during a Zoom call with co-workers.
And actually, it's reported, I'm afraid to say, he was, well, engaging with himself in an intimate fashion, if you catch my drift, right there on Zoom.
Now, many questions present themselves here, just as Toobin, apparently, presented himself. Questions such as what and but why and
seriously bro?
Perhaps the details of the case as reported by Vice will satisfy some of these inquiries just
as Tubin was well never mind.
Vice reports two people who were on the call told Vice separately that the call was an election simulation featuring many of the New Yorker's biggest stars.
Jane Mayer was playing establishment Republicans.
Evan Osnos was Joe Biden.
Jelani Cobb was establishment Democrats.
Masha Gessen played Donald Trump.
Andrew Merrins was the far right.
Sue Halpern was left-wing Democrats.
Dexter Filkins, Dexter was the military and Jeffrey Toobin playing the courts.
Dexter Filkins was the military.
Now, let me step to the side to say that actually I have no clue what the hell any of that means.
They were play-acting the election on Zoom?
Why?
Is this what New Yorker staff does for fun?
It wouldn't surprise me, I suppose, though Toobin would seem to have taken the roleplay in an unexpectedly sexual direction.
Vice has more.
It says, both people who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely noted that it was unclear how much each person saw, but both said that they saw Toobin Pleasuring himself.
The sources said that when the groups returned from their breakout rooms, Toobin lowered the camera.
The people on the call said they could see Toobin compromised.
Toobin then left the call.
Moments later, he called back in, seemingly unaware of what his colleagues had been able to see.
And the simulation continued.
The simulation continued.
They just charged right along as if they hadn't just seen Jeffrey Toobin's tube.
You have to respect that in a certain way.
But the truth is, you can kind of see Jeffrey Toobin's point.
I mean, you can literally see it, but that's not what I'm trying to say.
Toobin says that he didn't know the camera was on, which is an explanation that leaves quite a lot to still be explained.
Even so, it's also true that if not for video calling, none of this would have happened.
Or it probably would have happened, but nobody would have seen it.
This brings to mind the old riddle, if Jeffrey Toobin touches himself in the forest and no one is there to see it, did it really happen?
Answer, yes, but no psychological damage was caused to any unwilling spectators.
And that's really what we're trying to prevent here.
Look, let's get away from Jeffrey Toobin for a moment, mercifully.
The fact is that video calling And video conferencing itself presents all kinds of potential pitfalls, even if they're less pornographic in nature.
It could put you in a difficult spot when someone insists randomly on speaking to you in a virtual face-to-face setting.
Inevitably, if you're at home, you haven't combed your hair, you haven't showered since last Tuesday.
Now all of a sudden, you have to put minimal effort into your appearance when the whole point of being home is that you don't have to do that.
It's an intrusion, an imposition.
But most of all, a la Jeffrey Toobin, it forces me to see you and whatever you might be doing.
The person who initiates the video call format is a narcissist who's basically saying, hey, wouldn't it be really great right now if you could see my face?
The answer is no, it wouldn't.
And in a professional setting in particular, I can say that nothing has ever been achieved on a Zoom conference that couldn't have been achieved in 15 minutes through a group email.
One last point here, and this is important.
This is perhaps the most significant problem with especially FaceTime and Skype.
People have decided apparently that because it's a video call, it's okay to do it in public.
Now, most people know that you shouldn't sit in a coffee shop and speak to another person on speakerphone.
Some people still do that.
Sociopaths.
But for some reason, if the speaker has a video component, suddenly it's assumed the rules have changed.
They haven't.
I shouldn't have to hear your discussion with another human being.
If that human being is not physically in the room with you.
Especially if they aren't wearing pants.
And that's why... See, you'd think I would just cancel Jeffrey Toobin.
I'm not.
Well, him too.
Although I don't think I need to cancel him.
It's a bit redundant at this point.
Really, I'm canceling Zoom.
And video calling.
All of that.
And this just brings us back to where we were yesterday.
What are we left with?
No phone calling, no video calling, no video conferencing.
Fine.
You got text message, you got email, and you also have good old-fashioned snail mail.
Okay?
If the New Yorker staff, if they had conducted their election simulation through some sort of PayPal system, or rather a pen pal system, sending letters back and forth across enemy lines, then certainly this wouldn't have happened.
And that's why all of that is canceled.
All right.
We'll leave it there.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
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.
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 Knoll Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Danny D'Amico, and our audio is mixed by Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
The Director of National Intelligence confirms that the Hunter Biden emails are real.
A CNN analyst gets caught with his pants down.
And more evidence of voter fraud crops up in Kentucky.
