All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 9, 2020 - Rubin Report - Dave Rubin
25:50
Trump Nobel Peace Prize Nomination Reactions & #Oscars Too Woke? | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report
Participants
Main voices
d
dave rubin
25:30
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
unidentified
[Outro Music]
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼
Hello Earthlings and people that get the internet wherever you are.
It is nine, nine, 2020.
That's right, September 9th, 2020.
And this is the Rubin Report Direct Message.
I give you two or three, possibly four stories in about 24 minutes, and then you move on with your life.
That's how we're doing it.
We've got a bunch today.
We've got four, although two of them I'm gonna kind of package.
You're gonna watch me package two stories into one story.
So you can pretend it's three, but if you need it to be four, because it's technically four, that's for you to decide.
There's a lot going on in the world.
Real quick before I start, you know, when I decided to do this show and I was talking to the Blaze guys about doing sort of a semi-daily news show and everything, One of the things that I was worried about is, as I always tell you guys, I don't want to just add to the craziness, make everybody angrier and all that stuff, and I was worried that if I do a daily thing, and I've been saying this for years actually, I've said this on my interview show for years and years and in many other interviews, that one of the problems is everyone does
All of these daily shows where they're like, oh, I have to find 15 stories to talk about.
Then we got to clip them 800 different ways.
We got to get everybody lost in the algorithmic click hole of YouTube, or just making sure that they're watching our show for an absolute hour a night, if it's cable news, whatever it might be.
And that that in and of itself keeps us all sort of as the hamster in the wheel and we're just running running running all the time always looking for more stuff and we never stop and relax.
What I found in just the what four or five times that I've now done this new direct message show is that you can kind of pick a couple of things in the morning That are decent, that aren't going to make everybody crazy.
And I think you can do them in a pretty decent way.
So here we go.
Number one, I think this is good news.
I think if you're not a partisan crazed lunatic, you might think that this is good news.
Donald Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now, that seems good, because the word peace is attached to it, and it would seem that maybe he did something that was pro-peace.
I'm already seeing tweets that, you know, that's not the case.
This is the ultimate insult to the famed Nobel Prize, which, of course, Barack Obama got like the day he became president, even though he had accomplished Absolutely nothing.
That was not a white power symbol, by the way.
This used to be like a just zero sort of thing, or okay.
But Donald Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by a Norwegian lawmaker.
This is a guy who's in a right-wing party.
It must be a scary right-wing party in Norway.
His name is Tybring Getty.
I believe I'm pronouncing that correctly.
And he wrote in his nomination letter that as it is expected other Middle Eastern countries will follow in the footsteps of the UAE, the United Arab Emirates.
"This agreement could be a game changer that will turn the Middle East
into a region of cooperation and prosperity."
So before I go any further with what he said, what he's talking about is in August,
Israel and the United Arab Emirates signed at least some version of a peace accord.
They're now having travel between the countries and trade and things like that.
There's an absolutely incredible video that I've seen on Twitter.
I'm sure many of you seen it too, with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to an official in the United Arab Emirates.
They're on the phone and they're speaking Hebrew.
They're laughing, like you can tell something decent's happening here.
We're also being told that in the last couple of weeks, there's talks now for several other countries, maybe four or five other Gulf nations to sign deals with Israel.
I thought this is what everybody wanted.
You know, it's funny when I came back on the grid and I did my show with Michael Knowles, he listed out like the 20 things that I missed.
And in a certain respect, we kind of glossed over the Israel, Arab country, Gulf country peace agreements here because it was like there was so much going on.
And what he said was that, well, actually the media kind of ignored it.
And that in many ways gets to the heart of what is wrong with so much of what's going on in the world right now.
If something that we all wanted, right, like everybody, I thought the thing that everybody wanted, the thing that can never happen, that we all want, is that we want peace in the Middle East.
Nobody can do it.
And there's been a million deals they've tried to have, and they've had agreements, and they've had accords, and they've had meetings, and everybody's gone to Camp David, and they signed things, and nothing ever happens.
But now it actually seems that there's been some sort of realignment in the Middle East.
It seems like there's been some sort of tectonic shift, that alliances are actually changing, and maybe the old wars of the last century, maybe they won't But I thought that was something that we all wanted and it's like if you look if you just look right now on what the pundits are saying it's like either they're ignoring the original deal with the UAE and Israel or they're trying to minimize it.
But this Norwegian lawmaker, who I'm sure is going to have a zillion hit pieces written about him any day now, should be by the time I finish speaking the sentence, he feels otherwise.
He went on to say that Trump's key role in facilitating contact between conflicting parties and creating new dynamics and other protracted conflicts, such as the Kashmir border dispute between India and Pakistan, and the conflict between North and South Korea, as well as dealing with the nuclear capabilities of North Korea, All basically make Trump worthy of the nomination.
Now that does seem legit.
So let's try to remove partisan politics from this for a second and just deal with reality.
Let's assume for a second, if we're to believe any of these things, that the Middle East is shifting a little more towards peace.
That there doesn't seem to be this feeling that there is going to be suddenly a war breaking out there.
I don't think anyone really feels that.
I mean, there's still some stuff with Iran, but I don't think anyone really feels there's suddenly gonna be a war.
I think part of that is that people don't know what Trump will do.
Now, his critics would say, oh, that's because Trump's crazy and he's got his finger on the button and the whole world could blow up tomorrow in World War III.
I think it's actually a type of strategy that you go, oh, you know, we've got a pretty big army and you don't know what we're going to do with it.
That used to be called deterrence, right?
That's what you get taught in political science.
You have deterrence.
You have a big army.
Sometimes you threaten people, sometimes you don't, but you keep a little bit of elements of surprise to keep your enemies sort of on their toes.
So right now it doesn't seem like there's going to be any sort of Middle East war.
He also referenced that North and South Korea seem to be heading a little bit Towards peace. We've seen a little bit of that right? We
saw the very awkward walk that Trump took with Kim Jong-un I mean we've seen that something decent seems to be
happening there the Kashmir area between Pakistan and India
We haven't heard too much about that, but I don't sense that a war is breaking out like it does seem that the world
is shifting a little bit
Maybe the days of giant, you know, ground invasion wars are ending.
And this will actually get me to the next story that I'm combining with this one.
unidentified
So this all seems good, right?
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼
These are all the things that I thought we wanted.
And if Barack Obama can get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, then it sort of seems to me that Yeah, Trump is at least worthy of nomination.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, though.
If you disagree with me, let me know in the comments right down below.
And this actually shifts me to the second part of this story.
When I said we had three or four, depending on which way you look at it, this story is just breaking right now, but Trump has announced, or it has leaked at least, that there is gonna be a further troop withdrawal in Iraq.
Now again, I think this is a good thing, right?
What did we want?
We wanted troops out of Iraq.
We can debate all day long whether you thought the Iraq War was good.
We can debate all day long whether they were on the path to democracy.
And then we pulled out our troops too soon.
Let's not forget, they were having basically free and fair elections.
And then Obama did do what he said he was gonna do, which was just get our troops out quickly.
And then basically the country fell apart again.
Then we had the surge, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, it seems to me that at this point, whether you were for the war or against the war, that we don't need a zillion troops on the ground in Iraq.
It looks like only after this withdrawal, and this is all sort of happening right now so some of this stuff could change, but it looks like after this withdrawal we'll only have 5,200 troops in Iraq.
That seems pretty good.
Of course, you can debate, well, should we have 4,000?
Should we have 10,000?
Where are they gonna be deployed?
Are we keeping them in the Gulf?
We could talk about all of those things, but scaling back from these wars, I think, is what the left used to want, right?
Wasn't the left always saying, oh, it's the conservatives and the Republicans and the neocons, those are the scariest, that want all the war, and yet Trump is now pulling us back from those wars.
Interestingly, Tulsi Gabbard, who I've had on the show, who's a Democratic Congresswoman from Hawaii and a veteran.
She's actively in the military, actually.
She was completely anti-war and she was totally rejected by the Democratic establishment, right?
She had a lot of underground support.
It was very obvious to me.
She had a lot of underground support during the primaries, but then in effect, the party just pretty much ignored her and even Well, let's put it this way.
even withdrawn, they weren't putting her in debates and they did what they do time and again
when they've screwed Bernie and they've screwed other people
where they suddenly change what the qualifications are to get in debates and the rest of it.
So it's a little hard to tell if you, well, let's put it this way.
If you think that the old idea of Republicans want war and Democrats want peace, if you think that's the prism
that we should be looking at these things, then you're very confused at the moment
because I think most people, most Americans don't want war, would like us to wrap up
these things, do it as responsibly as possible and then leave the land to the people that live there.
So I think that leaving Iraq is good.
Oh, and let's not forget, he's also getting us out of that Afghanistan thing, which people don't believe this, but the Afghanistan war Which started, obviously, after 9-11, which is, it's the, what, the 19th anniversary of 9-11 in just two days from now, which is just incredible, and I'll talk a little bit more about that.
I was in New York City during 9-11, and it was...
Well, it's beyond imagination.
I'll talk a little bit more about that tomorrow.
But, you know, we've been in the Afghanistan war for about 18, 19 years.
It's the longest war in American history.
It's hard to really understand that or even believe it when you say that, right?
Because it doesn't feel like a war.
Like, we don't know really why we're there.
We were getting the Taliban out.
And then it just kind of went on and went on and went on and it went on for Bush and it went on for Obama and Trump is trying to scale that back.
These are good things.
That's all I'm trying to tell you.
whether you like Trump or hate Trump.
I think partly what's happened here is that so many people make their decisions
on whatever Trump thinks.
So if you love Trump and you make a decision, it's automatically good.
And if you hate Trump and he makes a decision, it's automatically bad.
You can't look at the world like that.
You have to be for something, not just be against someone.
And I think too many people, especially in the media, do that.
So now you're gonna see people sort of jumping through hoops to basically explain why leaving Iraq or Afghanistan is bad.
You're gonna probably start seeing a lot of that on MSNBC and the left-leaning places because they can't give Trump credit because what have they said about the guy the entire time?
That he's Hitler.
And you can watch.
I recommend you guys try to find it.
There's a video that I did the day after the 2016 election.
We were at our Our old place, and we were building the Rubin Report studio, so I didn't even have a studio, so I'm, I forget if I was using my computer, my laptop, or my phone.
I think it was off a phone.
And I'm just sitting in the backyard, and you can actually hear construction inside.
And one of the things that I kept saying was, look, everyone's surprised Trump is president, okay?
Even if you were a huge Trump supporter, you were surprised Trump was president.
People are freaking out, they're going crazy.
People are young, people, that woman's screaming.
I mean, all hell's breaking loose.
But what you guys could do right now And this is what I've tried to get the left to do for a while, is a little bit of self-reflection.
You know, we've been calling this guy Hitler and his supporters Nazis.
And it's really not what you're doing to them when you do that.
It's not what you're doing to Trump.
It's what you're doing to yourself because you can never be like, oh, that guy I've been calling Hitler and all those Nazis he's around, they're actually starting to do good work.
And I think that is why the craziness gets ramped up because you can't have people that for three years were calling him Hitler suddenly go, oh, Hitler's doing good stuff.
This is a sort of a psychological trap That they're locked in at the moment.
So anyway, I think there's a lot of good stuff happening right here, and we have to sort of get through the brush to understand it.
We are heading towards a place, not to say that there will be pure, perfect Middle East peace, but it starts with some economic agreements.
It starts with some travel.
It starts with some phone calls.
And the truth is Trump has something to do with some of that stuff.
Getting out of Iraq is good.
Getting out of Afghanistan is good.
And we shall see if he wins the Nobel Prize.
And speaking of prizes, watch that for a segue.
The Oscars!
Remember Hollywood?
Hollywood used to be a place where they made things called movies.
And they made TV shows and other forms of entertainment.
And what they would do is they would generally hire people who were capable of acting in these movies or writing in these movies.
And they would then create something and then we would go to the movie theater or To turn on our television and we'd watch these forms of entertainment and perhaps we'd laugh or we'd cry or some other emotion would pop up and that's what Hollywood was there for.
Hollywood is just a business.
People like to think that Hollywood is this sort of... that it's this like...
obelisk or something, this thing that exists and it has this perfect set of rules
and that that is what it is.
But Hollywood is just a business.
It's in the business of entertainment.
And what are businesses?
Businesses are trying to make money.
Well, unfortunately, Hollywood, which has been one of the prime purveyors of wokeness,
they've decided to go fully stupid woke.
And now the Oscars are going to have woke points in effect.
points in effect.
Social justice has completely, if you thought that there was any version of Hollywood that hasn't been corroded by all of this nonsense, well, it's here, people.
It's absolutely here.
There are new Oscar standards to require best pictures to be inclusive.
So we're gonna pull up an image here and I'm gonna read some of this stuff.
It's just, it's absolutely incredible, but of course it's not surprising.
So standard A, which is about on-screen representation, themes, and narratives.
Now you want to achieve a standard A rating so that you can win the Oscar.
That means that the film must meet one of the following criteria.
A1.
A lead or significant amount of supporting actors, at least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors is from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
that a leader or a significant amount of supporting actors, at least one of the lead actors
or significant supporting actors is from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
Now this includes Asian, it includes Hispanic or Latinx.
By the way, no Latin or Latino person says the phrase Latinx.
That is something only that social justice warriors force them to do and they don't know why.
And it's very confusing, usually white lefties.
You've got to have black or African-Americans, indigenous/Native American/Alaska Native,
Middle Eastern/North African, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander,
or other underrepresented race or ethnicity.
So that's just A1.
So now, first off, what we're saying is you have to have a certain amount of these types of people based on the color of their skin or their ethnicity to possibly get that coveted Oscar.
Now this is what we would call complete and utter nonsense.
If you were doing a movie about the Mafia, let's say.
Let's say you were doing, I mean I could pick any Mafia movie, but to me the best is Goodfellas, right?
So Goodfellas was about the Mafia.
It was about the Italian Mafia.
And it took place in the 80s and the Italian mafia had a lot of, you're not gonna believe this, Italian people around them.
And they were making the gravy and all that good stuff and killing some people.
There happened to be a lot of white people in the film.
They were mostly Italian.
Most of the actors were Italian, not all of them.
But there were mostly white people in the film.
You may remember that, what's his name?
Who's that actor?
Who is Mace Windu?
Who's the actor?
Michael, the actor, Mace Windu, what the hell's the freaking guy's name?
He's a huge actor.
What's his name?
Freaking Samuel L. Jackson.
Jesus.
Samuel L. Jackson was in it for about three minutes, okay?
Now, he happens to be black, but I guess that wouldn't be enough, because that would just be one black guy, he was only in it for a few minutes.
Putting aside the stupidity of all that, you can already see everyone knows why this is nonsense.
Do you want to judge your actor's skills?
Or your writer's skills?
Or anything else?
Or anyone!
unidentified
Forget your actors or your writers!
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼
Anyone!
Your doctor!
Let's remove the Oscars for just a second.
Let's say you had a heart problem and you're going for heart surgery.
Would you want the best doctor or would you want the best doctor who happened to be gay or latinx or latinx sounds like a type of mutant or whatever it might be?
Which would you want?
Or And call me crazy, would you not care about your doctor's gender, or sexuality, or skin color?
And if you were going for heart surgery, you would just say, hey, can I get the best doctor?
Are you good at what you do?
Could you do my surgery?
I don't care.
I don't care whether you sleep with a dude or not.
That's what you want.
But they have dumbed this all down.
And it gets dumber, people.
Let's just continue.
unidentified
A2.
dave rubin ▲ ● ▼
So that was just the rules for A1.
A2 are about the general ensemble cast.
At least 30% of all actors in secondary or more minor roles are from at least two of the following underrepresented groups.
Women!
Are women underrepresented in Hollywood?
If we took the entire thing that Hollywood is, all of the movies, all of the TV shows, are women way less underrepresented?
Usually you watch a show, there's some women in it, there's some men.
Who's counting this?
But you've gotta have racial or ethnic groups.
LGBTQ+, I'm still a little confused what the plus is.
People with cognitive or physical disabilities or who are deaf or hard of hearing.
So I guess kiss off blind people, you're not on the list, sorry blind people, but deaf people, we're gonna get a whole bunch of you in there, you hear that?
A3 is that the main story or subject matter, and this is of all the stupid ones, this is peak stupidity.
The main storyline theme or narrative of the film should be centered on an underrepresented group.
This includes women, racial or ethnic group, LGBTQ+, people with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing.
This is stupidity, people.
This is absolute stupidity.
Oh, and the best part of all of this, all of these rules, which apparently are extremely important and they're going to end racism and bring equality, all of this, they're not implementing it till 2024.
Because, you know.
We have to do a lot of stuff to make sure that the stuff in the can that's waiting to come out over the next couple of years, we would, they have to get rid of all of that old school racist stuff that they're about to throw on us.
All the stuff that's waiting to get on Netflix and on Hulu.
It's just the height of stupidity.
It's why social justice, which sounds sort of right, again, if you don't think about all of this and you just hear this, or we're going to have more gay people Black people and Latinx people and deaf people.
If we're going to have more of these people in everything, then things are going to be better.
But just doing it for the sake of those characteristics that are meaningless doesn't make it better.
I will say one other thing before we move on.
I have a friend who's an extremely well-known sitcom Actor or actress, I'm not going to say whether it's an actor or actress, but has been, but is very famous and has been in several shows over decades.
And this person told me that in their last show, which only had a brief stint because it did not go well, that in the writers room they in effect decided that they weren't hiring people based on whether they were funny or not.
This person's a comic actor or actress.
That they decided they were going to say, oh, we have to have one gay person.
We have to have one Indian person.
We have to have One black person, one Asian person, et cetera, et cetera.
And that what you got in there was that in effect, it's not only did you say that the number one thing to write a comedy show is not to be funny, but you get a whole bunch of people who then all sort of, they use that identity and then fight over what the storylines will be and everything else.
And the last show that this person did was an absolute disaster and miserable for him or her.
So it ruins everything, and it ruins every institution it comes in, and it's ruining Hollywood.
When's the last time you saw something good?
I mean, all of us right now, we're trapped at home, and what happens?
You're on Apple TV, you're on Netflix, and you can't even find anything worth watching.
I'm watching Chef's Table, the barbecue edition.
That's pretty good, actually, because those people have skills, and I don't care whether the guy who's giving me barbecue is black or white or gay or straight or a lesbian or deaf.
Okay, and one story I'm gonna do real quick.
CNN, have you heard of that former news network?
Well, they did a little piece, like an hour-long piece on Joe Biden, and it was called, Fight for the White House, Joe Biden's Long Journey.
And you know, the guy's been in politics for 263 years, so it is a long journey.
And one of the things they did, let's throw up the image, is they showed an image Let's show the original image first.
They showed an image, you can see it right now, of Joe Biden with his son.
And they're at a Redskins game.
And his son is wearing a Redskins hat.
Now the Redskins used to be a football team.
You remember football before everyone stopped watching.
But CNN felt that that was too offensive, apparently.
So they edited out the Washington Redskins logo.
They didn't mention that they did it.
And then they aired the photo this way.
Without the deeply offensive Redskins logo.
Now this story, the reason I wanted to just hit on this real quick, it's not that important in the scheme of things, right?
Middle East peace, perhaps more important.
But this type of story, where a news organization decides to edit out something, whether you're for the Redskins keeping their name, or you're against it, whether you think it's offensive, and usually it's, again, it's white lefties who are offended by this, generally not Native Americans.
Whether you're for it or against it or whatever it is, it existed.
This idea that we can erase history, let's tear down monuments, let's edit out logos on hats, all of these things.
These are deeply dangerous ideas.
They could have shown, well, first of all, they didn't have to show the picture at all.
So someone, there was some thought process at CNN where a producer and an AP and an editor, everybody got together and they said, okay, this is the picture of Biden we wanna show.
And then somebody, In the name of social justice said, we must edit out that picture of the Redskins because they don't exist now because we're so tolerant.
We've got to get rid of it.
And then they just said, okay, we're going to do it.
We're not going to make a, you know, they could have made a commentary on it.
They could have put a little disclaimer, something, but they do nothing.
And the point of the story and why I wanted to hit on it is when they do these little manipulations, You've got to wonder what the far bigger manipulations are.
So I thought it was a story worth noting.
I'm sorry if we showed you the image and you were deeply, deeply offended.
We should have put a trigger warning before the show.
I will talk to my team about that and I will probably fire at least three people, preferably white ones.
▲
Export Selection